let's talk about battery banks- I reckon the "they aren't worth it" thing is wrong

[PVfarmer]

Originally Posted by ggunn

]Make no mistake, POCO's are for the most part not at all interested in your setting yourself up to make money

And not only that, but in many places where it's legal to export to the utility from PV, it's still illegal to do so from batteries.

Well. sure...buying low from POCO, putting it into batteries and selling it higher is nothing but a scam.
Not even a good one! Bad for the grid and the environment, and just plain silly if you're trying personally to make $$! (however, POCOs are *required* to ACCquire RECs federally aren't they?)

If you owned a marine battery recycling center and could get AGMs with 6 months or so left in them for $5 or $20 or whatever the turn-in $ is, and didn't mind changing batteries every 6 months...
Still kinda silly! But if those would last a year... :roll:
However, they *are* going to recycle electric car banks by using them in houses (different config.) after they're no good for cars anymore. Which is where the silly idea came from I suppose.

But. How exactly is it "illegal"? Do you mean "not allowed by POCO" or literally against the law?
Say you've got a line-side connection for PV and the BESS is on the load side of the MDP...isn't that "separately derived", and doesn't that imply...sort of a grey area?
If there's already a PV system in place, and a BESS is added load side, off grid...what's the "process" for informing the POCO? Pretty much...none, right?
The thing is, what's the POCO process for grid connected BESS, load side, with PV already there?
I've read my POCO's and state docs 12 times each- don't recall a single word about it.
ben-
Is it illegal where you are? Just wondering which place you meant with the illegal to export from BESS thing.
Really wondering why, but not asking you to answer that part!

Look at it this way- on a very simple level, exporting at night is good for the POCO (as long as they aren't getting ripped off), if you take into account the fact that their xfmr wouldn't be sitting there wasting energy because it is idle. THEIR energy!
Then multiply that loss by 1,000 (a neighborhood)...or 1,000,000 (my entire state)...
So, keeping it simple/idealistic- the POCO would avoid the "vampire xfmrs factor" (I just made that up...) and the user could export a few kWh at night as an additional incentive for having put in the big enough/fancy enough BESS to actually do that.

 

[iwire]

I am not seeing the point of arguing illegal vs against the rules

Either way if caught you will be disconnected from the grid.

 

[PVfarmer]

I'm defining
LCOS = lifetime (cost of BESS equipment / amount of kWH cycled through)

It's just the cost of storage, it doesn't tell you where you got the KWh. So it follows that:
Cost of kWh out = LCOS + Cost of kWh in.

Now when you are exporting power during the day and the POCO is giving you a credit, and you decrease your exports to instead charge a battery, the cost of the kWh into the battery is the credit you give up. That is the cost you face, your bill is going to go up (or your refund go down). It doesn't matter where that kWh came from, or how much it originally cost you. You were going to sell it for some money, and you didn't. The money you gave up by not selling it is your cost to charge the battery.

So the LCOS is the cost of the kWh coming OUT of the battery when you go to use it.
You are giving up a credit, sure, but you are also avoiding giving up a credit ("avoiding giving up" meaning "avoiding using the grid which takes away your credit...you are using the BESS instead).
So your bill isn't going to go up just because you put the power into the BESS. This is where you've already done the LCOE and LCOS, and you know the POCO charge.
So it gets dicey because the LCOE and LCOS are both "estimates" (the LCOE even more so because it is based on weather/irradiance/etc., while the BESS you can program to "do this procedure every night" or "do this in summer and this in winter" (admit it, the 2nd one there is pretty cool!))
The thing is, we aren't taking the most important thing into account- what's the "nightly kWh for usage"!
Assume the BESS is smaller than the nightly kWh (just because you need a lot of batteries to meet the nightly kWh)
You've set the BESS up so it drains down to 80% of full capacity a night (using AGMs, so they last)

Whatever amount of kWh that 20% happens to be, you are paying:
LCOE + LCOS (to put it in and take it back out), and you are *not* paying the POCO charge for those kWh, as it came from the BESS.

