Please vote NO on Amendment 1. We are the Sunshine State, and JEA should be promoting rooftop solar every way possible.
The major Florida newspapers, The Tampa Bay Times, The Miami Herald, and the the Orlando Sentinel, have investigated and all agree that this amendment will be bad for residents of the Sunshine State. All support a NO Vote on this amendment. And they are right.
Check out this link : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-solar-amendment_us_580e7b18e4b0a03911ee6124
Let's be honest, if Exxon Mobil is supporting the amendment you know it cannot be truly pro solar.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT 1!
Agreed. This is a tool to have utilities and only utilities supply solar through your bill. Basically it would allow them to create a pure solar offering, charge you for it and supposed to use that extra revenue to purchase more solar capacity.
What will happen in real terms is the utility will pocket that revenue as profit, purchase the cheapest, least effective solar energy credits they can find.
You will feel good spending more for your fossil fed energy, while in reality, you are actually subsidizing a solar build out in a more friendly state.
That is why this amendment is bad news. Its has no regulatory safeguards.
In other news, Target passed WalMart in total solar footprint nationally. IKEA is 5th nationally, but moving up
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/0*9L5dVO0Z0pp_Sdd5.jpg)
Miami Herald Investigates Solar Sham Strategy:
QuoteInsider reveals deceptive strategy behind Florida's solar amendment
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article109017387.html
Who favors and who opposes solar Amendment 1?
Amendment 1 will be voted on during the November 8 election. McClatchy
BY MARY ELLEN KLAS
Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
TALLAHASSEE
The policy director of a think tank supported by Florida's largest electric utilities admitted at a conference this month what opponents have claimed for months: The industry attempted to deceive voters into supporting restrictions on the expansion of solar by shrouding Amendment 1 as a pro-solar amendment.
Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, detailed the strategy used by the state's largest utilities to create and finance Amendment 1 at the State Energy/Environment Leadership Summit in Nashville on Oct. 2.
Nuzzo called the amendment, which has received more than $21 million in utility industry financing, "an incredibly savvy maneuver" that "would completely negate anything they (pro-solar interests) would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road," according to an audio recording of the event supplied to the Herald/Times....
U.S. Green Building Council - Florida has come out against Amendment 1.
At the same time, they've assembled a very good resource for information on the Amendment, if you'd like to make up your own mind, including literally all media coverage, who supports / funds either side, etc.
Quotehttp://usgbcflorida.org/Amendment-1
It is also important to consider how the outcome on Nov. 8 will affect our local controversy regarding JEA's proposal to reduce net metering rates. The JEA board deferred a decision regarding the proposed change until after the election.
Quotehttp://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2016/04/19/jea-board-punts-on-solar-changes-waiting-for-state.html
.
One possible interpretation for the wait is that a Yes on Amendment 1 would empower JEA to follow through with its plans to curtail net metering and by extension the local rooftop solar market.
Actually, the whole thing could backfire.
There is no law that requires you to hook up to a electric utility. A new housing development could create their own solar grid off their rooftops.
One could go completely "off grid" and have nothing to do with a utility. Houses could be built to be self sustaining from the get go.
I understand why these entities are pushing this amendment and the economics behind it, but these kinds of efforts should be done through a public utilities commission. Energy policy shouldnt be set by a constitutional amendment.
Next thing you know is we will have a twisted worded amendment to ban electric car sales because the oil industry doesnt like it.
Its just bad public policy.
Why do people still support a mandate for Obamacare but don't like a mandate when it comes to utilities in order to keep the prices cheaper for more people? :o
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 27, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
Why do people still support a mandate for Obamacare but don't like a mandate when it comes to utilities in order to keep the prices cheaper for more people? :o
Unfortunately, the measure isn't designed to keep prices cheaper. It's just designed to keep up the status quo. The only language it contains about pricing for consumer is an abstract claim to ensure that "consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do". This really means that they (the power companies) want to do away with net metering (the practice of solar users getting a stipend for putting surplus power back into the grid), and would prefer charging solar customers extra to make up for the fossil energy they would have used if they didn't have solar panels. Neither would directly affect average users' rates, especially if the state came up with a system for solar customers to contribute to the infrastructure they use.
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 27, 2016, 04:05:15 PM
Why do people still support a mandate for Obamacare but don't like a mandate when it comes to utilities in order to keep the prices cheaper for more people? :o
Why do people make comparisons between two things that are in no way alike?
