Tornadoes

[Hippocampus]

Solar alone is not suitable for huge base load 24/7 industrial operations. Or Las Vegas when the lights come on.

The beauty of fission, gas, coal and hydro are they are 24/7 and adjustable to meet demand. Tie all of these together in a reliable grid such as exists in most of Europe and NA allows solar and wind sporadic power generation to work effortlessly.

BTW, BPs fossil refineries operate 24/7 producing raw materials for manufacturing of solar and wind final assembly - and Willards too!

You’re avoiding the simple reality that transmission losses are low and storage is possible. Doesn’t even need to be batteries. Pump water up a hill. Drive turbines at night or when the sun doesn’t shine. In last post thought I made it clear a mix is in our future. I live in south eastern Massachusetts. My street gets its juice from offshore/ on land wind (btw its windy at night), Canadian hydro, until recently a nuclear plant 2 miles away, and solar. The mix will be dependent upon locale. They’re building geo for electricity production in Utah. Who would have thought it! Now economically feasible using fracking technology. As Peter said a watt is a watt. Energy can be stored in various forms and a joule is a joule. Transformation between forms is quite doable with very modest losses.

 

[mvweebles]

Solar alone is not suitable for huge base load 24/7 industrial operations. Or Las Vegas when the lights come on.

The beauty of fission, gas, coal and hydro are they are 24/7 and adjustable to meet demand. Tie all of these together in a reliable grid such as exists in most of Europe and NA allows solar and wind sporadic power generation to work effortlessly.

BTW, BPs fossil refineries operate 24/7 producing raw materials for manufacturing of solar and wind final assembly - and Willards too!

Many years ago I did a project for one of the energy grid operators (Cal ISO; at the time, one of seven ISOs in the country). I had no idea what went into modulating the energy grid. Honestly, I cannot think of a more complex problem than assuring 100m households have power when the underlying electrons are fundamentally perishible - available only for immediate use. Speaking of 3-D chess!

Pivoting energy source is a glide path with many stops along the way. There is no single source but rather a mix that will change as technology makes them viable. Hydrocarbons will always have a place in the chain....and then there are plastics (if I recall, about 1/3rd of oil goes to non-fuel based refining production such as raw materials for plastics). Before the pandemic, the European major O&Gs like BP seem to want to bulk-up their pantry of energy sources to give them optionality on the future. Since the pandemic, with the rapid rise in oil, all O&Gs have quietly toned-down their carbon-neutral-by-2050 pledges: the allure of cashflow in a world of $80-$90 bbl is just too enticing.

The piece I don't understand is the defeatest attitude that views energy evolution as some sort of conspiracy, some sort of threat to their way of life. Personally, the libertarian in me would like to see oil float to a natural cost without benefit of sweetheart federal land/sea grants that effectively subsidize the cost we pay. Think about it: when someone says "Open-up more land for drilling," it really means give a large company access to a public asset that no one else has. No matter how you slice it, it's a subsidy. But in true hypocrite manner, I am mildly supportive of government investment in new technologies to 'prime the pump' as long as its for a defined period of time.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

On topic of residential solar installed cost and payback period. Quick Google of installed cost of solar found this recent article from MarketWatch, a research firm vs solar firm.


https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/home-improvement/solar-panel-cost/

Scroll down and there is a state by state table. I've attached a screenshot - around 10-yr payback before tax incentives. There is quite a bit of variability by state. Another way to look at it would be to take the installed cost per kWh and simply divide by your local cost to come up with a payback period - one set of data I found shows 177 months or around 15 years (natl avg of 16.1 cents per kWh).

Avg kWh by region data https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

Bottom line is 10 year payback is roughly right, but could be longer depending on the model you use. As Ted rightly points out, there are other considerations from a purely financial perspective. However, as Hippocampus stated, has been my experience that the satisfaction of shedding a monthly payment was very, very high. Somewhere I have a picture of my wife "throwing the switch" at our Mexico place. What a smile!!!!

