Which Energy Future: Power Lines or Rooftop Solar Panels (and Storage Batteries)? (nytimes.com) 271
The New York Times reports on "an intense policy struggle" in America's national and state governments:
-On one side, large electric utilities and President Biden want to build thousands of miles of power lines to move electricity created by distant wind turbines and solar farms to cities and suburbs.
- On the other, some environmental organizations and community groups are pushing for greater investment in rooftop solar panels, batteries and local wind turbines.
And the result "could lock in an energy system that lasts for decades." At issue is how quickly the country can move to cleaner energy and how much electricity rates will increase... The option supported by Mr. Biden and some large energy companies would replace coal and natural gas power plants with large wind and solar farms hundreds of miles from cities, requiring lots of new power lines. Such integration would strengthen the control that the utility industry and Wall Street have over the grid. "You've got to have a big national plan to make sure the power gets from where it is generated to where the need is," Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in an interview.
But many of Mr. Biden's liberal allies argue that solar panels, batteries and other local energy sources should be emphasized because they would be more resilient and could be built more quickly... In all probability, there will be a mix of solutions that include more transmission lines and rooftop solar panels. What combination emerges will depend on deals made in Congress but also skirmishes playing out across the country...
As millions of California homes went dark during a heat wave last summer, help came from an unusual source: batteries installed at homes, businesses and municipal buildings. Those batteries kicked in up to 6 percent of the state grid's power supply during the crisis, helping to make up for idled natural gas and nuclear power plants. Rooftop solar panels generated an additional 4 percent of the state's electricity... California showed that homes and businesses don't have to be passive consumers. They can become mini power plants, potentially earning as much from supplying energy as they pay for electricity they draw from the grid. Home and business batteries, which can be as small as a large television and as big as a computer server room, are charged from the grid or rooftop solar panels...
Regulators generally allow utilities to charge customers the cost of investments plus a profit margin, typically about 10.5 percent, giving companies an incentive to build power plants and lines... A 2019 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a research arm of the Energy Department, found that greater use of rooftop solar can reduce the need for new transmission lines, displace expensive power plants and save the energy that is lost when electricity is moved long distances. The study also found that rooftop systems can put pressure on utilities to improve or expand neighborhood wires and equipment.
The director of a Chicago-based environmental nonprofit tells the Times that "Solar energy plus storage is as transformative to the electric sector as wireless services were to the telecommunications sector."
In a weird twist, fossil fuel companies are now joining forces with local groups (including environmental groups) to fight the construction of new power lines.
-On one side, large electric utilities and President Biden want to build thousands of miles of power lines to move electricity created by distant wind turbines and solar farms to cities and suburbs.
- On the other, some environmental organizations and community groups are pushing for greater investment in rooftop solar panels, batteries and local wind turbines.
And the result "could lock in an energy system that lasts for decades." At issue is how quickly the country can move to cleaner energy and how much electricity rates will increase... The option supported by Mr. Biden and some large energy companies would replace coal and natural gas power plants with large wind and solar farms hundreds of miles from cities, requiring lots of new power lines. Such integration would strengthen the control that the utility industry and Wall Street have over the grid. "You've got to have a big national plan to make sure the power gets from where it is generated to where the need is," Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in an interview.
But many of Mr. Biden's liberal allies argue that solar panels, batteries and other local energy sources should be emphasized because they would be more resilient and could be built more quickly... In all probability, there will be a mix of solutions that include more transmission lines and rooftop solar panels. What combination emerges will depend on deals made in Congress but also skirmishes playing out across the country...
As millions of California homes went dark during a heat wave last summer, help came from an unusual source: batteries installed at homes, businesses and municipal buildings. Those batteries kicked in up to 6 percent of the state grid's power supply during the crisis, helping to make up for idled natural gas and nuclear power plants. Rooftop solar panels generated an additional 4 percent of the state's electricity... California showed that homes and businesses don't have to be passive consumers. They can become mini power plants, potentially earning as much from supplying energy as they pay for electricity they draw from the grid. Home and business batteries, which can be as small as a large television and as big as a computer server room, are charged from the grid or rooftop solar panels...
Regulators generally allow utilities to charge customers the cost of investments plus a profit margin, typically about 10.5 percent, giving companies an incentive to build power plants and lines... A 2019 report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a research arm of the Energy Department, found that greater use of rooftop solar can reduce the need for new transmission lines, displace expensive power plants and save the energy that is lost when electricity is moved long distances. The study also found that rooftop systems can put pressure on utilities to improve or expand neighborhood wires and equipment.
The director of a Chicago-based environmental nonprofit tells the Times that "Solar energy plus storage is as transformative to the electric sector as wireless services were to the telecommunications sector."
In a weird twist, fossil fuel companies are now joining forces with local groups (including environmental groups) to fight the construction of new power lines.
both (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand I have the impression that the rooftop "solution" is being pushed by companies who want to sell to individuals due to a bigger profit margin. Economies of scale (centralized large electricity utilities) are cheaper. Also, the grid does need to get upgraded for the electric vehicle revolution that is taking place. Most people don't have their own garage and house, so yeah...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:both, but different (Score:2)
The power lines are already there, and useful. What is hindering are the monopolies behind them. The best solution would be local, collectively owned grids to balance production and use, combined with state owned or even continent owned grids to balance the weather influence
The latter is used mainly for wind energy, as the most wind (at least in the temperate zones) is in fronts. If you think continent-wide, the average wind is way more constant than state-wide. But that is off course the west-east directio
Re: (Score:2)
Apartment buildings will want solar to make them more attractive, along with parking spaces that have car charging available. It's going to quickly reach the point where apartments without those things are much less attractive. The relatively small cost will be well worth it.
