WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
With the ever growing solar component of grid power generation (both massive solar farms and small distributed generation), peakers tend to not run when the sun is shining.
Article on grid defections
- Thread starter Hasufel
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
With the ever growing solar component of grid power generation (both massive solar farms and small distributed generation), peakers tend to not run when the sun is shining.
Where2
Feeling the Heat
If enough customers get furious, then there's always the option of modifying the legislation that created the monopolized utility game and letting standard business economics run its course. When the monopoly was created, I'm sure the authors never envisioned a PV array on a roof top converting sunlight to energy.
I thought that's what your wind generated power grid needed, consumers willing to pay for the excess rather than having to pay neighboring grids to take the excess?
Indeed. This is why the economics of net metering (which were often favorable for the utility) are becoming less so....and so are more likely with time to be altered.
Last edited:
I am certain that the regulators worry about furious customers....but again, I think IF 'partial grid defectors' started to affect the bottom line of utilities, then the regulators would be more worried about protecting the 'energy poor' than the well-heeled folks with batteries.
Indeed. But I suspect that utilities will capture much/most of the economic opportunity...be it PV or batteries. I think they will build out cheap PV and load the grid with solar before many homeowners do. And they will buy batteries at scale/bulk to soak up RE excess (to sell back to YOU at retail) rather than leaving that money/opportunity on the table or letting you pocket the cash!
Making and supplying energy and delivering it to customers for $$ is what they do....they might be better at it than Joe Homeowner. While Joe Homeowner might increasingly care about getting green power...most would be happy to buy it at the current or similar cost from their neighborhood utility without having to put anything up front or deal with installers on their roof. Me included on my shady lot!
I agree, starting with the fact that most Joe Homeowners don't have a suitable site for PV and ending with most Joe Homeowners don't have cash for PV, let alone any significant savings for a life after paid work, aka retirement. PV currently does not have enough of the glitz factor that a new pickup truck, SUV, large screen TV, or junk food has, at least enough glitz to go into debt to do the install, even when the economic rate of return is favorable. The focus of the majority of Americans is on immediate spendable cash, self indulgence if you will, and not on lasting value or actually leaving the world in better shape for their children and grandchildren than the current trajectory indicates.
If the end result of net metering and other incentives is to shock or force utilities into investing in wind, solar, hydro and even nuclear and to up the renewable portion of electric power to 80% and more, which clearly is doable, the fossil carbon portion of the electric power industry will be largely eliminated. Isn't that by itself a worthy goal?
I think the only wit that utilities give about the "energy poor Joe Homeowner" is to not make the cost of electricity so burdensome that politics and regulators will dictate a rate and service structure that results in the more well-heeled homeowner paying an ever higher rate in order to subsidize a lower rate for the poor homeowner.
There still will remain a portion of Joe Homeowners who do understand the need to reduce fossil carbon, who do have the cash to install PV, and who do care about leaving the world in a better place, and room likely will remain for them in the energy mix of the present and future, whether it be off-grid, partial defection or net meter.
Where2
Feeling the Heat
My electric utility is already ahead of your game. They're adding 2.5 million corporate owned panels to their grid this year, continuing their tradition of skimming shareholder profits being in the middle.
Definitely. I care a lot more about getting to your stated 80% RE grid goal, asap, than the details of what it looks like when we get there. But while we're 'in the weeds', let's speculate.
Will it look like 80% of homeowners having PV on their roof and Tesla batteries in their garage (call this the California extrapolation)? I doubt it, since that wouldn't be big enough to get the job done, nor does it seem like it would be the most cost effective in terms of economies of scale.
Does it look like electricity costing 3X as much as now in real terms, hooked up to govt-mandated RE production and storage systems, like off-shore wind and hydrogen fuel cells (call this the Germany extrapolation). I doubt that the public has the long-term tolerance for such an effort, which would stall out politically at a lower penetration level.
