Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power United States Science Technology

Renewable Energy Reduces the Highest Electric Rates In the Nation (phys.org) 142

Posted by BeauHD from the contrary-to-popular-belief dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Coal is the primary fuel source for Midwest electric utilities. Michigan Technological University researchers found that increasing renewable and distributed generation energy sources can save Michigan electric consumers money. As renewable energy technologies and access to distributed generation like residential solar panels improve, consumer costs for electricity decrease. Making electricity for yourself with solar has become more affordable than traditional electricity fuel sources like coal. However, as three Michigan Tech researchers contend in a new study, while utility fuel mixes are slowly shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable sources, Michigan utilities, and U.S. utilities broadly, continue a relationship with fossil fuels that is detrimental to their customers.

In the paper, Prehoda and co-authors Joshua M. Pearce, Richard Witte Endowed Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, and Chelsea Schelly, associate professor of sociology, note that in the U.S., "70 percent of coal plants run at a higher cost than new renewable energy and by 2030 all of them will." The researchers provide a breakdown of savings per kilowatt hour by county that Michigan residents could achieve if they produce their own electricity with solar photovoltaic panels. The most significant impacts of distributed generation with solar are in the Upper Peninsula, where residential customers could see savings of approximately 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Assuming the average residential consumer uses 600 kilowatt hours of electricity monthly, this is a savings of $42 per utility bill. Downstate, the average savings per utility bill under the researchers' model is approximately $30 monthly. However, not all Michigan consumers can take advantage of the opportunity to self-generate, as some utilities are blocking additional net-metered distributed generation in their areas. The study has been published in the journal Energies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Renewable Energy Reduces the Highest Electric Rates In the Nation More

Renewable Energy Reduces the Highest Electric Rates In the Nation

Comments Filter:
  • is to use less energy... Nicole Foss on renewables @AutomaticEarth http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq [bit.ly]

    • I sort of laugh at the savings of $30 when I look at my electric bill being $38. I could lower that by using less electricity, a single monitor instead of two. Certainly using my own solar system I could save up to $38. I live in Portland, OR, so it's pretty mild year round. In a green certified building I don't use A/C in the Summer, a window fan is enough, and occasionally need to open the window in the Winter as it gets too warm. We've been here for two winters and have never turned on the heater.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by js290 ( 697670 )

        I sort of laugh at the savings of $30 when I look at my electric bill being $38. I could lower that by using less electricity, a single monitor instead of two. Certainly using my own solar system I could save up to $38. I live in Portland, OR, so it's pretty mild year round. In a green certified building I don't use A/C in the Summer, a window fan is enough, and occasionally need to open the window in the Winter as it gets too warm. We've been here for two winters and have never turned on the heater.

        Compressed Earth Blocks: Why and How, Here and There... Warm in winter, cool in summer... https://youtu.be/IuQB3x4ZNeA?t... [youtu.be]

  • The problem with the present developments is that the network infrastructure and baseline power sources have to remain in place to provide electricity when the sun isn't shining etc. There's going to be a lot of bankruptcies out there.

    • The article doesn't explain how the monthly savings are calculated. The dollar amounts they quote certainly wouldn't cover the installation cost of solar panels (before subsides of course, since they don't change the cost of the installation).

      • Making electricity for yourself with solar has become more affordable than traditional electricity fuel sources like coal.

        The above quote is utter BS. I really have to wonder where such claims come from.

        Among other things not mentioned, is the fact that now that China has cornered the market on photovoltaics, the Chinese government is ceasing its massive subsidies and prices will be going up. Way up.

        Gee, who'd have thought? (Actually lots of people, and we were hardly quiet about telling others... most of whom refused to listen.)

        In this part of the U.S., solar is completely useless for a very significant part of the

    • Re:The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Friday March 15, 2019 @07:31PM (#58281664)

      Power use has changed, demand no longer drives supply due to regulatory changes in the US power market companies can buy and sell demand which causes the demand curve to follow the supply curve rather than the traditional opposite.

      On top of that wind is typically complementary to solar in that they tend to operate when the other isn't. And storage is getting so cheap at this point that it's nearing the price where it's competitive with the spot power market prices.

      The 21st century power market is nothing like the one that existed in the 20th. People need to get over this and realize the market has changed. The assumption of the prior era no longer apply.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Solar panels and batteries require, roof space, square meterage, to function. They can only do so much in that space ie supply the residence reliably and TAX FREE (the money you generate by not paying electricity bills in entirely tax free income). You probably will generate a surplus, depending upon the efficiency of panels, the location and area of panels, which you can sell back to the grid.

