Guest post by Larry F. Brown, PhD
We visited a wind farm in southern Utah recently. I’ve always been curious about the costs, profitability, and physical size of these things as well as the footprint and environmental impact. I had 3 meetings with the man in charge of maintenance of the wind farm, a landowner who leases land accommodating 4 of the turbines, and a man who works in the industry in Colorado – and did some internet/newspaper research.
The maintenance superintendent told me they have 27 towers, that the installation cost was about $2 million each, and that each turbine is rated at 2.3 megawatts/hr but produces an average of 1.3 megawatts/hr (= 1,300 kW/hr). The blades are 187 ft long so the total height is nearly 400 feet high, and the tower at the base is about 13 ft in diameter encapsulated in huge quantity of concrete. The project pays about $1 million in taxes to the community each year and has a 20-year lease.
A nearly 400-foot-tall propeller-tower is a very imposing structure, especially in close proximity. They are huge. They make a whooshing noise and the turbine itself makes a little noise. The propellers appear to be moving very slowly but the tips of the blades normally travel at 180 to 200 mph. The blades can ice up, which requires deicing (with electricity) and can throw ice a significant distance – hence each tower has a flying ice danger zone clearly labeled with signage.
I pay about $.11/kWh for my electricity here in western Colorado. So, beginning the process of calculating the profitability of these things, each tower @ 1,300 kW/hr could produce an average of $143/hr = which would be $3,400/day = $1,253,000 of electricity/year. Sounds good – so far.
[Note – Germany boasts about their renewable energy effort but Germans pay about $.35/kWh on average – 3.3 times more than we do here in Grand Junction – and their rates can get as high as $.50/kWh.]
The $.11/kWhr I pay includes all the distribution costs, etc. The wind farm is not paid $.11/kWhr for their electricity. According to the ISO Wholesale Power Market Prices, the electric company sells electricity for about $.03/kWhr so instead of grossing $1.253 million, they might gross about $342,000 per year per turbine. Still sounds good – so far.
[The landowner indicated he gets a royalty for each tower that comes to an average of approximately $1,000/tower/month and gets paid separately for the power line easement across his land.]
“BUT WAIT!” (- as they say on late night TV when giving you the hard sell).
All of that income happens only if the machines produce 24/7/365. They don’t. They need to be down for periodic maintenance and for when the wind does not blow the right speed. I don’t know what percent of the time these particular turbines produce electricity, but studies show the wind only blows the right speed (the wind can blow both too soft and too hard) 18 to 19% of the time on average across the country. 18 to 19 % of $342,000/year = $65,000. MMmmm, all of a sudden, the economics don’t look very good. $65,000/year/tower is nowhere near enough to even pay the interest on a 5% loan to construct the tower $2 million tower.
It gets lots more complicated when you consider that the wind farms are being subsidized by the government with the Production Tax Credit (PTC). A tax credit should not be confused with a tax deduction. A deduction reduces the amount of income you pay taxes on. is paying taxes on. A credit is money back. And the PTC is a “Refundable Tax Credit” which means the company does not just get to pay fewer taxes but actually gets paid by the government even if it does not owe any taxes.
The PTC subsidy has been in effect now for 27 years. Congress has adjusted the PTC many times through the years but today the subsidy is about $.02/kWhr. So, the power company gets money back in the form of a subsidy for roughly 67% of what they produce – i.e., the company gets money back to the tune of $.02/kWhr after it sells the electricity for $.03/kWhr. If the company sells $3 million of electricity they get the $3 million plus a PTC subsidy of $2 million. That is a huge subsidy! In fact, I think it is the biggest subsidy ever given for anything.
T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffett both have huge investments in these things and both have openly said that wind farms would not be economic without the PTC.
Note: Now, if I were the company and using the above example, I would report a gross income of $5 million. But, as a taxpayer, it’s more honest to say the wind farm has a gross income of $3 million. It would be dishonest to include a subsidy as profit. So, my back of the envelope calculations will go on from here without considering the subsidy as income.
Note: I would be surprised if these wind farms pay any income taxes. Potential taxable income can be written off against the investment for many years – probably the life of the project – without even dipping into the PTC.
Then, I don’t know for sure, but I think the turbine manufacturers also are subsidized by the government.
