BW wrote on Jul 11, 2008 8:45 PM:"San Diego Gas & Electric plans to spend up to $250 million".

"If all solar panel installation sites are approved, SDG&E said the average utility bill would increase by 28 cents a month".

So, is SDG&E spending THEIR money, or are all of us paying for this??! Sounds like we are getting hosed by SDG&E again......

Vista Watchdog wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:55 PM:Let's see, The solar panels go in at thw Westfield malls where it is used. The mall gets a lowered energy bill either by Net Metering from SDG&E (solar power is used by mall and mall is not charged for solar, only for the power they use off the grid. If excess is produced they are effectively credited, as they are only charged for their net usage), or if these manels and all the energy produced belong to SDG&E, then the amll gets to lease the land upon which these panels are located to SDG&E for a net reduction in power costs to the mall. However, we the average Joe homeowner gets to pay an extra $0.28 a month. Yep, big utility is scratching the backs of big property and retailer at the expense of the homeowner.

So, where is the program to place these panesl on my roof? Yes, I know there is a program, but the last time I checked the ROI (payback period) took about 15 years! Not a good investment by any standards, when I have to pay out $30,000 for a system that will provide enough power to bring my bill to something near $0 annually.

Come on SDG&E, homeowners have been taking it in the shorts lately and really could use something like solar power on their homes to boost the value while lowering their annual electric bills. Give us some of our hard earned money back for once! That purchase of oil futures in the 1970's of $60/barrel for 30 years is still stuck in our craws and you haven't done much to improve upon your record of being one of the highest priced utilities in the nation.

B wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:21 AM:Alright, let's get this ball rolling!

I'm not sure if the "increase by 28 cents a month" is a typo, but I imagine that's the cost of installing the new solar panels. Very important questions remain, such as the length of time the bill increase will remain in effect and whether the "average utility bill" will ever see a reduction as a result of new energy innovations. I'd rather pay an extra 28 cents a month for sustainable energy than oil, and I hope we see a lot more solar panels and wind farms go up in the near future.

Speaking of that, all you engineers out there, what's the feasability of erecting miniature windmills in gusty areas to provide a bit of extra juice? A friend told me it wouldn't be worth the effort, but I'm not so sure...

Oh, one more thought; where can I buy a pedal-driven washing machine? I saw one on a non-fiction TV show a while back, but I wasn't quick enough to get all the details.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 12, 2008 5:33 AM:In a web comment posted to a different article yesterday morning, someone asked me if I thought SDG&E would be distributing solar systems any time soon.
My response was that I thought they should, but I did not expect them to do the "right thing."
I was wrong.
Not only am I willing to admit it, I am thrilled to be wrong and see this kind of project coming.
As for the cost, while 28 cents a month is really not a big deal for local, on-site, reliable, fire-safe energy expansion, I am not surprised that SDG&E will try to gouge consumers. I think this should be financed out of the PowerStink funds, with that boondoggle being completely canceled.
In any case, dealing with financing and funding as a separate move, I applaud this innovative step.
THIS is the kind of project we should be seeing more of!

Ezgridsolar wrote on Jul 12, 2008 5:52 AM:This is a giant step in the right direction. Renewable energy is here to stay. It would be nice if they allowed homeowners with solar systems to get credit for any unused power to "back feed" the grid. Also, more incentives for the public to install solar in their home need to be made available.

areader wrote on Jul 12, 2008 8:10 AM:Of course SDG&E is scratching the backs of big business at the expense of the homeowners to reach their renewable energy mandate. Would anyone expect anything less from SDG&E? Why should homeowners bare the brunt of the costs for Big Business? Oh yeah, it's because we don't have a voice all of this and Big Business runs SDG&E just as it runs the country.
How about it SDG&E, why isn't Big Business paying for their own energy?

to B wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:36 AM:Big and small wind (turbine) generators are available. Kudos on pedal power! I hope to build a stationary pedal exercise bike on my RV (home) to supplement the solar. There are a couple of pedal generators available online for a few hundred bucks, but more prevailant are the plans and schematics to build your own (also online). I think all the gyms should make use of the stationary cycles to generate the electricity for thier facilities. Maybe schools could do this too, as a USEFUL student science project to cut energy costs, and address the child obesity problem at the same time!

Ron wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:36 AM:I tried to tell you before Wizzer.
These power companies do not care how they produce power, just that they can make a profit on it.
As a part of the natural mix of needed additional power, plus the mandate, let's not forget that, SDG&E has decided to use all available means to provide power to an energy poor region.
I am waiting, however, for the next shoe to drop, and some group, or some NIMBY will claim they are being harmed, and produce a lawsuit to stop this.