Peter View attachment 141866View attachment 141867

Peter,

I may be wrong, but if you read the advertisement you linked, carefully, the cost of the panels and equipment is what they are referring to when they talk about payback, not the cost of the installation which is more than the equipment. They say in the first paragraph that the average homeowner spent $15,000 to $20,000 on equipment and $25,000 on installation. If you scroll halfway down, the pie chart shows less than half on equipment.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Peter,

I may be wrong, but if you read the advertisement you linked, carefully, the cost of the panels and equipment is what they are referring to when they talk about payback, not the cost of the installation which is more than the equipment. They say in the first paragraph that the average homeowner spent $15,000 to $20,000 on equipment and $25,000 on installation. If you scroll halfway down, the pie chart shows less than half on equipment.

Ted

I agree Ted - the language is a bit imprecise; and some of the numbers are difficult to box (the break-even is a bit suspect). I can tell you that panels are under $1/watt these days (e.g. a 350W panel is under $350). A 5kw set of panels would be under $5k. How much would install be? Who knows - but I don't think $5k is wildly wrong in either direction - call it $12k all-in, but as mentioned, I suspect many of the install firms use "Oriental Rug" sales tactics where the list price is marked up many times over, then reduced via a tax incentive or phantom savings. A community RFP is well advised. Signing-up for a sales call while at a Home Show is probably not the best....

I managed to find a synopsis of the business case I did for my Mexico install 5-years ago. It's a 4.5kw system that cost $7800 all-in to install, including grid-tie to electric company ("CFE" in Mexico). If you see the footnotes, mentions time-value-of-money point you initially raised. In my opinion, because of the very high cost of electricity in Mexico, the break-even is a very short period - not really apples/apples with US $/kWh rates. Lower install costs also help, of course (though Mexico's 16% "IVA" (VAT) tax is drag). Looking back 5-years later, the business case generally works, although occupancy (and therefore electricity usage) has not been 100%. But still, we have neighbors who see $700 USD electricity bills due to chronic hi-usage from gringos who come for the sun and crank-up the AC. Our CFE bill is 50-pesos every 2-months, or $3.25 USD. Additionally, Mexico raised their rates a LOT over the last 3-years - over 20% increase which is cost-avoided. Alot of peace of mind since neither of us work anymore which has been, by far, the biggest benefit of installing solar - peace of mind.

While I agree that a more careful examination would add confidence, it's a solid business case with some caveats: if you don't plan to keep your house; if you don't use much electricity; if your location is conducive to solar. Using consultant-speak, the data varies a bit more than desired, but it is "directionally correct."

Here's a Forbes article that also uses the US Dept of Statistics data. I didn't spend much time searching. My guess you're thinking this is mostly sponsored by solar install firms, and I have to agree. In my initial post I noted existence of community solar ombudsmen who will assist a group of neighbors in constructing an RFP which would avoid the sales-speak.

https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/cost-of-solar-panels/

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

You go to Belgium and the Netherlands and it’s not uncommon to see wind on the roof peaks. That’s not going to happen here. Production will depend on region. Don’t think home production is a major slice of the whole energy pie. It’s going to be industrial in the main.
I’m on this thread stuck at home as the electricians are installing my level 2 charger. Went with the 48amp Rivian charger on a 60 amp circuit. Did it for the integration with their tech and future availability of all charging stations including Tesla. Cost is $850 for the charger, $650 for wire and parts. But including labor, parts, and permitting (to not violate home insurance) total electrician bill is $1800. Then add the $850 for the charger. Total rip off as I could easily do it myself. Except for the charger all parts are standard off the shelf. Could even saved a few bucks going with a ChargePoint or other equivalent.

As said multiple times cost of solar depends a lot on new construction or existing. Labor is the major cost not parts. New construction there’s no additional engineering costs of significance, permitting, and modest additional costs c/w just building a house. We added 10% going with stormproofing, getting to a HERS better than 90% of the houses in our state (probably 99%) and putting in geo and solar with a backup propane generator.
You repeatedly post that solar will be mostly housing. That’s not true currently and probably won’t be true in the future. You neglect the difference in cost and impact between additional cost between thoughtful new construction and reworking existing properties. We did two things. Make our own electricity but equally important use a fraction of what we used in past houses. The decrease in usage by housing ( as well as transport, agriculture, and industry) is a significant factor as well. Cities are changing codes. Simple things like painting structures white, changing window requirements, green roofs make a difference to both usage and temperatures in the streets.