This is already happening in Norway.
We just need to be careful that the bottom end of the market doesn't get left out.
Re: (Score:3)
The "bottom of the market" in Norway is likely to be a lot different than in most of the world. The entire population of the country is smaller than many large metro areas in the world. And the country is rich in natural resources. The vast majority of Norway's electricity is produced by hydroelectric plants, not solar or wind.
Best,
Re: (Score:2)
along with parking spaces that have car charging available.
What is this off street parking of which you speak? Not that on street parking seems to hamper electric vehicles around here. There are both standalone chargers and ones integrated into the new LED lamp posts.
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to have to pull their fingers out if the UK is going to transition to EVs. On street parking tied to the householder's energy bill is the only fair option, and we need a lot of it.
Re: (Score:3)
For suburban housing, distributed solar has a decent chance at providing the aggregate energy needs.
For multi-story apartment complexes, the ratio of roof to occupancy is a pretty uphill battle. Solar may be able to offset energy demand a bit, but apartment complexes can't realistically be self-sufficient, it's just packing people in too densely and lacks enough surface area to collect enough solar to do the job. Barring something drastic like a sudden jump to 60% efficient panels, dense living will still n
Re: both (Score:2)
I'd consider a bit of everything - the grid to balance production and consumption, batteries as a buffer then add many different means of production to make electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. the whole question is stupid. Of course it is "both". And it is finally getting rid of the old grid that only works because you push in more energy than needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Almost. The answer is certainly both, but it's also mostly centralized power and grid improvements. The grid improvements have to happen anyway, so that we can ship power further in exceptional cases. But we shouldn't spend any money promoting rooftop solar. What we should do to promote residential installations is mandate net metering. No more power companies dragging ass on your intertie, they need to be forced to pay you for your contributions. Otherwise the government should stay out of residential powe
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the answer is both. One reason why a decentralised electrical supply is desirable (even if you are also connected to a grid) is robustness during regional or national disasters. Your power utility may get hacked. Your rooftop solar panels likely will not. When power lines come down during an ice storm or wildfire, having a local electric supply, adequate for at least basic light, cooking and temperature control, can be a matter of life and death. Look at what happened in Puerto Rico after hurricane
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Move the generation closer to the point of consumption. That reduces both transmission losses and helps to localize impact in the event of a fault in the national power grid.
Personal rooftop solar for homeowners is also a method to be self reliant, rather than a dependent on a large power monopoly. Even if I never actually saved much money, that alone is worth the price of admission for me. Everyone will have to do their own assessment of how much that is worth to them.
Best,
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely both, and the extent of each will surely depend on the situation. We have rooftop solar panels in the UK, and they work pretty well in the summer. Unfortunately, our peak demand is in the winter. We don’t need A/C, so summer demand is limited to hot water and whichever machines are running in the house. If we added a battery to this system, it would simply drive up the capital cost and not really provide any benefit.
Locations close to the equator, with a material air con demand wou
Re: both (Score:4, Insightful)
European peak demand is going to explode as well heading to 2050, get rid of gas/wood and in severe winter weather when air heatpumps have lousy COP the peak demand could become a multiple of what it is today.
Power via grid from afar is useful for tyrants (Score:2)
Power via grid from off-premises, rather than from local generation and storage, has an advantage for tyrants: If a neighborhood is resisting them, they can cut the power. (Similarly with water, fuel, comm, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're worried about that, then buy your own solar panels and batteries. But don't expect the government to buy them for you, when building a few HVDC power cables would decarbonize the grid at much lower cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Power via grid from off-premises, rather than from local generation and storage, has an advantage for tyrants: If a neighborhood is resisting them, they can cut the power. (Similarly with water, fuel, comm, etc.)
I always thought Slashdotters were full of basement dwelling nerds, not disaster prepper bunker dwelling nerds.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the answer is both (Score:3)
Renewables and storage batteries are great for residential homes, especially those in more remote areas.
Power lines work very well, especially in densely populated areas.
Newer small scale nuclear (and someday fusion) plants means power lines.
Re: Of course the answer is both (Score:2)
Given the choice, in the US ... (Score:2)
... I'd go with Rooftop / Garden Solar, Batteries and optimised power-consumption. When you're out in the boondocks and heatwaves, hurricanes and other extreme conditions regularly cancel the grid, it's better to be independant.
The ideal is probably a mix of both, with the bulk of load coming of a grid running on renewable energy. However, for that you need a feasible well-regulated and fault-tolarant grid and as I understand it, those are somewhat lacking in certain areas of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
... I'd go with Rooftop / Garden Solar, Batteries and optimised power-consumption. When you're out in the boondocks and heatwaves, hurricanes and other extreme conditions regularly cancel the grid, it's better to be independant.