I suspect that we will have a mix of utility owned onshore wind and utility solar, long distance HVDC transmission, grid battery storage, with maybe some added offshore wind and CSP solar with thermal storage (or maybe not, the price is not yet there on either tech). That can get to 80% seasonal average technically. And people will buy their power precisely as they do now, except maybe have some net-linked demand-modulated smart appliances and TOU rates. And I suspect kWh prices will be higher in nominal terms, and smaller in real terms, than currently. That system at 80% energy penetration with current tech (mostly expensive storage) is NOT that affordable....but I am convinced that it will be by the time that RE gets built out to the scale where storage is needed.
And I predict that the average Joe Homeowner will not think about where his energy comes from then any more than they do now. But they will b#tch that it costs too much.
And that in that world, likely with low daytime and summer electricity TOU rates, both grid-tie and off-grid solar will be more expensive than grid power (due to their lack of economy of scale). And neither will ever get to more than a few % rates of adoption.
In this scenario, the heavy lifting will have been done by simple, regulated capitalism. A 2.2 cent PTC for wind (largely in the US) for a couple decades can provide the tens of billions in engineering development money to build that industry. Cheap PV will get there with its tens of billions of development money coming from overseas...mostly Japan, EU and Chinese incentive-driven PV purchases driving PV down the cost curve (the US lagged here, with weak net-metering incentives, and not fielding PV at reasonable scale until it got cheap). Battery storage will get there with early adopters buying EVs driving large Li-ion batteries down the cost curve. We owe this to California and Elon so far, but are passing the baton to Korea and China, as they are poised to take the lead on EV battery mass production (as they took over PV 8-10 years ago).
So, I don't see where US utilities being forced or shocked had much to do with it. They were required to buy power from wind producers and rooftop solar. The first probably helped lead to wind development, how much the latter gave us cheap solar is debatable. But now that cheap tech is here....simple greed, fear and FOMO will take over to get us on our way to 80%.
Last edited:
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
Personally I see PV as being a horrible investment and that is why I haven't bought into it. I'll gladly lease my 5 solar panels from my electric co-op for the next 5 years at a fixed electric rate. We don't need to re-hash the ROI of having you money in the stock market vs bank vs PV again.
This is coming from Joe Homeowner who has a place he could put a solar array, doesn't have the latest or greatest TV or truck, grows most of his own food, and saves 29% of his paycheck for retirement.
Last edited:
Sorry... re roi.. it depends on where you live..it's pretty good here in Massachusetts
That said, I'd do it (and did) without the roi. Sometimes someone has to point out there is another way ( the usual way being blind consumption)
Hey... this is a wood burning forum, we didn't get here by heating with oil.. why use electricity sourced by fossil fuels?
That said, I'd do it (and did) without the roi. Sometimes someone has to point out there is another way ( the usual way being blind consumption)
Hey... this is a wood burning forum, we didn't get here by heating with oil.. why use electricity sourced by fossil fuels?
Same with me. At my original install cost (2013 and 2015), less the FTC, my system has a 5.7% tax free ROI. And at estimated current install cost, the tax free ROI would be 8.6%. I think most people would agree that this clearly is not a horrible investment, but in fact is a very good investment on purely economic terms. And when avoidance of fossil fuel environmental and social costs are considered, PV is an outstanding investment.
maple1
Minister of Fire
The panels depreciate production by 10% over 25 years.. My enphase inverters have a 25 year warranty...
Capital depreciation is not all that large a consideration.
You could start to consider how they hold up to tidal wave, meteor strike, and thermonuclear effects, but then you are getting into really low probability of occurrence scenarios
Capital depreciation is not all that large a consideration.