Have a slightly different view than Peter on usage. We’re not in the house for 6-8 months a year. We set the thermostats to 64f and leave. We don’t winterize. The hot water is on vacation. The house is extensively monitored. The house settings are changed remotely a day before we move back in. With our low usage we get a monthly check. Our tax and rebate incentives are just about gone. But as Peter says the flexibility and freedom is priceless. Leave for a week or a year 5 minutes on the iPad and I’m gone and not stressing about weather, flood, or even single point failures. Monitoring and direct notification of support vendors mitigates risk. Wife said we could cruise as long as we had a house to come back to. This house has made that possible with low need for a high level of daily or even monthly involvement. However it’s one house and meaningless in the big picture. It’s what industry does that will change things.

Please accept one size doesn’t fit all. It’s a problem of both in and out.

 

[sunchaser]

H
If really want to save big bucks don’t buy a Tesla. The cradle to grave cost of a trendy EV and sssociated all in carbon footprint is an eye opener.

As a medical professional you well understand the impacts of an over crowded planet and societal costs. A growing awareness of this issue is creeping forward but not politically correct nor agenda filling.

 

[mvweebles]

As a medical professional you well understand the impacts of an over crowded planet and societal costs. A growing awareness of this issue is creeping forward but not politically correct nor agenda filling.

Through necessity, the world has done a decent job of moving resources around to accomodate population growth......so far. But I suppose there will come a time when there are no more efficiencies to wring out of the system. Something will have to give. I wonder what it will be? Pandemic? War? Death Squads?

Sunchaser - I believe you're in Arizona, the vanguard of water wars. Water sure is shaping up to be the precious commodity. Seems on track to best oil within a generation or so. We've talked a lot about substituting alternative power sources for oil. Water? should be interesting.

Peter

 

[KnotYet]

H
If really want to save big bucks don’t buy a Tesla. The cradle to grave cost of a trendy EV and sssociated all in carbon footprint is an eye opener.

As a medical professional you well understand the impacts of an over crowded planet and societal costs. A growing awareness of this issue is creeping forward but not politically correct nor agenda filling.

The oldest Teslas are expected to average 400,000 miles before battery life is
affected to the point of requiring replacement. The basic vehicle life is indefinite.
This compares favorably with similar ICE vehicles, as does the 'carbon footprint'.

While population certainly correlates with negative environmental impact, there is
no mechanism for limiting it in free societies. The only acceptable methods are by
improving society-wide standard of living. Such items are definitely on some agendas.

 

[PierreR]

What Reworking of the electrical grid with ultimate result much like the highway system i.e. mostly done at a federal level avoiding catastrophes like Texas and creating cyber attack resistance.

What exactly do you mean by reworking the electrical grid?

 

[O C Diver]

I agree Ted - the language is a bit imprecise; and some of the numbers are difficult to box (the break-even is a bit suspect). I can tell you that panels are under $1/watt these days (e.g. a 350W panel is under $350). A 5kw set of panels would be under $5k. How much would install be? Who knows - but I don't think $5k is wildly wrong in either direction - call it $12k all-in, but as mentioned, I suspect many of the install firms use "Oriental Rug" sales tactics where the list price is marked up many times over, then reduced via a tax incentive or phantom savings. A community RFP is well advised. Signing-up for a sales call while at a Home Show is probably not the best....

Peter from my reading online, you might by the panel itself for $1 a watt, but factoring in all the equipment is closer to $3 per watt. Mounting hardware, cabling, the UL approved inverter, and everything else adds up quickly.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Ted - not so. Racking may vary depending on roof install, but the cabling and microinverters (grid tie) are pretty inexpensive. It's all plug and play these days. A 5kw system can be installed by a pair of workers in a couple of days. The one wildcard - and this is fairly recent - I've noticed a very high increase for install labor for just about anything. Pavers, carpentry, HVAC, you name it. Seems to have doubled over last few years. I just built a small garage and didn't want to do it myself due to heat and laziness. Quote from a decent handyman/carpenter worked out to over $80/cash. I drank a lot of water and got over my laziness.

If your situation changes and solar might make sense, keep an open mind. I doubt you'd be disappointed.

Peter

 

[Old Sea Dog]

Am I better off today then I was 4 years ago.... Uhh....... NO.

Insert gadsden flag.

 

[Hippocampus]

What exactly do you mean by reworking the electrical grid?

Perhaps Peter is more knowledgeable and better positioned to speak to this. But from the little I know the grid needs to be harden to have less vulnerability to weather and cyber attack. Also greater capacity and ability to transmit energy between regions.

