CA: Schwarzenegger to unveil compromise solar energy plan

Bakersfield Californian ^ | 2/27/05 | Don Thompson - AP

[NormsRevenge]

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger aims to make California a world leader in solar energy with a new proposal he's sending to lawmakers Monday.

The plan, which drops some controversial provisions that doomed his "million solar homes" proposal last year, would create a 10-year incentive fund encouraging both residences and commercial buildings to install solar power. But it would drop a requirement that half of all new homes eventually be solar powered. Those changes are designed to mute opposition from businesses and the building industry.

The Public Utility Commission would decide how electricity consumers pay into the incentive fund, most likely with a new fee on utility bills. The administration and solar advocates say consumers will save money because the fee would be offset by money earned from the extra solar power generated by some consumers and used by others.

The revised proposal requires some larger developers to offer solar power as an option by 2010, and to inform home buyers of the costs and savings.

California builds about 150,000 new homes a year. Experience shows about 10 percent of homeowners would choose solar if offered the option - about 15 times the roughly 1,000 solar homes currently built each year in the state, said Bernadette Del Chiaro, a solar advocate for the nonprofit Environment California.

"It's clearly the most ambitious solar initiative ever proposed in the United States," said David Hochschild, policy director for the nonprofit organization Vote Solar.

The incentive approach is modeled on Japan, the world leader in solar power, which has seen a 72 percent drop in solar costs as 70,000 homes have been outfitted for the alternative power over the last 10 years.

California already is the third-largest consumer of solar power equipment, behind Germany, but gets 40 percent more annual sunlight than Germany and 20 percent more than Japan. Hochschild calls California "the Saudi Arabia of sunlight."

That's part of the appeal for a state that may soon again see a repeat of the power shortages that led to rolling blackouts and soaring electricity costs in 2000 and 2001, said Sen. John Campbell, R-Irvine, who is sponsoring the bill package with Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City.

"The sun shines in California - it's homegrown. No other state or country can take it from us," Campbell said.

The goal is to have 3,000 megawatts worth of solar power by 2018, which amounts to about 5 percent of the state's entire electricity usage at peak periods - generally hot summer afternoons when electricity is most in demand, most expensive, and when solar panels are most efficient.

That's the equivalent of 40 new, $30 million, 75-megawatt natural gas plants. One megawatt is enough to power about 750 homes.

"We will be building literally power plants' worth of solar on roofs across the state," said Del Chiaro.

The net projected savings over 10 years would be as much as $1 billion, said Campbell.

The proposal also encourages time-of-use metering, in which consumers pay more during periods of peak demand, encouraging them to run appliances in off-hours.

The measure also would direct the California Energy Commission to consider requiring solar energy in the same way the commission has in the past mandated low-flush toilets.

The goal is to create a large, stable solar market that will lower the cost not only of components but also of installation to the point that incentives will no longer be necessary to make solar energy affordable.

Hochschild installed solar panels on his San Francisco home three years ago, with the state's current rebate program paying about a third of the cost.

His home now feeds electricity into the power grid during the day's peak demand, and draws power at night. Because his energy supply and demand balances out, Hochschild's electricity bill last year was zero - the result advocates and the administration predict statewide.

The systems are projected to pay for themselves in five to 15 years, depending on location and climate. A desert dweller, for instance, is likely to break even more quickly than a resident along the foggy Pacific coast.

Joe Desmond, the governor's deputy secretary for energy, is optimistic about legislative support for the proposal, though he acknowledges some roadblocks. "What we have here is a broad consensus between many of the stakeholders," he said.

The existing solar incentive program is likely to run out of money in the next few months unless lawmakers act. And the proposal could face continued opposition from utilities and labor.

---

On the Net:

Read SB1 and SB1017 at www.sen.ca.gov

Vote Solar: www.votesolar.org

Environment California: www.environmentcalifornia.org

[Fast1]

An Area the size of New Jersey !