The point is that these companies are quasi-governmental organizations and they are afraid of losing money, but also believe that they will have to pass the buck onto the rest of us if too many people jump on solar. They want a mandate that everyone have to pay their fair share to keep costs down for everyone, correct? I am not saying that is valid, but it is the argument.
I am not voting for Donald Trump. I consider myself a pretty middle of the road type guy on most things. But all the Left can muster nowadays are ad hominem attacks to arguments or even just questions that challenge. The Trump people are just as bad and that is why our country is where it is at.
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 09:41:49 AM
They want a mandate that everyone have to pay their fair share to keep costs down for everyone, correct? I am not saying that is valid, but it is the argument.
I think what they want is essentially a guaranteed monopoly. Guaranteed profits. They can pretend it's about saving the consumer money, but they are not non-profit organizations. They're already taking money from consumers above and beyond their operating costs (and stuff like R&D, etc).
I don't think this is remotely about trying to do right for customers - it's about elimintating potential competition and ensuring profit margins long-term.
Quote from: Adam White on October 28, 2016, 10:34:08 AM
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 09:41:49 AM
They want a mandate that everyone have to pay their fair share to keep costs down for everyone, correct? I am not saying that is valid, but it is the argument.
I think what they want is essentially a guaranteed monopoly. Guaranteed profits. They can pretend it's about saving the consumer money, but they are not non-profit organizations. They're already taking money from consumers above and beyond their operating costs (and stuff like R&D, etc).
I don't think this is remotely about trying to do right for customers - it's about elimintating potential competition and ensuring profit margins long-term.
For sure. Of course it is in their interests to have everyone paying. Because they are a quasi-governmental agency it is tricky though.
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 01:28:42 PM
For sure. Of course it is in their interests to have everyone paying. Because they are a quasi-governmental agency it is tricky though.
Who is "they"?
Most of the power companies.
The power companies do have a point. They are responsible for maintaining the grid, which solar users still use. If they're paying less or nothing (or getting money back), the money has to come from somewhere else. The message from the power companies is that they'll just raise everyone else's rates.
However there are other ways to solve this. The state could require solar companies to chip in for upkeeping the grid. If they wanted to incentivize them, they could issue a credit so that money's still going to the infrastructure. Just using the constitution to eliminate competition, as this measure does, isn't the way. They're basically saying that they can't do solar as well as the independent guys, and don't want any competition to change that.
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 02:43:11 PM
Most of the power companies.
Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.
http://www.floridatrend.com/article/15895/energy-companies-in-florida
This is a pretty clear breakdown of the utility companies across Florida. Notice the list of investor owned utilities are one and the same as those pushing for this bill. Do you think they would spend all of that money if it wasn't going to make them money or at least keep them making the same money? Follow the money.
I do see how private solar could really eat into their bottom line. If household generation gets big enough it could really cause a problem for them. They could always reduce generation capacity as demand on powerplants decreases but someone will have to maintain the grid which is still basically a requirement if you want power 100% of the time without a massive ($$$) battery storage bank. Anyway, this bill doesn't really solve that problem, just eliminates competition.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2016, 03:29:22 PM
The power companies do have a point. They are responsible for maintaining the grid, which solar users still use. If they're paying less or nothing (or getting money back), the money has to come from somewhere else. The message from the power companies is that they'll just raise everyone else's rates.
However there are other ways to solve this. The state could require solar companies to chip in for upkeeping the grid. If they wanted to incentivize them, they could issue a credit so that money's still going to the infrastructure. Just using the constitution to eliminate competition, as this measure does, isn't the way. They're basically saying that they can't do solar as well as the independent guys, and don't want any competition to change that.
Does not Solar work this way: You have the system, it is hooked into the grid. If you were to produce only what you needed yourself, no bill. If you use less than you need, you pull power from the grid and pay going rates for it. If you produce more than you need, the excess goes into the grid and the power company pays for the power. The issue I saw earlier with this is that JEA was paying that same for the power a solar system produced that it regularly sold power for. Basic business says that is not right. By buying solar power at the net cost of producing power elsewhere to those producing excess solar power and then selling the solar produced power for the higher going rate, is not the grid maintenance being paid for and is not that fair for all?
I know the solar companies did not like that as it made the payback for home owners much longer. I know that the power companies want to have it the other way and not pay for the extra power or not pay much at all. Typical stuff.
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2016, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 02:43:11 PM
Most of the power companies.
Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.
I think something like 70% of the countries power companies are private and the rest are public entities. Like JEA. So 30% are more than likely "quasi-governemnt". Still for profit in a way though.