      So that does the suburban home but it certainly means, higher density residential will simply lack the roof area t

      • It's not about 'preserving profits', it's about ensuring that there's money to keep the service alive at all. If we reduce the demand for baseload provision to the point where it's no longer rational for companies to provide it, there will be times when the electricity supply fails. Yes, for a period it will be profitable for existing power stations to carry on rather than close, but they will wear out and not be replaced. Perhaps forms of storage will save us - but it's not inevitable.

      • Actually it is not tax free. It counts as an improvement to the home, and so your (or our landlords) property taxes go up.

  • Free riders ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Friday March 15, 2019 @06:45PM (#58281438)

    Comparing PV kWh cost to current mains kWh cost doesn't tell the whole story. Currently the upkeep costs for the coal power plants is calculated into those prices. When enough people go PV, the upkeep costs will have to go into the connection costs instead ... whether you'll still be able to come out ahead then is questionable with current PV prices.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a free rider and fuck the poor with higher electricity prices in the mean time of course, gotta look out for number one ... and you get to pretend you're doing it for CO2 too.

    • Re:Free riders ... (Score:5, Informative)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Friday March 15, 2019 @07:36PM (#58281692)

      There are very few states in the US that allow power companies to offload maintenance costs for the power plant into flat rate charges on the customer bill. Instead what will happen is that the per kwh cost of that coal power will rise and as it rises it will become even less competitive.

      Individually owned solar, ie rooftop solar, is already generally charged a monthly fee to cover the grid maintenance costs they are no longer contributing to as part of their power purchases but none of that money is ever intended to cover maintenance on a power plant, the very idea is counter to whole idea of how the power markets work in the US. Everyone pays for the grid, and you only pay for the power you use. Traditionally in the past both costs were rolled into one regulated power price but in the future the only way it will be fair is for these costs to be itemized out and billed separately.

      • Everyone pays for the grid, and you only pay for the power you use. Traditionally in the past both costs were rolled into one regulated power price but in the future the only way it will be fair is for these costs to be itemized out and billed separately.
        Done like this in Europe since decades.

      • I'm in Oregon and I've had separate delivery and usage charges listed since my first apartment in the 1990s.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by crow ( 16139 )

      Imagine if everyone had PV on their roofs to supply a net of 100% of their needs (including businesses). The power company would be left with utility lines to maintain, and they would have to buy power at night to provide power when the sun goes down (or pay for fuel if they own the plants). Thanks to net metering, the only fees homeowners pay is the monthly connection charge.

      This model will lead to the following sequence:

      • Very high monthly connection charges.
      • Severe time of use rates, such that the credit

      • You can't have the electricity from the PV make it to the wall outlets without having a grid-tied system. If you want to PV to battery, you have to use totally separate plugs.

        Switching by time of day is fine for hermits, but most households that's a complete non-starter. People want to use their wall plugs, and they don't want all their appliances to be flashing 12:00 twice a day.

        And so with a grid-tied system, your meter measures the flow both directions. During the hours you're generating a surplus, it go

      • Imagine if everyone had PV on their roofs to supply a net of 100% of their needs (including businesses). The power company would be left with utility lines to maintain, and they would have to buy power at night to provide power when the sun goes down (or pay for fuel if they own the plants).

        What power company? If everyone has the ability to generate 100% of their energy needs, there is no need for a power company.

        So where does that sequence break down? With EV charging, it's not practical to store enough power to charge your cars overnight, so the grid is still needed.

        You are rather confused, aren't you? Either people have enough PV to supply 100% of their needs, or they don't. If they do, they don't need a power company. If they don't, they need one. At some point, it's quite possible that so few people need one that they stop existing.

        Over the last 20 years my electricity bills have been going down, and not only am I not cutting anything out of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Don't you have a choice of energy suppliers in the US?

      In the UK you can pick. Obviously they don't hook their cables up to your house, they just sell you energy that they buy from generators and contribute some fixed amount towards maintenance of the grid. You can pick ones that, for example, only buy from renewable sources, or you can pick the cheapest.

      It's far from a perfect system, but it does mean that if your electricity supplier tries to jack up prices to cover some costs they have you can switch to a

    • you get to pretend you're doing it for CO2 too.

      Why, because nobody really cares about CO2? Just because you're a selfish, cynical asshole, doesn't mean that everybody else is. I'd be happy to pay a lot more for power if I could get it from solar or wind.