Kathleen wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:09 PM:From the sound of all this, it is S.D. G.& E. that is footing the bill for puchasing the panels and paying to install so in essence they are probably renting/leasing the space at these locations rather than buying expensive real estate just to erect the trackers. It makes good sense. Why buy the land when you can lease it. The land owner benefits from the receipt of rental income and we benefit from the production of "green" power. It would be no different than building a new power plant. I also agree with "Ezgridsolar". Anyine that puts out the money to install solar on their home or business should be paid for any excess that they might generate. It is wrong that the S.D.G.&E. charges us for what we use but does not pay for what we produce. If they have to provide so much power from "green" sources then what is wrong with paying the little guy for his/her production too? I have had solar for about 7 years now and I have produced more than what I use in a couple of those years. In one year that I would have produced more than I consumed S.D.G.& E. had a power surge that fed back into my system taking out my inverters and charge controllers. I lost two months of production and had to pay for the repairs myself. S.D.G.&E. admitted they had a power surge but refused to take responsibility for the damage. I was out for repairs and production. The BIG GUY walks on the little guy. I still like solar and believe that in the future every home should and will have solar on the roof tops.

Bart wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:37 PM:This project opens the doors to having solar power on everyone's roof, not just businesses. That is what the future holds. Deal with it. It's retarded to make power and then ship it all over the state when over 75% of what you need can be made on-site. In the future you will lease panels from the electric companies or buy them outright as prices fall or hopefully new technology comes along. The "grid" will just exist to sync everything and provide nighttime energy. In the meantime, we are continually cleaning up our coal fired plants (the US is the saudi arabia of coal--sorry to tell you we're not running out in over 200 years). Once the paranoid liberal hippie generation dies off we can get back to nuclear power on the grid and solar power on the home.

Power of Man wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:47 PM:This is very cool and may help you out "to b". If anything it makes for some very interesting reading.
...

Mr. Gradgrind wrote on Jul 12, 2008 3:04 PM:This is total feel-good boondoggle.

The reason SDG&E is going to make everyone pay extra $ on their power bill is because generating electricity from photo-voltaic cells never breaks even economically or environmentally.

Perhaps in another 10-20 years they will, but right now solar cells take more energy to manufacture than they ever-ever-ever generate. If it takes two barrels of oil to make a device that supplies one barrel of oil equivalent energy over its life, does that make any sense? The general public needs to know they are as environmentally sound, and as cost effective as driving around with an extra hole in your gasoline tank.

The only thing renewable here is the gullibility of utility customers.

Vista Resident wrote on Jul 12, 2008 4:43 PM:Whoa! Wow! Cool! Thanks SDG&E!

For all those who complain about the measly 28 cents for this extremely progressive step, please be aware that you probably would have ended up spending a lot more than that for the Powerlink plus solar production near the border. And, that investment would have been constantly at risk of fire -- or starting a fire.

Ripped Off Again wrote on Jul 13, 2008 7:20 AM:Vista Watchdog has it right. SDG&E, put one on my roof so I can lower my energy bill to zero.

Burt wrote on Jul 13, 2008 7:55 AM:Now we're talking (or maybe SDG&E is listening?) San Diego has Solar like other places have oil. We can harvest it right where its needed and use the existing infrastructure. Now if we can just get SDG&E policy to change to pay for excess energy produced, and tip the economic scales so that it makes sense for the home/business owner to participate in Local Solar, we're finally moving toward a sustainable clean energy future. I'm pretty sure that if SDG&E put their minds to it, they can still find a way to stay profitable with this approach, too.

Vista Watchdog wrote on Jul 13, 2008 9:49 AM:Solar can be done on every roof, but it does cost a lot of money. Payback, or return on investment, is usually around 15 years, even with the rebates from the state and SDG&E (plus teh $2k tax deduction). The total cost in energy to produce the PV cells is fairly high and yes it takes OIL to run the engines needed to mine the Galium, and other materials found in PV cells (no they are NOT just Silica Sand from your local beach). But, a well built solar generating system will eventually produce more energy than it took to manufacture, deliver, and install. But, that will take close to 50 years. Nuclear on the other hand typically has a payback of around 10 years, including the costs to produce ALL materials (both in terms of money and energy). For that reason many other countries aroudn the World, incuding Japan, France, Germany, and many others, have built more Nuclear Power stations than are currently operating in the US (not counting all the Nuclear power plants aboard US Navy Ship and Submarines - more tan enough to fully supply the US with ALL the electirical power we currently use). US Nuclear power plant technology is currently the most efficient and safe in the world! But, it is only being used aboard US Navy Ships and Submarines. Solar may sound nice, but Nuclear is still the way of the future. Lower Life Cycle cost per Kw and much more efficient. As much as I like the idea of solar, I hate to say that "Green" is killing us and the US faster than any other enemy we have seen to date. The US still has more natural resources and a greater level of ability than any other country on Earth. But, we are fast loosing our will to think for ourselves and continue to look toward big governement and big business to either solve our problems or pay for that solution.
Question: Who will be the next Ford, IBM, or Microsoft? Each has done great things for the people of America and the world. But, we are now facing a new challenge and it is time for the next generation to step up and risk all to solve the many problems we face. Americans still have what it takes, but it will take courage and confiction, and there will be plenty who will loose everything while trying to get there. Any takers? Any Real AMERICANS remaining in this world?