Quote from: strider on October 28, 2016, 05:35:52 PMThe issue I saw earlier with this is that JEA was paying that same for the power a solar system produced that it regularly sold power for. Basic business says that is not right. By buying solar power at the net cost of producing power elsewhere to those producing excess solar power and then selling the solar produced power for the higher going rate, is not the grid maintenance being paid for and is not that fair for all?
That's the real issue. Supposedly JEA is currently paying people MORE for their excess solar than it costs them to produce power. Not that JEA appears to be backing this bill but that's just an example. I think it really varies from between power companies.
1. How are people who drive electric and hybrid cars billed for their use of roadways? Since they use less gas, and gas taxes pay for road upkeep, shouldn't those people be getting a bill for using the roads that "makes up" for the lower amount they pay in gas tax? I mean they ARE using the road, correct? Just not paying their fair share, correct?
2. When you put a rooftop solar array on your home you spend a lot of money, $6,000-10,000 for a small system. JEA does not pay for any of it, and in truth you use less electricity and therefore less wear and tear on the grid. In fact, rooftop solar kicks out its highest wattage during peak hours of use, bright sunny HOT summer days when everyone has their AC on. This is a benefit to JEA, as the likeliness of outages is reduced during peak operating times. JEA still enjoys customers during off peak hours and everyone using the grid pays for what they use.
3. JEA should be focusing on the future and the 500 pound gorilla facing every citizen of Florida, the impacts of global climate change on rising sea levels and their commitment to providing clean drinking water to those very same citizens. JEA would be smart to promote rooftop solar so that they can focus their resources in the future on those two issues. I feel like a true visionary leadership at all Florida public utilities would shoot for a goal of 30% of all residential electricity use by 2030 could be provided by rooftop solar. The potential for job growth in manufacturing and installation of these systems could be a model for the world. Elon Musk has done a lot for solar and he continues to create and develop these technologies, which could be implemented in Florida or so it would seem. Gov Rick 'Voldemort' Scott has always proclaimed "Florida is open for business." Why not solar?
Quote from: MusicMan on October 29, 2016, 10:40:35 AM
1. How are people who drive electric and hybrid cars billed for their use of roadways? Since they use less gas, and gas taxes pay for road upkeep, shouldn't those people be getting a bill for using the roads that "makes up" for the lower amount they pay in gas tax? I mean they ARE using the road, correct? Just not paying their fair share, correct?
2. When you put a rooftop solar array on your home you spend a lot of money, $6,000-10,000 for a small system. JEA does not pay for any of it, and in truth you use less electricity and therefore less wear and tear on the grid. In fact, rooftop solar kicks out its highest wattage during peak hours of use, bright sunny HOT summer days when everyone has their AC on. This is a benefit to JEA, as the likeliness of outages is reduced during peak operating times. JEA still enjoys customers during off peak hours and everyone using the grid pays for what they use.
3. JEA should be focusing on the future and the 500 pound gorilla facing every citizen of Florida, the impacts of global climate change on rising sea levels and their commitment to providing clean drinking water to those very same citizens. JEA would be smart to promote rooftop solar so that they can focus their resources in the future on those two issues. I feel like a true visionary leadership at all Florida public utilities would shoot for a goal of 30% of all residential electricity use by 2030 could be provided by rooftop solar. The potential for job growth in manufacturing and installation of these systems could be a model for the world. Elon Musk has done a lot for solar and he continues to create and develop these technologies, which could be implemented in Florida or so it would seem. Gov Rick 'Voldemort' Scott has always proclaimed "Florida is open for business." Why not solar?
1- of course they should. But you also have to realize that the payment of the tax has never been equally spread across the road users. Those who own cars that get low MPG pay more than those with Higher MPG. Today. most "electric" cars are still hybrids so they still pay tax. I would imagine that as more electric vehicles get put out there will be some kind of tax applied to the purchase of the plates or to recharge them.
2 - Yes, there is a large expenditure on the part of the solar electric producer. But there is also a large expenditure to produce electricity to start with regardless of the method. The power companies need to make a profit of sorts to maintain the grid and so they deserve to also make a profit on any solar power others produce and they later sell. Breaking even or even losing money on solar byu the grid owner/ maintainer does no one any good. Expect the person producing the solar power who already is getting "paid" most of the time through various tax breaks.
3- Solar is not as green as some would think. There are also other technologies out there that deserve consideration and while, yes, JEA needs to be working towards a future without as much dependency on coal, oil or Natural gas, it needs to be done while considering all the options.
I guess in Strider's world the guy who bikes to work gets an invoice for road repair every year too.
