hwy17
Anti-Solar Enthusiast
Shadows would give it away, but if you filled in all the space between the panels so they cast a full block shadow it would be harder to tell apart from a fence.
California proposes “blatant seizure of property” in solar ruling
- Thread starter Will Prowse
- Start date
iamrich
Solar Addict
So, if your system is off grid, how would you tie it back to the grid? Especially for non-UL equipment.
iamrich
Solar Addict
https://archinect.com/news/article/149993737/mit-startup-creates-camouflage-solar-panels
Now this makes sense...
hwy17
Anti-Solar Enthusiast
The justification for preventing people going off grid is simple.
1. The public has a vested interest in private homes not being without power except for in an outage for health and safety reasons. You can't have a home without power and water or it gets condemned.
2. The public has a vested interest in not having generators running in residential neighborhoods except for in an outage. It's an unnecessary air quality hazard when there is grid power available.
3. 99.9% of off grid systems will run out at some point in winter. At which point they would then run afoul of either of the above.
I would be sympathetic to objections to point 1. Except that even if you do say people have a right to be without power if they choose to, a lot of them are end up trying to break rule #2.
1. The public has a vested interest in private homes not being without power except for in an outage for health and safety reasons. You can't have a home without power and water or it gets condemned.
2. The public has a vested interest in not having generators running in residential neighborhoods except for in an outage. It's an unnecessary air quality hazard when there is grid power available.
3. 99.9% of off grid systems will run out at some point in winter. At which point they would then run afoul of either of the above.
I would be sympathetic to objections to point 1. Except that even if you do say people have a right to be without power if they choose to, a lot of them are end up trying to break rule #2.
Should be a simple solution. Run as grid-input but not "grid tied" so if the sun hides too long and the batteries run low, you pull from the grid and never run out of power, but you can't get your stuff ("legally") stolen.
But I know, that goes against the entire plan of the govt who wants to force people to be dependent. They realized that this hard push for solar on their side started actually encouraging people to be more independent, which is the last thing they want, so boom they'll change the rules and steal it all again.
Seriously the current regimes are as anti-freedom, anti-American as ever.
The day they make it illegal for churches to use loud speakers in place of real bells which they are using to play music all the time I will care about #2. I'd rather listen to a generator running than that crap. I'm not anti religion but I am anti force to put up with others beliefs. I don't force mine on them
(pet peeve for me since I have a church not far from me doing this)#1 which isn't nice or sanitary is still government overreach.
handinpalm
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2021
- Messages
- 21
Don't move to FL, it is already severely overpopulated.
Hahaha. I know what you mean!!
hwy17
Anti-Solar Enthusiast
I'm basically with you on that one. It's just got some kinks to work out. I don't think most code should be enforceable on private non-rental non-commercial/employment properties, but if it is justified it should only be on the basis of preventing fire spread to neighboring properties.
Osmethne
Solar Enthusiast
FYI, Florida is also extremely hostile to solar power.
hwy17
Anti-Solar Enthusiast
That's my plan. But people then conclude that if you barely use the utility, you should barely pay for it. It's very expensive for the utility to maintain standby power and capacity for your shortages, like $50-100/month year round, even if you only use it a few times a year.
robby
Photon Vampire
- Joined
- May 1, 2021
- Messages
- 4,173
I know that in Apartment buildings and shopping centers or just about any building where you have a Single roof being shared by multiple Individuals, the roof is Common Property and can only be used for items that are already in an agreed contract. Items Like AC units can go on the roof but anything outside of that requires special permission which is pretty much impossible to get.
Last edited:
Wish we could disconnect from California too
But that's a lie. One that the power companies made up when solar became popular. All power companies that I know of have a minimum power bill. You pay that for the privilege of staying connected. If that fee is good enough for pre solar days and is still good enough now if you don't have solar at all then its good enough for if you do have solar and rarely use any grid power.
That's the problem with these morons who are suing the government and utilities is they want to push solar issues. Push common sense issues.
Now when people start demanding the power company has to buy their excess power they should have to pay a BIG fee per month to cover when they are not using the grid or whatever. Because the utilities can claim they have to do something "special" to handle getting power from the customer back into their stuff.
But people just doing a hybrid setup or needing it to charge their batteries if its cloudy to long are perfectly entitled to do that since they are paying that "membership fee" the power companies require as a minimum power bill even if you don't use any power. This covers ANY excuse the power company EVER comes up with saying something special needs to be charged for solar.
Thus the lie.
n2aws
Solar Addict
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2022
- Messages
- 685
Slight correction.
"Florida" isn't overly hostile to solar. the energy companies are.
Take for example the ballot FPL and Duke sponsored to make "rooftop solar legal", when it was already legal. Disguising the fact that the entire bill was actually detrimental to solar. Then, when you went to the polling station (where they only give you a highlight) it sounded like it was very pro solar. They were depending on people who did no research to read the "cliffnote" version on the ballot, and vote yes.
Florida’s outrageously deceptive solar ballot initiative, explained
Amendment 1 is a utility scam.
www.vox.com
NH visited net metering in 2017 and implemented net billing with full 1:1 on the energy cost and a fraction of the delivery cost for any surplus at the end of the month. All the utilities proposed outrageous plans that would have made solar break even bad. NHPUC set the new plan in place for 5 years while the utilities gathered data to support an alternative plan. 2023 the utilities reported to the NHPUC that they see no reason to change the plan. It's still up to NHPUC, but without the utilities lobbying for a change, I don't see why they would. Regardless, I'm grandfathered in until 2040. For clarity NH utilities do not generate their own electricity and are not allowed to profit off it. They go out for bids twice a year and charge customers the same price per KWH without a mark up. We are allowed to buy electricity from 3rd parties, but one needs to read the fine print if you are on net metering or billing.
Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,948
California has allowed continuous properties with separate electric service all for the same named customer to spread net metering across them. That was under NEM 1.0 & 2.0, not sure if it works the same under non-net 3.0
There is also community solar "garden", an alternative to putting the panels on your own roof. Again not sure how under 3.0
When I lived in a mobile home park, power was sub-metered to individual spaces. So when I waited for the winter change in allocation before turning up the heat, and got billed as if I drew power uniformly all month, I objected and they adjusted it.
An apartment or condo complex perhaps could sub-meter. Then they'd have the hassle and risk of deadbeats. But it should allow the entire place to share power, only dealing with PG&E as one or more feeds across the property line.
I think cities could consider doing the same thing. Of course, they would then own and have to maintain distribution within the city.
There is also community solar "garden", an alternative to putting the panels on your own roof. Again not sure how under 3.0
When I lived in a mobile home park, power was sub-metered to individual spaces. So when I waited for the winter change in allocation before turning up the heat, and got billed as if I drew power uniformly all month, I objected and they adjusted it.
An apartment or condo complex perhaps could sub-meter. Then they'd have the hassle and risk of deadbeats. But it should allow the entire place to share power, only dealing with PG&E as one or more feeds across the property line.
I think cities could consider doing the same thing. Of course, they would then own and have to maintain distribution within the city.
The monthly fee, and power rate you pay are based on a pricing model that assumes on average the amount payed for electricity will cover the costs of providing electricity year round. When there's enough shift in the consumption, say from solar self-consumption, the pricing model has to change, to continue to cover the costs of providing electrical service year round.