I mentioned Texas as an example of how deficiencies added to human suffering. Organization added expense to end users after a weather event. Most recently one could add Maui. Where changes in agriculture as a result of climate change resulted in growth of invasive grasses. The grid was vulnerable to fire and perhaps the immediate cause of that fire. . Examples abound throughout our country of how we are more dependent upon cheap, reliable electricity for our day to day and information economy. Demand and dependency will continue to increase as well as exposure to severe weather and fire.

It doesn’t matter much what the cost of a kw is if there’s no Kws available. We put in a large underground propane tank ( had to fight with supplier as our usual use was so low). That allowed a 1m window should we have no grid supply and no or minimal solar. Getting access to the large tank was a struggle and an added expense. Initially they wouldn’t sell us one and wouldn’t enter a filling contract. Our solution is not transferable in scale. We just need enough for the geo pumps, frig/ freezers and low draw electronics/lights.

 

[PierreR]

Okay H, I kinda gathered that The Grid to you, is electrical transmission. For me, because of the nature of electricity's us and make immediately, The Grid is Generation + transmission + End users equipment.
You are a prime example. You are both a user and a generator of electricity. Your electricity input has to be 240 volts at 60 cycles, not 235 volts at 59 cycles. Your solar panels have to work exactly or they must be removed from the transmission lines.
When demand exceeds generation, even for a split second, voltage will drop in the transmission lines. Either demand must be shed or generation must be increased. When voltage drops about 8% or so a cascading effect takes place that crashes the grid and restarting is done by sections. The lights come one at different times depending on where you are at.
Because rapid changes in power demand can happen power generation must be ready to be added almost instantly. That means that some of that power generation must be on "Hot Idle" meaning everything is up to temperature and pressure and it only takes an automatic switch to bring it on line.
Battery technology is in the dark ages as far as moving forward. There are significant issues win scale up with all current storage systems. The current batteries are hot idle plants. The easiest of which is combined gas turbine and the worst is nuclear.
You have mandated contract to sell electricity back to the power company at a much greater cost that they can produce it at. In addition they must have the equivalent amount of hot idle ready in case your system goes down or a cloud goes over. Those cost are passed on in the form of higher rates.
The problem arises in keeping rates low and still making a profit. Shutting down traditional power plants as more renewables come on line is the easy thing to do but makes the grid more prone to crashing as that power plant is no long on idle. Eventually there will be brown outs or blackouts from time to time as a result. That sounds doable except certain industries cannot sustain black out and brown outs but tend to take it in the neck because residential votes.
The most vulnerable I can think of is aluminum production. When aluminum reduction cells freeze, you abandon the plant and build another in a cheaper location and write off the old plant. Restarting is more expensive than building new.
The easiest way to harden the grid is get rid of your solar contract and we all know where that is going.

 

[mvweebles]

Despite having done a consulting project with a grid operator, I have no special knowledge. Frankly, I'd never thought about it much until I did that project, and then watched Enron blow up California with energy trading run amok. The more I learned, the less I knew. I have no idea how the grid is managed and modulated. I'm sure technology has greatly improved management.

However, since I worked in Houston for an energy producer (BP) when Texas froze, I did pay attention closely. The grid (or anything for that matter) is engineered to certain survivability and recovery standards, just as data centers are. As is easily imagined, relationship between cost and survivability is not linear - going from a 99.9% uptime target to 99.99% could mean doubling the cost. Going to 99.999% probably triples the cost again. For Texas, that meant foregoing tolerance for freezing conditions. It was a deliberate decision that I'm sure had costs associated with it.

I also did a project for the second largest Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in the US. That one was very informative as the goal was to revamp their entire maintenance and supply chain, a massive undertaking. Anyone who thinks utilities operate in a supply/demand environment are sadly mistaken. Over my 20 years of consulting, I had leadership roles in about 25 major projects totaling around $12b. Working with a PUC was the second slimiest client I had (top/bottom honors went to a Texas-based timeshare company....eeewwww...)

Outside of firing up the way-back machine from my non-boating career, my point is these are deceptively complex problems. There are no single solutions but rather will be a continuum of changes. At the very least, we can all agree that dinosaurs are no longer dying so there is less crude oil today than there was yesterday. Unless we change a trajectory, eventually there needs to be alternatives. I think we can all agree that burning crude oil derivities creates some level of toxicity which is why running a car is a bad idea unless your goal is suicide.

