PRESS RELEASE
March 28th, 2011
For Immediate Release
Contact:
FARE Staff
888.501.3273
Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy
Florida's distributed energy industry faces risk of another shut-out as utilities plan for huge windfall.
The Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy calls for legislation that would create a free and competitive market for renewable energy production.
Tallahassee, FL -Entering into the 4th week of legislative session, the Florida Senate and House Energy Committees have released their Proposed Committee Bills (PCBs), which in their current form give unprecedented control and freedom to the investor owned utility (IOU) companies to build, own and operate renewable energy facilities at the ratepayers expense while simultaneously excluding small and mid scale independent producers of renewable energy from participating in the market.
The Florida Alliance for Renewable Energy (FARE) supports amending these Proposed Committee Bills to include a mechanism allowing for a free and competitive market for the production and sale of renewable energy - giving businesses, farmers and individuals in Florida the chance to develop renewable energy projects through a distributed generation model.
According to Mike Antheil, Executive Director of FARE: "By allowing small, mid, and even large scale producers of renewable energy to grow the private development market, Florida would take the first step towards catching up to at least 30 other states who have successfully developed a free and competitive market for electricity production. Solar, wind, biomass and biogas facilities, all developed through the private investment market and producing electricity, would take massive risk and burden off of the ratepayers who are charged with investing in renewable energy.
A distributed generation market in Florida would create thousands of local jobs, keep millions of dollars reinvested locally, and invite billions of dollars from the private investment market to the state. For the first time ever, Florida's family farms would be able to turn a current liability, namely their agricultural byproduct and waste, in to a current asset and revenue stream by converting that waste in to electricity and selling it at an economically viable rate."
FARE, as part of the Distributed Energy Coalition, also supports legislation intended to grow a distributed generation market by creating a mechanism for small and mid scale systems to be able to sell electricity to the grid or to 3rd parties & commercial tenants. House Bill 1349 introduced by Representative Rachel Burgin and co-sponsored by Representatives Ray Pilon, Larry Ahearn and Doug Holder, as well as Senate Bill 1724 introduced by Senator Thad Altman and co-sponsored by Senators Dennis Jones, Mike Bennett and Anitere Flores are set to be heard by the House and Senate Energy Committees, with no scheduled hearing date yet specified.
This week the Proposed Committee Bills are scheduled to be heard, and currently contain no provisions for independent production of renewable energy, FARE cannot support these bills until they are further amended. The Senate Committee on Communication, Energy & Public Utilities meets Monday at 1pm and the House Energy & Utilities Committee meets Tuesday at 8 am.
# # #
So much for that "free market competition" that Republicans mouth, but work hard to prevent!!
QuoteThursday, April 7, 2011
Florida Republicans Work Against the Free Market and Work to Increase Taxes on all Floridians
3:33 PM Elise Not a day goes by where the Republicans here in Florida don't introduce some legislation that will limit the civil rights and voting rights of Floridians, increase the cost of homeowners, car, and health insurance for Floridians, pollute the beaches and State Parks which are key to tourism income, invade the privacy of everyone with a uterus, work to benefit big business while screwing over anyone who isn't a millionaire, giving themselves huge funds to funnel campaign money through, ignore the state Constitution, and more. It's as if these guys have never looked at the state's constitution. Oh, I forgot to mention that they've been diligently working to kill unions and reform the court system in a way that will allow Rick Scott to appoint 3 new ultra-wingnut justices so they can push through anything they want with no court challenge, but I digress.
The corruption of the Republican party here in Florida is really something to behold. I could literally fill this site with a new story hour after hour, day after day, and I still wouldn't be able to catch it all.
One of the latest items of surprise is that the Republicans here in Florida don't believe in the free market anymore - at least not when the free market threatens the monopoly and the profits of Florida Power & Light.
QuoteFlorida's largest electric utilities will be allowed to raise customer rates by as much as $2 a month and control the solar energy market in the state â€" all without having to get approval from regulators under two bills that easily moved this week through House and Senate committees.
...
Since 2009, FPL and its affiliates have spent at least $4 million on campaign contributions to legislators and candidates for governor, according to campaign finance reports. It created Citizens for Clean Energy, a nonprofit renewable energy coalition to push the issue. It has hired 30 lobbyists, including the former head of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Mike Sole, at a salary and benefits package of more than $350,000, to work legislators and earn support.
Howard Troxler, a St. Pete Times reporter, points out that there are two ways to provide solar energy here in Florida - one benefits Florida Power & Light and their lobbyists who will be undoubtedly writing checks to Republicans in the legislature, and one benefits Floridians by allowing the free market to create competition and lower costs.
Quotehe first way:
Let a million flowers bloom. Dedicate ourselves to the goal that X percent of our energy has to come from solar and other alternative sources.
Pass aggressive laws to encourage solar. Create an open market that rewards the better mousetrap. Throw open the state to competition, innovation and jobs.
