The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt 374
Lucas123 writes: Distributed rooftop solar is a threat not only to fossil fuel power generation, but also to the profits of monopolistic model of utilities. While the overall amount of electrical capacity represented by distributed solar power remains miniscule for now, it's quickly becoming one of leading sources of new energy deployment. As adoption grows, fossil fuel interests and utilities are succeeding in pushing anti-net metering legislation, which places surcharges on customers who deploy rooftop solar power and sell unused power back to their utility through the power grid. Other state legislation is aimed at reducing tax credits for households or businesses installing solar or allows utilities to buy back unused power at a reduced rate, while reselling it at the full retail price.
If you want better legislation (Score:2, Insightful)
It is important to vote out the corrupt politicians who take industry money and write their laws. Otherwise, it can only get worse.
Re:If you want better legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
It is important to vote out the corrupt politicians who take industry money and write their laws.
I agree with you. The only problem is that the next guy is just as corrupt, if not more so. We've got a two party system where both sides are just as corrupt as the other. For some reason most people are convinced that any third party candidate would be a wasted vote. I guess that's why almost no one I've ever voted for has been elected.
Re:If you want better legislation (Score:5, Interesting)
The only problem is that the next guy is just as corrupt, if not more so.
No, the problem is that he and the corrupt party are constantly rewarded with reelection. The voters have to work the system and be as active as the lobbyists, not just show up every two years. Why I am being modded down for stating this, I do not understand, aside from an ulterior motive on the moderator's part.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the problem is that he and the corrupt party are constantly rewarded with reelection.
There's only one party that's corrupt? Or are you talking about the republi-crat party?
The voters have to work the system and be as active as the lobbyists, not just show up every two years.
And there's another problem. Lobbyists get paid, and it's a full time job. Plus they pay for what they want. The rest of us only have so much time to dedicate to politics and can not compete with the kind of funding that professional groups bring to bear.
Re:If you want better legislation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to the parasites subsidizing their traditional power installation on your dime?
Because you'd have to be stupid and ill-informed to not understand that your "traditional" power companies are already getting subsidies, which mostly serve to prop up corporate profits instead of actually benefiting the population.
So either get rid of the existing subsidies, or stop pretending this is somehow different.
At least investing in renewables has long term benefits to society. Subsidizing the existing power
Re: (Score:3)
Re:If you want better legislation (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that those governments that fail to invest, will eventually be out competed. Solar is getting cheaper and cheaper, in large measure because the Chinese have finally figured out that it is in their best interest to be number one in solar technology and to leave the US dependent on progressively less sustainable fossil fuels and consequently, bottled up in the politics of the Middle East.
With the largest number of college graduates in science and technology, they will at the current pace overtake the US in less than 15 years, in terms of high tech. Keep in mind that already those iPhones and next gen devices aren't built here and that the cutting edge is rapidly shifting to Asia. If the Chinese invest more heavily in solar, as well as English-based university education, the US will find itself with an even more capable competitor.
The only real question now is whether or not the Chinese will be able to rapidly enough reverse the environmental destructiveness of their approach to development. Certainly, solar will provide them many benefits in this direction.
Realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
I think solar is great - I have some panels on my camper, which is very conducive to solar type use because it's already designed to function off-grid. But let's be realistic. Let's say every home in America stuck a couple thousand watts of solar power on their roof, and wanted to sell the power into the grid (as opposed of having to store it on-site). How is that supposed to work? If no power generation is required by the power company when the sun is shining, but the full normal generation is required the instant clouds sweep over a community or at night, etc, then how is that supposed to work? None of the power generation plants can function in that "instant on / instant off" type of a mode. Particularly not nuclear. The point is, once the adoption reaches some (rather smallish) percentage, there will be some major problems and costs that will have to be addressed.
Regarding the incentives (tax credits and the like), again, once solar hits some critical mass, why would the government provide incentives? The incentives did their job, and got some number of people to adopt solar.
Nothing is stopping anyone from using solar. It's just that it may not be a profitable (as in selling electricity or getting a tax break) endeavor. So don't whine when it can't be used purely for an economical advantage.
Re: (Score:3)
Use some sort of market rate. If there's a lot of supply, but not a lot of demand at a given moment, the price drops.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Use some sort of market rate. If there's a lot of supply, but not a lot of demand at a given moment, the price drops.