However, the economics get worse – much worse. The maintenance man said the towers cost about $2 million each – i.e., about $54 million for the 27 towers. Each tower probably does cost $2 million to install, but there are many other development costs associated such as land and right-of-way leases, power line construction, road construction, fencing, runoff control, revegetation, etc. Newspaper articles reported that this particular wind farm cost about $130 million, which is about $4.8 million per turbine. That means the income of $65,000/yr/turbine won’t even come close to paying the interest on a $4.8 million investment.
Note – According to the Wind Technologies Market Report, US wind turbine market prices in 2016 were just under $1,000 per kilowatt, or about $2.3 million for a 2.3-megawatt turbine (about $1,000 / kilowatt). These turbines installed cost about $4.8 million for a 2.3-megawatt turbine ($2,087 / kilowatt). An offshore turbine project recently approved off the coast of Virginia is projected to cost $25 million per megawatt ($25,000 per kilowatt). Wow.
In addition, the turbines are very technologically sophisticated and require constant maintenance. For example, the oils used in the turbines are very temperature sensitive and, when the turbines are not generating power, they must be heated – with electricity. Various articles point out that, although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower and to balance the pressure on the shaft, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is not blowing fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights, internal control and communication systems.
One article I read indicated that in a worst case analysis, these large wind turbines might use as much electricity as they produce. I don’t assume the worst case and just lump electrical usage in with the many other maintenance costs.
I assume the maintenance cost for this wind farm (manpower on call 24 hours, office rental, trucks/fuel, electric consumption, security, snow removal, replacement parts, etc.) to be at least $750,000/year. Additional expenses of this particular wind farm (mentioned earlier) are the $1 million paid in taxes to the local government and the $1,000/tower/month) rent to the landowners. Together these 3 expenses add up to $2,074,000/year = about $77,000/turbine/year, so the income goes down from the $65,000 to a negative $12,000/turbine/year. For simplicities sake, let’s just call it $0/turbine/year. Said another way, this project, according to this back-of-the-envelope calculation, makes no money.
Note: I tried two times to get the company to review these calculations. They did not respond.
And, all those materials (and permits and land leases) have a life expectancy of 20 years. What happens after 20 years? There is a wind farm in northern Colorado that is no longer producing, purportedly because the maintenance cost is too high to rehabilitate the turbines. The wind farm sits abandoned. All mining companies are required to bond for reclamation of a site when mining is done. I do not think this is true for wind farms.
Another interesting thing is that the dynamics of the power market are shifting. It used to be that peak power prices occurred during the day. Now they occur at night when solar is not producing. Thus, renewables are now generating when the prices are lowest in the diurnal power price curve.
The bottom line back-of-the-envelope conclusion of this economic evaluation is that these things are not even close to being economic.
And, environmentally, they kill birds and bats – millions of them. I used to wonder how this could be happening. The propellers seem to be turning so slow. But the propeller blades are so long they only appear to be moving slowly. The tips of the blades are actually moving at 180 to 200 mph. No wonder a bird can’t see them coming. And, apparently bats don’t even have to be hit by the blade to die. The way bats are killed is that the passing blade creates a vacuum and the bat’s lungs explode even if he doesn’t come into contact with the blade. And, yes, I know that cars and windows and cats kill birds but cars and windows and cats don’t kill eagles and falcons and other protected birds and endangered species, and cars, windows, and cats don’t kill bats.
And, the stupidest, most injudicious, most reckless thing of all is that the Obama administration granted permits to wind farms to kill birds and bats, including endangered species. All other industries are fined big dollars for killing birds – not wind power. Double Standard? How crazy is this?
Then, the coup d’état – The craziest part of this whole thing is that we must keep 100% of the fossil fuel plants operating to generate electricity during the 80+ % of the time the wind is not blowing at the right speed. Wow. So, what do we save?
We continue to build thousands of these things at a cost to the taxpayer of $ billions/year. Why in the world are we doing this? I’m dumbfounded.
As indicated, each tower in this farm cost about $4.8 million. Assuming a 5% loan, each tower would have to produce $240 thousand per year to break even – i.e., even pay the interest on the loan. And, any normal investment would have to have some percent profit per year. I assume such an enterprise would have to earn at least another 5% per year as profit after taxes and interest to be a decent investment. That would mean that each tower would have to make $480,000 per year. My calculation indicates they don’t make any real money. My calculations might well be wrong. They might even be wrong by a factor of 2. But I doubt very much if my calculations are off by $480,000/turbine/year.
