[villagetinker]

I am posting the link to the new amendment 1 (solar energy) that was recently approved for the November ballot. NO political discussion, just background info on the actual bill.

This is the link to the bill: (hope it works)

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Righ...ndment_1_(2016)

Enjoy the legal double speak.

[rjm1cc]

Link not working.
If this is for an amendment to the constitution read it carefully and understand what it says.

It will let you lease equipment from a third party but you will not be able to sell electricity back to others. No state or local incentives for solar power. Not sure what this means if you are using the grid and power company for electric when the sun is down.

I think, except for leasing equipment, this is basically what happens now when you put in solar power.

[jimbo2012]

Florida needs to get in step like several other states that support solar,

at least the 30% Federal is place.

[dotti105]

This is the ammendment backed by Duke Energy, Florida Power and Light. It is basically a simple rewording of the existing law.

This ammendment move was accomplished by highly paid professionals whose sole job was to obtain the number of signatures to get this on the ballot.

The grass roots movement "Citizens for Solar Choice" did not receive enough signatures to get on the ballot. They had no paid petition pushers like those paid for by the Big Electric Companies.

"Citizens for Smart Solar" did achieve what the Big Power companies wanted. The grass roots effort was unsuccessful and whether this issue wins or loses on the ballot, there will be no changes in the Florida Law. That is the sole purpose of this action.

"Citizens for Solar Choice" wanted to allow citizens to purchase or lease solar equipment from 3rd party sellers (not just the power companies), and to have net metering applied uniformly throughout the state, with the customer getting paid for extra power generated into the grid. They also wanted the tax benefits that 46 other states have in place for those who choose solar.

Florida is one of only 4 states which have not already approved the above issues. The Grass roots effort, "Citizens for Solar Choice" was petitioning for just these items, but the Big Power Companies got worried and brought in the Big Guns, formed the "Citizens for Smart Solar" in order to confuse the issues. They drew up the petitions and hired consultants who do just that, confuse the issues for the citizens and are paid to gather signatures.

Big business won again. With Florida being the "Sunshine State" it is crazy that New Jersey, for example, has a vast amount of solar in use in homes, as we don't.

We worry so much about the Middle East having us over a barrel (an oil barrel), when we could do so much to become energy independent. It is too bad that dirty tricks, and deep pockets won out on this issue.

If you don't follow what I am saying, research the two groups yourself. It has been a very deceptive move on the part of the Electric Companies.

[jimbo2012]

So why is it called the Sunshine state.

Or maybe the Anti Sunshine state fits better







.

[tuccillo]

You mentioned oil and the Middle East having us over a barrel. Please keep in mind that the largest percentage of our oil use is from domestic production and we actually import more oil from Latin America and Canada than the Middle East. Pricing reflects that it is a global commodity, however. Also, most of our oil usage is for transportation (about 70%). The vast majority of our electricity (97%) comes from nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric, and wind. The amount of oil used for electricity production is in the noise range. When discussing energy, oil and electricity are pretty much orthogonal to each other. With regard to electricity, we are energy independent.

Originally Posted by dotti105

This is the ammendment backed by Duke Energy, Florida Power and Light. It is basically a simple rewording of the existing law.

This ammendment move was accomplished by highly paid professionals whose sole job was to obtain the number of signatures to get this on the ballot.

The grass roots movement "Citizens for Solar Choice" did not receive enough signatures to get on the ballot. They had no paid petition pushers like those paid for by the Big Electric Companies.

"Citizens for Smart Solar" did achieve what the Big Power companies wanted. The grass roots effort was unsuccessful and whether this issue wins or loses on the ballot, there will be no changes in the Florida Law. That is the sole purpose of this action.

"Citizens for Solar Choice" wanted to allow citizens to purchase or lease solar equipment from 3rd party sellers (not just the power companies), and to have net metering applied uniformly throughout the state, with the customer getting paid for extra power generated into the grid. They also wanted the tax benefits that 46 other states have in place for those who choose solar.

Florida is one of only 4 states which have not already approved the above issues. The Grass roots effort, "Citizens for Solar Choice" was petitioning for just these items, but the Big Power Companies got worried and brought in the Big Guns, formed the "Citizens for Smart Solar" in order to confuse the issues. They drew up the petitions and hired consultants who do just that, confuse the issues for the citizens and are paid to gather signatures.

Big business won again. With Florida being the "Sunshine State" it is crazy that New Jersey, for example, has a vast amount of solar in use in homes, as we don't.

We worry so much about the Middle East having us over a barrel (an oil barrel), when we could do so much to become energy independent. It is too bad that dirty tricks, and deep pockets won out on this issue.

If you don't follow what I am saying, research the two groups yourself. It has been a very deceptive move on the part of the Electric Companies.

[rubicon]

I am in favor and I really like the idea of the efforts underway for improving the efficacy of renewals. However the green movement is not forthcoming about the economic and environmental effects and the government is picking winners and losers.