"Solar is not as green as some would think." I disagree, ESPECIALLY HERE IN THE SUNSHINE STATE! I have had extensive talks with David Schacter, Owner and President of TerraWise a certified green building contractor currently building all over Jacksonville.
(You can go meet with him if you want. He has a gorgeous model home in Springfiled and one on the Northside where he can pull up a real time 'live' connection app showing you exactly how much power has been created that day and for the month as well on a home equipped with rooftop solar.)
Projecting a rooftop solar system creates on average a $120 monthly cash flow benefit to the person who installs it (and it does according to David), and the cost for install is $10,000 after any rebates or tax incentives, the payback over the 25 years of the investment is $36,000 to the solar user. BUT rates will go up over the 25 years and therefore this is a VERY conservative estimate of the value of the system to the owner. The gross payback over the 25 year system life span could easily top $40,000. THAT'S THE KIND OF 'GREEN' YOU CAN SELL TO END USERS, AND THE TYPE OF INFO THAT HAS BEEN MISSING IN THE MARKETING OF THESE SYSTEMS TO THE CONSUMER.
Quote from: MusicMan on October 29, 2016, 10:40:35 AM
2. ... In fact, rooftop solar kicks out its highest wattage during peak hours of use, bright sunny HOT summer days when everyone has their AC on. This is a benefit to JEA, as the likeliness of outages is reduced during peak operating times. JEA still enjoys customers during off peak hours and everyone using the grid pays for what they use.
The solar producer will produce excess energy during the morning through the afternoon. Peak hours will be 3PM - 7PM. Solar-generated electricity lowers the net load at midday, but as the sun goes down and solar generation declines, there is a much steeper ramp in net load to meet the peak demand in the evening. There is still a lot of AC use into the evening here in FL. If the utility has to pay retail rates for net metered generation, the utility could be losing money during the ramp hours. Also, the utility may be buying excess solar at a time of day when they have cheaper generation on or ramping. I wold lean more toward a wholesale rate for solar buy back, and/or more time of use and energy demand programs.
This is a good conversation to have, although I feel a constitutional amendment is not the way to go.
"If the utility has to pay retail rates for net metered generation, the utility could be losing money during the ramp hours. Also, the utility may be buying excess solar at a time of day when they have cheaper generation on or ramping."
Except that the utility pays nothing for the solar system. The energy created by the solar system costs JEA nothing. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
Why would JEA be entitled to make any money on the solar system, since they have invested nothing into it? The credit to the solar owner is nice, and an important part of the equation, but the reduction in monthly electricity charges is what makes this work. If our state leaders got behind the concept we could implement the systems on a vastly larger scale, bring installation and manufacturing costs down even more.
"This is a good conversation to have, although I feel a constitutional amendment is not the way to go."
Agree with you 100%!!
Bottom line: there is no demonstrable cross-subsidy (i.e. paid by non-solar roofs to solar roofs to support "the grid") at current or foreseen levels of rooftop solar market penetration.
Yes, a distant future that involves much, much more rooftop solar could result in cross-subsidization, but the economics of such a situation are complicated, with both benefits (which most utilities do not currently attempt to quantify) and costs to consider.
As we approach such a future, utilities and their stakeholders can design business models, rates, etc. that ensure that they recover their costs (and make a reasonable profit) while providing high-value energy services to their customers. The forum for such activities is the Public Service Commission.
Quote from: Tacachale on October 28, 2016, 03:29:22 PM
The power companies do have a point. They are responsible for maintaining the grid, which solar users still use. If they're paying less or nothing (or getting money back), the money has to come from somewhere else. The message from the power companies is that they'll just raise everyone else's rates.
However there are other ways to solve this. The state could require solar companies to chip in for upkeeping the grid. If they wanted to incentivize them, they could issue a credit so that money's still going to the infrastructure. Just using the constitution to eliminate competition, as this measure does, isn't the way. They're basically saying that they can't do solar as well as the independent guys, and don't want any competition to change that.
Current power pricing is based on getting power to you, not sending power back. Net metering is fine if you are only netting out energy costs. If you are grid connected, the ability to return power is the same as getting to you.
Consumers see it as simply using less energy, but the cost of carriage is fixed. Its made up of power lines, service vehicles, sub stations, etc that the utility has to maintain to make sure power not only arrives to your home, but also you have somewhere to return the excess energy you create.
Many solar aware states have a utility connection charge that covers much of the fixed costs a utility bears to provide service. The net metering only debits or credits your energy charge since that is what is variable.
However, many utilities have buried their carriage costs into the energy costs so you only see a kWh rate on the bill. They dont want people to see how much overhead actually is floated in their bill.