That's pretty much what we have now in many areas of the US (not all). It is called Locational Marginal Pricing, or LMP. You can see various realtime pricing maps by searching Google for "LMP map". Here's one of them. [misoenergy.org]
The problem is that the people advocating for "net metering", AKA "I want to sell my power at full retail rates", don't want to pay to keep the grid maintained. The LMP price is wholesale. Getting that power to where it is needed requires transmission lines, and transmission lines ne
Re:Realistic (Score:5, Informative)
Base load from generators that aren't easy to start and stop (say nuclear) is used during low usage times to pump water up to height. When peak power is required, a flick of a switch sends the water through turbines that spin up extremely rapidly. Dinorwic can go from 0 to 1320 MW in 12 seconds.
This setup is excellent for using/storing solar power.
Re:Realistic (Score:4, Interesting)
This setup is excellent for using/storing solar power.
Indeed, it's good. But how do you propose for the power companies to pay the £425 million [wikipedia.org], in 1984 pounds, when they're facing declining revenues because people aren't buying their power anymore? (BTW, did you mean Dinorwig?)
If it shakes down that people can sell solar electricity for $.10/kwh, but have to buy electricity(solar and other) for $.20, then the power company has the resources to do things like build and operate more pumped storage stations. Don't forget that companies will build pumped storage where it makes the most sense - IE lowest cost for the power/energy, first. So if we need 100 Dinorwigs to meet demand, the last is going to cost a lot more than the first, because it'll require much more earth moving and construction.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, but you may have missed something:
Practically, solar power will help the individual, not industry. Industry is what requires the most power(on a individual basis) bar sugar cane factories and so forth which produce power and already sell it back in this end of the world. Solar power is not practical for an induction furnace (for example). It does not have a reliable enough output.
The utility will survive on things like steel mills that run induction furnaces 24/7 and can't realistically use
Solar power and industry (Score:2)
Actually, it'll help industry as well, assuming it's cheap enough. While they normally get their electricity cheaper than households, they can often install solar power cheaper due to quantity scaling.
As for the reliability of output - if you have storage it's reliable enough, and induction heating is only one of many industries.
I never said baseload would go away, just that pumped storage isn't a 'free' solution.
Re: (Score:3)
As for the reliability of output - if you have storage it's reliable enough, and induction heating is only one of many industries.
If I was to lay odds on which one would suffer most from a momentary eclipse - an Internet server farm or a factory using solar-generated heat, I think I'd choose the server farm.
Oddly, the server farms are among the most likely to be buying into solar.
Re: (Score:3)
The time when companies could make big profits supplying electricity is coming to an end. In the future a large proportion generation will be distributed renewables, much of it owned by private individuals or small groups. There will still be centralized generation of course, but without the huge peak demand to rely on profits are going to be a lot lower.
We probably won't need that much large storage. Home battery packs will become common, so there will be a lot of distributed storage as well. I imagine qui
Pumped Storage Problems (Score:3)
It is very hard to find suitable sites for pumped storage. Here is an old example: Storm King Mountain [wikipedia.org].
You should also read the feasibility analysis of pumped storage [ucsd.edu] by Tom Murphy, a physics professor at UCSD
Re: (Score:3)
But I absolutely think the power companies shouldn't have to buy back surplus at full price. It's their distribution network that's allowing this, they're entitled to a small profit on that to fund it's building and maintenance. Otherwise why would they build it?
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding the incentives (tax credits and the like), again, once solar hits some critical mass, why would the government provide incentives?
Because there is a consensus that widespread adoption of solar power is a net good for the society as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is a consensus that widespread adoption of solar power is a net good for the society as a whole.
And they're unwilling to pay for it with their own money.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because there is a consensus that widespread adoption of solar power is a net good for the society as a whole.
And they're unwilling to pay for it with their own money.
Government's money is our money. We get to vote on how it's used. If I believe that subsidizing an activity undertaken by someone else is to my benefit, I will vote to do so. This is me choosing how to use my own money.
Oh, wait: you must be a Libertarian, and therefore think that you as an individual have a personal veto over everything the government might decide to do. Never mind.
Re: (Score:3)
"You know, we would have a healthier society, if I actually did have veto power over what my money got used for."
Sounds like a candidate for elective office. Now all you have to do is be convincing.
