Solar power systems for the home

[McG]

Is fortis any easier to deal with? I still can’t get over how we could deal with a lot of daytime electrical needs if people could generate as much solar power as they wanted.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by McG

Is fortis any easier to deal with? I still can’t get over how we could deal with a lot of daytime electrical needs if people could generate as much solar power as they wanted.

Because neighborhood residential systems aren't designed for that and demand during mid-day usually isn't that high. Australia, which has the highest penetration actually has to curtail rooftop solar systems at times because the local voltage gets too high for the equipment.

And as rooftop solar grows in an area, the almost certain consequence is that generous net-metering terms and feed-in tariffs get scaled way back closer to their actual value, sometimes even negative around noon.

https://www.ausgrid.com.au/-/media/D...id-exports.pdf

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Because neighborhood residential systems aren't designed for that and demand during mid-day usually isn't that high. Australia, which has the highest penetration actually has to curtail rooftop solar systems at times because the local voltage gets too high for the equipment.

And as rooftop solar grows in an area, the almost certain consequence is that generous net-metering terms and feed-in tariffs get scaled way back closer to their actual value, sometimes even negative around noon.

https://www.ausgrid.com.au/-/media/D...id-exports.pdf

I worry for facing an eventual battery investment when the time comes.

[the-rasta-masta]

Some interesting commentary in the below link that supports some earlier discussions in this thread about how door to door sales of Solar are often extremely overpriced. In my own experience as a Solar Sales person I am often seeing quotes from some of these companies that are $5k to $10k more expensive than quotes I’m providing. The attached link mentions that door knocking quotes that they have compiled come in at an average of 24.7% higher than non door knocking solar companies. I love working in this industry and think it’s great value for homeowners, but there is a dark side to the industry and it’s not a good look for the industry as a whole. Just a reminder to everybody to do your research, get multiple quotes and definitely avoid signing an agreement at the dinner table.

https://www.reddit.com/r/solarenergycanada/s/msVZdKnCGS

[McG]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Because neighborhood residential systems aren't designed for that and demand during mid-day usually isn't that high. Australia, which has the highest penetration actually has to curtail rooftop solar systems at times because the local voltage gets too high for the equipment.

And as rooftop solar grows in an area, the almost certain consequence is that generous net-metering terms and feed-in tariffs get scaled way back closer to their actual value, sometimes even negative around noon.

https://www.ausgrid.com.au/-/media/D...id-exports.pdf

Thank you for this. It does explain a lot and makes sense.

So humour me for a moment, but wouldn’t it be advantageous (if we are serious about net zero) to upgrade equipment area by area to accept excess electricity from solar? Sure, the price per kw/h might go down, but the biggest impacts would be on the utility companies to become distribution companies part of the day/year, and producers at the other. That’s a philosophical shift, but I see the demand for electricity increasing, therefore it’s in all of our best interests for this transition to happen.

First movers would generate more electricity from bigger personal grids. I think that it could be done. It’s just math, and math is money, and investment is money with outcomes.

Cheap electricity from the sun and reduce emissions from other sources? That’s crazy.

Thank you again for the explanation and article.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by McG

Thank you for this. It does explain a lot and makes sense.

So humour me for a moment, but wouldn’t it be advantageous (if we are serious about net zero) to upgrade equipment area by area to accept excess electricity from solar? Sure, the price per kw/h might go down, but the biggest impacts would be on the utility companies to become distribution companies part of the day/year, and producers at the other. That’s a philosophical shift, but I see the demand for electricity increasing, therefore it’s in all of our best interests for this transition to happen.

First movers would generate more electricity from bigger personal grids. I think that it could be done. It’s just math, and math is money, and investment is money with outcomes.

Cheap electricity from the sun and reduce emissions from other sources? That’s crazy.

Thank you again for the explanation and article.

Then you shouldn’t be paid based on net metering you would need to be bidding into the system to provide power when it’s needed and not provide power when it’s not. You’d also need to pay transmission costs on input and output power.

Right now household solar gets preferential pricing treatment and is limited in the amount it’s allowed to export. If you want a truly level playing field then those benefits go away. Long term we need base load or storage to pay for when the sun doesn’t shine.

So polity wise as mass adoption of solar occurs will people like the 0 cents per kw they get from their solar in peak producing times and significantly higher prices overnight when they aren’t using?

I think in terms of getting roof top solar installed in many places the current polciies that both subsidize the power price and transmission costs but limit the amount of export is a reasonable compromise.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by McG

Thank you for this. It does explain a lot and makes sense.

So humour me for a moment, but wouldn’t it be advantageous (if we are serious about net zero) to upgrade equipment area by area to accept excess electricity from solar? Sure, the price per kw/h might go down, but the biggest impacts would be on the utility companies to become distribution companies part of the day/year, and producers at the other. That’s a philosophical shift, but I see the demand for electricity increasing, therefore it’s in all of our best interests for this transition to happen.

First movers would generate more electricity from bigger personal grids. I think that it could be done. It’s just math, and math is money, and investment is money with outcomes.

