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

[Electric-Light]

That average person is a bit different in all 50 states. And so yes of course, #1, developers present it differently. And people get taken advantage of.

Whoever thought 91 cent customer charge is a good idea? It benefits the rich people living luxury lifestyle, people who own a bunch of investment homes and the photovoltaic industry. They still keep service to the homes 24/7/365, power is available whenever

I believe they would benefit more with $10/month customer charge, 10c/kWh (including all per kWh cost), $12/kW demand charge with minimal demand due of 1/2 of annual high kW demand. No demand charge for "super off peak". This would give a break for someone to do their drying, water heating at night.

A 900kWh summer bill for a primary home would look like this:
900 x 0.10 = $90
5kW demand =$60
$10 fee
$160...
A home that has a 5 ton AC unit will pay more than a home with a 2 ton unit. This is fair enough.
If they can shave the daytime demand 2kW, they save $24 by giving up turning on whatever they want whenever they want.

It's around $180 with the "tiered" SCE plan at 400kWh/mo base and using off peak doesn't stop counting towards going up the tier. You really can't win no matter what with those. I am guessing that solar industry doesn't want something that encourages discretionary load shifting that levels demand away from when they're generating.

5kW PV
8,000kWh annual generation 1,000kWh usage that month
Energy charge figured out at end of the "true up" period.
12kW demand (hot tub, multiple ACs, jacuzzi) =$144
$10/mo charge.
$154 due.
one half of 12kW x $12/kW due every month.
The 1/2 demand ratchet doesn't affect typical residences. It only affects seasonal rentals and such. half of 12kW demand at $12/kW is $66/mo due every month. (ratchet demand)

The average primary home would have more chance to save with $10/month service charge, $12/kW demand(15min base) and 1/2 of highest kW demand occurring within the last year, and 10c/kWh rate, instead of the current tiered system they have in California with unreasonably low baseline kWh allowance that causes average homes to have kWh rates in excess 25c/kWh. Monthly kWh ration tier pricing is essentially designed in favor of the solar industry.

RGGI states have received and disbursed virtually all of nearly $2 billion in proceeds from CO2-allowance auctions back into the economy in various ways, including on: energy efficiency measures; community-based renewable power projects; credits on customers’ bills; assistance to low-income customers to help pay their electricity bills; greenhouse-gas-reduction measures; and education and job training programs.

Well, did it ever occur to you that the entire carbon offset business is a scandal?

"The typical California residential customer with rooftop solar PV consumes about 15,000 kWh
per year, which is substantially more than the 6,800 kWh per year consumed by the average
residential customer served by the three California IOUs".
http://www.edisonfoundation.net/iei/documents/IEI_NEM_Subsidy_Issues_FINAL.pdf

Those are the homes that have very high kW demand. Solar doesn't have much effect on peak demand reduction, because grid peak occurs when when solar output is quite low. It has nearly no impact in winter time.

Solar advocates oppose demand charge and annual true-up, because it would make it harder to freeload from the grid capacity.

Annual true-up forces the grid to buy something that is not in demand at the time. No demand charge means it forces the grid to pay back something in a large quantity when it's in high demand.

To put it in another way: I'm giving you credit for 200 total nights at my beach front hotel in February. I need ten rooms for 21 days in your hotel during summer vacation season. Since I gave 200 total nights of credit, I'm paying you for ten rooms for one day and we're even.

6 Well... Developer OR homowner, the whole deal is based on a PV system with 20 year life and a payback period of XX years, so just saying "we want to cancel this after 2 years just because.." isn't really fair.

You say that if people were to go off grid, PoCo should remove the lines, pack up the transformer and just use them elsewhere like its not big deal. However, when I suggested the same solution for when they choose to disconnect from solar, but you call that BS. How does this make any sense unless "not fair" just means you don't like it, because its not in your favor?

Payback is unrealistic. Here's a thingy that saves you money. You should give me $8,000, in cash, right now. Take my word you'll save $8,000 in 12 years. You'll start making money after 12 years.

9 That is in fact the way potatoes are done...and yep, it is a problem. But- having a 100kW PV system a quarter mile away to run a small neighborhood (owned by a developer) is less efficient than putting 8kw systems on 16 houses' roofs (and a 4kW on a small house to make 100kW)- of curse the 2nd option without developer is the ideal.

What about when the PVs are not generating? Batteries are very costly. Space, maintenance, replacement and other costs all have to get added up. They're good for short time pick-up but not practical for storing a lot of energy. Server rooms only carry battery backup for minutes of capacity, then the fuel powered generator picks up. A cordless drill battery may provide useful charge of 20Wh and you may get 250 cycles out of it. They say 500 to 1,000 cycles, but that's in lab tests discharging into a load over many hours. For what you're concerned, if the drill doesn't turn with usable power, the battery is useless. At $50/ea, the storage cost is like $10/kWh.