These are the ones who hate net metering and solar. Because it allows you to directly shop your kWh costs against them.
Due to political pressure, some still offer net metering, but only get credit at the wholesale energy rate. California still credits at the retail rate because they raised the connection charge to make up for it.
Once again for the cheap seats...this is an energy policy issue that should be at the PUC level, not constitutional one.
I still cant believe this is on a ballot.
Quote from: spuwho on October 31, 2016, 12:12:12 PM
I still cant believe this is on a ballot.
Florida Supreme Court, five members appointed by Republicans; two appointed by Democrats.
Believe it.
Quote from: finehoe on October 31, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: spuwho on October 31, 2016, 12:12:12 PM
I still cant believe this is on a ballot.
Florida Supreme Court, five members appointed by Republicans; two appointed by Democrats.
Believe it.
LOL. The Supreme Court of Florida is known for leaning to the left.
Pariente (Chiles), Perry (Crist), Quince (Chiles), and Lewis (Chiles) are strongly to the Left while Labarga (Crist) is probably a swing vote but has some tendencies on certain issues that lean more liberal. Polston (Crist) and Canady (Bush) would be the only conservatives on the Court according to any legal observer.
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2016, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 02:43:11 PM
Most of the power companies.
Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.
"JEA is a body politic and corporate of the City of Jacksonville created pursuant to chapter 92-341, Special Acts, Laws of Florida." Even JEA's alliance with other power companies was described by the Supreme Court as an association "in the nature of a public or quasi-public entity organized primarily to discharge duties to the public or to provide a governmental benefit." Why do you think they have monopolies on different areas? Companies like Duke Energy skirt this line but they are still formed on local levels as quasi-governmental.
Quote from: FlaBoy on November 01, 2016, 11:05:44 AM
LOL. The Supreme Court of Florida is known for leaning to the left.
Maybe in the far-right sources you read, but academic research found the Florida Supreme Court to be the 8th most conservative court in the country: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2169664
Quote from: FlaBoy on November 01, 2016, 11:15:38 AM
"JEA is a body politic and corporate of the City of Jacksonville created pursuant to chapter 92-341, Special Acts, Laws of Florida." Even JEA's alliance with other power companies was described by the Supreme Court as an association "in the nature of a public or quasi-public entity organized primarily to discharge duties to the public or to provide a governmental benefit."
JEA is in the minority. Approximately 93% of the electricity sold to consumers in the US is from private companies: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1022064
Quote from: FlaBoy on November 01, 2016, 11:05:44 AM
Quote from: finehoe on October 31, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: spuwho on October 31, 2016, 12:12:12 PM
I still cant believe this is on a ballot.
Florida Supreme Court, five members appointed by Republicans; two appointed by Democrats.
Believe it.
LOL. The Supreme Court of Florida is known for leaning to the left.
Pariente (Chiles), Perry (Crist), Quince (Chiles), and Lewis (Chiles) are strongly to the Left while Labarga (Crist) is probably a swing vote but has some tendencies on certain issues that lean more liberal. Polston (Crist) and Canady (Bush) would be the only conservatives on the Court according to any legal observer.
True.
Quote from: FlaBoy on November 01, 2016, 11:15:38 AM
Quote from: finehoe on October 28, 2016, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on October 28, 2016, 02:43:11 PM
Most of the power companies.
Sorry, they aren't quasi-governmental agencies, they are private, for-profit corporations.
"JEA is a body politic and corporate of the City of Jacksonville created pursuant to chapter 92-341, Special Acts, Laws of Florida." Even JEA's alliance with other power companies was described by the Supreme Court as an association "in the nature of a public or quasi-public entity organized primarily to discharge duties to the public or to provide a governmental benefit." Why do you think they have monopolies on different areas? Companies like Duke Energy skirt this line but they are still formed on local levels as quasi-governmental.
JEA is publicly owned. It's also not one of the companies pushing for Amendment 1.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 01, 2016, 12:09:03 PM
True.
Not true:
(https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/3/34/State_Courts_and_Ideology.png)
https://ballotpedia.org/Political_outlook_of_state_supreme_court_justices
Quote from: finehoe on November 01, 2016, 12:16:59 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on November 01, 2016, 12:09:03 PM
True.