[Carry_Okie]

Your excellent analysis charitably presumes neither the cost of batteries, inverters, etc. nor the fact that the solar cells themselves have an expected life equal roughly to their payback period; i.e., once they have "paid for themselves" you have to junk them and buy replacement cells. It also neglects the cost of disposal and/or recycling as well.

[calcowgirl]

I do wish Arnold would focus on fixing the fiscal mess of CA and leave this enviro-nut stuff alone.

Hey, F.O.! He is one of the enviro-nuts!
You were warned but chose to ingore it. See An Analysis of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Environmental Policy

Now he's bringing the UN to California. Do ya see that elephant yet?

[Carry_Okie]

I might also add that in favor of solar one should factor in the effect of line losses of conventionally generated power, IIRC, typically around 12%.

[Carry_Okie]

Frankly, I don't think Arnold really cares that much about the environment, else he would actually be DOING something. He just finds it to be a popular stance, both with voters, his contributors, and his in-laws.

[calcowgirl]

So where the White Knight, Tom McClintock riding to the rescue, mobilizing to defeat this idiotic bill?
We never heard from him, when there is something to be done.

Amazing. There are 120 people in the State legislature and ONE Governor initiating, promoting, and cramming down our throat this Enviro Green crappola. Yet you somehow twist that around to criticize one Senator: McClintock! Now that is some creative maneuvering.

[calcowgirl]

I agree (particularly with his contributors who make all their profits at the expense of taxpayers).

[Boot Hill]

• "Your excellent analysis charitably presumes neither the cost of batteries, inverters, etc."

Correct! Nor did I include the single biggest additional cost, the interest on the capital investment. When the additional costs of installation, mechanical supports, power inverter, wiring, building permits and interest are figured in, that payback period will be on the order of three times as long, or about a century.

Batteries are unnecessary for the grid tie system that the vast majority of solar power installations use. But if you want to calculate the cost of a stand-alone, non-grid tie system, you can start by reducing the energy efficiency by an additional 1/2 to 2/3 and increasing the cost by an additional factor of 3x.

In regards to your comments about solar array life time and failure mode, most people are unaware that the multitude of cells that comprise a single solar module (typically 50-100) are wired in series, just like the old fashioned Christmas tree lights, thus if one goes out, the entire sealed module is useless.

Question:   Since you can't turn a solar panel off, if a ground level installation ever became flooded, would you electrocute yourself first or would the explosion from the electrolytic production of hydrogen and oxygen kill you first?

--Boot Hill

[Carry_Okie]

Since you can't turn a solar panel off, if a ground level installation ever became flooded (especially in the desert, as we have seen this year - CO), would you electrocute yourself first or would the explosion from the electrolytic production of hydrogen and oxygen kill you first?

Answer: The array would be short-lived, a series peril-ill.

[Carry_Okie]

Question: Since a typical 12VDC battery actually puts out 13.2VDC and requires 14.5VDC to charge from the solar cells, does that difference in input voltage require different inverters to maintain efficiency at a constant 120VAC output or does one accept a difference in output voltage? Is there a switch that changes windings in the transformer? How does that work?

[Boot Hill]

"Since a typical 12VDC battery actually puts out 13.2VDC and requires 14.5VDC to charge from the solar cells...How does that work?"

Typically, in a non-grid tie system, the battery charging system would be run from the same 120/240 AC inverter that runs the household loads. The charging system would be treated as nothing more than another load for the inverter to service.

Here's the logic:

Given the mis-match between the voltages required for charging batteries and the solar module DC output voltages, it is more efficient to run the battery charging system from the AC inverter, rather than through a direct connection between the solar module DC output and the batteries. This is especially true when considering the variability of the solar module output voltage as a function of input irradiance.

--Boot Hill

[Carry_Okie]

This is especially true when considering the variability of the solar module output voltage as a function of input irradiance.

I hadn't considered that because I assumed that the photoelectric effect in the cell would produce constant voltage and variable current, quanta being what they are.

What is the typical means by which the system supplies a constant output voltage, or does it? If it does, what is they allowed RMS variation in that output voltage?

[Boot Hill]

8	“I assumed that the photoelectric effect in the cell would produce constant voltage and variable current, quanta being what they are.”