The second way:
Just put Florida's electric companies in charge.
Let the traditional electric monopolies build (or not build) centralized, larger-scale solar projects as they see fit.
Let them automatically bill their customers as they choose, outside normal regulation, putting hundreds of millions if not billions into their pockets in coming years.
The Republicans will undoubtedly pass this legislation - which will increase power costs for Floridians and limit competition in the market. The best part? We're paying for it! Not just the power, but for the lobbyists working to keep the monopoly of the few in place.
"You and I pay for those 30 lobbyists,'' said Bill Johnson, president of the Sarasota-based solar panel installer Brilliant Harvest. "We are paying for them to protect their turf and keep competition out."
Johnson and a coalition of companies that want to see the expansion of solar power in Florida, say that the refusal of the state's utility giants to allow for distributed generation â€" the ability of homeowners and commercial companies who produce excess electricity to sell it back to the electricity grid at a competitive price â€" is stifling competition.
This is just another example of Republican hypocrisy. They supported the free market before they were against it, they support small business except when they're regulating them out of business entirely in favor of big corporate monopolies, and they were elected to represent and work for the benefit of the people of Florida, but every single piece of legislation they've introduced is harmful to those they are supposed to help.
If you're in Florida, please call your State Representatives and Senator and tell them that you oppose a solar power monopoly and support the rights of small businesses and homeowners who deserve to be able to compete. Use their own free market talking points against them for a change and see what sort of excuses they give you for yet another corporate giveaway and a tax increase on all Floridians. [/color]
http://www.bluewavenews.com/2011/04/florida-republicans-work-against-free.html
Germany, a country not noted for its abundant sunshine, produces more solar electric power than Florida, the Sunshine State.
By law, utilities in Germany, and in several other European countries, are REQUIRED to buy power from anyone who is producing energy from solar, wind or biogas generators. As a result, every roof in Germany down to the chicken coops are covered with solar panels.
This system is called a "feed-in-tariff" and has been wildly successful at harnessing private capital to expand new energy sources.
The first utility in the United States to follow this model was Gainesville Regional Utilities right down the road from us. They now have a two or three year backlog of applications for tie-in agreements from people and businesses putting solar panels on their roofs.
Florida Power and JEA (which is not investor owned) are united in trying to stop such a system from being instituted in Florida. JEA would rather make us pay NOW for a portion of a nuclear power plant that won't come on line for fifteen or twenty years.
I'm not quite sure how it all works, but suspect it has something to do with the issuance of bonds for new power plants from which everybody gets to scrape off a fat profit.
At least JEA has instituted a system of credits for independently produced power so that I am not GIVING away my excess power to them anymore. My JEA bill for power for my home last month was $1.60. The month before that was $5.80. Love my solar panels!
Faye, Do you think that ANYBODY believes the Republicans "free market" rhetoric anymore?
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 14, 2011, 10:30:38 AM
Germany, a country not noted for its abundant sunshine, produces more solar electric power than Florida, the Sunshine State.
By law, utilities in Germany, and in several other European countries, are REQUIRED to buy power from anyone who is producing energy from solar, wind or biogas generators. As a result, every roof in Germany down to the chicken coops are covered with solar panels.
This system is called a "feed-in-tariff" and has been wildly successful at harnessing private capital to expand new energy sources.
The first utility in the United States to follow this model was Gainesville Regional Utilities right down the road from us. They now have a two or three year backlog of applications for tie-in agreements from people and businesses putting solar panels on their roofs.
Florida Power and JEA (which is not investor owned) are united in trying to stop such a system from being instituted in Florida. JEA would rather make us pay NOW for a portion of a nuclear power plant that won't come on line for fifteen or twenty years.
I'm not quite sure how it all works, but suspect it has something to do with the issuance of bonds for new power plants from which everybody gets to scrape off a fat profit.
At least JEA has instituted a system of credits for independently produced power so that I am not GIVING away my excess power to them anymore. My JEA bill for power for my home last month was $1.60. The month before that was $5.80. Love my solar panels!
Dogwalker,
Could you be kind to give us the breakdown of how much you paid vs. earned, consumed the kilowatts vs. generated kilowatt from solar panel, and the cost of the solar panel setup / meeting the regulations?
-Josh
Good point! But mostly what I hear from them is lower taxes, lower taxes. Wonder what it would take to convince them that there is no such thing as a "free" market, only an unregulated one. And it certainly doesn't apply to natural monopolies like electric utilities.
Personally I would like to see JEA turned into a huge storage battery whose only purpose is to return power to us that we have sent it during the daylight hours. Maybe that's what they and Florida Power are afraid of.
Josh, glad to:
First, I have a solar water heater. $2100, five years ago. JEA rebate was $800. Rebate is still in place and prices have come down a bit since then for an open loop system. A solar water heater gives you about a 25-30% reduction in your power bill right there. Payback period is 3-7 years depending on your hot water usage. We have clothes washer, dish washer, dogs to wash and a love of hot showers. I'm sure that is paid off by now.