My conclusion: Companies are making money on these things, but the source of the profit is only (or at least mainly) coming from the Production Tax Credit – the subsidy paid by our government with our tax money for these projects. It’s obvious that T. Boone Pickens and Warren Buffett were right. Without the PTC (for the past 27 years) these things would not exist.
To make it worse, laws and regs have mandated electrical companies to produce x % of their electricity from renewable sources by such and such deadline. The renewables can’t make money so the electrical companies raise the overall price of electricity to cover these higher cost renewables. How silly is this? It’s very silly because the technology does not exist to store this electricity. Regardless of what Governor Brown or Governor Polis say or mandate, without storage, renewables will never replace other forms of electrical production.
The bottom line? A total waste of money – a total boondoggle – profitable to companies only because we, the taxpayer, are subsidizing them – and why are we subsidizing them? – because it’s green and it makes us feel good. And because a few “politicized scientists”, a whole bunch of liberal politicians, and the United Nations espouse that the burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Well, we are indeed adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels but CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas. CO2 has increased from 0.028% to 0.041% of the atmosphere (an increase of 0.013% percentage points) in the past 140 years. The theory says man’s 3% contribution to the 0.013% increase is causing global warming. How could only 3% of that minuscule 0.013% (i.e., a component comprising 0.00039% of the atmosphere) cause global warming? It can’t. Even more absurd, we are supposed to believe that taxing and selling carbon credits for that 0.00039% of the atmosphere will curtail the warming, slow the ocean level rise (as Obama promised), and save the planet?
It’s nonsensical. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a fundamental requirement for life and the added CO2 is actually greening the planet – vegetation worldwide is growing about 20% faster and using less water than it was because CO2 is a fertilizer for plant growth.
I think we should stop building these wind farms — tomorrow.
Larry F. Brown, PhD
Broken window economic. Egypt went broke building pyramids.
It is worth pointing out, again, that a lot of the cost of German electricity is tax, unrelated to renewables. and the renewable subsidy element recently dropped very slightly.
Griff,
Any chance the tax may be necessary to subsidize renewables?
Um, Griff, you wrote: “It is worth pointing out, again, that a lot of the cost of German electricity is tax, unrelated to renewables. and the renewable subsidy element recently dropped very slightly.”
You can’t be serious. Really, are you that naïve (or that duplicitous)?
German electricity costs are among the highest on the planet. And Germany has had the most “woke” Renewable Energy Law anywhere for nearly two decades. Its primary purpose has been to subsidize solar, then wind power installations (and, of course, the “grid upgrades” which are required to deal with massive fluctuations in electricity supply over very short time periods. That dog’s breakfast of legislation now costs the German economy north of 25 Billion (yes, Billion) Euros per year. And for what, bragging rights? Is there even a prayer of a detectable climate effect, say, in 100 years?
Yet wind power providers are still paid the negotiated feed in tariffs when the wind is blowing, even if nobody wants or needs the electricity at that time. Wind and Solar power always have primacy over other forms of electricity generation.
Moar (sic) stranded assets; anybody with the responsibility for making ‘power (energy) supply’ decisions PLEASE avoid sinking public or your privately-managed funds into schemes which provide the *actual* limited return solar and wind *should* be known for …
Those other mostly fossil, generators have to be run 100% of the time for peaking, filling in and balancing.
Wind could not be fed into the grid without them
The other generators have to operate at part load, vary their outputs up and down and make more frequent starts and stops, all of which to greater Btu/kWh and more CO2/kWh, i.e, less fuel saved and less CO2 reduced.
In fact, at 17% wind in Ireland, the CO2 reduced was only 56% of what was claimed.
The only reason it became irrefutable, was the gas imports did not decrease as much as predicted.
A government investigation followed and a number of prior studies of grid operating conditions were proved right; they had previously been denied, etc., by pro-wind no-nothings.
Did the Irish government do anything in response, Willem?
Dave,
Ireland increased the capacity of connections to the UK and France grids
Brussels gave Ireland a money grant, i.e., freebie, to make wind look good in Ireland.
That spreads the Irish wind variability and intermittency to much larger grids to be dealt with by THEIR generators.
A smearing of a thin layer of troublesome stuff over a large area, so it would be hardly noticeable.
That only works until other countries ramp up THEIR wind.
In the meantime a pack of carefully constructed lies continues.
The bottom line? A total waste of money – a total boondoggle
BINGO!
When George Orwell wrote “Animal Farm” he chose the windmill to represent the boondoggles
that oppressive governments promote in order to create an appearance of progress.