Solar is VERY Expensive wrote on Jul 13, 2008 9:52 AM:Solar is and will be ridiculously expensive until there is a technology breakthrough, and that is just the fact. If people are willing to invest their own money to “save the world”, that’s fine but please don’t make me pay for an uneconomic investment. I am an average-use customer, without A/C, and I tend use more energy when it is dark anyway.

Actually I and most residential customers won’t have to pay for this solar investment anyway. Due to CA legislation AB1X in 2000, electric rates for customers that use an average amount of energy per month CAN’T be increased. I use about 500 kWh per month and my SDG&E electric rates have not increased since early 2001 except to pay for the California Solar Initiative. CA Senate Bill 1 from last year makes me pay for that multi-$billion solar subsidy but that’s another example of legislated inefficiency.

Flatus wrote on Jul 13, 2008 10:50 AM:I can expect to get more electricity from a bucket of farts, than from anything SDG&E does.

RE wrote on Jul 13, 2008 12:15 PM:MR GRADGRIND

You're claim that solar panels produce a net negative energy equation is a myth. The generally accepted point at which a PV panel pays off its production energy is 2 years, which is 10 times the minimum lifespan for most models. It boggles my mind that people still make absurd claims like this on the internet where it is so immediately verfiable. BTW for anyone wondering about a similar and perhaps more popular rumor about fuel efficient cars that claims that the energy cost of manufacturing a new car outweighs the fuel efficiency increase, you may be interested to know that this is also false in general. Assuming that the fuel efficiency increase is not insignifcant then the use phase will almost always swamp the production phase. So if the company idiot where you work has been trying to convince you not to buy that Prius that you've been considering because it's actually "bad for the environment" just ignore his ignorant banter and buy your car or insall your solar panels. Bear in mind though that from a financial perspective solar panels and hybrid cars may not be the best choice. It is worth noting that the price of alternative energy would be beating the pants off of fossil fuels if the energy producers were made to pay for their emmissions. Can you say carbon tax? =)

Burt wrote on Jul 13, 2008 1:42 PM:Corrected math: The generally accepted point at which a PV panel pays off its production energy is 2 years, which is one tenth (1/10) times the minimum lifespan for most models.

Neighbor wrote on Jul 13, 2008 3:05 PM:SDG&E did not respond back in 2003 when asked to combine their new Escondido power plant with solar (clean) energy projects within the city. They obviously want the PowerLink and are putting on the PR and charm to get what they want at our expense once again. Ask the City of Escondido how much money it expends for SDG&E to operate and what they get in return.

prof wrote on Jul 13, 2008 5:34 PM:Hey, the folks in Escondido just love the air pollution their plant produces.

Nicely placed to the west so prevailing winds blow it right down into the valley, to help 140,000 people with their asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory conditions.

Solar energy, bah, a HUGE BOONDOGGLE!

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 13, 2008 9:22 PM:The posts from "RE" (12:15pm) and "Burt" (1:42pm) accurately dispel the urban myth about photovoltaic solar panels being inefficient. This is just another LIE perpetrated by those who are terrified of us consumers becoming energy independent and not depending on them to sell us centrally-produced energy at exorbitant prices.
The posts from "Solar is VERY Expensive" (9:52am) and "prof" (5:34pm) perpetutate the LIES and outdated cost/benefit figures, reflecting the extreme fear of those who are terrified of us no longer having to buy their centrally-produced electricity. Do not listen to those who either don't know what they are talking about, or do know and are lying. Listen to those of us who have actually installed solar, and know fully the cost/benefit ratios.
It is feasible NOW. You would not see so many hard-nosed business owners (including some very large scale operations such as Costco and Wal-Mart, converting to solar if it were not cost effective -- they are in business to make money; they are not a charity).
Stop the lies. Get the facts.

Jack wrote on Jul 26, 2008 5:38 PM:Four years ago when the great state was run by greyout Davis I purchased solar panels for $20,000 and change, I got the 50% rebate and I produce much more electricty than we use and the electricty company does not pay us for the overage.
My electric bill runs us about $55.00 per YEAR and that is just for taxes and being hooked up to the grid.