Five years ago my 5kw solar array with grid-tied inverter was $41,000 installed. The State of Florida rebated me $20,000 of that price. That rebate is now gone, but solar panels have dropped about 40% in price since then. Mine were a bit more expensive anyway since I insisted on USA made panels, not Chinese ones. My cost was also a bit higher since I have a flat roof and custom brackets had to be made to support the panels at the correct angle. They were also made so that I could unpin parts of the bracket and secure the panels flat to the roof in case of a hurricane. More expense.
The following figures are estimates since I was to cheap to pay the extra $1500 dollars to be able to monitor my inverted by computer. The panels are producing about $115 worth of power every month. About $50 dollars per month of that shows up as credit on my JEA bill i.e. that's the amount that goes to JEA in excess of what I use at any one time. We do try to schedule our heavy electric use, dishwasher & clothes dryer, during the daylight hours when we are producing about 4000 watts per hour. These months when we use neither heating or air-conditioning, we are producing as much power as we use (almost). We pay JEA about $60 per month in the summer for A/C and about $80 per month in the winter for heat and hot water.
So $21,000 investment, $1380 per year gain gives me about a 15 year breakeven on the cost at CURRENT JEA rates. If the rates go up my payback is shorter. It's sort of an insurance policy.
If I had put that $21,000 into a CD at current interest rates of 1% my return would not have been as high so I figured it as a good investment.
And the amount of smug I get out of taking a hot shower when my electric water heater has been turned off for months and when I look at my JEA bill is priceless. ;D
Forgot to mention: Panel and inverter carry a 25 year warranty, but the panels are estimated to actually last much longer. So after my payback period I am still guaranteed at least ten years of return on the investment.
At my age it is highly unlikely that I will see the end of the warranty period but I'm going to try!
If JEA paid their billing rate for user-generated power the rate of return on these things wouldn't be so low. They pay a reduced rate from what they charge you. Seems unfair. Changing that would guarantee more people would install these systems, and the cost would be mostly offset by the resukting reduction in power purchased from other operators in peak times. But of course JEA isn't interested in anything rational.
You're right! And JEA very carefully will not pay businesses for power or even give them credit for their power generated. They have only extended the carry-forward credit to residential customers because if they would do it for business customers, every "big-box" store in the area would be covered with solar panels and reducing JEA's cash flow.
I've got about 40,000 sq/ft of commercial roof that I would cover in a minute if JEA would go to a feed-in-tariff model. Tony Sleiman would be even happier! All those strip mall roofs!
This is our taxpayer owned utility company that says "No" to their owners. Should/could the city council introduce legislation that would require JEA to allow and to pay an appropriate fee for both residential and business generated power?
Agreed. The keyword is "appropriate". At first glance they should compensate at the same rate they are charging. Are there other factors to be added or subtracted from that amount?
They pay me at the wholesale rate, i.e. the same rate they pay to anyone they buy power from which includes their own generating stations. I still have to pay them at the retail rate.
Last month, I used 333 kwh of their power at their retail rates. I generated a surplus of 375 kwh, which did not cancel my whole bill even though I generated more power than I used. Therefore my total bill of $1.60, most of which was franchise fee, gross receipts tax (?), and City of Jax Franchise fee. (Total $0.87).
This is why we try to do our heavy power usage tasks in the middle of the day when we are using more of our own "cheaper" power.
Because JEA is not an investor owned utility like FPL, they are not bound by the decisions and policies of the Florida Public Service Commission which are more favorable to self-generated power than JEA's policies are.
I don't know exactly how, but suspect that somehow much of JEA's decision making is tied to the issuance of tax free utility/municipal bonds. Wish I knew how to "follow the money."
QuoteThey pay me at the wholesale rate, i.e. the same rate they pay to anyone they buy power from
Of course as a consumer we would prefer to sell our power at the retail rate... but again... at first blush it seems fair that they are paying you the same rate as other power generators that they buy from.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2011, 04:15:38 PM
They pay me at the wholesale rate, i.e. the same rate they pay to anyone they buy power from which includes their own generating stations. I still have to pay them at the retail rate.
Last month, I used 333 kwh of their power at their retail rates. I generated a surplus of 375 kwh, which did not cancel my whole bill even though I generated more power than I used. Therefore my total bill of $1.60, most of which was franchise fee, gross receipts tax (?), and City of Jax Franchise fee. (Total $0.87).
This is why we try to do our heavy power usage tasks in the middle of the day when we are using more of our own "cheaper" power.
Because JEA is not an investor owned utility like FPL, they are not bound by the decisions and policies of the Florida Public Service Commission which are more favorable to self-generated power than JEA's policies are.
I don't know exactly how, but suspect that somehow much of JEA's decision making is tied to the issuance of tax free utility/municipal bonds. Wish I knew how to "follow the money."