The total photo current (Iph) is always directly proportional to the solar irradiance (E). For silicon, that's about 1/2 amp per watt of irradiance. But as can be reasoned from the simple solar cell model below, the only way to get 100% of Iph from the cell is by driving it into a short circuit load. However, the goal of an inverter is not to maximize the current out of the solar cell, but rather to present such a load to the solar cell that it maximizes solar cell output power.

Referring again to the model, it can be seen that the theoretical maximum power point will be reached when the load resistance = Vd/Id. This model, as with all models, is only an approximation of an actual real-world device, and you could certainly choose to make a model that is more sophisticated, by including such additional internal components as Rs, Rp, Cp, etc., but the model shown should provide an adequate first level approximation to answer the questions you asked.

To get an idea just how sophisticated the control loop of an inverter has to be in order to maximize the power from the solar cell, take a look at this I-V curve from a typical solar panel consisting of 36 individual solar cells and illuminated at a specific level of irradiance. Note that as irradiance falls the curve recedes both down and to the left. Compounding the difficulty of designing the inverter, is whether it will be a grid tie inverter or a stand alone inverter. The former requires that it always be putting out maximum power, irrespective of whether that power is feeding the house or the grid. But in the latter case, it must tune its output to the load requirements of the house (and any storage system).

As a fellow engineer, you are of course familiar with the practice humorously referred to as "specsmanship", where manufacturers try hiding the bad news about their product in the smallest print at the bottom of the page or obscured in overly convoluted technical detail. One of the best examples of specsmanship in the field of inverter design and marketing is the efficiency rating. A certain model may have 90% efficiency when you only compare the input voltage and current to the output voltage and current. BUT that does not necessarily mean that the inverter was properly designed to present the ideal load to the solar cell, so as to extract the solar cell's maximum power. In other words your 90% efficient inverter may only be 80% efficient when actually connected to a real live solar cell.

--Boot Hill

[TChris]

Why am I paying a utility fee so some greenie in Malibu can have solar?

Because that's what utility monopolies do. They suck up your cash, then figure out how to suck up your neighbor's cash.

[Boot Hill]

"Because that's what utility monopolies do. They suck up your cash, then figure out how to suck up your neighbor's cash."

While I can appreciate your cynicism, your statement is incorrect when applied to utilities, which are highly regulated monopolies. Utilities want nothing to do with solar power because they recognize the economic inefficiencies inherent in such power generation. But they are being forced by governmental regulatory agencies (public utility commissions) to front for the green-solar lobby and are being forced to promote and pay for (through government mandated fee increases) these goofy power schemes.

These "fees" are nothing more than increased taxes coming through the backdoor of, and being collected by, the utilities, and have nothing to do with whether the utilities are monopolies.

--Boot Hill

[TChris]

These "fees" are nothing more than increased taxes coming through the backdoor of, and being collected by, the utilities, and have nothing to do with whether the utilities are monopolies.

That's probably true. However, these highly regulated monopolies have all figured out some ingenious ways of getting the $$ they want. One way is to set up leasing companies to buy equipment which is then leased to the utility. The leases show up as increased operating expenses which justify increased rates when they go before the Public Service/Utility Commisions.

Both lib government folks and greedy utility managers have their eyes on your wallet and mine.

[Boot Hill]

"One way is to set up leasing companies to buy equipment which is then leased to the utility. The leases show up as increased operating expenses which justify increased rates..."

The practice you suggest would not be the result of the monopoly status of the utility. That would be the fault of the PUC for allowing such a shady practice to exist, and PUC's typically have a very heavy citizen (i.e., tax payer, rate payer) input. If I was invested in a public utility (or any other type of industry, for that matter), I would vote to dump any board of directors that weren't "greedy". I want the BOD "greedy", profit is the business of business.

--Boot Hill

[Carry_Okie]

You might find the above of interest.

[Carry_Okie]

I want the BOD "greedy", profit is the business of business.

As long as it isn't acquired by fraud.

[Carry_Okie]

Thanks. Read later.