Here's the problem, in order to be independent you need literally days of battery backup, or more generation capacity than you need — and you STILL need a battery bank. You pay a substantial premium for a solar controller/inverter combo that can do islanding without batteries, so much in fact that a small battery bank is cheaper, and islanding without batteries makes zero sense. So it winds up cost a LOT more to provide the same capacity with a bunch of residential systems than it does with centalize
Efficency (Score:2)
Power lines are ~95% efficient, batteries are ~85% efficient. These are rough numbers and both can be improved but the idea is that power lines, even long ones are more efficient. Utility-scale solar is also more cost-effective, and probably also more efficient, other forms of power generation are just impractical on a small scale.
Power lines and large scale utilities are just more efficient and I can't believe that environmental organization push for local solutions. It is a typical American thinking, lik
Re: (Score:3)
Power lines and large scale utilities are just more efficient and I can't believe that environmental organization push for local solutions
These are the same environmental organizations that promote closing nuclear power even when it will be replaced by fossil fuels. What it seems to boil down to is they oppose human development more than they support saving the environment.
Batteries (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Today's batteries are still a weak link in off grid solutions. They contain costly and rare materials and upon disposal, an environmental menace.
Depends on who you've been listening to. If you've been listening to Musk and the media uncritically parroting his reality distortion about the world's biggest battery then yes. On the other hand the world's biggest grid battery was until January this year a very large sodium-sulphur battery in Japan. It's a chemistry suited only for very large batteries, but doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Can we start looking at hydrogen storage as a battery source? It can be made easily and only dumps oxygen in the air.
The efficiency is now acceptable but the capital costs are still significant. The fuel cells don't last forever, either. Still, it may make sense for large stationary installations.
Re: (Score:2)
They contain costly and rare materials and upon disposal, an environmental menace.
Let me brake it down for you:
1) They contain costly: nope - batteries are actually pretty cheap, since a decade or so
2) and rare materials: nope - nothing rare in battery, not even Cobalt is rare
3) and upon disposal, an environmental menace: nope - they get recycled
Re: (Score:2)
"Rare Earth" elements are indeed not all that rare in the Earth's crust. However they are expensive and dirty to extract and process. That expense keeps their supply rare.
And we are not talking about buying a pack of AAs in a store. Enough batteries to power an entire house for an entire day someplace where they need air conditioning is going to be in the tens of thousands of USD. A small price to pay for energy independence, but it puts it out or reach of 90% of the western world and 99% of the entire worl
Can someone translate this please? (Score:2)
Those batteries kicked in up to 6 percent of the state grid's power supply during the crisis, helping to make up for idled natural gas and nuclear power plants.
What does that mean? You have:
a) a crisis? lacking power?
b) but the power plants are idle?
c) and by luck you have full batteries that take the slack?
That does not compute for me ...
Where is "energy" in the Constitution? (Score:3)
8.5 minutes (Score:3)
Here are the energy prices in Ontario - http://reports.ieso.ca/public/... [reports.ieso.ca]
You will see that they vary between -$0.02 and $0.70. Even with swings like that you can't make batteries storage profitable. Big grids that span multiple time zones and temperature zones are always going more economical than a single home system.
Not a dichomoty (Score:2)
It isn't an either/or situation. Most people in the world simply can't rely on rooftop solar for all their power needs. Either they life in a place where it has weather, too far north, or simply live in an apartment.
The good news is, there is no need for a one-solution-for-all. People that can afford solar (either the requirements or the price) can do so, and get hooked up to the grid.
Re:Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct answer is "both"
Look at how stupid we are when we cut landlines and go with 5G/WiFi instead of wired connections. Dependence on batteries is no better than the dependence on gasoline generators.
Re:Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The media" always has such a short memory. What happens when your wind turbines, which depend on wind, by the way, freeze? What happens when there's not enough sun for your solar panels for long enough that you don't have electricity left? And all kinds of other stuff, including waste considerations and whatever (people will tell you there's an army of companies ready to recycle your batteries). Power lines are essential. This is all a business game. Deal with it.
You weather proof your wind turbines when you install them. Wind turbines freezing in large numbers only happens in deregulation utopias like Texas where power companies can get away with shit like skipping the weatherproofing to improve their corporate bottom line and shutting people's air conditioning off remotely because they committed to providing more electricity than their capacity can deliver at peak demand. The entire Baltic region, the UK, Germany and Scandinavia are choke full of wind turbines, it's freeze-your-balls-off cold up there, they have no problem with their wind turbines thanks to the magic of mandatory weatherproofing. Excess solar energy gets stored. If you run out there is enough capacity in the entire network to compensate. Over extremely large areas in extremely large grids like the USA, China or the EU27 there is always enough capacity elsewhere to make up for any local shortfall in wind or solar.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that for some reason the traditionalists have extreme irrational fears of changing anything. Hence the attempt to drive the whole thing into a catastrophe because they have no actual understanding of how things work. This whole thread here is a good example: Of course you do not need fully dependable energy for a home. You need enough of it, but if you have some low-availability times during a day, that is _not_ an issue unless you are terminally dumb. Industry is a different question, but in
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:2)
Do you want an even more geriatric Trump to get another term? Go tell poorfags that rolling blackouts are just the new normal and that if they can't afford an islanded battery system that's okay. You got yours and the environment comes first.
Re: (Score:2)
they have no problem with their wind turbines thanks to the magic of mandatory weatherproofing.