When you're net metering with no BESS, the exchange for kWh in / kWh out is the same amount of cents.
Whoa, that actually makes net metering "even worse", if/when your LCOE for PV is less than the POCO "exchange rate"...that ain't good! Not a deal breaker, but not good.

When you throw a BESS in there....something in that exchange has to change!

And I'm attempting to explain to you that IT DOESN'T WORK
At least not for residential US consumers - definitely not for residential CA.
Perhaps that's not entirely accurate - it "works" - but it isn't economically viable.
And not economically viable means people won't adopt it.

I certainly couldn't recommend to any residential customer in CA that they should do it. At least not with a clear conscience.

Only way you'll really see it at residential customers is if the POCO pays the entire cost for the battery pack.
The residential customers aren't going to see any economic benefit.

Commercial might have some reason to pay a little for battery packs - since their rate structure is different and they might have some benefit.

But my bet is that you'll see some utility scale storage added but the '200 MW of the storage mandate is required to be installed “behind the meter” at customer sites.' will not happen. IMO the utilities will ask for (and get) a waiver on that - allowing them to delay when they have to meet that goal.

Actually thinking about it - I do see one large customer that will probably go for behind-the-meter storage - Tesla in Fremont.
(More for the PR than anything. It'd be great PR)

You keep saying IT DOESN'T WORK with no specific reasons or numbers, and PR is just about the worst reason to do something that DOESN'T WORK!! :happyyes:

If you are interested in these types of projects, you might check out these SolarPro articles (the first is from 2014, the others are hot off the presses):

Solar Energy Storage: Emerging Technologies, Markets and Applications

Distributed Energy Storage Systems

Deploying Solar-Plus-Storage Microgrids

Thanks a lot! Great stuff.
The thought about lithium AND AGMs together had in fact occured to me- good to know I'm not crazy! (About this one thing anyways....)

One watt of non-exporting stand-alone storage faces greater fees and interconnection hassles than a megawatt of exporting PV.

Eek!! ^^

This is two different guys about two different "hybrids"
What makes energy storage systems ideal for demand reduction applications?

Battery solutions can achieve demand reduction without requiring changes in a site’s operations. Further, lithium-ion battery–based systems do not require substantial space. Our system can work as a hybrid solution deployed with PV, or as a stand-alone storage solution. We find that hybrid installations generally provide better returns. PV tends to narrow the width of the peak load and storage will lower its height.
---
On a couple projects, we have used our multiport inverters in conjunction with two different battery types, such as lead-acid and lithium-ion. This allows us to use an energy-type battery to participate in energy markets and a power-type battery to participate in the power market, which provides attractive improvements for the project’s internal rate of return.

 

[PVfarmer]

I am not seeing the point of arguing illegal vs against the rules

Either way if caught you will be disconnected from the grid.

Howdy- I'm not really trying to start that argument, just trying to clear something up- if you have a system which runs a load or loads in a home, and doesn't interact with the grid at all...
If there's already a PV system in place, and a BESS is added load side, off grid...what's the "process" for informing the POCO?

The example in italics is 100% the AHJ's...jurisdiction? I don't see how the POCO would be inspecting something inside a house, basically?
Sorry if leaving the AHJ part out seemed "suspicious" there!

 

[ggunn]

Howdy- I'm not really trying to start that argument, just trying to clear something up- if you have a system which runs a load or loads in a home, and doesn't interact with the grid at all...

Then you have an off grid system and you can configure it any way you want. Of course, you aren't going to produce electricity anywhere nearly as cheaply as power costs from the grid, so what would be the point?

 

[PVfarmer]

Then you have an off grid system and you can configure it any way you want. Of course, you aren't going to produce electricity anywhere nearly as cheaply as power costs from the grid, so what would be the point?