“A wind turbine is depreciated over 6 years and can be accelerated. Pick your favorite industry. They are taking write offs. It’s communism right in the good old United States of America.”
Humm. Current the government taxes business based on PROFIT, which simplistically is income minus costs. Building things costs money and so is included in the cost part of the calculation. But instead of including the full cost at the time the bill is paid for the built stuff, the computation of annual cost for the purposes of taxing PROFIT is to take the billed cost divided by the defined (by tax law, not how long it lasts) life. That’s depreciation.
All we have to do to fix this “write-off” problem, if it’s a problem and is in need of fixing, is to simply change the tax law. Governments have the power and responsibility to do that. No need to demonize the businesses who are following the law.
rms:
Here’s what I thought I read from Larry F. Brown: Write-offs are bad.
People attack corporations and so forth mentioning write-offs. Write-offs for businesses make sense to me. I am an accountant and have a bias. Write-offs for businesses are one of the things that makes sense in our tax code that at times doesn’t make sense.
I was advancing what I thought was his point. To try to make my point. I think write-offs are fine.
I agree. Write-offs are fine.
Ragnaar – I did not intend to imply that write-offs are bad. My point was that, with write-offs, it seems very likely that these “farm” would never pay any income tax. Here is a question for you. As a tax man, do you know what happens after the 20-year life of these farms comes to an end? Do they just sit there and rot or are there bonds required for dismantle and reclamation?
Larry:
Most US communities require a security bond to cover wind turbine decommissioning.
How good a job local legislators are doing with writing such provisions is questionable — as they have been told a lot of malarky.
What’s your email?
(Here is his e-mail address larryfbrn@aol.com) SUNMOD
My email is larryfbrn@aol.com
“I think we should stop building these wind farms — tomorrow” ?
How about “yesterday !”
‘A tax credit should not be confused with a tax deduction.’
Nor should it be confused with anything logical. It is an oxymoron.
Since the US government is well on it’s way to double the national debt every 8 years or so the taxpayer does not pay for this subsidy. The tax payers children and grand children will have to live through a total economic collapse to pay for the spending of the Green Agenda. This is pure watermelon accounting, green on the outside and red ink on the inside.
Yes, an economic train wreck has so much momentum it is unavoidable. Most of the voting population is more concerned about 4 ppm Co2 per annum increase than a $4 billion per annum debt increase. Ain’t no cure for stupid.
Oops $4 trillion not $4billion. Still early here in the left coast.
What’s the difference .
Is a “clean” energy source that cannot be built or operated without fossil inputs sustainable? I would say it is not by definition.
You need to define sustainable in a way that it can be measured. No one does that, they just use the word like it means something.
The UN through ISO 26000 uses something as follows:
“Sustainable development can be defined as a form of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
So I think I am correct and I would say that costs for wind turbines and solar panels recycling and land use need to be accounted for.
When the NIMBY’s grab onto solar and wind, costs will be highlighted. The love of solar and wind by the Left will be overwhelmed by local blow-backs.
According to the Energy Information Administration Utah’s two largest wind generation facilities sell power to California. I guess that makes it profitable since Utah rates are only about $0.09/kwh.
“Wind energy produced almost one-fifth of Utah’s net renewable electricity generation in 2017. Utah has five wind farms operating with nearly 400 megawatts of generating capacity from about 200 turbines. The state’s two largest wind farms send power to California. There is commercial wind power potential in the Wasatch and Uinta mountain ranges in Utah’s north-central region and on the mesas in western Utah. However, the state requirement that investments in renewable generation projects be cost-effective has resulted in Utah utilities investing in wind projects in neighboring states, where Utah regulators have deemed the projects to be more cost-effective than proposed in-state facilities.”
You can plug your state into the link below for the your profile.
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=UT
The renewable industry hides it’s operating costs and profits very well. New projects are claiming to be able to sell power to the grid at 2 cents/kwh and are using this figure to fool the general public into approving renewables. This is an outright fraud and all of the people connected to this fraud including academia should be held accountable.
It should be mandatory that backup costs also be included in published figures.
A watt is power, 3.6 kJ/h or 3.4 Btu/h.
A rating of 2.3 MW per h is nonsense.
… whereas 2.3 MW for an hour is 2.3 MWh .
Just wanted to bring this back all the way ’round the circle.
Yes, it’s obvious that’s what he meant. I think the MW/hr complaint is just nitpicking.