Re: (Score:3)
The challenge here is the other costs that are unaccounted for. Sure, you see power at 5c/10c per KWH, but all the other parts cost money as well, such as poles. Sure, the pole may be split in cost between the power, phone and cable companies, but that's still an expensive asset. http://www.dailyherald.com/art... [dailyherald.com] provides a view into what this costs to be maintained. If a pole costs $1-3k, how many are you sharing the cost of as part of the rate. This is part of the "ugly profit" people gripe about wit
Re:Realistic (Score:4, Insightful)
The "incentives" actually make solar panels expensive. If you get a $2000 subsidy for $3000 solar panels, retailers will start raising prices to $5000. You still get $3000 solar panels, but you have a perception of getting a good deal by getting $2000 back. This is why JC Penny has sales all the time: they tried for 10 years to drop the practice of marking $20 items up to $100 and running constant $80 sales, and they lost a shitton of business; switched back to showing sales off inflated prices, and they regained a shitton of business EVEN WHEN ITEMS WERE MORE EXPENSIVE UNDER THE SALE MODEL.
As for power wholesale versus retail, they should calculate your bill by net power units. If you provide 1000kWh and consume 1000kWh, they shouldn't charge you 1000x 12c and pay you 1000x 8c. You already pay about $60/mo for infrastructure ($30 of customer fees, plus infrastructure usage fees).
Re: (Score:2)
As for power wholesale versus retail, they should calculate your bill by net power units. If you provide 1000kWh and consume 1000kWh, they shouldn't charge you 1000x 12c and pay you 1000x 8c. You already pay about $60/mo for infrastructure ($30 of customer fees, plus infrastructure usage fees).
Ok, what's wrong with that? 50% markup doesn't sound unreasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for power wholesale versus retail, they should calculate your bill by net power units. If you provide 1000kWh and consume 1000kWh, they shouldn't charge you 1000x 12c and pay you 1000x 8c. You already pay about $60/mo for infrastructure ($30 of customer fees, plus infrastructure usage fees).
Keep in mind that people's electric bills can vary vastly on a charge basis. My static charges are only $40 here, and were even less at my last place.
It all depends on how you set your meter(s) up, but net metering on a monthly basis is the 'cheapest', you only need 1 dumb meter.
There are slightly more complex meters that will run different 'in' and 'out' meters depending on electricity flow. So, for your theoretical 1k kwh consuming house with exactly matching solar power production(on an average basis),
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe to level the playing field with the fossil fuel industry that has been enjoying those subsidies and incentives forever?
It's funny how certain people are all of a sudden saying, "You mean we're subsidizing energy? I'm shocked, I tell you, just shocked." It's even funnier when the Koch Bro
Re: (Score:2)
Here (NZ), we use a lot of hydro power. In fact the electricity company I use is 100% renewables. The benefit of hydro is you can also use it as a battery and use excess generation from houses with rooftop solar to pump water back up into the reservoir storing the energy for use at night when solar doesn't work. Here we've also been having a series of dry spells which have caused issues with the reservoirs emptying too quickly and running the risk of blackouts, and again having distributed solar on houses w
Re: (Score:3)
Correspondingly, the major drawback of hydro is ... it is 100% dependent on topology which is suitable for generating hydro.
NZ has beautifully wobbly terrain from what I've seen (which, sadly, has been entirely on TV).
And for rooftop solar? Well, some of us have winters in which our roof is largely covered in snow, and in which we get short days. No sure
Re: (Score:3)
The US is late to the game. In Germany you sometime get 50% of the power load from solar on especially sunny summer days [thelocal.de], while hardly any in the winter. The demand on the grid is of course brutal, but so far has been manageable.
Gas turbine power plants are key for load balancing. [kraftwerkforschung.info]
Re: (Score:2)
You store the excess energy somewhere. We have technology today to do this: flywheels, water pumping stations, batteries. All of this requires investment nobody wants to pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have dynamic market prices for electricity that vary throughout the day, there will be incentive for people to store their solar power in the middle of the day, and sell it in the evening. Or somebody could even buy the surplus power when it's cheap, and sell it back when it's expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all power use is residential. Something like an aluminum smelting plant can use 200MW of energy, so they would run at peak capacity during the day when costs were lower and take capacity off line at night.