It is probably not even "mandatory". It is just common sense. I have a good overview over the laws in Germany, but I'm pretty certain there is no "you must weather proof your plant" law.
However the law basically demands that you have an 99.99% uptime -> which implies obviously weather proofing.
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:3)
Despite the efficiency, the amount of peak power and total energy generated per area is favourable for solar compared to wind. Fragility is only a problem in areas expected to see heavy hail.
Ignoring hail resistance, PV can still scale down cost far more than wind.
Re:Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:4, Interesting)
Solar PV under the best circumstances only generates the rated current for about 4-5 hours/day, not 8 - but they still generate some outside that 9:30-2:30 window. An you're right, it's not well suited for higher latitudes - northern or southern. They still work, but only in summer.
OTOH, that electricity generation has very little ongoing costs, unlike fossil fuels.
They're also about 1/3 the price they were in 2009 when my last panels went up. And they're rated for cyclones and golf-ball-sized hail. Your claim of price and fragility doesn't really stand up.
Re:Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Informative)
Solar PV under the best circumstances only generates the rated current for about 4-5 hours/day, not 8 - but they still generate some outside that 9:30-2:30 window. An you're right, it's not well suited for higher latitudes - northern or southern. They still work, but only in summer.
OTOH, that electricity generation has very little ongoing costs, unlike fossil fuels.
They're also about 1/3 the price they were in 2009 when my last panels went up. And they're rated for cyclones and golf-ball-sized hail. Your claim of price and fragility doesn't really stand up.
True, I attended a lecture by a guy who moved to a renewables company from one that relied largely on fossil fuels for energy generation. Somebody asked him what the most striking difference was in terms of business/financial planning. The way he described it was that with fossil fuels you are constantly worrying about fuel prices. You've got alert keywords in your news app related to Syria, Yemen, Israel, Saudi Arabia, War with Iran, the straits of Hormuz etc ... You keep yourself informed on the state of Iranian cruise- and ballistic missile design because these things are what's going to affect fuel prices and possibly mess up your investment and in order to assess a risk you need to understand that risk. With Wind/Solar you can literally plan the entire investment out in an Excel sheet and barring a once in a century great depression like economic catastrophe it's going to pan out pretty much as your Excel sheet predicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar PV under the best circumstances only generates the rated current for about 4-5 hours/day
This would mean a 20% capacity factor, yet in Chile, 45% is reached by singe axis tracking systems. That's around ten hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They work best when perpendicular to the sunshine, or nearly so. The best year-round results in temperate climates (where most of us live) come from panels that are mounted approximately equal to your latitude, i.e. I live at ~ 26S, and my panels are mounted at 26 degrees. That gives me best performance during spring and autumn because the panels are closest to perpendicular during those seasons. Summer is good because of long days, and winter is the weakest season, but still OK because of cooler weather (S
Re: (Score:2)
4-5 i would say more like 2 maybe 3.
It's 4 to 5 unless you are at significantly northerly latitudes or unless the panels are not optimally sited (e.g. north-facing roof).
Re:Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:4, Informative)
> 1. The solar cells are hideously inefficient at converting sunlight to electricity ~ 20%
Sunlight is 100% free, costing nothing to produce or deliver. Efficiency is a secondary concern to cost, and only because higher efficiency means more output for the available area.
In terms of output per area, solar panels are about five times better that wind turbines... so if area is your primary concern, solar+storage is the better choice.
> 2. They don't work at night
A lot of things can end up not working for one reason or another. What's important is how reliable it is - which is not the same thing as always working. If you know when and how it will work or not work, you can plan for it and it's not a problem. In that regard, solar power is extremely reliable.
That said, yes solar panels are not the best choice for above the arctic circle... fortunately it's not a very heavily populated region of the globe, and those that live there are smart enough to use other things more appropriate for the circumstances.
> 3. They're expensive and fragile
Solar and wind are about the same LCOE.
They aren't that fragile, typically being build with ballistic rated glass for resistance against hailstones and wind-driven debris.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of output per area, solar panels are about five times better that wind turbines... so if area is your primary concern, solar+storage is the better choice.
That statement makes not any sense, as wind turbines literally cost no area at all, especially offshore.
For private households, solar costs no area either, as you put it on the roof or on the walls.
Here: an google earth link ... https://www.google.de/maps/pla... [google.de]
The windmills are simply on fields. They do not use up "area" but "air".
If you scroll a
Re: (Score:2)
1. The solar cells are hideously inefficient at converting sunlight to electricity ~ 20%
20% is MASSIVELY more than how efficiently wind turbines convert sunlight to electricity (yes, that's exactly what wind turbines do).
3. They're expensive and fragile
No, they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar really isn't that good compared to wind. 1. The solar cells are hideously inefficient at converting sunlight to electricity ~ 20%
While it's nice if it's greater than 20%, but if it's cheap and you can stick it on buildings, it doesn't matter that much if it's 20% or 50%. If it was 1%, then that would be significant. If you are obsessing about that difference you aren't really looking at it holistically. Efficiency only really has real importance when you are talking using desert or other areas with panels. In that case, PV panels probably isn't the best technology anyway.
Efficiency is something, but not everything. (Score:3)
Solar really isn't that good compared to wind.
1. The solar cells are hideously inefficient at converting sunlight to electricity ~ 20%
I'm not sure why we care. Efficiency isn't the number we are interested in; cost is.