Cheap electricity from the sun and reduce emissions from other sources? That’s crazy.

Thank you again for the explanation and article.

Yes! We absolutely should! But the inventive are all misaligned.

Utilities are usually (except Alberta and Texas largely) government allowed monopolies. In exchange for the monopoly, prices are regulated. Therefore, there's absolutely zero incentive to do things differently as profits are baked in. Distribution is either paid for by the utility through submission to utility commissions, or grid operator. Utilities have no incentive to reduce D&T costs and grid operators are controlled by at-arms-length governmental entities and are very slow to respond.


The real key to all of this is time of use tariffs and incentives to use plentiful power and spare expensive power. That would save a lot of expensive upgrades. What if everyone's hot water tanks were electric and heated up the water during the day? What if car chargers knew to charge during the day or overnight? What if industrial processes that are shiftable, shifted? What if people did laundry in hours that aren't 430pm to 730pm because it's expensive? There's a lot of demand side flexibility that can be used to decrease the need for big expensive upgrades. Using flexible "smart" distribution would also limit the need for costly upgrades. There's no reason to have a "baseload" set up for the maximum peak demand that would ever be seen without incentivizing a change in load patterns to lower the peak.

Inertia on the utility side is a massive problem here. North American grids haven't really grown in decades and supply has been designed to be centralized in large, slow to build generation sites. It's a massive change that they don't have experience with, and aren't likely to suddenly trust a new way of doing things. The whole industry is designed to maximize uptime and plan for the largest load based on static information, so suddenly throwing out that paradigm for a flexible load with distributed general is damn near impossible.

Here's a very good example:
You have a set of maximum load ratings for a set of distribution lines based on safety. If the line gets too hot or it's too windy, failures can occur. Because of this, they take the maximum expected temps and wind the line would see, and set the maximum load it can safely take based on that. But we're almost never at the maximum temperature or wind conditions so there's very large margins completely unused. What if you used iot devices and machine learning to set a "Dynamic Line Rating" based on current and expected conditions that would adjust that rating accordingly? Well, you'd have to restructure your team to involve someone doing this work and monitoring it. Or, as there's zero incentive to reduce costs as you just simply submit paperwork asking for money for more infrastructure, you replace the line or add another line and keep going the way you always have.

There needs to be a bit of a shake up on the government side as grid operators and utilities have zero incentive to go this way based on how things currently work

[McG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes! We absolutely should! But the inventive are all misaligned.

Utilities are usually (except Alberta and Texas largely) government allowed monopolies. In exchange for the monopoly, prices are regulated. Therefore, there's absolutely zero incentive to do things differently as profits are baked in. Distribution is either paid for by the utility through submission to utility commissions, or grid operator. Utilities have no incentive to reduce D&T costs and grid operators are controlled by at-arms-length governmental entities and are very slow to respond.


The real key to all of this is time of use tariffs and incentives to use plentiful power and spare expensive power. That would save a lot of expensive upgrades. What if everyone's hot water tanks were electric and heated up the water during the day? What if car chargers knew to charge during the day or overnight? What if industrial processes that are shiftable, shifted? What if people did laundry in hours that aren't 430pm to 730pm because it's expensive? There's a lot of demand side flexibility that can be used to decrease the need for big expensive upgrades. Using flexible "smart" distribution would also limit the need for costly upgrades. There's no reason to have a "baseload" set up for the maximum peak demand that would ever be seen without incentivizing a change in load patterns to lower the peak.

Inertia on the utility side is a massive problem here. North American grids haven't really grown in decades and supply has been designed to be centralized in large, slow to build generation sites. It's a massive change that they don't have experience with, and aren't likely to suddenly trust a new way of doing things. The whole industry is designed to maximize uptime and plan for the largest load based on static information, so suddenly throwing out that paradigm for a flexible load with distributed general is damn near impossible.

Here's a very good example:
You have a set of maximum load ratings for a set of distribution lines based on safety. If the line gets too hot or it's too windy, failures can occur. Because of this, they take the maximum expected temps and wind the line would see, and set the maximum load it can safely take based on that. But we're almost never at the maximum temperature or wind conditions so there's very large margins completely unused. What if you used iot devices and machine learning to set a "Dynamic Line Rating" based on current and expected conditions that would adjust that rating accordingly? Well, you'd have to restructure your team to involve someone doing this work and monitoring it. Or, as there's zero incentive to reduce costs as you just simply submit paperwork asking for money for more infrastructure, you replace the line or add another line and keep going the way you always have.

There needs to be a bit of a shake up on the government side as grid operators and utilities have zero incentive to go this way based on how things currently work

I think it’s a great discussion…. I’ll pile one more item onto peak use; it’s never a regular thing. There are spikes and peaks that push the system because they are needed for some particular reason.

In reality, I think that we are in a period of transition; I’m not sure if we are at the start or just after the start, but definitely there’s something after this.

For example, capping production for consumers is logical if transmitting upstream can’t be done safely with today’s equipment. So why cap production from renewable sources by utility companies?