Bottom line is, in my opinion, there is ample evidence to warrant looking at alternatives to hydrocarbon based fuels. The question is what sacrifices are justified to change the arc. There are 5% or so at either extreme who do a lot of arm waving with arguments that work well in their echo chamber but don't do an iota to define the problem and therefore start the process of solving it. Call me an optimist, but good will come of investing in remediating climate change (to a point). People bitched about CAFE mpg standards starting in the 1970s. Can anyone really say with a straight face that their 1975 Impala was a better daily driver than a 2023 RAV4?

Peter

 

[PierreR]

Peter, I have to pretty much agree with everything that you said. Even if I don't believe there is a climate tipping point I do believe in a finite amount of fossil fuels. The problem has to be clearly defined or there will be a big waste of money and delayed solutions.

I think the emphasis is in the wrong direction. Fusion is largely unsolvable at the current funding for research because there is not enough funding to get ahead of entropy on the projects.

 

[KnotYet]

Peter, I will add that there are more than 3X the number of vehicle miles travelled
today in my local counties with about 1% of the resultant environmental pollution
per vehicle mile as compared with the same area 50 years ago.

 

[Northern Spy]

Arguably, the European electrical grid is the most reliable, even with 47 TSOs. Mainly because it was destroyed during WWII, and rebuilt from scratch to a standard. And they are contemplating a near trillion dollar upgrade

The North American grid is a mess, even with less RTOs and ISOs.

Alberta allows one to see the complexity of a relatively simple ISO in real time on the web here:

http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet

Energy storage is where the money is to be made in our variable nonrenewable generation world. 20MW here and there to be able to charge at low cost, and sell at DCR at a high rate.

Unfortunately it's about 1.5 million per MW now to install. A bit out of my reach.

Check back on this website and see how many energy storage facilities there are a few years from now.

 

[PierreR]

The only fib worse than fusion is just around the corner is huge jumps in battery technology are just around the corner. There are some million claims a year of new battery technologies and the only improvements are generally in manufacturing old technologies. You can only do so much with chemistry and high density storage is a bomb.
Energy density in batteries has jump 4 fold in 100 years not 4

Going to the boat to relax and work on it.

 

[KnotYet]

The only fib worse than fusion is just around the corner is huge jumps in battery technology are just around the corner. There are some million claims a year of new battery technologies and the only improvements are generally in manufacturing old technologies. You can only do so much with chemistry and high density storage is a bomb.
Energy density in batteries has jump 4 fold in 100 years not 4

Going to the boat to relax and work on it.

No, a bomb is a bomb.
The nature of lithium chemistry allows much more complete utilization of its
energy density when compared to 100 year old LA batteries. That's an additional
30-40% useful energy so make that a minimum 5-fold increase in 100 years.
Solid state batteries now really exist and are expected to at least double the
energy density of current Li-ion batteries making for a full order of magnitude
increase in energy density over the last century.

 

[Northern Spy]

I never said energy storage made sense. But neither does sweeping generalizations of how each area should generate and consume power.

I preferred life when engineers quietly ran things in the background. Now it's all scientists and politicians on center stage making a mess out of things with bad policy.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Is there a finite lifespan wrt solar panels? Will "spent" panels pose a waste problem similar to rotor blades from wind generation? https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/0...-up-all-over-the-u-s-wyoming-seeks-solutions/

 

[Hippocampus]

