Rent or Buy?

Good article/common question: How to decide whether to rent or buy a Solar-Power System

Great solar stats, and a caution

Enjoyed seeing this article discussing solar in Fortune... "There were more residential solar panels installed in the first quarter of this year than natural gas power plants... Solar actually accounted for 51 percent of all new electric generation capacity brought online in the quarter..."

Regarding that first quote, I hope they actually mean the electricity generated by new residential solar exceeded the production from new gas power plants.  It wouldn't be terribly exciting if there were simply more new panels than new plants...

But note the caution mentioned in the video... the 30% Federal Solar Tax CREDIT (not a deduction, but a full credit of 30% of the cost of a solar panel installation as a direct reduction in your total tax bill) will be cut to only 10% at the end of 2016, unless Congress acts.  (With this Congress, I won't hold my breath...).

Morally bankrupt

From the Idaho Statesman on 5/21/15:

...Lou Landry, a shareholder from Boise, applauded Idaho Power’s increasing openness and commitment to reducing carbon but urged it to do more.
“At a certain point this approaches a moral issue,” Landry said.
Anderson (Idaho Power's CEO) acknowledged the moral implications but pointed out they go both ways.
“I can’t morally do this and bankrupt a bunch of folks,” he said.

Interesting prioritization.

How Appropriate

Can there be a better name for a county in Idaho when it comes to approving a new 40 megawatt solar farm? I don't think so...!

Subsidies for Solar?

I often read stories about solar (or green energy in general), with inevitable reader comments appearing at the end complaining that solar power wouldn't be as popular and affordable as it is without subsidies.  The ultimate conclusion of these commenters is that because of subsidies, solar is bad.

If subsidies make solar bad, then let's be fair about it.  Just for example, we maintain massive subsidies for oil...  If not for our naval presence (i.e. subsidy) ensuring the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, world oil prices would be much higher. My solar panels don't require a US naval carrier group to ensure the free flow of sunlight to my rooftop system.

I'm a realist... I'm not proposing we pull out of the Strait of Hormuz or end other subsidies for oil.  Without it, the world would suffer enormously.  But let's also be realistic when comparing or condemning solar subsidies.  In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to subsidize anything.  But until we reach that perfect world, subsidies for solar aren't out of line.

How Solar Got Cheap

Going solar has gotten cheap...! Panels and installation costs have plummeted. Even non-environmentalists are making the switch, simply for the economic benefit. Listen to this podcast from NPR's Planet Money for details....!

Idaho Power's War on Solar, pt 2 (Scary Pie Charts)

Idaho Power's recent full page attack ad in the Idaho Statesman deserves more attention than it's getting. Their comical letter at the top of the ad utilizing cheap scare tactics was troubling enough, but now let's review the graph at the bottom meant to inflame and scare ratepayers further...

Here's the graph.

Idaho Power's Scary Pie Charts from their Solar Attack Ad appearing in the Idaho Statesman Feb 1, 2015

Hmm.  What's the problem?  We have graphs, figures and even fine print. Seems reasonable right?  But what's that HUGE yellow scary 2016 solar pie to the right? Why, it represents the overpriced PURPA power that Idaho Power is fighting against (for you!). OMG, it's nearly as big as the entire existing renewable portfolio, including hydropower dams, wind, geothermal and other renewables!  We all know hydropower is massive in Idaho, and now out of nowhere, solar is suddenly going to be bigger than hydro?  If you concluded (understandably) that solar is simply getting out of control, then Idaho Power is getting exactly what they want.

It sure is scary, but is it accurate? NO.

Idaho Power's graphic WILDLY overstates the actual size of the 2016 incremental solar "pie". In fact, Idaho Power overstates the "solar pie" by at least 3X.

I know, boring numbers... but accuracy matters, and these images were designed a certain way for a reason. The yellow pie has an area that is 68.5% the size of the blue renewable pie, which represents 2039 MW of nameplate capacity. If the pie were accurate, it would have to be 1386 MW of 2016 solar, not 461 MW. If we want to go further into the numbers, obviously solar nameplate capacity is not equal to, for example, a coal plant's nameplate capacity because solar only works during the daytime. So the yellow graph should be cut by 2/3 (because "math" tells us it's 3x too big) and then probably again by at least 3/4 (because solar only works during the daylight hours). But then it would only be a tiny yellow speck, and not very scary.

I encourage Idaho Power to come clean on this ad (or to provide a detailed analysis outlining why the yellow pie is 68.5% of the blue pie). A public apology printed as a full page Idaho Statesman ad (just like the original... on Sunday, in color, and as big as the original deception) would be a start.  The apology should include a full-sized copy of the original graphic beside a corrected full-sized graphic, so that the public can fully appreciate the magnitude of the deception.

But I won't hold my breath.