https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/03/1-year-of-edent_solar-we-ar...
Over the whole year, we generate more electricity than we use.
The panels need no maintenance. I guess we could wash them - but the English rain does that just fine. The inverter and panels all have long guarantees so, while they might break, there's no significant cost installed.
What do you mean by this? Our solar panels produce enough electricity that we never* draw from the local grid. We have a 4,000 sq foot home with 8 people living it. At least a few people are home all the time. We have 2 AC units and 2 furnaces. We have an electric water heater.
* Well, we surely do at night, yet we generate so much more than we use that the credits from the overage feeding back into the grid more than compensates for whatever we use at night. Our monthly electric bill is never higher than the $12 hookup fee.
And is your solar on the roof? Do you get up their and clear it off after it snows so you can get power? And what happens when you need a new roof? Did you factor in that cost?
When you add in the required extra panels (to account for charging and drawing power at the same time, and for overcast days), batteries, inverters, regulators, permitting, installation, and many other things, you start to realize that renewable power is a lot more expensive than just the panels. And if you have a system on your property, its a lot more hassle than just paying a bill.
The advice given is to check that your roof isn't going to need repairs before you get them installed. But a roof usually lasts decades and decades so doesn't feel that is a big factor.
Our panels definitely don't feel like hassle! There were lots of decisions getting them installed (no permitting where we are for they size of system we have), but now they are up there, they just do their thing.
An honest comparison would only judge the externalities of solar in the light of the externalities of fossil fuels it is replacing, and not in isolation as you are doing.
While solar may use the grid as a giant battery, fossil fuels are using the atmosphere as a giant garbage dump. One of these is obviously much worse.
There are already places where locally generated energy is cheaper than utility-supplied energy, and this will only increase over time as the costs of solar and storage continue to decline.
Where I live in Western Australia the local utility is trying to get ahead of this trend by cutting the network and deploying stand-alone power systems to customers on the edge of the power grid.
It doesn’t work everywhere of course and requires some form of storage or offsetting by powering the grid during the day.
Are people obliged to eat at restaurants because it supports the local economy as opposed to buying from the grocery store and preparing their own meals at home?
But you’re going to pay either way. And you still benefit. That’s ok. If you can afford to have a fully self-sufficient power system you can probably afford the incidental costs associated with any other imposed utilities fees.
There is a reason why people pay taxes for things they think they don’t need/use. Tax dollars (not enough) go to schools regardless of if you have children who use the schools or not. That’s okay too. While the connection may not be 100% A to B on your returned value for the school you still exist in the society which stands to benefit from them and it still impacts you.
You are also still supporting your local economy (potentially to a lesser degree depending on where you buy the groceries) if you make food at home. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition here.
Edit: I take this back. It depends at least on where you live
Keep in mind, the top three states by population are California, Texas, and Florida. Heat pumps can meet the needs of housing in these climates, alongside rooftop solar. Produce where you consume when able.
How much battery storage do you have? What does that cost these days?
In the meantime, it behooves myself and others for battery storage to be installed in places where the grid is far dirtier (remote communities, islands) where storage avoids burning diesel or bunker fuel (versus cleaner but not zero carbon natural gas).
(your comment history looks like you’re pro nuclear/anti renewables, so while I hope my comment was informative, I’m not interested in arguing the merits of net metering, rooftop solar, or nuclear vs renewables).
It is probably a bit more clear to most people to just say that you produce more power than you use, rather than say you are fully self sufficient.
>...your comment history looks like you’re pro nuclear/anti renewables,
There is no need to misrepresent my comments.
It's quite possible for someone to produce enough energy for their regular use from rooftop solar, even if they drive an EV and don't have natural gas. If they're using an electric resistive furnace to heat a large, poorly-insulated house and have a small solar installation that's partially shaded by trees and they drive an EV long distances on a regular basis, then no, they probably aren't going to break even.
These types of statements are meaningless, not only because you assume the future of solar power but because they are completely subjective and variable. Since there are already people who live this way, we know for a fact it’s “enough”, for some people.
Regarding transmission loss I’m sure you’re correct that it’s not a sensible solution when you’re already on the grid.
There is more to power delivery than V=IR
Having a reasonably big water heater I heat water from electricity [1] during the day and get it hot enough in the evening and next morning without extra energy needs, so actually the time-limited daily production for hot water can be shifted enough to cover 24h, actually if I do not use that much or install something bigger even around two days.
Something similar is valid for some other energy needs, for instance cooking, washing cloves, dishes when the Sun shine means full self-consumption witch does not cover the total, but heavily reduce grid usage. In the summer, at least here, I run air con almost full-power without consumption from the grid, in the evening and night temperature drop far more than enough to not need extra energy. Being on mounting in absence of sunlight I do not normally needs air con also during the day.
The real issue is another: grid stability. While I can easily produce enough energy in most days of the year when a load start solar inverter react slowly, when a load drop there is an excess of energy for a little time. ALL kind of generators do like static or slowly changing loads and do NOT like spikes. That's the real issue. In a large enough, but not too large, grid loads tend to remain stable enough, changes are more like "background noise changes". On a microgrid things are far different. until we found a way to waste excess energy, for instance to heat water, with something that can be feed with any amount of power p.v. and eolic generate stability issues and alone can't work enough in a microgrid. Smart grid AND devices that are able to slowly load and unload would be of help, but we do not have many.
In infrastructure cost IMVHO if/when we can solve the stability/load issue costs are still lower because any issue is still local and can easily have local backups. Cutting the need of quick restore cut the costs enormously enough to compensate.
[1] yes, is LESS efficient than classic solar BUT I still need electricity for other things and since production is enough during the day it's a nonsense for my needs have two kind of plant just for hot water.
Transmission losses are not negligible. Power goes from generator through transmission lines through multiple substations before it reaches a customer. There's a lot of loss that just gets rolled into the retail price of that power.