I'll try and say it with a picture...which is the 1st link or top pic on 2nd link. Yes, it's Australia, but there are places in the US that have = sun to places Down Under...
You could take any number of things "off grid", from a phone charger to an electric water heater or AC unit. As far as hot water, you could...only use electricity to MOVE the water, which would be...less than a panel?
You could use panels and BESS for hot water- both *could* work- but in Alaska, you'd want your hot water from your wood stove, ideally...
Solar hot water unit into a tank is if nothing else, more direct than PV to electricity to electric hot water heater.
http://www.energymatters.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/hot-water-project-1.jpg

http://www.energymatters.com.au/solar-hot-water/solar-hot-water-projects/

Wow! Look at these production numbers, and the costs in the next wiki section are both loose and a bit high (of course I'd say that).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating#Energy_production

***

Web Page: See http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#appendices for updated annual conversion factors.

7The fossil-fuels heat rate is used as the thermal conversion factor for electricity net generation from noncombustible renewable energy (hydro, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic, and wind) to approximate the quantity of fossil fuels replaced by these sources.

¹¹The value of 3,412 Btu per kilowatthour is a constant. It is used as the thermal conversion factor for
electricity retail sales, and electricity imports and exports.

Chart here:
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb1206

 

[ggunn]

You could use panels and BESS for hot water...

You could, but it would be much more cost effective to heat water with solar directly.

Solar phone chargers and the like? Well, sure, but you are talking about piddlingly small amounts of power, so the fact that it costs much more per kWh than grid energy is a don't care. If you are talking about enough energy harvest where the cost of a kWh makes a difference, then there are very few places that have grid power where it is economically advantageous to generate off grid power. Which is what we have been saying since post #2.

 

[TommyO]

You keep saying IT DOESN'T WORK with no specific reasons or numbers, and PR is just about the worst reason to do something that DOESN'T WORK!! :happyyes:

PR is about the only reason a company does something that isn't directly economically beneficial.

I and others have given you specific reasons AND numbers.

But just for the popcorn munching crowd, here it is again:

"Bottom line - batteries add to the cost and are not an economical choice in the US for the vast majority of people. That's because we have net metering and/or cheap electricity in most places in the US."

That's still the bottom line.
1> We have net metering and/or cheap electricity in most places in the US.

2> Batteries will add to the cost

3> In most cases batteries don't provide enough of a benefit to people in the US to overcome their extra cost. (with net metering they provide $0 of benefit)

Those are the facts right now in the US.

Germany has different facts - they don't have net metering, therefore there it is more likely there can be a benefit.

There you go. Reasons AND the important number in this discussion - ZERO - as in ZERO dollars of benefit for most residents who could be installing batteries.
$0 of benefit makes it really difficult to justify spending anything on batteries and related equipment.

 

[PVfarmer]

You could, but it would be much more cost effective to heat water with solar directly.

Solar phone chargers and the like? Well, sure, but you are talking about piddlingly small amounts of power, so the fact that it costs much more per kWh than grid energy is a don't care. If you are talking about enough energy harvest where the cost of a kWh makes a difference, then there are very few places that have grid power where it is economically advantageous to generate off grid power. Which is what we have been saying since post #2.

you aren't going to produce electricity anywhere nearly as cheaply as power costs from the grid, so what would be the point?

Well...there's Hawaii, Cali, NY, RI...by this chart- http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a
you've got New England, Mid-Atlantic, some South Atlantic, East North Central....really any region if the LCOE for PV is below 12.18 cents. 12.18 is the "lowest high price" of any of them- of course it is Texas!!
New England is pretty big...
[h=1]Resident Population in the New England Census Division[/h] 2014: 14,680.722 Thousands of Persons

----

PR is about the only reason a company does something that isn't directly economically beneficial.

I and others have given you specific reasons AND numbers.
But just for the popcorn munching crowd, here it is again:

Originally Posted by TommyO
"Bottom line - batteries add to the cost and are not an economical choice in the US for the vast majority of people. That's because we have net metering and/or cheap electricity in most places in the US."

That's still the bottom line.
1> We have net metering and/or cheap electricity in most places in the US.