That's exactly what I was getting at, the unfairness of JEA continuing to bill you out the ass when you are actually using less power than you gave them. It's an outrage.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 17, 2011, 04:51:53 PM
QuoteThey pay me at the wholesale rate, i.e. the same rate they pay to anyone they buy power from
Of course as a consumer we would prefer to sell our power at the retail rate... but again... at first blush it seems fair that they are paying you the same rate as other power generators that they buy from.
That is only fair once they give you a retail-rate offset for your power generated against your own usage. Otherwise, what happens is people have negative net consumption and still have to pay JEA anyway, because of the discrepancy between the billing rates. Which, IMHO, is out-and-out theft.
No quite accurate, Chris. If I use my power instead of JEA's during the day I am avoiding the retail rate. It's only my surplus generation that is credited at the wholesale rate.
However, I think it would make sense for JEA to look at the cost of their necessary expansion of capacity as this area grows and consumes more. To me it would make more sense for them to pay me slightly above the retail rate for my power because THEY HAVE NO CAPITAL COSTS INVOLVED in gaining the additional capacity. In effect us private power producers are putting up our own money, not JEA's money in order to increase their capacity. They don't have to issue the bonds to build or expand a powerplant.
This is the rational behind the "feed-in-tariff" concept. The utilities save the cost of raising capital since we are doing it for them. They are paying us some of the money they would have had to pay to their bond holders. The European utilities have found it to be a winning formula, but they don't have bond holders to keep happy and bond issuing agencies to pay fees to.
Is JEA in the utility business or in the bond issuing business?
Does time of day matter?
I agree that there should be more effort at promotion of distributed power in the state of Florida.
There are several forces at work that do not promote this.
- Regional Planning
If a private entity decides to start setting up distributed power on their own w/o any input to the regional power grids who forecast power usage and sharing, it can cause some chaos as regulated power grids attempt to schedule their load factors around them.
- Bond Payments
Utilities are a very high capital intensive operation. In order to get the scale they needed to reduce the cost per kWh, they needed the ability to finance in large amounts. To get cheap bonds, they have to have a regulated rate of return to make sure that the ratepayers are getting the correct cost of capital applied inside the rate structure.
- Inefficiencies
Solar with current technologies is very inefficient compared to a nuclear or coal based generation. The real cost per kWh for solar is anywhere from 10-15 times more costly to produce. However, due to investor demand that utilities include renewables in their rate structure, they have agreed to take on some of that infrastructure but must be able to pass those costs to the ratepayers. By law only certain costs can be passed on from these new sources. If by law they are mandated to take on these new sources, then it doesn't take a PhD to realize they wouldn't want anyone else doing it unless they had to carry some of the other related mandates.
As the cost of distributed power generation continues to drop, there will be more pressure on the utilities to accommodate. In an odd twist, it is the pressure to have the utilities embrace renewables that will help drive the costs down as demand will push the need for more efficient technology.
It has been tossed around that Wal-Mart could be most disruptive distributed power source in the nation. They have one of the largest amounts of raw square footage overall that faces the sun. But the capital costs of trying to take on a venture like that would be daunting. With many solar deployments seeing anywhere from 15-20 year paybacks, that is a difficult sell in a short-term oriented culture we live in today. Wal-Mart probably can't justify it in their price structure.
We looked at getting a renewable energy supplier here in Jacksonville for a major business park and the numbers actually worked. The payback was around 17 years. Why did it fail? The tenants refused to take on any additional costs in their CAM or psf lease to offset the reduced JEA bill. The park owner was not going to take on the financial risk alone and was concerned that while the psf cost was going to make him green, it would also make him uncompetitive.
The owner actually went on a green initiative in the park and cut his JEA/Teco energy expense 15% instead. That reduction showed up in his bottom line within the year and his psf profit jumped.
We also looked at getting an outside supplier of energy and found that after transmission costs, we couldn't get a cheaper source than JEA.
While I don't like the lobbying and political obstructions that take place to promote distributed power, there are cost and regulatory implications that many people haven't understood or embraced.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 17, 2011, 05:48:52 PM
Does time of day matter?
Yes, During the middle of the day, say from 10AM to 4PM, the panels are generating about 4kw of power. It's much less in the morning and late afternoon. So if we schedule clothes washing, dish washing, electric water heating (in season), etc. during those times, we are using "our" power rather than JEA's to a greater extent.
This is one reason our JEA bills run higher in the winter time than the summer time. In the summer our greatest use of power is during the sunniest time of the day, but in the winter our greatest use of power for heat is at night when we aren't generating any of our own power.
QuoteSolar with current technologies is very inefficient compared to a nuclear or coal based generation. The real cost per kWh for solar is anywhere from 10-15 times more costly to produce.
Sorry, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, solar is less costly. It is still more costly on a $$ basis than coal as long as there is no penalty for releasing mercury and CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nuclear is the most costly of all methods of producing power with current technologies when you add in the capital costs.