For what it's worth, the average efficiency of coal-fired power plants in the US is 32%, with another 6% loss in transmission and distribution (2% in transmission and 4% in distribution).
2. They don't work at night which north of the artic circle makes them useless for at least 6 months of the year
0.05% of the world's population lives north of the Arctic circle. They can use a different power source.
and even in northern europe means they only have about 8 hours a day of useful time in winter.
Yep. In the long term, storage or load-shifting will be needed. Nobody will disagree with that.
3. They're expensive and fragile
No, neither one. The prices have dropped
Re: (Score:3)
This is /., they hate Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:2)
This is not true. There were preemptive shutdowns in 2019, but rolling blackouts in 2020 were the first in 19 years. Both were related to power lines, which is an excellent argument for local generation.
The current outage in Northern California is from a wildfire taking out power lines coming in from Oregon. Again, a good argument for local generation.
Transmission is not always dependable either (Score:3)
Um i guess you forgetting about California shutting off people's POWER to their whole house
Um, California shutting off power was due to inadequate transmission line reliability. Since the discussion here is arguing for transmission lines instead of solar... that argument isn't working.
and they are regulated utopias.
Except the wildfires and electrical failures in California were explicitly due to deregulation [cnsnews.com] . The power companies were saving money by failing to do maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing happens.
Some of the current plants will supply the missing power.
Oops ... that was so easy again.
Re: (Score:2)
"The media" always has such a short memory. What happens when your wind turbines, which depend on wind, by the way, freeze?
When has a wind farm frozen?
Power lines are essential.
And needed for wind farms.
Re: (Score:2)
"The media" always has such a short memory.
No. People are just gullible morons who listen to Fox News morons rather than actually having a clue. Wind turbines don't freeze.
Fossil Fuels were at Fault (Score:3)
Despite what Petroleum Politicians would have you believe, fossil fuels were the driving force behind the grid failures here in Texas.
The February Freeze knocked out natural gas pipelines in 2 ways:
Natural Gas Weekly Update [eia.gov]
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
The TCO of rooftop solar is about twice that of grid-scale solar.
Wind is even cheaper and only makes sense at scale.
I have solar on my roof because the subsidies made them cost-effective, but the subsidies are dumb.
We should be building HVDC lines to sunny deserts and windy prairies, not panels on rooftops.
Joe Biden is right, and I don't say that often.
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
That logic is great if you are playing Sim City and paying for everything yourself, but in reality people get residential solar because in the long run it saves them money, even without subsidies. Doesn't matter to them if grid scale is cheaper, unless the grid scale producers are willing to sell to them at a cost so low that the payback term on rooftop solar makes it unappealing.
There is another benefit to rooftop solar. It transfers ownership of the generating equipment from the big energy companies to individual homeowners. As battery tech gets cheaper some people will be able to go off-grid. The most important thing is to make sure everyone benefits, not just those who can afford the panels.
We are entering an age of cheap, plentiful electricity, especially if you can delay your demand to follow availability.
Re: (Score:3)
, especially if you can delay your demand to follow availability.
And that is the kicker. I fear most people will fail at it because they are too dumb to do it. See some fine specimen in this thread for example.
Re: (Score:2)
It will mostly be automatic. Car chargers already have this feature available, for example.
There was some talk years ago of signalling over the mains somehow, a bit like the old X10 or something, but these days they can just use wifi.
Re: (Score:3)
It will mostly be automatic. Car chargers already have this feature available, for example.
My EV automatically charges between 2 and 4 am.
I get a special rate from PG&E during that time window.
I pay a higher rate from 2 pm to 7 pm.
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Informative)
In the long run, residential solar saves people money due to more subtle subsidies resulting from how residential electricity is billed for. It's going to be very cheap for the grid to supply electricity at the times when residential solar produces well and much more expensive when it doesn't, thanks to grid-scale solar being so much cheaper than other forms of generation and storage, but residential customers are charged for both just the same. This means that wealthier people who can afford to install rooftop solar and not draw from the grid during those times when wholesale electricity prices are low are effectively being subsidised by less wealthy people who don't have this option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
subsidised by less wealthy people who don't have this option.
That is nonsense. If you already own the house to put rooftop solar on it, you easy get a loan for the solar plant. After ~10 years it is paid off.
Typical residents usually do not have variable power prices (yes there are exceptions as we learned about the idiots in Texas) - so your argument about that makes no real sense either.
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
It transfers ownership of the generating equipment from the big energy companies to individual homeowners.
Right and the requirements to be able to engage in the capital outlay. Now don't misunderstand me I am perfectly fine with that, but you of all people should realize its about the least progressive idea of the current century. The entire rural electrification effort was taken on with tremendous government support and the law most places that get residential zoneing require grid connection/participation because it ensures everyone has access to electricity.
The more people who go off grid the less able grid operators will be able to cover their costs in any other way than raising rates on the remainers. The more people who have reliable local backups the more political pressure from guys (like me) there will be on utilities commissions to cut costs, citing no need for 99% up time, are argument will be 90% of the customers can power their homes and businesses for at least several hours a day without issue, who cares if the utility has to manage stress with rolling blackouts etc; I don't.