Re: (Score:3)
I think solar is great - I have some panels on my camper, which is very conducive to solar type use because it's already designed to function off-grid. But let's be realistic. Let's say every home in America stuck a couple thousand watts of solar power on their roof, and wanted to sell the power into the grid (as opposed of having to store it on-site). How is that supposed to work? If no power generation is required by the power company when the sun is shining, but the full normal generation is required the instant clouds sweep over a community or at night, etc, then how is that supposed to work? None of the power generation plants can function in that "instant on / instant off" type of a mode. Particularly not nuclear. The point is, once the adoption reaches some (rather smallish) percentage, there will be some major problems and costs that will have to be addressed.
Before that occurs (in the US), a lot of years will have passed. Germany has had a day with 75% renewable energy production [thinkprogress.org] and 50% solar production [reneweconomy.com.au] and will undoubtedly get similar occurences this year too. They also still have nuclear power plants and it all works. Sure, nuclear power plants are notoriously bad to change in output on short term and will therefore gradually fade from view, which is not a bad thing alltogether (even though I am not opposed to nuclear). New technologies will come to mitigate
Re:Realistic (Score:4, Interesting)
During daytime, buy cheap power from all those rooftop solar installations.
This is exactly what net metering doesn't allow. It makes no sense to require power companies to
buy power from rooftop installations at retail.
Re: (Score:3)
You appear to be unaware of how power is priced. I suggest you research the matter before you make comments such as the one you did.
Here's just a few things to think about.
Power prices fluctuate all day long. Residential prices are regulated at the average price the utility pays for power. This is frequently well above the price they pay for the power in all but the one or two hours a day where there is peak use.
Solar power generates the bulk of it's use when commercial power rates are the highest. So the u
Net metering is unstustainable (Score:5, Insightful)
The current system lets the home owner use the power grid as a battery, storing excess energy for later use. And this battery is free. But it's not free - someone has to pay for the power lines, meters, and generation or storage capacity that makes it work.
Electric bills have two components, the supply cost and the delivery cost. The supply cost is what the electric company should be paying for electricity it buys from the home owner. But the electricity the home owner buys back should include the delivery cost.
In effect, the utilities are subsidizing home generation, which may make sense for now, but is not a plausible end game.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason that we can't make our electric companies act as storage for the consumers.
True, but there is a reason why we can't make them do it for free, which is what the complaint is about.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure how it works in the US but my power costs are divided into 2 a daily charge and a cost per kw. I assume the daily charge covers fixed costs such as: cost of lines, maintenance, you can also have different rates at different times of the day, so if you are producing power in the middle of the day when everyone else is you simply pay less, for it, but you must also charge less for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the size of lines needed increases with more power consumed, indeed, even as you need to buy more generation(for power companies that own their own), most power companies build at least some of their infrastructure cost into the per kwh charge, on the theory that if somebody consumes twice as much energy they should pay for needing, for example, a transformer with 1.5x the capacity that would otherwise be needed, some fraction of the extra power line, running a 72kV power line vs a 60kV, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand your comment and there is zero way to store AC power (your excess from yours example). It just goes out on the grid and someone else uses it and the generator at the power plant produces less.
If you are talking about "hey I am producing more than I am using" and 4 hours later have to use more than you make, then that is the part that net metering takes into consideration. Where I live, it is $0.10 a kWh to consume, and $0.01 kWh to produce (ie. your excess from solar). They pay you for
Re: (Score:3)
Electric bills have two components, the supply cost and the delivery cost. The supply cost is what the electric company should be paying for electricity it buys from the home owner. But the electricity the home owner buys back should include the delivery cost.
Although I agree with the rest of your post, I don't agree with having two different rates. There should instead be two different charges.
There should be a connection charge that is the same whether you use energy, use no energy, or use negative energy.
Then there should be the actual cost of the electricity based on the time of the day. If you did it this way then even net metering
could be sustainable as everyone is paying the same rate for electricity whether it is coming or going.
The problem is currently the connection/delivery fee is wrapped up in the electricity rate where it might be even better if the
distribution and the generation were two separate entities. Let the generation be owned by companies, individuals, etc...
but have the distribution be neutral infrastructure that anyone can connect to just like the current net neutrality proposals.
This would also make the distribution network not affected by type or price of energy where it's only job is to distribute the
electricity it receives.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not free, even with net metering. At least it isn't everywhere. In many cases, only part of the bill is for metered power. The rest is in the form of various fees to account for infrastructure and billing costs.