Quote from: spuwho on April 17, 2011, 07:31:17 PM
I agree that there should be more effort at promotion of distributed power in the state of Florida.
There are several forces at work that do not promote this.
- Regional Planning
If a private entity decides to start setting up distributed power on their own w/o any input to the regional power grids who forecast power usage and sharing, it can cause some chaos as regulated power grids attempt to schedule their load factors around them.
- Bond Payments
Utilities are a very high capital intensive operation. In order to get the scale they needed to reduce the cost per kWh, they needed the ability to finance in large amounts. To get cheap bonds, they have to have a regulated rate of return to make sure that the ratepayers are getting the correct cost of capital applied inside the rate structure.
- Inefficiencies
Solar with current technologies is very inefficient compared to a nuclear or coal based generation. The real cost per kWh for solar is anywhere from 10-15 times more costly to produce. However, due to investor demand that utilities include renewables in their rate structure, they have agreed to take on some of that infrastructure but must be able to pass those costs to the ratepayers. By law only certain costs can be passed on from these new sources. If by law they are mandated to take on these new sources, then it doesn't take a PhD to realize they wouldn't want anyone else doing it unless they had to carry some of the other related mandates.
As the cost of distributed power generation continues to drop, there will be more pressure on the utilities to accommodate. In an odd twist, it is the pressure to have the utilities embrace renewables that will help drive the costs down as demand will push the need for more efficient technology.
It has been tossed around that Wal-Mart could be most disruptive distributed power source in the nation. They have one of the largest amounts of raw square footage overall that faces the sun. But the capital costs of trying to take on a venture like that would be daunting. With many solar deployments seeing anywhere from 15-20 year paybacks, that is a difficult sell in a short-term oriented culture we live in today. Wal-Mart probably can't justify it in their price structure.
We looked at getting a renewable energy supplier here in Jacksonville for a major business park and the numbers actually worked. The payback was around 17 years. Why did it fail? The tenants refused to take on any additional costs in their CAM or psf lease to offset the reduced JEA bill. The park owner was not going to take on the financial risk alone and was concerned that while the psf cost was going to make him green, it would also make him uncompetitive.
The owner actually went on a green initiative in the park and cut his JEA/Teco energy expense 15% instead. That reduction showed up in his bottom line within the year and his psf profit jumped.
We also looked at getting an outside supplier of energy and found that after transmission costs, we couldn't get a cheaper source than JEA.
While I don't like the lobbying and political obstructions that take place to promote distributed power, there are cost and regulatory implications that many people haven't understood or embraced.
Your last sentence says it all. You seem more familiar than most with this system. May I ask your connection to the process?
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2011, 05:17:56 PM
No quite accurate, Chris. If I use my power instead of JEA's during the day I am avoiding the retail rate. It's only my surplus generation that is credited at the wholesale rate.
However, I think it would make sense for JEA to look at the cost of their necessary expansion of capacity as this area grows and consumes more. To me it would make more sense for them to pay me slightly above the retail rate for my power because THEY HAVE NO CAPITAL COSTS INVOLVED in gaining the additional capacity. In effect us private power producers are putting up our own money, not JEA's money in order to increase their capacity. They don't have to issue the bonds to build or expand a powerplant.
This is the rational behind the "feed-in-tariff" concept. The utilities save the cost of raising capital since we are doing it for them. They are paying us some of the money they would have had to pay to their bond holders. The European utilities have found it to be a winning formula, but they don't have bond holders to keep happy and bond issuing agencies to pay fees to.
Is JEA in the utility business or in the bond issuing business?
I understand that's how it works, and it's unfair.
What I'm saying is that, at the end of the month when they tally up your bill and you have generated more than you have consumed, the only truly fair way to handle it is if JEA gave you a retail-rate credit for your generated power up to the exact amount you consumed, and then any excess generation over and above your consumption is then credited at the wholesale rate, and any consumption over what you generated is billed at the retail rate.
Under the current scheme, JEA collects almost everything generated by solar during the daytime when most people aren't home, paying only the wholesale rate, and then bills the same producer the full retail rate when they get home and use power during times their panels are inoperable. The only fair way to do this would be by first giving a retail-rate credit for the total generated against the total consumed, with any additional amount generated being credited at the wholesale rate and any additional amount consumed being billed at the retail rate, and including rate adjustments for peak/off peak times if necessary if JEA ever is forced to purchase power from outside its network to meet demand.
Otherwise, you wind up in the position you are in, where you are actually providing more power to JEA than you are consuming in a given billing period, and JEA still manages to bill you for the privilege. It doesn't matter what time of day it is, whatever amount you generate is power JEA doesn't have to produce at its plants, so it is unfair to treat you as an outside wholesale network while also billing you at the retail rate. That's just gaming the billing, and IMO is out-and-out theft.
Got it! Understand your point now and agree. Best I can do is offset the retail rate charge as much as possible by using more of MY power rather than theirs.