Paul – thank you for the comment. I was wondering whether or not to respond to the MS/hr etc. comments. Of course, they are correct and I am wrong but I finally decided like you and have left it alone.
The electric power the windmills generate is at best a nuisance on the distribution grid. If you don’t limit the amount of electricity you derive from non-despatchable sources you destabilize your grid. South Australia has more installed wind generation than almost anywhere and 28 September 2016 it all turned off suddenly in high wind conditions and the grid went down. It took days to get the power back on. Now they operate with strict limitations about how much non-despatchable generation can come online. You can’t manage the variability without spinning reserve either. So, like the napkin reads, you have to maintain at least 80% of your dispatchable generation all the time, no matter what, and 100% when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining.
The functional use of wind generation on the grid is totally undependable. It is a nuisance, not an asset: Worse than a total waste of money.
Available technologically and economically…..Take the money you would spend on renewables and put it towards a nuclear power plant, unless you have available hydro-electric sites. Green do-gooders seem to fight both of these options by appeal to emotion rather than operational statistics. Those windmills on the hills are a constant virtue reminder to greens…..a nuclear reactor over the hill fills them with fear….
It’s NOT A FRIGGING FARM. We do not plant seeds to get those %*#@ur momisugly$% turbines. It’s a WIND PLANT, an INDUSTRIAL WIND INSTALLATION but it is NOT A FARM. Using that term says “I am nothing but a fool that falls for stupid propaganda, no matter how smartly I appear to write.” It’s equal to calling civilian casualties “collateral damage”.
The maintenance supervisor of the farm says, “produces an average of 1.3 megawatts/hr (= 1,300 kW/hr)” and subsequently the author of the article discounts this a second time by 18 to 19 %.
…
The capacity factor per the supervisor is 56%, and the additional deduction of 18-19% puts the capacity factor at about 10%
…
Better get a new envelope.
Donald – the capacity factor is 1.3/2.3 = 57% is the effective efficiency of the turbine – i.e., a machine cannot produce at 100% efficiency. The 18-19% is the % of the time the wind blows within the operable range of the wind machine.
No Larry, you are double counting. The turbine will reach rated nameplate capacity when the wind is blowing at the higher limit of it’s operating range. The maintenance supervisor was quoting you numbers that included your 20% figure of no-wind/too-fast-wind.
Donald – ok, thank you for that – that shoots a huge hole in my calculation. The net per turbine income would then go up to about $265,000 / year – which is indeed about enough to pay for the interest on a 5% loan for the $4.8 million tower – only.
Donald – I’m preparing revision. I don’t know if WattUpWithThat will publish it, but – —-.
Companies can charge up to 5X the going rate for Offshore wind power in the case of the only operating Offshore US wind farm – the Block Island wind farm off Rhode Island. They charge the State 24.4c/kwh – escalating to 47c/kw h. The islanders currently pay 8.5c/kwh.
See eg https://www.blockislandtimes.com/article/wind-farm-blamed-higher-mainland-power-rates/51561
It seems impossible to discover what its output is since its start up in 2017and since it was bought out by Orsted the biggest Danish renewable energy co. ( If anyone knows please post)
The misjudgments of the scientific consensus have been seized upon and hyped for political ends.
see
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/12/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-green-new-deal-about-implementing-socialism-it-wasnt-originally-a-climate-thing-at-all-its-a-change-the-entire-economy-thing/
What is happening is total madness. The Drax power station in the UK can create and sell EU CO2 credits by clear cutting US forests. turning them into wood chips, using energy to dry them ,transporting them to the UK and burning them. This farce is then regarded as biomass and is supposed to reduce CO2 and save the world.
I think I know this farm. If it’s the one I’m thinking it is, it also despoils what used to a delightfully scenic and beautiful view of a nearby mountain range. You can use google earth to view the powerline corridor construction that goes along with each farm. No sensitivity to the environment is evident. These lines run straight and true to the nearest PTC tie in point. A travesty greens. You are so being used and you are so annoying about it all. So here’s a question for all you enviros: where else in your life are you acting like a complete idiot? Food for thought.
Snarling – this “farm” is just outside Monticello, UT.