And yet…this is not my industry or area of expertise…but I feel that to really move the needle, we need a shift in thinking. And then support for that.

Good conversation!

[McG]

Originally Posted by GGG

Then you shouldn’t be paid based on net metering you would need to be bidding into the system to provide power when it’s needed and not provide power when it’s not. You’d also need to pay transmission costs on input and output power.

Right now household solar gets preferential pricing treatment and is limited in the amount it’s allowed to export. If you want a truly level playing field then those benefits go away. Long term we need base load or storage to pay for when the sun doesn’t shine.

So polity wise as mass adoption of solar occurs will people like the 0 cents per kw they get from their solar in peak producing times and significantly higher prices overnight when they aren’t using?

I think in terms of getting roof top solar installed in many places the current polciies that both subsidize the power price and transmission costs but limit the amount of export is a reasonable compromise.

I wasn’t aware earlier of the technical limitations of existing technologies for people becoming net producers and uploading to the grid. Reading the Australia example, it is obviously one of the limitations of what I was wondering earlier about consumers uploading as much as they could. Technical limitations upstream require protection.

Since I don’t think zero costs is actually realistic, how close could we get? Is it solar panels running down the middle of highway 2 from Calgary to Edmonton? Is it free solar panels for rooftops? I think the real shift will be when it is zero sum for consumers versus day to day existing costs. I just don’t know when that is.

I think that personal batteries are likely the next big thing after solar panels. That seems a reasonable way to not push consumer production to the grid.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes! We absolutely should!

There is so much misinformation in this post I don't even know where to start.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

There is so much misinformation in this post I don't even know where to start.

Please fix! I'm open to correction

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by gasman

Thought I would post this link again. I have had my system a little over 3 years. It has generated over $5700 in savings. Since installing the system I have paid one bill for $0.41 (after getting through the first winter as I was an August energization). Im currently going in to this winter with about $800 in bill credits, which is a little lighter than past years.

I am lining up to be right at 8.75 years for payback.


Google Sheet

My solar system just went live. Just wondering how you are calculating the "Estimated Bill w/o Solar" w/ all the rate riders, transmission fees, etc. involved? Or are you just calculating those from the https://ucahelps.alberta.ca/atco-gas-rate-riders.aspx or something else?

[gasman]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

My solar system just went live. Just wondering how you are calculating the "Estimated Bill w/o Solar" w/ all the rate riders, transmission fees, etc. involved? Or are you just calculating those from the https://ucahelps.alberta.ca/atco-gas-rate-riders.aspx or something else?

I developed my own calculator in hidden sheets that feed that summary. The calculations are all published, in Calgary Enmax is the line owner so they publish all the data for the fees.

https://www.enmax.com/tariffs

and here:

Local Access Fee

and here:

RRO

Where it gets tricky is that the tariffs can change mid billing cycle, so I do my best to calculate based on days in the billing cycle but because I am too lazy to build a sheet that calculates per day there is some error in the calculation, generally in the order of magnitude of less than $1, and often it is bang on.

Every month I do a check to calculate my riders based on my energy import, which should equal what was charged on my bill. once that check is complete I add the self consumed energy to the calculation to calculate what I would have paid in fees on that energy.

Most of the charges come from the Enmax Tariff document, the LAF comes from the City and the RRO.

Distribution Charge = $0.76/day + $0.015/kwh
Transmission Charge = $0.0414/kwh
Local Access Fee is essentially 11.11% of the energy usage X RRO, which changes monthly
Balancing Pool Rider - $0.001331/kWh
Transmission Access Rider - ($0.005047/kwh)
Transmission Access Deferral - $0.000205/kwh

The Tariff is updated quarterly.

[PsYcNeT]

First morning generating. Killing it.

Spoiler!

[FlameOn]

Anyone sign up with Rewatt before for the Solar Credits? I applied for an account back first week of October and the application is still in waiting for review 3 weeks later. I emailed info/sales email addresses and no one responds.

[Shazam]

Does anybody do Powerwalls (or equivalent) in Calgary? I want to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Does anybody do Powerwalls (or equivalent) in Calgary? I want to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.

I don't know a ton about them but see lots of options out there from Enphase etc.

I personally would stay far away from Tesla anything, as their solar systems at least are totally proprietary and you seem to be screwed if you need an installer to fix anything or help with jobs like a re-roof.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Does anybody do Powerwalls (or equivalent) in Calgary? I want to be prepared for the zombie apocalypse.

You're paying $10k more for the Tesla name than other similarly sized storage systems.

[Bigtime]

Councillor Spencer just posted this (skeeted it) on Bluesky, stats for solar installs in Calgary over the years. Not sure if this just captures residential, or businesses too.

https://bsky.app/profile/epspencer.b.../3lbknaoqfys23

[Bill Bumface]

That's pretty cool, although I'm selfishly worried if adoption is really high net-metering will go bye-bye and I need to find room and $ for batteries.

Also, I bet you $10 my production is the same as all of yours today!