Vista Resident wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:09 AM:Thank you, California Public Utilities Commission. I'll be very interested to hear the results of this cost comparison -- especially the cost comparison to solar rooftop.

burt wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:33 AM:A number of the Powerlink power transport proponents advised the Local Solar proponents to “do the math”, implying that if they did some simple math it would be clear how untenable their position is to use Local Solar energy instead of piping it in from the desert. So here’s some back of the envelope numbers from my experience with my installation. My system cost about $15,000 for 12 BPSX170 PV panels, a MPPT charger/inverter, fixed roof mounts, batteries (since I’m off the grid), breaker panels and boxes, etc. The panels are fixed, except that I can adjust the tilt on the equinoxes to compensate for the seasonal sun altitude angle (I opted to install another panel or two rather than take on the additional expense and complexity to gain the 10-15% efficiency of solar azimuth tracking devices). I installed the system myself. Over the last two years of taking data, I average about 8-10KWHr per day. So that’s about $15000/10KWHr, or about $1500/KWHr. Powerlink is projected (think of Sprinter cost overruns) to cost $1.5B. So if we were spend that much to simply replicate my little system, we could produce in the ball park of $1,500,000,000/$1500/KWHr, or about 1000 MWHr per day. So even if I use the mid point of my average power production, Local Solar could produce power within the same order of magnitude as the 900 MW plan for Powerlink! You could argue that my assumptions might be low on expense or high on power production, but remember, the $1.5B is not for the power, it’s just for the power transmission line! For Powerlink, there still has to be additional millions spent on the actual power plant, plus significant recurring operating expenses. Also remember some other basics about sustainable Solar power: 1. It’s not just PV; even simple collectors can produce significant amounts of hot water that can either be used directly or as preheat for standard water heaters; solar pool heaters are a proven technology (just put your garden hose out in the sun tomorrow for a few hours and feel (carefully!) what comes out when you turn it on). 2. It doesn’t just go on residential roofs, think of all the giant flat areas above office, manufacturing and parking structures (where it reduces the need for air conditioning. 3. Local Solar includes anything that generates power from wind or waves, both of which we have. 4. Yes, petroleum is used in the production of PV, but its return is spread over 20+ years, somewhat longer than gas lasts in my car. 5. Economy of scale would reduce the manufacturing expense of solar PV, provide competition to improve the efficiency and appearance, and generate significant contractor and service business opportunity. 6. We don’t have to shut off existing power generation stations. 7. Solar on my roof looks much nicer and feels safer than a nuke plant down the street. 8. We don’t have to go to war to get the Sun to shine here, and the Sun isn’t due to run out for an acceptable few million years. 9. Powerlink proponents keep saying solar panels have an excessive homeowner initial investment and long rate of return (SDG&E policy is not without blame in this department). Why assume home owners would have to pay for the solar panels directly? Why not fund sustainable Local Solar from the same place the Powerlink money is coming? The best news of all for a sustainable Local Solar approach is that it starts solving a problem now that the human race is going to have to solve sometime, and that is learning how to live when oil gets too expensive to burn.

One for the people wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:38 AM:What a surprise. The huge corporate giant hasn't gotten its way with the people. Recently, we have had several huge decisions that did not follow the usual party lines. We had the Coastal Commission's rulings on the tollroad which would go through our O"Neil State Park as well as disturb habitats. Now we have a DELAY where SEMPRA will be forced to expand its Draft EIR and connsider all of the possible alternatives as well as their financial impacts. I wonder if anyone will mention that Southern California Edison (another arm of SEMPRA) is already providing solar for rooftops ? This is a victory for the people. One thing to remember though, is that comments have to be resubmitted for this expanded DEIR, as if they had never been presented, so we have to be aware of that, or facts could be accidentally be omitted.

Burt reformatted wrote on Jun 21, 2008 4:01 PM:A number of the Powerlink power transport proponents advised the Local Solar proponents to “do the math”, implying that if they did some simple math it would be clear how untenable their position is to use Local Solar energy instead of piping it in from the desert.

So here’s some back of the envelope numbers from my experience with my installation. My system cost about $15,000 for 12 BPSX170 PV panels, a MPPT charger/inverter, fixed roof mounts, batteries (since I’m off the grid), breaker panels and boxes, etc. The panels are fixed, except that I can adjust the tilt on the equinoxes to compensate for the seasonal sun altitude angle (I opted to install another panel or two rather than take on the additional expense and complexity to gain the 10-15% efficiency of solar azimuth tracking devices). I installed the system myself. Over the last two years of taking data, I average about 8-10KWHr per day. So that’s about $15000/10KWHr, or about $1500/KWHr.