2> Batteries will add to the cost

3> In most cases batteries don't provide enough of a benefit to people in the US to overcome their extra cost. (with net metering they provide $0 of benefit)

Those are the facts right now in the US.

There you go. Reasons AND the important number in this discussion - ZERO - as in ZERO dollars of benefit for most residents who could be installing batteries.
$0 of benefit makes it really difficult to justify spending anything on batteries and related equipment.

You simply aren't listening. So the whole USA is just one state that has the same amount of sun and same POCO price?
Really?
No.

And when a company says "this will help you", but it won't, that's not PR- it's called lying. Sure, companies might get away with it for a while, but those aren't good companies.
When the consumer has a choice, that scheme isn't really the best one.

PR is about the only reason a company does something that isn't directly economically beneficial.

You did it again- so ALL companies are only concerned with their bottom line, and PR is always lies meant to hike their profits?
Or were you saying something else?
Selling people expensive stuff that doesn't perform as promised is a good business plan?

 

[GoldDigger]

AFAIK the inverters themselves are not hybrid but are battery inverters. The PV charges the batteries through a charge controller and the inverter runs off the batteries.

True at least in part.
n addition to the normal battery powered off-grid inverter a typical hybrid inverter will also have an internal grid pass-through and transfer switch/relay as well as the necessary circuitry to allow the battery powered inverter to be synchronized to the grid. That is a fair part of the control circuitry and logic that is found in a grid tied inverter.

 

[PVfarmer]

You could, but it would be much more cost effective to heat water with solar directly.

I forgot to agree with that part. That's what I'm getting at...
It wouldn't take much electricity to move the heated water. "Less than a panel" as in a 100 or 200 watt pump, of course that depends on the feet of lift- or you can move it to heat it without an electric pump using a closed recirculating siphon and if the hot water tank is in the basement...gravity feed.

It's kind of surprising more people don't do it, seeing as an elec. water heater can = ½ of your bill or more...

As far as hot water, you could...only use electricity to MOVE the water, which would be...less than a panel?

 

[wwhitney]

So the LCOS is the cost of the kWh coming OUT of the battery when you go to use it.

No, the LCOS is the extra cost of storing the kWh in the battery. The cost of the kWh coming out of the battery is the cost going in plus the LCOS.

Let me try one very simplified full accounting example:

You pay the POCO $0.15/kWh flat rate, but if you are a net generator, they only credit you $0.10/kWh when you are generating. Your usage is 1000 kWh per month, divided evenly between day and night. You buy a PV system that will last 20 years and generate 1000 kWh per month. Your LCOE on the PV is $0.05/kWh, i.e. the system lifetime cost is $0.05/kWh * 20 years * 12 months/year * 1000 kWh/month= $12,000.

Without PV, your monthly bill is 1000 kWhs * $0.15/kWh = $150. With the PV only, you generate 500 kWh per month extra during the daytime, for a credit of $50, but you use 500 kWh per month at night at a cost of $75. Your monthly bill is now $25, so you are saving $125/month. Your system pays back in 8 years ignoring the time value of money.

Now you also have the option to buy battery system(s) that will let you cycle 16.5 kWhs/day into and out of the battery per day. That's 500 kWhs per month, your full nighttime usage. This system has an LCOS of $0.10/kWh. That is over 20 years it will cost $0.10 * 20 * 12 * 500 = $12,000 to time shift those kWhs. But your POCO bill is now 0, you get all your nighttime usage from the batteries, while all your daytime surplus goes into the batteries.