    • Genuinely the free riders at this point are the coal plants. Utility solar and wind power is now usually cheaper than the marginal cost of coal; cheaper than the coal needed to make the energy, ignoring the cost of the plant. If you think about it, that means you would never want to use coal if you have any choice at all. And choices exist, wind, solar and gas (CCGT) are cheaper and CCGT can run for both base and peak demand and can start up and stop as needed, whereas coal can ONLY run at constant output f

      • The coal plants pay their dues by providing reliable power regardless, the question is who pays for power to be reliable. Will it increasingly be the poor who can't put the money aside to invest in PV?

        Or in Australia's case, who pays for power to be unreliable ... because the incentives don't adequately reward reliability. Something which can very easily happen with the interaction of poorly designed renewable incentive schemes and poorly regulated oligopoly electricity companies. Australia is just ahead of

  • Except rates (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    in the "greenest" areas are among the highest. Cal is quite high and rates in austin have been rising quickly. Then you have Hawaii and they got hammered again when their green geothermal got lava'ed.

  • By having energy production only when the sun is usable? When the wind in not too slow, not too fast?
    Productive export jobs need 24/7 low cost energy all year.
    No stopping and starting production lines due to the cost over power every day.
    Not strange new energy cost for a few hours every day.
    With new changes to energy prices at night.
    • The cost of non-renewable backups are never figured into the renewable plans. It's just assumed they'll be there. So it's an actual, real-life cost that is required to make a solar/wind supply work - and it's ignored because it already exists... The reality is that solar and wind is a cost in addition to the existing fossil (typically gas and coal) energy supply - but it's never really calculated that way.

      • The cost of non-renewable backups are never figured into the renewable plans. It's just assumed they'll be there.
        Because they are there. You don't to build new power plants to have "back up". You already have them ... you are silly.

        • So CO2 and other pollution spewed out by coal and gas plants to back up solar/wind is not counted? The externalities are dropped? That is silly. It's like saying because you already own a few pairs of shoes, you no longer need to budget for shoes. If coal and gas are integral to the deployment of renewables, then costs related to those coal and gas plants must ALSO be considered in the costs of renewables. Flat out.

          • You're going in circles, but you haven't noticed that those plants already exist and that means you don't need to double-count them.

            I understand, you hate hippies. You've always hated hippies. Green power is hippie shit. But still, that doesn't mean you get to double-count the extant power plants to blame them on the hippies.

            • I'm not double-counting them. What I'm saying is that you cannot ignore them in the quantification of impact of renewables. It's like only counting the calories in the crust, not the filling, of your pie. Can renewables reliably support power generation without them? No? Then they are necessarily part of the renewable strategy - and have to be included in any cost/benefit analysis.

              If you need fossil fuel plants to backup - then any costs associated with that backup when it's run must be included in you

              • This is how the situation is going to play out over the next decade, because this is what is already happening and the coal producers have already factored into their business plans:

                Natural gas is replacing coal everywhere, and will complete the coal phase out around 2030. The coal industry has not only not been bidding on new coal leases for several years, they have been returning ones they already have because they know they will never mine the coal in them. Except for metallurgical coal (the use of which

          • If coal and gas are integral to the deployment of renewables, then costs related to those coal and gas plants must ALSO be considered in the costs of renewables. Flat out.
            Do you have mental problems? No, the cost of already existing coal plants have nothing to do with the switch to renewables.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Chas ( 5144 )

          Yes, but they didn't just pop into existence magically.
          A portion of the ammortized cost STILL has to be factored.

          • But not into the costs of the renewables, it is just cost for power plant owner. He has to see himself where to put them. The only argument you could make: if he never had the coal plant in the first place and not its associated costs, then he could sell power even cheaper.

  • Lower cost with higher renewables? (Score:3, Informative)

    by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Friday March 15, 2019 @07:00PM (#58281494) Journal
    How did they break the trend of electricity costs increasing with deployed renewables [joannenova.com.au] that has struck all other nations?

    • How did they break the trend of electricity costs increasing with deployed renewables [joannenova.com.au] that has struck all other nations?

      Yay, another guy trying to disprove decades of work by thousands of climate scientists by liking to a single climate skeptic's blog.

      • Where are the numbers wrong? The sources of data are shown, and it's a scatter plot of countries showing cost of electricity against installed solar/wind per person. Data is data - if you don't like it, you don't get to ignore it. Unless you want to be unscientific?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's wrong because it's arse about face, as the Australians would say.