Okay H, I kinda gathered that The Grid to you, is electrical transmission. For me, because of the nature of electricity's us and make immediately, The Grid is Generation + transmission + End users equipment.
You are a prime example. You are both a user and a generator of electricity. Your electricity input has to be 240 volts at 60 cycles, not 235 volts at 59 cycles. Your solar panels have to work exactly or they must be removed from the transmission lines.
When demand exceeds generation, even for a split second, voltage will drop in the transmission lines. Either demand must be shed or generation must be increased. When voltage drops about 8% or so a cascading effect takes place that crashes the grid and restarting is done by sections. The lights come one at different times depending on where you are at.
Because rapid changes in power demand can happen power generation must be ready to be added almost instantly. That means that some of that power generation must be on "Hot Idle" meaning everything is up to temperature and pressure and it only takes an automatic switch to bring it on line.
Battery technology is in the dark ages as far as moving forward. There are significant issues win scale up with all current storage systems. The current batteries are hot idle plants. The easiest of which is combined gas turbine and the worst is nuclear.
You have mandated contract to sell electricity back to the power company at a much greater cost that they can produce it at. In addition they must have the equivalent amount of hot idle ready in case your system goes down or a cloud goes over. Those cost are passed on in the form of higher rates.
The problem arises in keeping rates low and still making a profit. Shutting down traditional power plants as more renewables come on line is the easy thing to do but makes the grid more prone to crashing as that power plant is no long on idle. Eventually there will be brown outs or blackouts from time to time as a result. That sounds doable except certain industries cannot sustain black out and brown outs but tend to take it in the neck because residential votes.
The most vulnerable I can think of is aluminum production. When aluminum reduction cells freeze, you abandon the plant and build another in a cheaper location and write off the old plant. Restarting is more expensive than building new.
The easiest way to harden the grid is get rid of your solar contract and we all know where that is going.

Sorry to see you make assumptions about me. Before going into medicine did triple E at Columbia U school of engineering. Have a more comprehensive view of the grid than you assume. Still fully admit this is not my wheel house. Speaking directly to your comments.

My panels make DC. In its conversion to AC the power company sees 120/60 from me. It maybe more or less but it’s 120/60. I and governmental supplements paid for the panels, associated ancillaries, and labor. I will pay for required maintenance (none so far in 4 years) not them. They charge me a transmission fee. I make more electricity than I use. So from their point of view they have electricity coming in that costs them less money then they normally charge. I pay for the pleasure of being hooked up to the grid. I wanted to be stand alone but unfortunately it didn’t make economic sense. Cost to them would be the same regardless if I was an end user or producer/user. Basically I was obligated as a domestic vendor and not commercial business to hav the standard contract. I could have put in a battery bank but again a propane genset made better sense economically and in terms of being able to reliably harden my house from grid problems. So believe my power company makes money on me and are real happy I have panels on my roof. I have no control for what I can charge and can’t escape the transmission fees which I can’t negotiate.

In my local area most grid failures have been prolonged from switching failures or decisions. Sure the wiring goes down or transformers fail effecting transmission. But then the power company prioritizes where it will restore service first. We’re not on the same line as any hospitals/medical facilities. Nor town/fire/police/emergency services. Nor other utilities such as gas/water/ septic. We are about 1/3 mile from the station but often the last to get power back. This happens even when our lines and transformers have suffered no damage I can see. Maybe there’s a switching station/transformer upstream I’m unaware of and it’s turned off for safety. Locally residential density is low and there’s no industry or key services so we’re last in line. Suspect they electively shut us down to help maintain or restore service elsewhere.

On the macro level you assume a closed not open system. You are correct that excess capacity is required. Not only for daily and seasonal variations in demand but for failures. However the extent of offline idling production capacity would seem determined by how much and from how far you can bring in capacity. My limited understanding is Texas was particularly vulnerable not due to direct technical issues but rather the mode of organization of their local utilities which caused those technical issues. Transmission should be fully and efficiently integrated nationwide. Even internationally with Canada. Standards of cyber hardening should be mandated nationally in an efficient manner making use of governmental and private industry resources. Of course this is being currently done but from my limited reading could be improved. If effectively done off line excess capacity could be decreased. Also just like with investing the more diversified you are the more resilient you are. Totally agree all sources that make economic sense should be in play. But with reorganization of the grid to our entire population.

You mix metaphors. Yes the local utility can and does produce a kw cheaper than me. But my kw production infrastructure they didn’t pay for and they buy it for less money than they sell it it for. They make money on me anyway you slice it. Maybe they make less profit off of my Kw but they still make a profit. They aren’t subsidizing me. Whether I exist or not doesn’t determine their need for excess capacity. They are not even close to having home production being a significant fraction of total capacity. My going down for any reason is meaningless to them. Even everyone in my neighborhood is meaningless. Suspect that’s true if every domestic producer in my state went down.

 

[mvweebles]

Net metering - where power company pays homeowner for excess power production - is largely a lost argument. In most jurisdictions, the utilities have argued (and PUC have agreed) that excess production from homeowner solar arrays are essentially a nuisance and not worthy of payment. Where net metering is allowed, it's watered down so as to be a meaningless asterisk in the overall business case.