So here's the total cost over 20 years for the three options (ignoring the time value of money and POCO rate increases):

a) No PV: $150/month * 12 * 20 = $36,000
b) PV: $12,000 for the PV system plus $25/month * 12 * 20 = $18,000
c) PV + batteries: $12,000 for the PV, $12,000 for the batteries = $24,000

PV + batteries is worse than PV only, surprise! Why? With PV plus batteries, the cost of your nighttime usage has gone from $0.15/kWh to the POCO to $0.20/kWh: $0.10/kWh LCOS to pay for the batteries, and $0.10/kWh in daytime generation credits you gave up to charge your battery. And the math works out: an extra $0.05/kWh * 500 kWhs/month * 12 * 20 = $6,000, the amount your costs went up.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[PVfarmer]

You pay the POCO $0.15/kWh flat rate, but if you are a net generator, they only credit you $0.10/kWh when you are generating. Your usage is 1000 kWh per month, divided evenly between day and night. You buy a PV system that will last 20 years and generate 1000 kWh per month. Your LCOE on the PV is $0.05/kWh, i.e. the system lifetime cost is $0.05/kWh * 20 years * 12 months/year * 1000 kWh/month= $12,000.

Without PV, your monthly bill is 1000 kWhs * $0.15/kWh = $150. With the PV only, you generate 500 kWh per month extra during the daytime, for a credit of $50, but you use 500 kWh per month at night at a cost of $75. Your monthly bill is now $25, so you are saving $125/month. Your system pays back in 8 years ignoring the time value of money.

Now you also have the option to buy battery system(s) that will let you cycle 16.5 kWhs/day into and out of the battery per day. That's 500 kWhs per month, your full nighttime usage. This system has an LCOS of $0.10/kWh. That is over 20 years it will cost $0.10 * 20 * 12 * 500 = $12,000 to time shift those kWhs. But your POCO bill is now 0, you get all your nighttime usage from the batteries, while all your daytime surplus goes into the batteries.

So here's the total cost over 20 years for the three options (ignoring the time value of money and POCO rate increases):

a) No PV: $150/month * 12 * 20 = $36,000
b) PV: $12,000 for the PV system plus $25/month * 12 * 20 = $18,000
c) PV + batteries: $12,000 for the PV, $12,000 for the batteries = $24,000

I don't understand where you're getting the bolded parts- is the first one 15c POCO rate minus 10c credit?
And where's the second one from?

If your POCO flat rate is 15 and you get 10 cents credit per kWh, paid 50 a month and paying 75, you are losing $25.
That isn't a "free battery".

a) is what you paid the POCO, no savings
b) is what you paid for the system, plus (what you paid the POCO, minus your savings).
c) is the cost of the 2 systems....where'd the SAVINGS go? If you paid zero to the POCO, it didn't cost $24,000!

If you paid a) with no savings, isn't c) really $24000 minus a)?
Which is a pretty good deal!

 

[jaggedben]

I don't understand where you're getting the bolded parts- is the first one 15c POCO rate minus 10c credit?
And where's the second one from?

He made them up. It's a hypothetical example.

If your POCO flat rate is 15 and you get 10 cents credit per kWh, paid 50 a month and paying 75, you are losing $25.
That isn't a "free battery".

No, but it's 5cents per kWh than the 'actual' battery in the example.

 

[PVfarmer]

This is actually somewhat like "the usual" scenario in this country- not ideal, but as you see, it does work.

POCO rate = 15 cents/kWh- that's in/out, 15 cents both ways.
Usage = 1000kWh a month, potentially $150 a month to POCO.

LCOE from PV (from is better than for) = 20 cents. Too high, but it still works.

That doesn't mean losing 5 cents. That means paying 20 cents (money already out at that rate) but you are not paying the POCO 15 cents, so really, you are paying (yourself) 5 cents for the PV electricity.
Saving $100 a month/$1200 a year.
Then when payback on the PV is reached, you are saving the whole 15 or $150 (actually more because POCO prices always go up)
Payback = 10 years if you are saving $1200 a year and the PV cost $12000 (again, 10 yrs not ideal...)

When the LCOE = the cost of the PV system divided by projected kWh output of the system, the system is paid for.
So while it's "costing" 20 cents, you don't have an electric bill, which is the whole reason to have PV.

If POCO rate = 20 cents and LCOE = 15 cents....
It doesn't mean making 5 cents, it means you don't have to send money to POCO, the PV is paid for which gives you the LCOE, and the fact that you don't have a $200 a month POCO bill is what pays back for the PV system.
The monthly "payment" for the PV is $150 (based on LCOE, and already been paid for) - the previous $200 bill which went away because of the PV is what pays for it.
Saving (by not paying) $200 a month/$2400 a year, the payback for $12,000 is five years - MUCH better!