JEA is buying some "green" power from bigger suppliers. They have interest in a wind farm out west and they are buying about 95 megawatts from a company locally that is using methane gas generated by an old landfill to run generators.
I think that they should retrofit all of our sewage treatment plants to produce biogas (methane) to generate power too or at least feed it into the natural gas stream. We are just throwing away a potential fuel source and charging us for doing so.
Excellent idea about methane collection from sewer plants!
Several landfills in the SE are capturing methane and generating electricity. Sustainable Energy Solutions is one such company:
http://www.sustainableenergysolutionsllc.com/learn (http://www.sustainableenergysolutionsllc.com/learn)
QuoteLandfill Gas Facts
Landfill gas (LFG) is a by-product of the decomposition of municipal solid waste (MSW):
•~50% methane (CH4)
•~50% carbon dioxide (CO2)
•<1% non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs)
Landfills were the second largest human-made source of methane in the US, accounting for 22.6% generated.
Why is methane a greenhouse gas?
•Methane absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation (heat) that would otherwise escape to space (GHG characteristic)
Methane as a GHG is over 21x more potent by weight than CO2.
For every 1 million tons of MSW:
•~0.8 megawatts (MW) of electricity
•~432,000 cubic feet per day of LFG
If uncontrolled, LFG contributes to smog and global warming, and may cause health and safety concerns.
Methane combustion produces only half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal, and two thirds less than oil, while creating virtually the same output of thermal energy. This potential output represents an enormous opportunity to improve air quality.
What’s Happening with LFG Today?
State of the National LFG Industry (April 2008). At least 450 operational projects in 43 states supplying:
•11 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 77 billion cubic feet of LFG to direct-use applications annually. This is comparable to:
Estimated Annual Environmental Benefits
• Carbon sequestered annually by ~17,800,000 acres of pine or fir forests, or
• CO2 emissions from ~182,000,000 barrels of oil consumed, or
• Annual greenhouse gas emissions from ~14,300,000 passenger vehicles
Estimated Annual Energy Benefit
•Powering more than 870,000 homes
However, the EPA estimates that up to 550 landfills in the USA with a combined potential of over 1,290 Megawatts, or 250 billion cubic feet per year of LFG for direct use, do NOT have LFG collection systems currently in place but are capable of installing economically viable LFGTE projects.
Chris
JEA is not really looking at it as a net out. Essentially they are "contracting" with you under 2 separate legal tariffs. In one case you are a retail customer, which means when they sell you power they get a set rate of return over there costs. The other is the interconnection or generator tariff. Basically if you are in their area and generating power they agree to pay you. Usually it is the estimated cost of the power they turn down to take yours in minus a certain % factor.
This does protect JEA somewhat. If you look at DogWalker situation they are giving JEA power between 10 - 4. For JEA this would on most days be considered "valley hours." Essentially hours where demand is not at peak levels. On some days, especially in the fall and spring JEA may be backing down coal units because there just isn't much customer demand and then DW comes in and gives them more.
DW is pulling power from JEA in peak hours. Peak demand hours are approx 6AM - 9 or 10 AM and 5PM or 6PM - 9 or 10PM in Winter and approx 4PM or 5PM - 10 PM in Summer as people turn on lights, crank up heat, businesses get going etc.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 10:26:28 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2011, 05:17:56 PM
No quite accurate, Chris. If I use my power instead of JEA's during the day I am avoiding the retail rate. It's only my surplus generation that is credited at the wholesale rate.
However, I think it would make sense for JEA to look at the cost of their necessary expansion of capacity as this area grows and consumes more. To me it would make more sense for them to pay me slightly above the retail rate for my power because THEY HAVE NO CAPITAL COSTS INVOLVED in gaining the additional capacity. In effect us private power producers are putting up our own money, not JEA's money in order to increase their capacity. They don't have to issue the bonds to build or expand a powerplant.
This is the rational behind the "feed-in-tariff" concept. The utilities save the cost of raising capital since we are doing it for them. They are paying us some of the money they would have had to pay to their bond holders. The European utilities have found it to be a winning formula, but they don't have bond holders to keep happy and bond issuing agencies to pay fees to.
Is JEA in the utility business or in the bond issuing business?
I understand that's how it works, and it's unfair.
What I'm saying is that, at the end of the month when they tally up your bill and you have generated more than you have consumed, the only truly fair way to handle it is if JEA gave you a retail-rate credit for your generated power up to the exact amount you consumed, and then any excess generation over and above your consumption is then credited at the wholesale rate, and any consumption over what you generated is billed at the retail rate.
Under the current scheme, JEA collects almost everything generated by solar during the daytime when most people aren't home, paying only the wholesale rate, and then bills the same producer the full retail rate when they get home and use power during times their panels are inoperable. The only fair way to do this would be by first giving a retail-rate credit for the total generated against the total consumed, with any additional amount generated being credited at the wholesale rate and any additional amount consumed being billed at the retail rate, and including rate adjustments for peak/off peak times if necessary if JEA ever is forced to purchase power from outside its network to meet demand.