          Is it the case that countries deploying renewable energy see costs go up, or is it the case that countries with expensive electricity are the first were renewables are cheaper than the alternatives?

          If a country has to import a lot of coal, or subsidise a lot of nuclear, or even rely on oil for electricity, then it's going to be one of the first to switch to renewable energy which will be cheaper. As the costs for renewables come down othe

        • If A is correlated with B then it either means A causes B, or B causes A, or C causes both A & B.

          So if a study shows that people who drink diet sodas are fatter it either means that diet soda makes people fat, or being fat makes people start drinking diet soda, or some third thing causes people to both be fat and drink diet soda.

          The correlation your study is pointing out is that countries with higher energy costs have a higher proportion of renewables. This either means that renewables raise energy

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      By avoiding citing that they're doing renewable energy at all, so the companies can't use it on the marketing to increase the price?

      • For those of us with public utilities, it is the opposite; when they're marketing renewables it means the prices are going down.

        Probably because their books are public, and if there is money left over at the end of the year, nobody gets to take it home! They just lower the rates the next year. Or more realistically, defer increases due to inflation.

    • The optimum mix of generation is a mix.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        Exactly. Nuclear (where it makes sense), Geothermal (where it makes sense), Hydro (where it makes sense) for baseline power.
        Augment with various forms of wind, solar and storage (and if worst comes natural gas) to handle peaking.

        Places like California, where nuclear (in EARTHQUAKE COUNTRY) is a dumb idea. Places like this could become havens for grid-scale renewables and storage.
        They could then bring baseline power in from out of state, and sell peaking capacity back out in a form of grid-scale (or inter-

    • It includes such gems as this:

      Ask anyone and get confused: It’s poles and wires, gaming of the system by capitalist pigs, excessive taxes, privatization, and record gas prices.

      I'm just sensing more than a wee bit of bias. To be honest I can't be bothered to check his sources in detail for a /. post. Next time find better base sources.

      Anyway, as for why it works, I can't speak to Australian but here in the States we've been pulling subsidies to Coal mining and plants while simultaneously making

    • Whenever my utility invests in renewable generation, which they've been doing for decades, the rates go down relative to rates in states that didn't do that sort of investment, and relative to prior rate predictions.

      Maybe your blogger is just full of shit?

      • What is your utility?

        • The type where I vote on the commissions who run it, the books are public, and if they have money left over at the end of the year, nobody gets to run off with it.

          • Can you share the name of the utility, since the books are public?

            • Why do you ask?

              • Would love to be able to tell my local utility how to constrain costs, like yours.

                • My community did that 100+ years ago, by voting. There is a known formula.

                  The city across the river has a totally different public utility. They have slightly lower rates, but also slightly older equipment; because their community is a little poorer and tells them to prioritize low rates first. My community tells them to prioritize uptime first, rates second.

                  The rural areas outside of town have a third public utility, with their own needs.

                  Other cities in the region have their own utilities. The public utili

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        You should take a look from Michigan over to Ontario. Where the utility investing in renewable(PV and windmills), put the prices of electricity through the roof. So much so that the previous government took out future bonds to off-set the price because it became such a hot-button issue for the upcoming election they thought that buying people off with more debt was the way to win.. When do those bonds come due? About 7 years give or take a little bit. At my place in Florida, I belong to a electrical co

        • Michigan is a region where the utility companies are closely tied to the coal companies, you're not describing economic effects you're describing market manipulation. Duh.

          Bonus points for not being mealy-mouthed with a secret political agenda you encourage people guess at.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Chas ( 5144 )

      By ignoring cost structures that are inconvenient to recognize, and completely blow their premise out of the water.

    • Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday March 16, 2019 @04:58AM (#58282844)

      Time. I mean sure if you're going to use data and talking points built up from last decade mixed in some garbage data (Australia's electricity price had nothing to do with renewables as much as deregulation, god plating, and the government fucking up the market) you can make the trend say anything.

      Do you own a computer? Here let me show you a graph from the 80s which proves that computers are only available to the top 1%... because we all know prices are fixed across time.

      • The data is from 2016 - and most of the data is NOT from Australia. Explain all the other countries on the graph, then. Especially Germany and Denmark who loudly trumpet their wind power initiative.

  • Stop calling it renewable (Score:3)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Friday March 15, 2019 @10:21PM (#58282080)

    The sun us nit renewable.

    The correct term is non-carbon energy

  • is coal getting more expensive because of technology or regulation? it seems dishonest to compare technologies using modified numbers.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close