Not true:
(https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/3/34/State_Courts_and_Ideology.png)
https://ballotpedia.org/Political_outlook_of_state_supreme_court_justices
I am now just interested in how they came up with this. Among the legal community, whether Republicans or Democrats, Justices Pariente, Quince, Perry, and Lewis are seen as more liberal members. The GOP openly campaigned against Pariente, Quince and Lewis in 2014. Actually, the Court is about to head in a very conservative direction with Justice Perry leaving this year and Pariente, Quince, and Lewis leaving in 2018 due to the 70 rule. The next Governor will appoint three Justices immediately. If it is Putnam, he and Scott will most likely work in unison on that as to fill the Court earlier.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/support-for-the-anti-solar-amendment-1-is-plummeting-poll-says-8890840 (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/support-for-the-anti-solar-amendment-1-is-plummeting-poll-says-8890840)
QuoteFloridians finally seem to be getting the message about the bogus amendment. According to a new poll released by Saint Leo University, support for Amendment 1 has dropped from 84 percent of the state in September to 59.8 percent in October.
Because 60 percent of voters need to approve the amendment before it passes, Saint Leo's poll shows that — if the downward trend continues — citizens are on their way to killing the initiative.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveiled the company's latest technology: solar cell roof tiles.
The glass tiles, of which there are four different styles, look almost identical to conventional roof tiles, making them the sleeker evolution of the bulky solar panel that has become a hallmark of energy-efficient living. Despite their quartz glass composition, the tiles are apparently both stronger than and approximate the look of traditional materials like clay and slate.
"Musk said the secret to the tiles' appearance is a special coating that becomes more or less see-through depending on your viewing angle," Wired reported. "He described it as a series of micro louvers that work like a privacy screen on a laptop, and said the company is working with 3M on the technology."
"The effect is dramatic in person. From shallow angles, the tiles appear nontransparent. But as your viewing angle approaches 90 degrees, the underlying solar cell becomes more and more visible. The result is a tile that permits the passage of sunlight from overhead, but still looks opaque to anyone at ground level."
Tesla's innovation is meant to offer a more attractive, accessible and enticing solar roof. "It needs to be beautiful, affordable, and seamlessly integrated," Musk said. "If all of those things are true, why would you go any other direction?"
Pricing, availability and installation details are yet to be disclosed, although the solar roof tiles are intended to work in tandem with the Tesla Powerwall, a home battery system for which Musk also revealed a newer, thinner version on Friday. Both systems are part of Tesla's planned merge with SolarCity.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/tesla-unveils-new-line-camouflaged-solar-panels/
In a media conference call this morning, former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham urged Floridians to vote NO on Amendment 1. Here are a few clips:
news4jax.com/news/politics/graham-criticizes-solar-ballot-initiative
tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/bob-grahams-warns-amendment-1-will-set-the-states-energy-progress-backwards/2300913?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
floridapolitics.com/archives/226072-bob-graham-says-passage-amendment-1-affect-solar-initiative-passed-august
tallahassee.com/story/news/2016/11/01/bob-graham-calls-defeat-solar-amendment/93114390
Quote from: finehoe on November 01, 2016, 03:52:30 PM
Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveiled the company's latest technology: solar cell roof tiles.
The glass tiles, of which there are four different styles, look almost identical to conventional roof tiles, making them the sleeker evolution of the bulky solar panel that has become a hallmark of energy-efficient living. Despite their quartz glass composition, the tiles are apparently both stronger than and approximate the look of traditional materials like clay and slate.
"Musk said the secret to the tiles' appearance is a special coating that becomes more or less see-through depending on your viewing angle," Wired reported. "He described it as a series of micro louvers that work like a privacy screen on a laptop, and said the company is working with 3M on the technology."
"The effect is dramatic in person. From shallow angles, the tiles appear nontransparent. But as your viewing angle approaches 90 degrees, the underlying solar cell becomes more and more visible. The result is a tile that permits the passage of sunlight from overhead, but still looks opaque to anyone at ground level."
Tesla's innovation is meant to offer a more attractive, accessible and enticing solar roof. "It needs to be beautiful, affordable, and seamlessly integrated," Musk said. "If all of those things are true, why would you go any other direction?"
Pricing, availability and installation details are yet to be disclosed, although the solar roof tiles are intended to work in tandem with the Tesla Powerwall, a home battery system for which Musk also revealed a newer, thinner version on Friday. Both systems are part of Tesla's planned merge with SolarCity.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/tesla-unveils-new-line-camouflaged-solar-panels/
Solar shingles have been around for a few years now, but they more challenging to wire up. Hopefully Tesla has improved it.
The radio ads are getting more irritating and condescending this week.