In many cases, home PV is reducing the load on infrastructure. If I had a PV setup, my surplus would most likely go to the other two homes hung off of the same pole transformer. The total infrastructure involvement would be the 3 connections to our homes. The transformer itself wouldn't even be
Re: (Score:3)
The current system lets the home owner use the power grid as a battery, storing excess energy for later use. And this battery is free. But it's not free - someone has to pay for the power lines, meters, and generation or storage capacity that makes it work.
The power grid is only conceptually (and billing wise) treated as a battery. It isn't electrically. The grid doesn't have a set of batteries (and AC-to-DC converters) storing excess solar panel output for later use. Instead, the excess power is consumed by nearby homes that don't have solar panels (the path of least resistance). Billing wise, it is treated as a battery (in a majority of areas), because that makes the billing simple.
I see roof-top solar as a convienence for the generators. It effectivel
I actually have some sympathy for the utilities. (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is that with net metering, solar power users are effectively using the grid as a giant battery that they charge up during the day and discharge during the night.
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
It's not a problem when only a microscopic percentage of users have net-metered solar power - but if a large number of people do it, then there could be a huge problem...and if there is ever more daytime solar power being generated (eg on cloudy days in winter) than is being consumed - then there will be a GIGANTIC problem to resolve - and that's going to require massive investments that they won't have.
So I do have *some* sympathy for them. They should, at some point, be allowed to charge for the service of effectively storing your power for you...although we're not remotely close to that point right now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a solar, but my electric bill is itemized and contains a transport cost item. It makes sense that in case of solar, you pay transport cost both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI: This varies by state. I live in Maryland, and they also do things as you suggest. I think some states still use the model where the "power company" and the "utility company" are the same, and they just charge per kilowatt-hour. Inevitably that will have to change everywhere.
(Maybe one day internet will be the same way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
charging them by the KWh is an unnecessary disincentive to participate
As long as it's a realistic charge, I don't see the problem. If there's very little loss, and the neighbour wants the power, the charge can be small.
A lot of this is the cost of having a monopoly
Where I live, there's no monopoly. There are plenty of power companies to choose from.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense that in case of solar, you pay transport cost both ways.
While it'd be a nice racket, I don't think that companies like UPS would get away with charging both the retailer and the purchaser for transport costs.
Buyer pays transport. Seller only gets the base price. For home installs, that means that the homeowner pays base+transport for any electricity he pulls from the grid, but the utility only pays base for any he puts onto the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Figure out what the real transport cost is, and split it between the consumers and producers. It's not that hard to come up with a fair system.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a solar, but my electric bill is itemized and contains a transport cost item. It makes sense that in case of solar, you pay transport cost both ways.
Do the big generators supplying electricity to the utility pay transport costs? I don't think so. They just get paid wholesale price for the electricity they supply to the grid. At most someone with solar producing excess power should be charged for a two-way meter and the incoming electricity transport cost. They should be paid wholesale prices for the excess power they produce.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
Oh no, that isn't the case.
Even in places that bill by net metering, the home owner still pays for the use of the grid during that time. Some states charge a fixed fee per month, others charge a "tax" per kilowatt-hour for the power that the homeowner puts back on the grid. Maybe both.
Re: (Score:2)
So I do have *some* sympathy for them. They should, at some point, be allowed to charge for the service of effectively storing your power for you...although we're not remotely close to that point right now.
Indeed, but I think that utility companies are some of the most forward thinking - looking 20 and 40 years ahead. And Hawaii has gotten to the point that some of their switching stations could see more power coming in than going out, so they've been having to modify things.
Hawaii is a special case though, so it's good to examine to help determine how things might go.
Re: (Score:3)
Letting the market set the prices is precisely what solar advocates don't want. They want to be guaranteed a 1:1 credit for their feed-in, rather than being paid wholesale spot prices for what they feed into the grid.
Real problem (Score:3)
What they they be doing is admit that there are two separate features of their industry - the maintenance/connection to the grid and the supply of power. It costs a lot of money to maintain the grid as well as to supply the charge.
What they should be doing is to charge a set amount X dollars per month to connect to the grid and in addition a per kilowatt charge - that is of course smaller than the existing one. And that charge must be reasonable - based on their actual costs to maintain the grid.
These charge changes must go to ALL their customers - both those that sell power back and those that don't.