You spent $12,000 on a PV system, which allows you to NOT spend $12,000 on the POCO, and then after the point when the $12,000 has not been spent, you are out of the red, the sooner, the better.

 

[wwhitney]

I don't understand where you're getting the bolded parts- is the first one 15c POCO rate minus 10c credit?

I started with the LCOE I wanted to end up with for the example, and calculated the cost of a PV system that gives you that LCOE. Nothing to do with POCO, other than to make the LCOE lower than POCO so that PV makes sense.

And where's the second one from?

Likewise, I started with the LCOS I wanted to end up with for the example, and calculated the cost of a battery system that gives you that LCOS. Once you understand the example, you can see how changing the value of LCOS changes the outcome. Again, LCOS is battery cost only, no energy costs!

If your POCO flat rate is 15 and you get 10 cents credit per kWh, paid 50 a month and paying 75, you are losing $25.
That isn't a "free battery".

First, the "free battery" concept is for net metering, which this example is not. In this example, you get a credit for your excess generation at a lower rate than the POCO charges you. I chose this because you are interested in the case of generating more kWh than you use, which is outside the realm of net metering.

Secondly the $50/month credit and $75/month charge is just what your bill is in this non-net metering example, with PV only, no battery.

a) $36K is what you paid the POCO, no savings
b) $18K is what you paid for the system, plus (what you paid the POCO, minus your savings).
c) is the cost of the 2 systems....where'd the SAVINGS go? If you paid zero to the POCO, it didn't cost $24,000!

In all three cases, it is your total outlay for 20 years of electricity. In this simple example, your equipment lasts 20 years and then dies. In all three cases you end up back where you started, no residual value to complicate the accounting.

a) $36K is what you pay the POCO without any PV
b) $18K is what you pay with PV only--the upfront equipment costs, plus POCO nighttime usage (less your daytime credit)
c) $24K is what you pay for the two systems only--no money to POCO, as you are self-sufficient (could be off grid)

(b) is less than (c): PV only is cheaper than PV + batteries.

If you look at the numbers, when LCOS is less than $0.05/kWh, then (c) does actually wins. That is because the sell to POCO price (your credit) is $0.05/kWh less than the buy from POCO price (your usage cost). That creates the possibility for batteries to be worthwhile, if you could get your battery cost low enough.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

POCO rate = 15 cents/kWh- that's in/out, 15 cents both ways.
Usage = 1000kWh a month, potentially $150 a month to POCO.

LCOE from PV (from is better than for) = 20 cents. Too high, but it still works.

That doesn't mean losing 5 cents.

Yes, in fact it does. It means paying 5 cents more for each kWh from the PV than you would from the POCO. LCOE by definition means over the entire lifetime of the equipment.

That means paying 20 cents (money already out at that rate) but you are not paying the POCO 15 cents, so really, you are paying (yourself) 5 cents for the PV electricity.

No, you are paying the PV equipment manufacturers and installers 5 cents more per kWh than you would pay the POCO, to be able to enjoy PV. Maybe it's worth it if you like PV a lot, but it's not economical.

Saving $100 a month/$1200 a year.

Where did this come from? If the PV lifetime is 20 years, and your usage is 1000 kWh/month, and your LCOE is $0.20/kWh, then your system cost you $0.20 * 1000 * 12 * 20 = $48K. So you are paying $48K to buy 20 years worth of electricity that would have cost you $36K from the POCO.

Now you could argue that the POCO prices may rise, but you've locked in your PV LCOE. That is true, but if you want to talk about rising POCO prices, then we need to talk about the time value of money. Only if the POCO inflation rate exceeds your cost of money (discount rate, borrowing rate, whatever you want to call it) do you possibly have a chance of making the PV a better deal. And this is complicated and very sensitive to assumptions, so I'm not going to go there.