The short reason Florida had a ruckus about solar had to do with the fact that solar users were selling back excess power which in effect meant that those not using solar were footing the bill ( subsizing it) and add to this the enormous tax credits granted for pursing solar and subsidized by taxpayers.

Do you recall the $7500 tax credit for buying an emerge electric cart? It required the owner register the vehicle as street legal and purchase insurance. Owners did not do the math Do you recall them pleading with O'Toole to pass legislation so that emerge owners could get out from underneath their miscalculations. So we have people who would have purchased a cart anyway but now with a $7500 tax credit. I am not blaming these residents I am blaming the government.

Wind turbines are having a devastating effect on birds of prey, bats etc
the large solar project in California is literally frying birds in mid air.

And if taxpayers really knew what it is costing them for electric cars they would revolt.

You can achieve the same environmental effect with a car that runs on natural gas but do you see any tax credits being applied?

All I am really saying is welfare is welfare be it individuals or corporations
and in the case of renewals its all going down a rabbit hole because no one
is being held accountable for the lack of effective outcomes (aka as political manipulation and manifest incompetence by our government

I better be careful because as a climate change denier I am aware that the DOJ is actually looking in to have me arrested under the RICO act for my skepticism

[jimbo2012]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The short reason Florida had a ruckus about solar had to do with the fact that solar users were selling back excess power which in effect meant that those not using solar were footing the bill ( subsizing it) and add to this the enormous tax credits granted for pursing solar and subsidized by taxpayers.

Just so folks understand this is "Net metering"

Maybe because I didn't have my coffee yet, I'm not following that.

care to elaborate?

I read "reduced strain on the utility grid. They also point out that, as a cornerstone policy enabling the growth of rooftop solar, net metering creates a host of societal benefits for all ratepayers that are generally not accounted for by the utility analysis, including: public health benefits, employment and downstream economic effects, market price impacts, grid security benefits, and water savings"
Net Metering Benefits

Since we're on the subject reduction of our "carbon foot print"

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by dotti105

This is the ammendment backed by Duke Energy, Florida Power and Light. It is basically a simple rewording of the existing law.

This ammendment move was accomplished by highly paid professionals whose sole job was to obtain the number of signatures to get this on the ballot.

The grass roots movement "Citizens for Solar Choice" did not receive enough signatures to get on the ballot. They had no paid petition pushers like those paid for by the Big Electric Companies.

"Citizens for Smart Solar" did achieve what the Big Power companies wanted. The grass roots effort was unsuccessful and whether this issue wins or loses on the ballot, there will be no changes in the Florida Law. That is the sole purpose of this action.

"Citizens for Solar Choice" wanted to allow citizens to purchase or lease solar equipment from 3rd party sellers (not just the power companies), and to have net metering applied uniformly throughout the state, with the customer getting paid for extra power generated into the grid. They also wanted the tax benefits that 46 other states have in place for those who choose solar.

Florida is one of only 4 states which have not already approved the above issues. The Grass roots effort, "Citizens for Solar Choice" was petitioning for just these items, but the Big Power Companies got worried and brought in the Big Guns, formed the "Citizens for Smart Solar" in order to confuse the issues. They drew up the petitions and hired consultants who do just that, confuse the issues for the citizens and are paid to gather signatures.

Big business won again. With Florida being the "Sunshine State" it is crazy that New Jersey, for example, has a vast amount of solar in use in homes, as we don't.

We worry so much about the Middle East having us over a barrel (an oil barrel), when we could do so much to become energy independent. It is too bad that dirty tricks, and deep pockets won out on this issue.

If you don't follow what I am saying, research the two groups yourself. It has been a very deceptive move on the part of the Electric Companies.

The proposed ammendment will be confusing to voters and clearly has the interests of big utility companies at heart. Here is a link to a description of the issue: Florida Supreme Court appears divided over utility-backed solar amendment | Miami Herald

[tuccillo]

All good points. Another issue is that solar users are still dependent on municipal power but may not be paying for it. It is possible with net metering to use net zero power (and pay nothing to the municipal power company) but when the sun sets or there is extensive cloud cover you are 100% dependent on municipal power. It costs money to build and maintain power plants and the distribution networks.

Originally Posted by rubicon

I am in favor and I really like the idea of the efforts underway for improving the efficacy of renewals. However the green movement is not forthcoming about the economic and environmental effects and the government is picking winners and losers.

The short reason Florida had a ruckus about solar had to do with the fact that solar users were selling back excess power which in effect meant that those not using solar were footing the bill ( subsizing it) and add to this the enormous tax credits granted for pursing solar and subsidized by taxpayers.

Do you recall the $7500 tax credit for buying an emerge electric cart? It required the owner register the vehicle as street legal and purchase insurance. Owners did not do the math Do you recall them pleading with O'Toole to pass legislation so that emerge owners could get out from underneath their miscalculations. So we have people who would have purchased a cart anyway but now with a $7500 tax credit. I am not blaming these residents I am blaming the government.

Wind turbines are having a devastating effect on birds of prey, bats etc
the large solar project in California is literally frying birds in mid air.