They are ready to take this to Legislature too:
Since January 2015, $20 million of the industry's profits went to finance and promote Amendment 1, the ballot initiative that attempts to frustrate the expansion of consumer-owned rooftop solar in Florida. And another $22 million more went to fuel the campaigns of a select group of powerful legislative leaders in an effort to prepare for a prolonged war against rooftop solar.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111832342.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111832342.html#storylink=cpy)
Quote from: MusicMan on October 29, 2016, 12:09:13 PM
"If the utility has to pay retail rates for net metered generation, the utility could be losing money during the ramp hours. Also, the utility may be buying excess solar at a time of day when they have cheaper generation on or ramping."
Except that the utility pays nothing for the solar system. The energy created by the solar system costs JEA nothing. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.
Why would JEA be entitled to make any money on the solar system, since they have invested nothing into it? The credit to the solar owner is nice, and an important part of the equation, but the reduction in monthly electricity charges is what makes this work. If our state leaders got behind the concept we could implement the systems on a vastly larger scale, bring installation and manufacturing costs down even more.
"This is a good conversation to have, although I feel a constitutional amendment is not the way to go."
Agree with you 100%!!
Under the current billing model, net metering pays retail rates for electricity which include distribution expenses rolled into the electricity rate that are in excess of the line rate. So JEA doesn't get the power for free.
1 allows urilities, on a county-by-county basis, with the approval of the state regulator and the county boards to change the net metering rate such that they would only have to pay wholesale (generation) rates for excess power rather than retail rates (generation + distribution). Ultimately under the proposal, utilities will end up having to pay power plants and individuals the same for their produced power without providing a subsidy to the consumers using solar panels by pay the retail rather than the wholesale rate for their excess power.
Quote from: JHAT76 on November 02, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
They are ready to take this to Legislature too:
Since January 2015, $20 million of the industry's profits went to finance and promote Amendment 1, the ballot initiative that attempts to frustrate the expansion of consumer-owned rooftop solar in Florida. And another $22 million more went to fuel the campaigns of a select group of powerful legislative leaders in an effort to prepare for a prolonged war against rooftop solar.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111832342.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article111832342.html#storylink=cpy)
Interesting double standard here.
The #1 advertising says it will take the decisions away from lazy politicians, yet the same groups are the ones giving all this money to same politicians.
So basically, if its an amendment, they save money on lobbying costs as well. Who zoomin who?
Quote from: spuwho on November 02, 2016, 06:58:08 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 01, 2016, 03:52:30 PM
Tesla CEO Elon Musk unveiled the company's latest technology: solar cell roof tiles.
The glass tiles, of which there are four different styles, look almost identical to conventional roof tiles, making them the sleeker evolution of the bulky solar panel that has become a hallmark of energy-efficient living. Despite their quartz glass composition, the tiles are apparently both stronger than and approximate the look of traditional materials like clay and slate.
"Musk said the secret to the tiles' appearance is a special coating that becomes more or less see-through depending on your viewing angle," Wired reported. "He described it as a series of micro louvers that work like a privacy screen on a laptop, and said the company is working with 3M on the technology."
"The effect is dramatic in person. From shallow angles, the tiles appear nontransparent. But as your viewing angle approaches 90 degrees, the underlying solar cell becomes more and more visible. The result is a tile that permits the passage of sunlight from overhead, but still looks opaque to anyone at ground level."
Tesla's innovation is meant to offer a more attractive, accessible and enticing solar roof. "It needs to be beautiful, affordable, and seamlessly integrated," Musk said. "If all of those things are true, why would you go any other direction?"
Pricing, availability and installation details are yet to be disclosed, although the solar roof tiles are intended to work in tandem with the Tesla Powerwall, a home battery system for which Musk also revealed a newer, thinner version on Friday. Both systems are part of Tesla's planned merge with SolarCity.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/tesla-unveils-new-line-camouflaged-solar-panels/
Solar shingles have been around for a few years now, but they more challenging to wire up. Hopefully Tesla has improved it.
The radio ads are getting more irritating and condescending this week.
Consumer Reports crunched the numbers...
http://www.consumerreports.org/roofing/heres-how-much-teslas-new-solar-roof-shingles-could-cost/
QuoteHere's How Much Tesla's New Solar Roof Could Cost
CEO Elon Musk claims installing the solar tiles would be as cheap as a regular roof—so we do some number crunching
By Daniel DiClerico
November 02, 2016
Can you really install a solar roof on your home that would cost about as much—or even less—than a regular roof? That's the claim Tesla CEO Elon Musk made Friday when he announced plans to create Solar Roof tiles that will "look better than a normal roof, generate electricity, last longer, have better insulation, and actually have an installed cost that is less than a normal roof plus the cost of electricity."