You could start to consider how they hold up to tidal wave, meteor strike, and thermonuclear effects, but then you are getting into really low probability of occurrence scenarios
Tesla is contracting to install the largest battery bank in Australia with a capacity of 100MW. They have been dealing with brownouts in South Australia for a year. This is to help stabilize their system along with Tesla Powerwall systems in residences and businesses. What is amazing is that Musk is promising it will be completed within 6 months or it's free.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/t...ry-storage-facility-for-australian-wind-farm/
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/07/t...ry-storage-facility-for-australian-wind-farm/
maple1
Minister of Fire
(Sorry, don't think I was in on the original ROI hashing
)Someone doing a purely ROI assessment would have to consider it though? There would have to be some loss on capital over time [depreciation] that should be worked in to ROI - vs. a market investment that would preserve it (an assumption in itself I guess, but on the market side any loss would reflect ROI negatively...).
Not trying to be disparaging, since as mentioned I am more interested than ever in possibly taking the solar plunge.
Back on track with grid defections -- and may not even make the move to PV to disconnect. My probable grid defection is highly motivated by the ever increasing base charge by the utility, that charge now being $22/month, just for the privilege of having a meter.
I have two large farm machine sheds currently served through a meter to our farm site. We are selling a 5 acre tract including the house, garage and barn, also served through the same meter, and with the sale we will need to disconnect the machine sheds from the meter. The alternatives: 1) a new meter install to serve these machine sheds, with a starting cost to the utility for a new meter and an electrician for hookup (about $500 as an estimate) plus $22/mo base charge plus kWh charge; 2) use my existing 5500 watt generator as needed for power, which is for lights, air compressor, small power tools, and occasionally the MIG welder; 3) a small PV system with battery storage (but that might not be able to power the welder); or 4) work out a deal with the buyer to pay the buyer an agreed amount per month to continue the feed through the existing meter.
At this time I'm ruling out #1 and #3 due to expense. #4 is a possibility, maybe $15/mo (would pay for about 115kWh of usage/month), and I doubt most months I would even use that much.
I think #2 is most attractive. I've already switched all lighting to LED, and each building now uses about 50W for lighting, which is the most frequent use of electricity. To avoid needing to start the generator every time just for lights, I could use my existing 400W inverter and a 12V deep cycle battery to run the lights between generator uses, and when the generator is used the battery could be charged. Also I have a 30W PV panel and charge controller which I could use to maintain the battery. Gasoline usage would be very low with the generator, as air compressor and tool usage is not very often, and welder use maybe a couple of times/year.
Interestingly, I would not even have though about grid defection except for the fact of the ever increasing utility base charge. Just a few years ago it was less than $10/month. Indications are that more base charge increases are likely.
I have two large farm machine sheds currently served through a meter to our farm site. We are selling a 5 acre tract including the house, garage and barn, also served through the same meter, and with the sale we will need to disconnect the machine sheds from the meter. The alternatives: 1) a new meter install to serve these machine sheds, with a starting cost to the utility for a new meter and an electrician for hookup (about $500 as an estimate) plus $22/mo base charge plus kWh charge; 2) use my existing 5500 watt generator as needed for power, which is for lights, air compressor, small power tools, and occasionally the MIG welder; 3) a small PV system with battery storage (but that might not be able to power the welder); or 4) work out a deal with the buyer to pay the buyer an agreed amount per month to continue the feed through the existing meter.
At this time I'm ruling out #1 and #3 due to expense. #4 is a possibility, maybe $15/mo (would pay for about 115kWh of usage/month), and I doubt most months I would even use that much.
I think #2 is most attractive. I've already switched all lighting to LED, and each building now uses about 50W for lighting, which is the most frequent use of electricity. To avoid needing to start the generator every time just for lights, I could use my existing 400W inverter and a 12V deep cycle battery to run the lights between generator uses, and when the generator is used the battery could be charged. Also I have a 30W PV panel and charge controller which I could use to maintain the battery. Gasoline usage would be very low with the generator, as air compressor and tool usage is not very often, and welder use maybe a couple of times/year.
Interestingly, I would not even have though about grid defection except for the fact of the ever increasing utility base charge. Just a few years ago it was less than $10/month. Indications are that more base charge increases are likely.