And if taxpayers really knew what it is costing them for electric cars they would revolt.

You can achieve the same environmental effect with a car that runs on natural gas but do you see any tax credits being applied?

All I am really saying is welfare is welfare be it individuals or corporations
and in the case of renewals its all going down a rabbit hole because no one
is being held accountable for the lack of effective outcomes (aka as political manipulation and manifest incompetence by our government

I better be careful because as a climate change denier I am aware that the DOJ is actually looking in to have me arrested under the RICO act for my skepticism

[photo1902]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

All good points. Another issue is that solar users are still dependent on municipal power but may not be paying for it. It is possible with net metering to use net zero power (and pay nothing to the municipal power company) but when the sun sets or there is extensive cloud cover you are 100% dependent on municipal power. It costs money to build and maintain power plants and the distribution networks.

True, but solar users are not putting any strain on the grid during the day.

[tuccillo]

If truth be told, the real issue is that power plants need to be built to handle peak demand. For residential users, the peak is in the mornings and evenings. These are times when solar panels are generating less energy or no energy. For example, your peak AC usage in the summer is offset from the peak sunlight by many hours. Houses don't respond instantaneously to solar radiation. In other words, your peak AC usage is not at noon but much later in the day. I used to monitor this in my last house and peak AC usage was around 6PM. Most of your power usage in the summer is AC.

Originally Posted by photo1902

True, but solar users are not putting any strain on the grid during the day.

[jimbo2012]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

All good points. Another issue is that solar users are still dependent on municipal power but may not be paying for it. It is possible with net metering to use net zero power (and pay nothing to the municipal power company) but when the sun sets or there is extensive cloud cover you are 100% dependent on municipal power. It costs money to build and maintain power plants and the distribution networks.

Well there are two types of solar systems, grid tie

meaning when there's no sun at nite it switches over.

then there's off grid, never using the power company.
The negative of these systems is they require a battery bank which are pricey.
these folks are also looking to Lithium batteries having big advantages there is they charge very quick, last 15-20 years.

I'm building a house in Ga now, going with a grid tie with a 4K system, Ga is buying back my unused. They also bend over backwards to help as in promoting it.

I also have a 600 watt system on my motorhome, I was off grid for 3 months in '14 out west it ran the entire coach except A/C, but didn't need it where we were.


.last point "there is extensive cloud cover you are 100% dependent on municipal power", not correct from everything I've experienced with solar there is almost always gain, perhaps less but more than you would expect.



.

[tuccillo]

I am well aware of that but the vast majority of residential systems do not have battery storage systems. Staying with the original point, the vast majority of residential solar users are 100% dependent on municipal power. The main reason why someone would go off grid with a battery storage system is that the cost of running municipal power to their remote location was very high and they would have to pay it. Tesla will be more than happy to sell you 6.4 kWh of lithium-ion batteries for $3000 - LOL.

While lithium-ion batteries have numerous advantages over lead-acid batteries, the real advantage of lithium-ion with regard to the speed of charging is if you have a large power source that you can apply. Think of the 120kW Tesla superchargers. For solar applications, the power output is much lower and this isn't really an issue. Regardless, lead-acid batteries only advantage is cost.

Extensive cloud cover will reduce panel output but 75-90%. I used to model solar radiation output reaching the ground for surface energy budgets. Yes, you will still get some small amount of energy but how many typical users will not need municipal power with 75-90% reduction? Certainly they will if the water heater or clothes drier or AC is running. When an AC starts up, it draws considerably more power than when it is running steady-state.

Originally Posted by jimbo2012

Well there are two types of solar systems, grid tie

meaning when there's no sun at nite it switches over.

then there's off grid, never using the power company.
The negative of these systems is they require a battery bank which are pricey.
these folks are also looking to Lithium batteries having big advantages there is they charge very quick, last 15-20 years.

I'm building a house in Ga now, going with a grid tie with a 4K system, Ga is buying back my unused. They also bend over backwards to help as in promoting it.

I also have a 600 watt system on my motorhome, I was off grid for 3 months in '14 out west it ran the entire coach except A/C, but didn't need it where we were.


.last point "there is extensive cloud cover you are 100% dependent on municipal power", not correct from everything I've experienced with solar there is almost always gain, perhaps less but more than you would expect.



.

[jimbo2012]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Extensive cloud cover will reduce panel output but 75-90%. I used to model solar radiation output reaching the ground for surface energy budgets. Yes, you will still get some small amount of energy but how many typical users will not need municipal power with 75-90% reduction?

this again is where we disagree, I recall you telling us you're a scientist.

You are referring to testing......that great but not real time in the fields use.

That's not to say test results are incorrect, but real time in the field is far superior to use as examples.

for example

It’s possible to exceed your solar system’s power rating and produce more power that you could on a sunny day. Known as the “edge of cloud” effect, this happens when the sun passes over the outer edge of a cloud, magnifying the sunlight. The intense light causes your solar system to boost power output temporarily, which can help balance out losses from full cloud cover.



.