Tesla's Solar Roof tiles would be made of glass over a photovoltaic substrate. Unlike aftermarket solar panels, they stand in for traditional roofing materials and look like the real thing from the ground.
That's an important distinction, aimed squarely at one of the hurdles to the wider adoption of solar: the questionable aesthetics of those black silicon panels. Tesla unveiled four styles: smooth glass tile, textured glass tile, Tuscan glass tile, and slate glass tile.
"People like the idea of being energy efficient, but solar panels can be an eyesore," says Giovanni Bozzolo, a partner at Roof4Less roofing in Seattle, Wash. "To be able to combine the energy savings with aesthetics would be a very big thing in the industry. But the pricing has to be right."
Musk didn't provide specifics on how much the tiles will cost, and a company spokeswoman told Consumer Reports, "we haven't released details on pricing" when we followed up.
That begs the question: What will the Tesla Solar Roof have to cost in order to be the no-brainer proposition Musk describes?
We've run some numbers and determined that a textured glass tile Solar Roof should cost no more than $73,500, installed, to be competitive with an asphalt roof.
How We Did the Math
To get there, we pulled together ballpark pricing for the various roofing materials Tesla's solar shingles mimic, from sources like the Slate Roofing Contractors Association, the Tile Roofing Institute, and the Remodeling 2016 Cost vs. Value Report.
There are plenty of variables, of course, including the location of the home and shape and height of the roof. (And we're leaving out any consideration of solar rebates and incentives.) But here's what the installed costs look like for the roughly 3,000 square feet of roofing needed to cover an average size home in the U.S.
Clay Tile: $16,000
Asphalt: $20,000
Slate: $45,000
So how could a $73,500 roof be considered cost-competitive with a $20,000 asphalt roof? To compensate for the proposed added value of the "free" electricity from Tesla's roof, we added in $2,000 a year, over the lifespan of the roof. That's a typical electric bill in states where solar is big, like California, Texas, and North Carolina.
Tesla says the life expectancy of its tiles will be 30 years. So that adds $60,000 to the value of the roof. (Our rough estimate assumes our hypothetical Solar Roof homes generate exactly as much electricity as they use.)
One final factor: the Tesla Solar Roof will work like any rooftop solar system, connecting to your home's electric panel through an inverter. You could stop there, but the system is being packaged alongside Tesla's forthcoming Powerwall 2.0, a battery storage device with a built-in inverter and an installed cost of $6,500. Combining Solar Roof and Powerwall 2.0, Musk promises, will power an entire home with 100 percent renewable energy.
The easy way to factor in the cost of a Powerwall to our roofing calculation is to subtract it from the value of the electricity over the life of the roof. So $60,000 worth of electricity becomes $53,500. (Though we should note that the warranty of the Powerwall 2.0 is 10 years, so you would most likely need to replace it more than once over the life of the shingles).
So put all that together, and here's how Tesla would need to price its tiles to meet Musk's claims.
Tuscan Tile (Tesla's equivalant of clay tile) would need to cost less than $69,500, installed (or about $2,300 per 100 square feet), to beat its traditional counterpart;
Smooth and Textured Tile (Tesla's equivalent to asphalt tile) would need to cost less than $73,500, installed (or about $2,450 per 100 square feet);
Slate Tile would need to cost less than $98,500 (or about $3,300 per 100 square feet).
Bottom line: For sure, $70,000 to $100,000 is a lot to spend on a roof. If Tesla's roofing tiles end up priced that high, it will be because consumers will essentially be paying for long-term electricity costs up front, according to Musk's formula. And even if Solar Roof products cost less than our estimates, it will most certainly be initially aimed at the luxury home market.
Natural slate may be the easiest alternative for Tesla to beat from a pricing perspective, since its expense is largely due to the fact that the material is very heavy and hard to work with. If the Tesla slate is lightweight and easy to install, it could be a cost-effective option.
But that's a big if. "Roofers aren't electricians and vice versa, so I'm most interested in seeing how the costs of labor affect the end price to consumers," says Vikram Aggarwal, CEO of EnergySage, an online marketplace of solar installers.
No word from Tesla on whether it will back its Solar Roof like some installers do slate—with a 100-year warranty. Or stick with a more typical 25-year warranty.
Musk ended his announcement at Universal Studios in Los Angeles by asking: "So, why would you buy anything else?" The question was rhetorical, obviously, but the answer will have a lot to do with price.
Amendment 1 was shot down. Thank you to all of you who saw that the state constitution was no place for this type of market based issue.