This gets rid of their only valid objection to selling power back to the grid - the cost of maintaining the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net metering is little more than theft (Score:3, Insightful)
It forces utility companies to buy a product they themselves manufacture and can't resell at a profit, all the while spending money to keep the grid up and running.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But they are entitled to get paid for providing a service. Net metering forces them to provide a service without getting paid for doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Utility companies can raise their prices if they wish.
No they can't. They can propose rate increases and pitch capital expenditures or R&D, but they cannot do it on their own. Utilities operate in regulated markets and virtually all rate increases, fee levies and capital expenditures have to be approved by state and/or local public utility commissions (sometimes called public service commissions). Often then, there is a mostly-fixed profit margin imposed on the utility companies leading to rather inflexible pricing and investment options for the company
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any connection to individual or community health is tenuous at best. The whole issue with PV panels is that they are not net energy positive for their anticipated service life when installed anywhere but the sunniest areas. Fossil fuels are being burned in places like China to manufacture panels that, over the next 30 years, will not produce a greater amount of energy than went into the creation of the panel (and inverters, etc). I agree that burning coal, and to a lesser extent, natural gas isn't a grea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Price is not the only consideration. You may not care about your own health, but lots of people care about theirs.
So what? They don't care enough to use their own money.
Re:Net metering is little more than theft (Score:4, Interesting)
My scheme for taking care of the pollution issue is quite different than the EPA's 'cap & grandfather'.
Mine is simple: Rate the pollutants in terms of harm. IE Mercury into the environment costs $10M/ton. Charge any company that emits Mercury ~$11M/ton, and call it a day. Same with other pollutants. CO2 might 'only' be $.10/ton, but it'd add up quickly.
Let's avoid FUD from both sides, please (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I'm going to have to critique the article a bit. Please note that I live in Alaska and almost purchased solar panels myself - it's just that the distributor I looked at purchasing the panels from made break-even assumptions that not even I could swallow. It definitely doesn't make sense to pay somebody to install them up here.
Anyways - very first paragraph, 'ensure utility companies pay for unused power that is routed back into the power grid - a practice known as net metering'. To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail. To put it another way, let's say you're a biodiesel producer in your spare time, and every so often you have some surplus. Do you expect the local biodiesel station to purchase your fuel* for the pump price? Or are they going to want to pay the price they get it from their distributor for?
Now, the actual situation is quite a bit more complicated- electricity isn't really stored, and the marginal cost per watt during peak times can be quite a bit higher than what you're charged as a home customer, without time cost considerations. Electricity costs tend to be a bit higher during the day, so the argument has been that panels tend to displace expensive power, not cheap power. But as market penetration increases, it can change the paradigm that utilities operate under, and unlike most industries, if it's doing it's job the power company IS looking 40 years ahead.
The argument is that grid-tie solar users are often close to even production, and due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid. They effectively use the grid as a giant battery.
So, while the answer for any given solar install is 'complex', on average net metering is a subsidy. Whether it's a worthy subsidy, that's up to individuals to decide.
The problem with rooftop solar being 'on par with prices for common fossil-fuel power generation in just two years' is that we may face a situation where power becomes MORE EXPENSIVE during the night(and late evenings when people are still up). Again, are we talking about utility, IE right at the plant, or retail, after it's traveled through potentially hundreds of miles of power line? Because the former is around $.02/kwh, the latter more like $.08. Browsing the citing document, not only are they using retail, but they're not predicting the price drop he predicts. They're predicting it'll drop below standard retail prices. Which includes grid maintenance.
Disconnecting from the grid is possible(in most areas), but it substantially increases costs to the solar installer to put in a battery bank and often even a generator. Operating the generator is obviously, much more expensive than buying power from the electric company.
If made into law, the Kansas legislation would allow utilities to pay solar customers using net metering less than the retail rate of electricity. In turn, utilities could use the excess electricity that customers were turning back to them and sell it at the retail rate.
So... Like how a regular business operates? I know, lose a little on each sale, but we'll make it up on volume!
Anyways, I support more solar power, but we have to realize that we'd see some drastic changes if it ever exceeds 20% of electricity generation here in the States. It's not anywhere near that yet, but like I said, the power companies are looking ahead. Heck, we might face a future where daytime power is much 'cheaper' than night time, and there's a big push for people to charge their vehicles at work. Of course, that means all those home panels will be producing electricity that has to transition the grid... Please note that I'm looking 10-20+ years into the future here.