Then when payback on the PV is reached

With the above assumption, payback on the PV is never reached.

If POCO rate = 20 cents and LCOE = 15 cents....
It doesn't mean making 5 cents,

Yes, it does. You don't make it upfront--you pay upfront and get the savings at the backend. But averaged over time, it is 5 cents/kWh.

Saving (by not paying) $200 a month/$2400 a year, the payback for $12,000 is five years - MUCH better!

You haven't adjusted your PV system cost when you adjusted your LCOE. If your LCOE is 3 or 4 times higher ($0.15 or $0.20/kWh versus my $0.05), you system cost 3 or 4 times as much.

Cheers,
Wayne

 

[PVfarmer]

a) $36K is what you pay the POCO without any PV
b) $18K is what you pay with PV only--the upfront equipment costs, plus POCO nighttime usage (less your daytime credit)
c) $24K is what you pay for the two systems only--no money to POCO, as you are self-sufficient (could be off grid)

(b) is less than (c): PV only is cheaper than PV + batteries.

If you look at the numbers, when LCOS is less than $0.05/kWh, then (c) does actually wins. That is because the sell to POCO price (your credit) is $0.05/kWh less than the buy from POCO price (your usage cost). That creates the possibility for batteries to be worthwhile, if you could get your battery cost low enough.

You paid $24,000 for c), which is more. But you have no bill, that is the fact which makes PV with or without BESS financially viable. Less of a bill can work, but zero is much better.
If you are factoring the $ into b), you have to factor them into c) also, when comparing b to c.

If the POCO gave you no credit whatsoever, and still charged you 15 cents, you could have a 15 cent LCOE for a PV system- IF you had a BESS...in that case you'd be paying up front for 20 years of battery backup, which would end up having been free over those 20 years when it was over. Again, not ideal.

 

[wwhitney]

If you are factoring the $ into b), you have to factor them into c) also, when comparing b to c.

(b) (PV only) does include the remaining POCO charges for 20 years, it is still cheaper than (c) (PV plus batteries).

This is a true apples to apples comparison.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[TommyO]

You simply aren't listening. So the whole USA is just one state that has the same amount of sun and same POCO price?
Really?
No.

Did I say that?
No.

There are very few places in the US where that area
A> does not have cheap power (ex. $.15/kwh or less)
AND
B> does not have net metering.

States with more than $.15/kwh like CA have net metering.
States without net metering like TX have cheap power.

The amount of sun is actually irrelevant to discussions about whether batteries are economically feasible.

And when a company says "this will help you", but it won't, that's not PR- it's called lying.

The example I gave (Tesla using battery storage at their plant) would be a great demonstration of the capacity of their battery packs being sufficient to handle a large industrial situation. There's no lying in any part of that. Showing off technology for your company is generally considered to be PR (or possibly advertising/marketing when it is more directly leading to increased sales/profits)

You did it again- so ALL companies are only concerned with their bottom line, and PR is always lies meant to hike their profits?
Or were you saying something else?

I was saying practically the opposite.
That companies are primarily concerned with their bottom line.
And anything that isn't about their bottom line is PR.
Making donations to good causes? PR.
Using 'green' power even when it's more expensive? PR.

If you think those non-profit-minded things *aren't* PR, then what would you call it?
(And whatever phrase you want to use for those things, you can just substitute it for where I've used the term "PR")

Selling people expensive stuff that doesn't perform as promised is a good business plan?

So what promised performance are you talking about?
IF you're talking about Tesla's powerwall, I expect it will perform exactly as promised. They promise cycles and number of kwh. They do NOT promise that you'll save money if you buy one from them.



BTW - I will point out that you don't actually show any counter examples to my assertions. (ie. a place in the US where it actually *would* be economically beneficial to install batteries. I think in an earlier post you may have suggested CA as such an example, but since we have net metering here it definitely isn't economically beneficial to install a battery system. (Not that people won't install them anyhow here in CA - many people do things for other than economic reasons)