To understand the accounting you must understand two elements unique to utility regulation and PUCs (Public Utility Commissions, the oversight bodies). First, regulated rates are heavily influenced by the accounting behind them which is unique to utilities. Broadly speaking, there are two types of expenses: "Rate Base" and "Non-Rate Base." Rate-Base are any expenses that can be apportioned to the customers as direct costs of generating power. Non-Rate-Base is everything else. The PUC and the Utility Company haggle over what lands where.

The second item you must know is the haggling process is not a fair fight. The PUC typically has a legal staff of a half dozen attorneys and accountants or fewer. The Utility Company has dozens of each and ability to retain more as needed. Situated is exacerbated by the fact that virtually all PUC leadership comes from the utilities they regulate.

So it's not entirely unexpected when you read that an investigative journalist digs into a Rate Base expenses and finds illegitimate expenses such ss million-dollar remodels of executive suites. My favorite was PG&E in California with HQ in San Francisco and a main nuclear power plant 250 miles south on a remote stretch of coast (Diablo Canyon). They had a 20-passenger turbo-prop plane to ferry workers and equipment between their Oakland facility and Diablo Canyon. They received PUC approval to augment their fleet with a 5-passenger Gulfstream 5 jet with transcontinental range within Rate Base expenses. The "mistake" was remedied upon publishing of the article.

And then there is the Crystal River nuclear power plant in Florida. I forget the details, but years ago, the PUC allowed a very large rate increase to build the power plant. The plant was never brought online and is now outdated and needs to be replaced. The PUC has approved another rate increase to build a replacement power plant - customers will pay twice for nothing.

So the utilities argue out of both sides when it comes to net metering. For regular production, all that crap expense is part of the "Rate Base." But when it comes time to pay homeowners for excess production, the Utility argues the power is essentially worthless.

Bottom line is there is a rational discussion about solar and The Grid is simply not possible. It's a corrupt industry based on good intentions run amok.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=MA

Small scale solar is 5.5% of total capacity. This lumps together small private solar fields ( such as the solar roofs of warehouses and unused acreage of non productive prior farm land) and domestic (rooftop and such). Couldn’t find a number for just homeowners but suspect it’s around 1 to 2% of total at the high end. My producing or not is meaningless.

Appreciate Peter’s post above but unfortunately not surprised. Just another reason for a re working and oversight at a state and national level.

 

[Delta Riverat]

I installed the solar on the roof when the tax credit was good. I made sure to install less than I used. This was back in 2014.

Even then I knew that excess production was worthless. Because that's what the solar company told me. It was like 2 cents a kwh.

 

[Hippocampus]

I installed the solar on the roof when the tax credit was good. I made sure to install less than I used. This was back in 2014.

Even then I knew that excess production was worthless. Because that's what the solar company told me. It was like 2 cents a kwh.

Once again depends. We do get a monthly check and don’t pay anything for electricity. Yes what we sell is heavily discounted but we make enough from it to cover our monthly usage and then some. Last week put in a level 2 charger in expectation of a Rivian being delivered in December or January. Even with its charging requirements we still have excess to sell so will be cash positive for electric utilities. So of course charging that vehicle with our own electricity means less to sell but it also means no additional expense (beyond the charger) from what we paid already.

So overall think if you’re going to run EVs depending upon individual circumstances and state rules/taxes/rebates/utility excess capacity may still make sense. Once the brides car times out will replace it with a cheaper LFP non Tesla . The non Li ion vehicles get more charge cycles but at the expense of lower range, energy density and performance. However more than adequate as a daily driver. Once that happens we will still be using slightly less than we’re making. Being retired my goal, in part, was to have a fixed nut and low exposure to any change in fuel costs or market fluctuations. Think solar and EVs in combination is a possible avenue to achieve that goal. We did the same projections for batteries. At current costs and policies (rebates, taxes etc.) didn’t make sense so put in a whole house propane generator. Perhaps that calculation will be different as batteries cost and capabilities improve and propane costs go up. Problem with all of this is even with good due diligence you have no idea as an early adopter of where the engineering will go nor what financial incentives will be available. So it is a bit of a crapshoot. My thinking is the field is mature enough the risks are now relatively low. My solar contract was very different for each of the last three houses. Incentives are even lower now than in in the past.