As a bigger fan of electric vehicles, I can't help but imagine a system where 'retired' EV batteries are used to make homes, if not entirely self-sufficient, at least only really dependent upon a 'neighborhood grid'.
*Let's say you're good at it and it's identical to their normal product.
Re: (Score:2)
To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail.
There are many places where, not only is the power company unwilling to pay, they are unwilling to take it for free. For a while it was illegal to put power onto the grid, which necessitated inverters and batteries. At that time, home solar wasn't worth it for anyone at all.
due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid.
I believe that states that have net metering also have a fee for using the grid. I know Maryland does.
Peak Load (Score:2)
Also, the centralized grid system is an outdated liability. Decentralization is a good thing. Utilities rage on about decentralization hurting grid stability, but they've got better sta
Why it doesn't make sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if your entire neighbourhood produces a surplus ? If solar panels are good for me, they are also good for my neighbour. And when the sun is hitting mine, it's very likely also hitting theirs.
Still using the power grid? (Score:2)
...have passed revisions to their net metering policies that would included fixed monthly surcharges for residences and businesses that install solar to make it less competitive with conventional forms energy.
Well, that's not a biased statement at all, is it? I don't know all of the details of who wants want law passed to do who knows what, but I think there is a legitimate argument to be made for a fixed monthly charge.
A standard, non-solar customer is hooked up to the grid, and uses 100% of the power companies power 100% of the time. The power company knows this, so they are able to figured out what to charge the customer for things like power generation, transmission, distribution, etc.
Along comes a sol
What they missed... (Score:2)
Battery backup (Score:2)
Within a decade or so the cost of in home batteries will likely come down enough that it will be practical to produce and store your own electricity and tell the utilities to get screwed, especially in the southern US.
Check out the biogas generators (Score:2)
Syngas or biogas is something people should look at seriously. It is an easy way to get people on biofuel without genetic engineering or cultivating weird strains of algae.
You can burn wood, leaves, crop dross, grass clippings, etc. About sixty pounds of biomass will provide about enough power for three residential homes for a day. And that potentially can include lots of waste heat that can be used to heat homes and water further increasing efficiency. What is more, some systems can even provide refinery t
relavent auto-ad that showed (Score:2)
I clicked the link to read the comments, an automatic advertisement:
Solar Panel Installation
thesolarco.com/Residential
Save Hundreds in Electric Bills Solar Panels Installed by Experts!
I did a screen capture for my collection articles with interesting accompanying auto-ads. One of these include article about Russian missile buildup included ad, "Meet Russian Beauties" (hey, I thought I disabled ads)
Solar hurts the profit margins a lot. (Score:3)
Enter, Solar.
It provides power exactly when the demand peaks. If solar meets the peak power demand, the spot price for electricity will fall. For brief period an Australian utility had to sell power at *negative* prices at the peak! There was so much solar power feeding into the grid, they had to pay people to take their power, lest their generators overheat and burn.
The amount of solar electricity created might be small in terms of energy produced. But when it comes to profits, this probably cuts deep into the profits of the utilities.
Eventually the utilities will reduce their peak capacity to create an artificial shortage and trade. The net metered roof top solar energy is bought back at wholesale prices by law. They typically get sold instantly in the spot market at peak prices. The utilities are making tons of money on the net metering, all their talk about roof top solar being free loading is just bull shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Another important benefit of solar is that the lack of necessary infrastructure gives it *incredible* potential in the developing world, whose power consumption is growing rapidly, and for whom coal is currently the only realistic alternative. But for it to really take off the price needs to be driven down even further, and subsidies in the developed world help us reach the economies of scale necessary to make that happen.
Re: Wrong! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
if your care for the poor were genuine (Score:2, Insightful)
You would be doing other things to reduce the wage gap and fund welfare properly, and the whine you have would be unnecessary.
It's not like NOT using net metering will mean that the poor will be better off. The electric company is making more profit off asymetric metering, an d they won't put it back in as reduced charges, so your "complaint" is that since you can't un-stiff the poor, you're damn well going to stiff the non-poor.
Fund welfare with your taxes, LET tax rates increase, and THEN you can claim yo
Whah? (Score:5, Insightful)
My neighbors who've deployed solar panels on their roofs do it by leasing from a PV distributor. They're not shoveling out $20,000 to have it installed. It's typically free, and then you pay a fixed rate that's generally a little lower than your typical retail electricity rates. So it's NOT the rich deploying distributed solar.