The reality is the people who can afford the panels will be the ones to benefit UNLESS you litterally go as far as government sending people around to install panels on roofs at tax payer expense. Good luck getting support for that btw. Also keep in mind all this equipment does require maintenance some of which also isn't cheap. I am all for people who wish to being allowed to go off grid - its their money and its probably good for them if they meet they can handle the capex but handing this stuff out to people who can't will just case it to be a burden to them in 10 years when the maintenance bill comes due.
Ever been to some of these declining communities in rural America? The window sills are rotting not because people don't care but because they don't have the $300 for lumber and paint to fix them. The same will happen with panels and power walls, except people will be left in the dark.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That can all be managed. For example, the power company might decide it is worth offering subsidised batteries to people in a particular area if it means they can drop their service level down to 90%, say cut down during very high demand periods. More commonly though the energy company would just offer people incentives to cut down use during peak times, like a significant discount in exchange for being able to turn down AC for 15 minutes.
The UK had a scheme where energy companies were obliged to offer peop
Re: (Score:3)
It *can* all be managed but the political reality in America is that it WONT be. Panels have a limited life time, so giving people loans even subsidized ones to by them is probably actually NOT a very good idea. Poorer people will get lured to buy them the same way they get suckered in to giant student loan packages. They will still be paying when the asset well past ripe; just like that fine arts degree from 1998.
Communities that try to finance it will have the same problems they do with a lot of public i
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:5, Informative)
Ugh. FUD.
Panels have a long lifetime. Notable causes of efficiency loss over time are contact corrosion, cell bleaching, and encapsulation browning due to UV. That's why the manufacturers rate their panels for 25 years of lifetime, with warranties for efficiency loss over that lifetime.
One of the oldest arrays in the World at the University of Oldenburg declined from 8.55% efficiency to 8.22% efficiency over 36 years, a 4% loss in power output. New panels today have an increased initial efficiency (approximately double that of the 1976-manufcatured panels). It's reasonable to assume that resistance to aging effects have roughly remained the same from major vendors although they have been very conservative in their warranties. For example, the Suniva panels on my roof are warrantied with a linear warranty down to 80% over 25 years.
Here's the thing though. I have seen absolutely no degradation in power output over the past 5 years. If anything, my panels' efficiency have increased each year. Certainly my total generation has, but the efficiency numbers are calculated using observed insolation, so might be prone to error. Whatever - the panels have certainly not degraded 4% in that time.
Here's the other thing. Even allowing for that degradation and ignoring the state subsidies (MA, generous), the array would have paid itself off in 9 years. So if the panels did degrade to 93.6% of initial efficiency over that time, every electron flowing afterwards would be absolutely free. 93.6% of free is still free. As it happens with the MA SREC program, my array will be paid off sometime this year, so I'll be getting 100% of free.
You also fail to recognise the economics of the install process. The panels themselves are a relatively small proportion of the install cost. Inverters are costly. The mechanics of the install aren't cheap - roof mounts and the expertise to layout and install. The electrical costs of running conduit and interconnecting to the grid are significant, and that work requires permitting and inspections. The retail cost of my panels was only approximately 20% of the installed sticker price (ie, that before any subsidies, tax credits etc). If my panels really did stop performing I could buy replacements today at 80% of the original retail cost, and at that point they are plug'n'play (ie, low labor cost). Those replacements would also be 30% better in solar efficiency, although my inverters would limit the peak. I'd still win though as most energy across the day is generated from less-than-perfect solar angles, and the increased efficiency would keep the inverters maxxed out for much more of the day.
With the increases in efficiency and the decreasing panel costs, at some point it is going to becoming more profitable to replace my panels than to keep running the old profitable ones - even without any degradation, and paying for someone to do the work. In all of this, I'm ignoring the decrease cooling costs associated with having a cooler roof, or the increase in value of my home. Both are tangible.
I do agree that there is a massive inequity problem here, as everywhere. I'm fortunate to have been in a position to pay to own my solar array outright. I'm getting the maximum benefit from the investment. I recognize that some of that investment (the subsidies) effectively comes from the taxpayer base in the form of taz credits, and also from other electricity consumers in the form of Renewable Energy Credits. Those problems still exist with Power Purchase Agreements, and Leased Arrays, too, but now someone other than the homeowner collects all the subsidy money. Why did SolarCity (Tesla) record a $5/W installed-cost on their PPA arrays, when most other local installers were getting down to about $3/W, despite having massive advantages in buying power, volume purchasing and other efficiencies in scale? The answer might very well be that the Federal Tax Credit was 30% of the installed cost, up to ...., have a guess.... $5/W. The
Re: (Score:2)
It transfers ownership of the generating equipment from the big energy companies to individual homeowners.
Right and the requirements to be able to engage in the capital outlay.
There are options in the UK to address this. It's not rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a double edged sword. One thing that people who install rooftop solar always seem to forget (and then bitterly complain about when they come to the realisation) is that they are ultimately engaging in an activity that attempts to reduce their bulk energy cost while ignoring how that cost is divided and reinvested. This wouldn't be an issue except that people still expect the power to be supplied to them when the sun isn't shining and energy companies still expect income to pay for grid maintenance.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, but no.
You lose too much energy when you run lines "hundreds" of miles away from the generation source to where it's used.