Part of the problem is that those selling “Renewables” keep bragging about the fact that the electricity is being sold to utilities, under long term contracts. for numbers in the 3 to 5 cents per KWH – “Less than Coal or Nuclear!” As a retired engineer from an electricity utility I can say without hesitation that the reason they sell it for such a low price is that the utilities do not want the headaches of dealing with it. Who would pay full price for a loaf of bread or gallon of milk that was past the sell by date? Why would any utility pay full price for a product that is only available 30% of any hour when the FERC requires that you have 10% spinning reserves for the peak load of the day? The only way that requirement can be met is to have another power plant on line, not producing any power and wasting fuel and costing 75% of the 100% power operating costs. That means they will not pay the renewable’s the actual cost of the electricity, but they need it to meet the states renewable energy requirements or to appease the environmental virtue signalers.
I can confirm the back of the napkin economics in this article. I live in western Canada’s wind belt, with many wind farm projects completed and underway. I have looked into building wind farms many times over the years, as an investor or entrepreneur (which I am already). I have always wanted to build a wind farm, long before global warming was a thing, and I can confirm the economics in this article.
Are there other kinds kinds of proximity besides “close”?
Is there another another kind of diametric other than opposed?
Three years ago i had a tour of windmill site in the Netherlands and we had an explanation of how the windmills were used to pump water from the farmlands into the Rhine. Today the water still has be pumped from these below sea level fields. The 1000 year old technology of windmills is now strictly to explain how they worked to tourists. The giant pumps are now electric which is produced by coal.
Present thinking here to reduce energy costs here in Texas involves several strategies –
1) Move to an electric (wholesale price) retailer called “Griddy”. Their claim to fame is direct-to-consumer cost of electricity (from the present market cost) for a fixed low monthly administration/service charge (like 10 USD).
2) Implement grid-tie solar with from 4 to 6 ~ 300 Watt solar panels. This will serve to reduce my local demand from the grid during high-peak usage times during daylight hours (esp. air conditioning). I will do my own install bypassing the cost of an installer.
3) Since Griddy is going to cost me more during periods where electric demand is high (AND the cost of electricity on the open market HERE in Texas is high) implement a cheap gasoline or diesel genset capable of starting (an important checkbox) and running an 8,000 BTU air conditioning during those times to save me from being “dinged” by high (spot) market prices the few weeks of the year this is likely. The genset also provides service during blackouts (of which we can see 2 or 3 outages a year for 1 to 3 hours each.) There is a chance for longer outages, again, the genset will meet requirements to operate the A/C and other vital services (like, a computer, DSL router etc.)
I’m looking at ~ 18c per kWh at present, as rates in Texas have slowly risen, in part for charges by the electric delivery company (Oncor) who is defraying HV transmission equipment/lines from west Texas for utilization of wind farm -er- plant electricity production.
Do you have to have a separate subscription and metering for the grid feed, or does it just reduce what you pull out of the grid?
In France you have to pay a second subscription charge, which makes it all a lot less profitable.
If by “subscription” you mean a 2nd set of wires connecting you to the “grid” the answer is no, you only need one set of wires with a grid tie inverter. The grid tie inverter will reduce your local consumption (pull) off of the grid, and in the case your local consumption is lower than your local production, it will feed the power into the grid over the same wires you use to consume. They can install a “net” meter, which measures two distinct items, namely the power you consume, and the power your produce. Simply put the net meter measures the transfer of energy bi-directionally. As a result, I am given two line items on my bill, production and consumption as determined by the meter readings.
Greg, it is per Donald L’s response below; relatively simple device reduces amount of ‘power’ drawn from the mains while still using the mains for motor starting and other heavy electricity consumers.
Our smart meters are able to ‘work’ with net metering, but one has to agree beforehand with the utility to be paid for this sort of thing. I simply look to offset some of my consumption, for radio and connected computer gear as well as A/C (cooling) during the summer, and heating during the winter.
You are evidence of the decentralization of power production. When the central provider becomes too expensive or too unreliable, or both, people will invest in their own power source.
The Left has a static view of the world. They believe they can screw over industrial electricity production, remake it in the vision of the Harvard faculty lounge, and the people will just take it. We Americans won’t just take it.
Presidential debate, 1980:
Jimmy Carter: “Only government can manage scarcity fairly.”
Ronald Reagan: “Screw that! We’re America! We’ll just make more!”
Capitalism produces prosperity for all; Socialism manages scarcity on the back of the middle-class.
re: “you are evidence of the decentralization of power production”
Yea verily!
I stopped following the development of renewable energy so closely after reading this:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy#gs.r5vqst
The important thing to know is that the kill switch is the Production Tax Credit.
Hey, President Trump. How yer doin’ pal?