Roof Solar Panels For Your House

[T-Rich]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is our grid really set up so you can sell your extra solar back to the grid?

I always thought that wasn't an option in Alberta.

Yes, it's set up that way. It's been an option for a while now.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is our grid really set up so you can sell your extra solar back to the grid?

I always thought that wasn't an option in Alberta.

Enmax has a net-metering program. A Calgarian posted their experience in detail here:

http://imgur.com/a/aJ4BG

Unfortunately the current problems with AWS is making it inaccessible.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is our grid really set up so you can sell your extra solar back to the grid?

I always thought that wasn't an option in Alberta.

For a while it wasnt, but if you want to change how electricity is generated in this Province then you have to change the options too.

Originally Posted by Wormius

Could you charge them admin and delivery fees??

Ha! You'll be lucky if you even get market rate. They'll probably tell you that the power you generate isnt as valuable as the power they generate.

[Fuzz]

I'd be curious to know if the economies of scale make residential solar better than utility scale. Other than space savings, I just can't imagine it makes more sense to have duplicate infrastructure scattered in small pockets all over, rather than a large solar generating farm.

[V]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So from a personal finance perspective, if I use 1000 kwh per month and generate 250, it doesn't matter when I generate it. I will still only pay for 750 kwh of use.

That's not really accurate in Alberta, though, I don't think. Here you get charged for the 1000 kWh, along with the access fees, administration fees and all the tariffs and ryders associated with that 1000 kWh, and then you get a credit for the generation of the 250kWh.

Other jurisdictions do it differently, where you net out your consumption, and that's what all of your ryders and fees are based off of. So your fees could be up to 25% cheaper in your example above.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works here.

[ken0042]

Yes, I was trying to simplify it. Basically power generated when you aren't home doesn't get "wasted."

This is where other provinces have an advantage. People using hydro,etc pay an extra 1¢ per kwh, and because so few people have solar the people with panels get paid something like triple or quadruple the going rate for power. 30 people each paying the 1¢ creates an extra 30¢ per kwh. So a person can have solar panels installed for free, and get a cheque every year for a few hundred. That is a nice incentive.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yes, I was trying to simplify it. Basically power generated when you aren't home doesn't get "wasted."

This is where other provinces have an advantage. People using hydro,etc pay an extra 1¢ per kwh, and because so few people have solar the people with panels get paid something like triple or quadruple the going rate for power. 30 people each paying the 1¢ creates an extra 30¢ per kwh. So a person can have solar panels installed for free, and get a cheque every year for a few hundred. That is a nice incentive.

Its taxable...

[ken0042]

D'oh!

[Lubicon]

I'm assuming by 'solar' the government program is only about electrical solar panels? I would hope they also include thermal solar in the program as well as that seems much more practical in Alberta than solar might be. Using solar to heat or pre-heat water etc.

That said, I'm in the same boat as many others here. It's irrelevant what the rebates are as I cannot justify the financial outlay to begin with.

[Alpaca]

I think the whole Alberta electricity system needs a revamp. As an example most or all Albertan's pay Transmission and Distribution charges. In a lot of cases these fees are a set amount doesn't matter how much electricity you consume the charges are the same. Also depending on where you live or whom your delivery provider is you pay different fees . People in the city pay different fees than those in the rural areas, those in the rural area serviced by Fortis pay a different amount than those rural folks in the Atco service area. We have a farm service in the Fortis service area. Our Distribution charges are $2.536 per day, doesn't matter whether we use 0 electricity or 1000 kWh the distribution charge is the same. So what is the incentive to conserve electricity? And what is the incentive to go solar. Distribution fees for a Farm Service in the Atco service region are substantially lower but are still a set daily fee. Change to distribution charges to be more consumption cents/ kWh used and the picture changes there is an incentive to conserve electricity, solar becomes more economical. The big bonus is that changing the way Distribution fees are charged doesn't cost the government a cent.

[DoubleK]

A couple of clarifications:
First, every customer with an electric meter pays the transmission and distribution charges.

The distribution (and transmission) system isn't free, and costs more per user in rural Alberta.

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

A couple of clarifications:
First, every customer with an electric meter pays the transmission and distribution charges.

Yet somehow, the monthly distribution costs for 300kWh to my 500sq ft inner city condo are the same as the distribution costs for 800kWh to your suburb 2100sqft house...

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by jwslam

Yet somehow, the monthly distribution costs for 300kWh to my 500sq ft inner city condo are the same as the distribution costs for 800kWh to your suburb 2100sqft house...

Not possible. A small portion of the delivery charges are based on consumption.

[ken0042]

And both do still travel along the same length of infrastructure to get from the power plant to your home.

Still, I'd rather have a price per kwh that had everything factored in. That way if somebody chooses to conserve electricity (or install solar panels) it actually makes a significant difference.

[DoubleK]

Normally it would. Part of the reason the delivery charges look high, is because the pool price is so low. 2.5 cents/kWh is insanely low. My electricity bill has been half of my gas bill in 2017. Carbon levy has added about 10%

[V]

A lot of the ryders are based on demand, not consumption, and it makes sense why. Demand is the highest amount of consumption you used in a month, and it carries with you for 12 months after that point. So if you needed a whole bunch of electricity in January, the distribution system needs to be sized to accommodate that demand, even if you manage to reduce consumption over the next number of months. If you can show that you can reduce your consumption over a 12 month period the distributor will see that they will not require as much infrastructure, and size the system appropriately.

Since the system is built to satisfy demand it makes sense that the tariffs are based off of kVA, not kWh.

As Alpaca says, though, the idea of a flat fee for farm services doesn't make a tonne of sense. Not for the distributor, nor for the consumer.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by V

As Alpaca says, though, the idea of a flat fee for farm services doesn't make a tonne of sense. Not for the distributor, nor for the consumer.

Sorry, I was referring more to the residential side. It would work well for both. The distributor can charge the max based upon peak usage, and the consumer can adjust their usage and/or put power onto the grid to maximize savings.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by V

That's not really accurate in Alberta, though, I don't think. Here you get charged for the 1000 kWh, along with the access fees, administration fees and all the tariffs and ryders associated with that 1000 kWh, and then you get a credit for the generation of the 250kWh.

Other jurisdictions do it differently, where you net out your consumption, and that's what all of your ryders and fees are based off of. So your fees could be up to 25% cheaper in your example above.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works here.

This is correct. Alberta is net billing, not net metering.

In this example, the micro generator is consuming a net if 750 kWh, they are using 1250 kWh of system capacity. The argument some make is that the fees should be paid both ways in a true user-pay system.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jwslam

Yet somehow, the monthly distribution costs for 300kWh to my 500sq ft inner city condo are the same as the distribution costs for 800kWh to your suburb 2100sqft house...

Probably pretty close. The lines are relatively maintenance free once installed. The transformers on a per into basis likely roughly about the same. And since the power stations are located outside the cities the transmission distance for your inner city condo may be longer than the transmission distance from the burbs.

So yes, unless I am missing something getting power two your electrical meter in the inner city has roughly the same cost as getting the power to the burbs.