The right answer is more like:
- For those in regions where there is enough solar energy, solar roofing or PV panels can supplement the actual energy use, mainly to run heating and air conditioning systems since those are the heaviest "loads". In the event of utility loss, the users of this switch to battery storage and/or their EV until utility power returns.
- For those in regi
Re: Dependable energy will win, obviously. (Score:2)
There have been continual progress in super-cooled HVDC power lines to the point of it being viable in new commercial projects.
https://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featuretaking-the-best-path-to-superconducting-hvdc-8786922/ [modernpowersystems.com]
I think the answer is going to be "both", as the benefits and cost vary greatly on location.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You lose too much energy when you run lines "hundreds" of miles away from the generation source to where it's used.
It's not as bad as you might imagine with HVDC, and probably worth the extra generation capacity required if you are siting it in places that offer good generation resources.
In the absence of market signals (Score:2)
we are having debates on the the best choices central planners should make.
Re: (Score:2)
You lose too much energy when you run lines "hundreds" of miles away from the generation source to where it's used. /. ?) myths.
No you don't. Another of that stupid (is it american or only
Re: (Score:3)
We should be building HVDC lines to sunny deserts and windy prairies, not panels on rooftops.
Joe Biden is right, and I don't say that often.
The problem I have with continuing to rely so heavily on grid-scale power is the grid itself. Even if it's properly maintained and upgraded as required, it still represents a high vulnerability to cascade failures and sabotage. I see the need for the grid to power industry and as a backup for local wind, solar, and even nuclear, but this putting all the eggs in one ginormous basket has bitten us in the ass before and will do so again. Folks with their own independent power capability look pretty smart when
Re: (Score:2)
The TCO of rooftop solar is about twice that of grid-scale solar.
Pointless argument. Rooftop is usually owned by the house owner.
Grid-scale solar (is that even a word?) is owned by the power company.
Two completely different kettles.
Re: (Score:2)
The TCO of rooftop solar may be higher than grid-scale farms, but does that equation change if you count the grid costs with the solar farms? E.g. if we did have adequately efficienct panels and cost effective home battery with enough capacity to get a household through the longest 'dim' conditions, would the grid cost become part of the equation. The grid is a huge expense of lines to maintain and a source of great pain when a storm goes through and lines are particularly at risk for causing massive outag
Transparent Conductive Oxides (Score:2)
The TCO of rooftop solar is about twice that of grid-scale solar.
TDM TLA; IOH.
Re: (Score:2)
It will win eventually, but renewable pushers are experimenting with how close they can push us to the cliff to maintain the lie of cheap renewable energy.
Businesses invest in it in the UK. Without subsidy. Why do you think it is a lie?
Depends on what you call dependable (Score:5, Informative)
"The media" always has such a short memory. What happens when your wind turbines, which depend on wind, by the way, freeze?
Wind turbines work fine in cold weather; there are gigawatts of wind power deployed in cold countries like Norway. The ones in Texas failed because Texas utilities were incompetent.
And I'll also note that the main cause of the Texas blackouts was natural gas generators failing in cold weather [texastribune.org]. The secondary cause of the Texas blackouts was coal-fired plants failing due to pipes freezing and bursting [masterresource.org].
If you want to know something that often fails in cold weather: power lines get covered in ice and break. (They also tend to fail in hot weather, due to droop.)
... And all kinds of other stuff, including waste considerations and whatever (people will tell you there's an army of companies ready to recycle your batteries).
This has been the new talking point of the fossil-fuel industry: what about waste?!? Yes, it's true that few companies today are recycling old renewable power system components and batteries. But that's because, so far, renewable systems are so new in the infrastructure that there just isn't enough of them to make a business to recycle. If there's a demand, yes, there will be an army of companies ready to do it. The law of demand and supply actually does work.
Power lines are essential. This is all a business game. Deal with it.
I don't think anybody in the US is proposing "no power lines." The proposal is a mixture of transmission, storage, and load-shifting.
With that said, however, power transmission lines are quite expensive, take a lot of land, and require maintenance. Putting together an infrastructure which minimizes transmission would optimize the system.
It will win eventually, but renewable pushers are experimenting with how close they can push us to the cliff to maintain the lie of cheap renewable energy.
Renewable energy sources accounted for about 12% of total U.S. electricity at the moment, but nearly half of that is hydro, which is dispatchable power. We are not close to a cliff.
They are getting increasingly hysteric as the concept of Dunkelflaute and seasonal storage are becoming mainstream, it's all fud according to them. Honest people are starting to work out how all those goals for the coming decades actually have to be implemented with renewable energy
Don't know who you listen to, but the supply curve of renewable sources has always been understood by people who work in energy. And as you point out, competent people are working on implementation.
and they find that unacceptable.
Which is why people are working on solutions.
Re: (Score:3)
The most dangerous thing about rooftop solar panels is you still have to do maintenance on them
The MOST dangerous thing about rooftop solar panels is that they continue generating electricity for as long as the sun falls on them. You can shut off the supply to the house, but there will still be live wires on the roof, which causes problems for emergency workers. My insurance company told me they'd drop me if I installed PV cells, because of an increased fire risk. My neighbor said he was told that firefighters sometimes won't go into a home with PV cells on the roof because they can't be sure it's el
Re: (Score:2)
"dangerous maintenance"? Bullshit. Wash 'em down once or twice a year. If you're too scared to walk on your roof, then pay someone to do it.