WoodyIsGoody
Minister of Fire
Looks like #4 is the best option (share expenses with future buyer). Win, win. If the buyer turns out to be difficult, your other options are still available. But most people are reasonable.
Here is David Robert's thoughtful take on the grid defection report that started the thread...
His take for utilities: Change or die.
Link: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/7/15927250/utilities-rooftop-solar-batteries
His take for utilities: Change or die.
Link: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/7/15927250/utilities-rooftop-solar-batteries
Last edited:
High time for the utilities to consider, seriously, micro-grids, and the business models that support them. Rooftop solarand other DER would fit right in. As to business models, I benefit greatly from the incentives Massachusetts put in place for roof top solar.. net metering and SREC sales to name two. But, as the technology matures, these incentives will no longer be needed. I'd like to see a transaction cost, with my "selling" excess energy at 1 or 2 cents less credit than energy delivered, and the utilities pocketing the transaction fee
The whole thing needs to be thought out more carefully. NRELL has convinced me that there will be a need to wheel power from one ISO to another, to support ~50% renewable energy in the east. So transmission lines and distribution networks will always be here. But the size of the distribution system can be cut back if roof top solar, local PV farms, windmills, and grid storage to over come the day/night load imbalance . Imagine a series of micro-grids, each powered by a variety of renewable sources, connected to the grid, but capable of standalone for at least a day or two. This would require DER ( distributed energy resources) , and would remove some of the pressure to defect from the grid entirely.
I'm very tired of hearing I'm a burden on the poor because I have roof top solar. A lot of the energy that comes to New England is brought though natural gas pipes, and wheeled down from hydro Quebec. When I dump energy onto the grid none of those transmission or distribution costs are needed. The energy I provide is cheaper because you do not have to allocate/ build out those transmission and distribution costs
The whole thing needs to be thought out more carefully. NRELL has convinced me that there will be a need to wheel power from one ISO to another, to support ~50% renewable energy in the east. So transmission lines and distribution networks will always be here. But the size of the distribution system can be cut back if roof top solar, local PV farms, windmills, and grid storage to over come the day/night load imbalance . Imagine a series of micro-grids, each powered by a variety of renewable sources, connected to the grid, but capable of standalone for at least a day or two. This would require DER ( distributed energy resources) , and would remove some of the pressure to defect from the grid entirely.
I'm very tired of hearing I'm a burden on the poor because I have roof top solar. A lot of the energy that comes to New England is brought though natural gas pipes, and wheeled down from hydro Quebec. When I dump energy onto the grid none of those transmission or distribution costs are needed. The energy I provide is cheaper because you do not have to allocate/ build out those transmission and distribution costs
" grid defection makes economic sense today only in Hawaii where retail electricity rates are the highest in the nation"
For green building advisors take on the matter see
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/guest-blogs/why-we-still-need-discuss-grid-defection
the comments by Dana Dorset make the most sense to me
For green building advisors take on the matter see
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/guest-blogs/why-we-still-need-discuss-grid-defection
the comments by Dana Dorset make the most sense to me
Last edited:
Looks like Tesla did it: Tesla completes installation of world's largest lithium ion battery, beats 100-day deadline. It should be energized in the next few days. I'm looking forward to seeing how well it performs over time!
Hopefully their Grid business is going better than their car business,lots of people predicting their going out of business altogether sale lately. One more big promise and not deliver event and they may not make it.
I've been reading that prediction on and off for a few years. I guess we'll see. FWIW, the recent opinion by Bob Lutz may be just that. He has always been a Tesla critic.
The power storage business is probably worth more in the long run for tesla,too much competition in the car market with too many players. They could really be positioned to take advantage of a mass defection of the grid.
Tesla made $317M in the third quarter of 2017 on 'energy generation and storage', with a 25% gross margin...IOW, they can net about $300M/year at this point from that business.
This was 12X what they earned in energy just a year ago.
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...3-7EC4E06DF840/TSLA_Update_Letter_2017-3Q.pdf
