Bryan's Comments

If you're referring to r-t-55471, perhaps you could address his comments specifically. I see no problem with it. He wrote exactly what I was thinking as I read the article.

Ian,
The Connecticut Yankee plant was decommissioned and part of the site is awaiting redevelopment (http://www.connyankee.com/).

Paul,
I recall a recent article and subsequent comments that discussed it. This isn't it but it's a start:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52687

As I recall, the solar incentive was disproportional to the solar resource available in Germany.

It's Wyoming County, in upstate NY (think "Attica"). The article says the $305 million is the "local economic benefit". It probably represents taxes and PILOTs paid by the company, sales tax on employees' purchases and grants and contribution to local organizations. It doesn't represent revenue. As best I can figure, the local economic benefit represents about 1.5 cents per kWh generated.

Daniel Clemons' comment (#7) brings in two related issues that need to be considered viz. net metering: RECs and installation subsidies. Certainly, whether the utility subsidizes the PV installation has some influence on price paid to the homeowner or business by the utility. Whether a REC is generated and who benefits from it are also issues.

If the homeowner paid 100% of the cost of the PV installation, the homeowner should be compensated based on real-time prices for peak power, less any discount based on dispatchibility. The homeowner should also be entitled to RECs based on the displacement of electricity via fossil fuel based on their historical electrical use. If the utility subsidized the PV installation, then the utility should be compensated in some way for their investment. A lower net-metering rate is one way, or perhaps the rate could remain commensurate with real-time peak rates, but the utility captures the RECs for their own use or for sale.

I'm particularly interested in the REC because it's not clear to me that RECs come into consideration in such programs. Perhaps the administrative costs associated with RECs are too high for the amount that a homeowner would generate typically?

Why would Western Wind be entitled to $115/MWh?

The lower energy content of the gasohol mixture means I have to spend as least as much as I "save" to make up for the lost fuel efficiency.

"Call it green vanity, but I actually wanted the one that was immediately recognizable as a hybrid."

So you and Larry David could wave when you passed each other on the street? (Sorry; I couldn't resist.)

When the author speaks of tax incentives (and the desire to forgo them), is he including the avoidance of increased property taxes due to the capital improvement that the PV installation represents? In other words, would he have a problem if the value of a PV installation was added to the assessed value of a house, thereby increasing the property tax on it? This is one of the incentives currently available for homeowners who install PV on Long Island. Without it, I don't think anyone but the wealthiest would go for it.

Part 1:
I recently moved to TX to an HOA. When I first started looking, I was amazed at the lack of PV or thermal on the of roofs I passed while driving around. What a waste of a resource, I thought. I found out that the HOA convenants were the cause. I ended up buying in an HOA and knew that the convenants would prevent me from installing solar. I elected to buy anyway, choosing a house with a backyard facing south with lots of open roof. It's my goal to work to get solar approved in my neighborhood, whether it takes a year or ten.

I asked the architectural committee what they thought of solar and was told that it was unlikely based on aesthetics. Obviously, I have a lot of work to do to change the attitudes but it's a challenge that I am looking forward to.

Part 2:
As to changing it by legislation, there was a bill in the TX legislature to eliminate some of the oversight of HOAs, but I suspect that they would still have their say based on location, color, etc. The bill wasn't passed last year. I'm thinking that federal legislation might be the answer because I look out one of my windows and see two of the ugliest satellite TV receivers sitting on the roof of a neighbor's house. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 made that possible. While I think federal law might be the answer, I hope there aren't any unintended consequences.

Ferriera used to have a link on their web site that showed their energy production and consumption in real time, including the PV output. For some reason, they took it down. It's a shame because it was great to see how everything worked.

George,
Thank you for two well-reasoned comments (CAFE is long term and high prices are helping to reduce consumption). Too many well-intentioned people lack the understanding of what it will take to slow and reverse our demand for fossil fuels.

Re: the NY project, this is the first I've read that a power purchase agreement has been signed by LIPA and FPL. I don't believe that to be true. The reason it hasn't been signed is because neither LIPA nor FPL have been upfront with ratepayers about the cost of the agreement. FPL was selected as the winning bid at $365 million; however, the price has gone up to $697 million, a figure which does not include interconnection and decommissioning costs to be borne by LIPA.  There is a great deal of "sticker shock" being felt by ratepayers, coupled with the memory of the Shoreham nuclear plant that was built but never ran. Long Islanders will be paying for Shoreham for a long time.

31 Tannery used to post its energy monitoring data on the web in real time. I found it a very informative tool. Unfortunately, it's no longer posted.  Can you tell me why? Will it be posted in the future?