They generate electricity while the sun shines, IFF the circuit is closed. If the charge controller says "that's enough for today" then there is no current. There's a bit of heat, but unless you go up there and short the terminals, there are no "live wires"
Re: (Score:2)
They generate electricity while the sun shines, IFF the circuit is closed.
They generate electricity while the sun shines, with no qualifier. That energy won't _reach_ anywhere if there isn't a circuit, but the fact is that the wiring between the array and the controller is energized as long as there's light falling on the array. The installs I've seen have the controller downstairs, indoors - so there's minimally live DC wiring coming down from the roof to wherever that controller is installed. If an insurance company is willing to stop cashing my checks over this - there must be
Re: (Score:3)
There is an open-circuit voltage present when the controller says "off", but unless your system is 48V or upwards, there's no shock risk. Mine is nominally 24VDC, I can touch terminals with no risk of shock whether the controller is on or off.
If the insurance company is worried about this, then they've been exposed to liability from poorly-installed systems.
Shit, I've been living with this - with my insurance company's blessing - since 1995.
Re:Risk (Score:4, Insightful)
My house has a live wire coming down from the roof supplying 240 volts at 150 amps. In fact every house does. Insurance is certainly ok with that.
Re:Risk (Score:5, Informative)
That's true, actually. A solar panel is producing electricity when there's light shining on it. A typical panel will produce around 40-60V depending on how much light hits it.
Depending on the inverter situation, this could mean several hundred volts DC is running to your inverter. Typically, there is an isolation switch at the panels on the roof that will cut DC from the panels to the lines leading to the inverter, and there is typically another isolator at the inverter input that cuts power to the inverter.
In a microinverter situation the DC is immediately converted to AC at the panel level - this is better because a panel failure wouldn't render the whole array dead as it would in a global inverter.
However, in a battery-less situation, both styles of inverters need incoming AC - to sync their phase with. So upon loss of AC power, the inverters should shut down, This is required by code for PV installations.
Yes, it's required by code for inverters to not supply power during a power outage. For obvious reasons - as in, you don't want to backfeed onto the grid if it's down (you'll kill a lineworker that way - because your backfeed will electrocute them when they're trying to fix your lines). Granted, lineworkers take precautions just in case (including shorting phase to neutral and ground, which will typically blow your generator or inverter), but it's still a danger.
In a battery situation, it's more interesting. Most generally have a "essential" sub panel - the inverter gets AC power from the grid, DC from the PV array, and DC from the battery. It then has an AC output to the essential panel (or always-on panel). This panel is where you connect things you want to always run even when on battery like your fridge and lights and such.
The essential panel is run by the inverter, supplemented by the AC grid or battery as required and the inverter shunts excess power to the grid if AC is coming in. This keeps your stuff running in your house without a chance of backfeeding .
Typically though, you do what everyone else has to do - I mean, generator backups and battery backups are common things (even for houses you can get gensets) - you need a big red EPO (emergency power off) button that will immediately shut down all power. A proper EPO system will be a resistance loop so if it shorts or opens it will cause a trip (short - a fire or something melts the wire and they short together, an open is a similar thing) and may also have smoke detector inputs to shut down.
So yes, there is a potential increased risk of electrical fires and there are fire safety issues to deal with, but the isolators should be relatively easy to access on the outside. I mean, EVs are a hazard for fire crews as well so they have databases to show where they need to cut to safe a vehicle for extraction. Likewise you probably need to do a few things so the local fire marshall knows where the isolator is and how to disable it otherwise - usually where the wires enter the building are exposed so they can be cut
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's required by code for inverters to not supply power during a power outage.
Nope. It's required by code for inverters to not supply power TO THE GRID during a power outage. It's perfectly acceptable for them to supply power to your panel. Normally one gets a disconnect installed between the panel and the grid if they have automatic generator start/connect, it's called an automatic transfer switch and they are also common in RVs with generators. Sometimes, however, the generator just has its own outlet and you plug the inlet cord into it.
When I lived in Lake county I put a generator
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here may be general shoddy electrical work, not any inherent problem of solar.
Re: (Score:2)
All modern solar systems are designed so that they don't feed energy in when the grid supply goes down. It can either be done so that when the grid is down the building can run on solar alone, or it can be done so that when the grid is down solar power is cut too. The latter is more common because it's safer and doesn't have issues like high load devices causing the inverter to shut down.
In any case it's not going to be any worse for firefighters in most cases. They enter buildings with the mains power on n
Re: (Score:2)
Get out the hip waders the bullshit you’re spewing is getting deep.
Re: (Score:2)
A rooftop solar installation has a switch in the basement to deactivate it.
And unless you do something on top of the roof: what exactly would a fire fighter have to fear inside of a building from a solar panel on the roof?
The worst thing that can happen is that your house is on fire, and they can not spray water on top of the panels.
Re: Risk (Score:2)
You forgot the dangerous part where high temperatures cause power lines to sag, coming into contact with brush and foliage and causing fires. Something that's going to be much more common and extreme heat situations. And the cost of burying power lines is 10 times it's not more than overhead lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
about 10% atm of Germany's base load is wind. And in about 20 years, it will be 100%.
Perhaps you want to enlighten us and explain us in 3 simple sentences what "base load" actually is? I bet my car and my house: you have no clue!