Otherwise, you wind up in the position you are in, where you are actually providing more power to JEA than you are consuming in a given billing period, and JEA still manages to bill you for the privilege. It doesn't matter what time of day it is, whatever amount you generate is power JEA doesn't have to produce at its plants, so it is unfair to treat you as an outside wholesale network while also billing you at the retail rate. That's just gaming the billing, and IMO is out-and-out theft.
Chris
I understand that.
And if JEA has to purchase power from outside their network during peak times, they should surcharge DogWalker for his peak usage like everyone else. But if JEA is normally able to meet all demand in-grid, then whatever dogwalker produces is power they don't have to produce at their plants. It doesn't cost JEA any more to produce a Kw/h at 5pm than it does at 11am, unless they have to buy from another provider. They just produce more of them, and also sell more of them. So if JEA is regularly supplied all in house, which I understand to be the case, then the time issue is completely moot. So IMHO, this setup is unfair and they should treat these solar installations as net in / net out during a billing period, with a surcharge for any peak times during which they had to buy from another provider.
If everyone had solar panels on their homes and businesses, I wonder if JEA would be able effectively manage the demand changes due to the decreased sunlight in an afternoon thunderstorm. I would think a storm could roll in faster than they could bring additional generators online. Then 30 minutes later the panel are back to full power.
This is really just a theoretical question since almost no one has solar panels at this point.
Quote from: Lunican on April 18, 2011, 04:48:59 PM
If everyone had solar panels on their homes and businesses, I wonder if JEA would be able effectively manage the demand changes due to the decreased sunlight in an afternoon thunderstorm. I would think a storm could roll in faster than they could bring additional generators online. Then 30 minutes later the panel are back to full power.
This is really just a theoretical question since almost no one has solar panels at this point.
I think spuwho made that point earlier with the Walmart example. If they were covered in panels they would cause havoc to the grid as they brought them online and took them off. The utility would have to adjust on the fly... which is difficult to do with large turbines and facilities.
The solution would have to be an IP or telelphone line connected control box that the utility could control, or would at least give them some warning. But then you're in a catch-22 since they have a dedicated incentive to take as little power from the solar panels as possible since they bill at a higher rate than they pay. So maybe not a solution after all.
Actually it can and often does cost more at 5 PM. Take a day when you wake up to 65 degrees. A/C's aren't cranking yet, and JEA may be using primarily coal to produce the power it needs. Now that same day a place like Jacksonville can see temps go to a high of 90 degrees. As you roll near 5 PM demand is approaching peak. As the needs go up JEA has to tap into more generating sources which can be outside purchases (likely priced higher than their coal, their own in house natural gas turbines (definitely priced higher than coal), or both. So every incremental kw now costs more at 5 PM rather than 11 AM. Now if DogWalker can supply power during these peak times then he should get paid more for offsetting the higher priced generation JEA would have to run or buy.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 04:19:59 PM
I understand that.
And if JEA has to purchase power from outside their network during peak times, they should surcharge DogWalker for his peak usage like everyone else. But if JEA is normally able to meet all demand in-grid, then whatever dogwalker produces is power they don't have to produce at their plants. It doesn't cost JEA any more to produce a Kw/h at 5pm than it does at 11am, unless they have to buy from another provider. They just produce more of them, and also sell more of them. So if JEA is regularly supplied all in house, which I understand to be the case, then the time issue is completely moot. So IMHO, this setup is unfair and they should treat these solar installations as net in / net out during a billing period, with a surcharge for any peak times during which they had to buy from another provider.
Quote from: JHAT76 on April 18, 2011, 08:34:41 PM
Actually it can and often does cost more at 5 PM. Take a day when you wake up to 65 degrees. A/C's aren't cranking yet, and JEA may be using primarily coal to produce the power it needs. Now that same day a place like Jacksonville can see temps go to a high of 90 degrees. As you roll near 5 PM demand is approaching peak. As the needs go up JEA has to tap into more generating sources which can be outside purchases (likely priced higher than their coal, their own in house natural gas turbines (definitely priced higher than coal), or both. So every incremental kw now costs more at 5 PM rather than 11 AM. Now if DogWalker can supply power during these peak times then he should get paid more for offsetting the higher priced generation JEA would have to run or buy.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on April 18, 2011, 04:19:59 PM
I understand that.
And if JEA has to purchase power from outside their network during peak times, they should surcharge DogWalker for his peak usage like everyone else. But if JEA is normally able to meet all demand in-grid, then whatever dogwalker produces is power they don't have to produce at their plants. It doesn't cost JEA any more to produce a Kw/h at 5pm than it does at 11am, unless they have to buy from another provider. They just produce more of them, and also sell more of them. So if JEA is regularly supplied all in house, which I understand to be the case, then the time issue is completely moot. So IMHO, this setup is unfair and they should treat these solar installations as net in / net out during a billing period, with a surcharge for any peak times during which they had to buy from another provider.