Powerlink is projected (think of Sprinter cost overruns) to cost $1.5B. So if we were spend that much to simply replicate my little system, we could produce in the ball park of $1,500,000,000/$1500/KWHr, or about 1000 MWHr per day. So even if I use the mid point of my average power production, Local Solar could produce power within the same order of magnitude as the 900 MW plan for Powerlink!

You could argue that my assumptions might be low on expense or high on power production, but remember, the $1.5B is not for the power, it’s just for the power transmission line!

For Powerlink, there still has to be additional millions spent on the actual power plant, plus significant recurring operating expenses. Also remember some other basics about sustainable Solar power:

1. It’s not just PV; even simple collectors can produce significant amounts of hot water that can either be used directly or as preheat for standard water heaters; solar pool heaters are a proven technology (just put your garden hose out in the sun tomorrow for a few hours and feel (carefully!) what comes out when you turn it on).

2. It doesn’t just go on residential roofs, think of all the giant flat areas above office, manufacturing and parking structures (where it reduces the need for air conditioning.

3. Local Solar includes anything that generates power from wind or waves, both of which we have.

4. Yes, petroleum is used in the production of PV, but its return is spread over 20+ years, somewhat longer than gas lasts in my car.

5. Economy of scale would reduce the manufacturing expense of solar PV, provide competition to improve the efficiency and appearance, and generate significant contractor and service business opportunity.

6. We don’t have to shut off existing power generation stations.

7. Solar on my roof looks much nicer and feels safer than a nuke plant down the street.

8. We don’t have to go to war to get the Sun to shine here, and the Sun isn’t due to run out for an acceptable few million years.

9. Powerlink proponents keep saying solar panels have an excessive homeowner initial investment and long rate of return (SDG&E policy is not without blame in this department). Why assume home owners would have to pay for the solar panels directly? Why not fund sustainable Local Solar from the same place the Powerlink money is coming?

The best news of all for a sustainable Local Solar approach is that it starts solving a problem now that the human race is going to have to solve sometime, and that is learning how to live when oil gets too expensive to burn.

Why not follow So.Cal. Edison wrote on Jun 21, 2008 6:34 PM:Why is North County being subjected to the Sunrise Powerlink when it is OBVIOUS that solar would be better. SEMPRA's Southern Calif. Edison is on the ball with this, but instead, the SDG & E team just wants us to burn more fossil fuels and never get anywhere near the 20 % target for renewables. The sun is here. It is always here. Thank you to Bert for the explanation. Everyone in the know is aware that solar is better, so why not go after the large consumers of power, like manufacturing, and help them install solar.

correct the record wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:35 PM:I oppose the Sunrise Powerlink just like the other commenters, but I want to correct a misstatement, made twice: Southern California Edison is not a subsidiary of Sempra. So Cal Gas is a subsidiary of Sempra, but Edison is not.

Vista Resident wrote on Jun 22, 2008 8:00 PM:Burt, would you please submit your comment as an editorial to the NC Times?

Really Off the Grid with Solar wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:38 PM:If customers can install solar WITH battery backup and truly stay "off the grid" (like Burt claims he has done) then that is a viable long-run alternative to SDG&E adding more capacity. When a customer is "off the grid" it implies the utility has no need to serve or plan for the customer's usage or potential load growth. And the utility doesn't even need to install or maintain wires to the customer’s house.

Burt...Is this really your situation? IF you are actually “off the grid”, I really applaud you since you would have to be one of the very few people that have put their money where your mouth is. Can you please confirm that you are "off the grid"?

burt wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:29 PM:While in fact my second home IS off the grid and fully powered by Local Solar as described, that information was provided not to show we don't need SDG&E or that Solar is a 100% answer right now, but just to accurately describe what I built, and the system that I used for the math. To answer your question, my system has run continuously for two years, with a Kenmore refrigerator for the last year. My system does use batteries, but what I am proposing above is to use the existing power grid to distribute and store Local Solar generated power, instead of building an expensive system to transport solar energy from the desert to here. The expense of batteries in my off-the-grid system would be substituted for the power-tie components and licensed electrician required for safe and legal connection to the grid.