2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our government give subsidies and tax breaks to those altruistic generators of fossil fuels to which you so warmly refer to as "acting in the interests of the little guy"? (Spit a little Diet Pepsi out of my mouth with that one).
3) Utilities get to sell any power returned through the grid at full-blown retail rates. Yeah, they're not facing bankruptcy... just yet.
4) Distributed solar represents what... less than 1% of all energy generated? I think PG&E will survive the assault for at least another week or two.
Re: (Score:3)
what is logic and reason doing on my slashdot? what do you think you're doing here exactly sir?
Re:Fuck it - everyone for themselves. (Score:5, Interesting)
Net metering is just another subsidy for solar, and it is already well known that solar subsidies are one of the least cost effective methods to compact climate change. We could reduce CO2 emissions by ten times as much if the money was spent on attic insulation or LED lighting, and a hundred times as much if it was spent on contraceptives for third world women.
Whoa cowboy. With net metering we have an additional source of resources for the monopoly that controls electricity in a given region. And its generated at the point of use, reducing distribution cost. If they're too stupid to figure out how to use new technology and load balance, they should be obligated to figure it out or rescind their monopoly.
"Its well known" that you make shit up. There are many different scenarios and some are not conducive to solar. However in my state (high coal usage), my rooftop solar panels are currently cheaper today than coal generated electricity. They'll generate back the power that it took to make them within a year or two and over 20 years I'm looking at an 8-10% ROI. How is eliminating coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
I'm with you that insulation and LEDs are the way to go but even I think 10x is optimistic (back to: you're making shit up). I also agree contraception should be ubiquitous and lower population is an excellent way to fix most of the problems in the world today, but start in the US. A lower class american consumes orders of magnitude more resources than most Africans, Indians, and rural Chinese.
I have yet to see an example of "the XXXXX industry" acting in the interests of anyone but themselves. Benefits to outside parties are pretty much always coincidence.
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, I agree with you completely, sir, and I don't even "believe" that AGW is likely to be catastrophic or that CO_2 is intrinsically bad (I actually have pretty good reasons for my beliefs, but not worth the flame wars asserting them entail). Solar power SHOULD come into its own when it is cost effective. Indeed, it is the capitalist way. In the case of power, though, since power companies are hardly capitalist enterprises -- they are publicly sanctioned local monopolies and nearly completely protected
A load of waffle? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the thing: when I "sell" back to SMUD, I am getting a small payment, but I ALSO get the usage of that KW I pushed on the wire when I pull it back down later.
I make 10 extra KW at peak solar, I get the money. I use 10 KW of grid power during off peak solar evening-night-morning I don't pay for those KW because my meter ran backwards, and is now running forwards for a net of 0 (zero) KW charged.
It is perfectly fair. I get a small payment when I generate during peak and save them spinning up more capac
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect.
Nearly all power transfer in the electrical grid is via completely passive transformers. There is no "one way" capability to AC transformers. If you are delivering power then it is being distributed proportionally to all other users, minus link losses. The only exception may be HVDC systems, in which power transfer may be unidirectional or bidirectional depending on the design.
Re: (Score:3)
"The wealthy" are the people putting solar on their roof, and net-metering pushes costs onto people less well off. So at least in this case, "the fossil fuel industry" is acting in the interests of the little guy.
One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. This means that the poor could, indeed, get solar power (and one presumes it's less expensive than grid power or no one would take the deal).
Your conclusion is based on an apparently flawed pre-con
Re: (Score:3)
FTA:
For example, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -- the state's public utilities authority -- voted to charge $0.70 per kilowatt (KW) to rooftop solar owners to help offset utility revenue losses.
It's about loss revenue for the utilities. It has nothing to do about the little guy.
Re: (Score:3)
$7/month for a 10 KW service has to be compared to $0.11/kw-hr for Arizona electricity, scaled out to the actual energy consumed by the household. If I am paying $150/month for electricity and drop that to zero, netting $143 doesn't increase the amortization schedule for the hardware by an enormous amount. Is it reasonable? Hard to say. Charging the consumer SOMETHING for the use of the lines isn't crazy. I pay $15/month just to have power turned on to a cabin I hardly ever use and that consumes no ele
Re: (Score:2)