I'm starting to think you don't actually read my posts.
I already stated all of that, you're just repeating what I've already addressed. I already said that JEA should continue to surcharge any usage during times when they are forced to buy capacity from outside their network. However, my understanding is that JEA has enough generating capacity that they are almost always a net seller not a purchaser, unless a plant is offline for maintenance. Accordingly, when they are not purchasing outside their own grid, the billing for solar should be net in / net out during a billing period, in order to be fair. Also, your explanation fails to take into account the surge in billing that accompanies a surge in demand, your explanation seems to imply high demand costs them more, in reality it also represents more Kw/h's delivered and thus additional profits.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 18, 2011, 08:14:53 AM
QuoteSolar with current technologies is very inefficient compared to a nuclear or coal based generation. The real cost per kWh for solar is anywhere from 10-15 times more costly to produce.
Sorry, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant, solar is less costly. It is still more costly on a $$ basis than coal as long as there is no penalty for releasing mercury and CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nuclear is the most costly of all methods of producing power with current technologies when you add in the capital costs.
Inefficiency = Energy of specific sunlight translated into usable BTU's by the panels. Today they are less efficient than any current steam based generation. With solar, I mean photovoltaic.
The capital cost to produce the same amount of megawatts over a 30 year lifespan of nuclear will be cheaper than solar until there are some technical breakthroughs. Also the ability of solar to produce adequate BTU's per acre is terrible. It would take a serious amount of real estate to get enough panels to produce the megawatts needed to keep up with nuclear. In short, nuclear has scale, solar does not.
While most people tend to ignore it, there is a CO2 and heavy metals pollution impact with solar panels. If the whole world decided to drop coal for solar, we would simply be replacing one pollution for another. It's the same argument made about electric and hybrid cars. The CO2 output of the battery factories overwhelms the insignificant savings they produce with cars. (but no one talks about that right now)
In college we researched the costs of placing a large solar power array in space in a stationary orbit and beaming the power down using microwaves. The panels were more efficient as the sunlight was direct and not diffused. There was a safety issue of the stationary microwave link as it would have to be declared a no fly zone (lest they be cooked). The cost (back then) of heavy lift to space was significant which made the proposition difficult and the per kWh cost was not workable in the then pricing market.
I am a proponent of solar as I think further research and increased demand has improved the technology tremendously over the last 10 years. But as a large scale coal or nuclear replacement, it's just not practical financially. As a supplement to the grid, absolutely!
Based on Chris' argument, DW, is there a way for you to 'store' your energy during the day and basically come off the grid during the peak hours?
Your meter would be spinning during the day, but come 5pm, if you could start releasing the energy you collected during the day, the meter either stops or starts going the other way.
Buy on the cheap and sell when demand is high, so to speak.
Quote from: Lunican on April 18, 2011, 04:48:59 PM
If everyone had solar panels on their homes and businesses, I wonder if JEA would be able effectively manage the demand changes due to the decreased sunlight in an afternoon thunderstorm. I would think a storm could roll in faster than they could bring additional generators online. Then 30 minutes later the panel are back to full power.
This is really just a theoretical question since almost no one has solar panels at this point.
Somehow the power producers in China, Germany, Italy, Spain all manage it.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on April 19, 2011, 10:25:17 PM
Based on Chris' argument, DW, is there a way for you to 'store' your energy during the day and basically come off the grid during the peak hours?
Your meter would be spinning during the day, but come 5pm, if you could start releasing the energy you collected during the day, the meter either stops or starts going the other way.
Buy on the cheap and sell when demand is high, so to speak.
Off-grid systems use banks of batteries to store power. There are lots of off-grid systems in deep rural areas, on islands in the Caribbean, etc. The battery banks are expensive, short-lived (<10 years) and not strong enough to run things like A/C. Lights, fans, TV, stereo, computers, but not heavy electric motors.
My system is grid-tied, i.e. feeds power to and takes power from JEA's liines deending on my home's power demands. I am essentially using JEA as my "battery" bank and paying for the priviledge. Per KWH it is still probably much cheaper than trying to put in a battery bank.
And I will not live here without A/C.
Solar Photovoltaic is getting both cheaper and more efficient. On the horizon right now are fairly cheap, but inefficient solar roof shingles. Imagine every new house and every re-roofed house in Florida with these shingles. That's a lot of power! Maybe JEA and FP&L could use this excess daylight power to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. At night recombine them in banks of fuel cells or turbines to return power to the grid. This is a scalable solution too. You don't have to cough up billions of dollars all at once to build some huge plant, just add the equipment in stages at existing plants as roofs are brought online.
Well, I can dream anyway. There are still some technical barriers to overcome before it is practical, but we overcame technical barriers in ten years to reach the moon too.