10 Yes- but I will say the government itself is aware of the "soft cost problem" in the industry and is trying to bring it down, and even succeeding in places! Which the gov doesn't always do so often...

Bring it down? Do you mean by not spending tax money to buy from the solar industry?
Carbon foot print is the trendy thing, but it doesn't address other concerns, like all the emissions involved in solar industry activity.

Um, this one does- but most, I will agree, don't really get into the details of the grid beyond "it gives us money", for sure.

It's costing everyone else money.

 

[ggunn]

Solar advocates oppose demand charge and annual true-up, because it would make it harder to freeload from the grid capacity.

Careful with that wide brush, pal; that sounds a whole lot like "you people". I am a solar advocate and you have no freaking clue what I am or am not opposed to.

 

[Electric-Light]

how would you suggest we go we demand ?

 

[ggunn]

how would you suggest we go we demand ?

That makes no sense to me.

 

[SolarPro]

Careful with that wide brush, pal; that sounds a whole lot like "you people". I am a solar advocate and you have no freaking clue what I am or am not opposed to.

Right. Many solar advocates expect that new rate structures, like residential demand charges, are exactly what will make solar+storage mainstream. (You can't have a high penetration of variable renewable resources without storage.) Demand charges are already driving some strong commercial and industrial solar+storage markets. Plus, in the future, DG owners/operators (like SolarCity and SunEdison) will be able to manage their entire fleet of assets as requested by the independent system operator. So you effectively have the benefits of a large-scale generation resource, as well as the benefits of having power generation and ancillary service assets close to the load, where these can help utility operators the most.

It's going to be a long and bumpy road before we really have a 21st Century smart grid, but it's going to happen in our lifetime. The US DOE is behind it. PUCs see it as inevitable. There's just a lot of work to do on standards, control protocols, security, safety, etc..

Here's some interesting reading:

SANDIA Report on Advanced Microgrids

IREC report on Distributed Energy Storage

California PUC's Regulatory Report on Microgrids

 

[jaggedben]

Right. Many solar advocates expect that new rate structures, like residential demand charges, are exactly what will make solar+storage mainstream. (You can't have a high penetration of variable renewable resources without storage.) ...

Seems to me that if the utilities were smart they would not to push demand charges and other fees on customers with solar, but instead go the grid storage route and push for adjusting net-metering export rates to cover the costs.

Not that I'm really in favor of people continuing to be dependent on utilities, but overall it would probably be a more efficient and reliable approach. If they push demand charges then yes, storage will take off and take more away from utility revenue streams.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Electric-Light]

I meant to write how would you suggest we go about addressing demand issues?

 

[ggunn]

I meant to write how would you suggest we go about addressing demand issues?

OK, your question now makes grammatical sense but what are you asking? Conventional grid tied PV does not affect demand charges except by coincidence; you certainly cannot count on it to do so. Grid tied PV with storage can address demand charges if it is implemented with that in mind, but so what? If a homeowner can use PV and storage selectively to lower his personal demand during peak grid demand times, that's good for everyone, it seems to me.

 

[jaggedben]

I meant to write how would you suggest we go about addressing demand issues?

While I don't think you asked me, I'll start by repeating what I said in post #355 (holy !@#$, this thread is that long?)...

One way would be to charge everyone for demand. To my knowledge the vast majority of residential customers in this country aren't charged for it. Some utilities have been proposing to hit customers with fees are charges because they have solar. My response is that I'm fine with any scheme you come up with as long as it charges solar and non-solar customers by the same metric.

A second way would be for solar customers to start installing storage for self-consumption, and then the utilities get paid nothing for supplying additional demand because it won't be needed. If utilities aren't smart about which policies they lobby for, that's where they'll end up. Kinda ironic if after all these posts you end up making PVfarmer's point, albeit in the most roundabout way...

 

[iwire]

Some utilities have been proposing to hit customers with fees are charges because they have solar. My response is that I'm fine with any scheme you come up with as long as it charges solar and non-solar customers by the same metric.

Maybe I do not understand but why should non-solar customers be subsidizing solar customers?:huh:

That is pretty much what is happening now.

 

[ggunn]

Maybe I do not understand but why should non-solar customers be subsidizing solar customers?:huh:

That is pretty much what is happening now.

Utilities pay for the energy produced by distributed generation, the same as if they were buying it from anywhere else. Through rebates, utilities buy power generating capacity, the same as if they were using those funds to build another power plant.

But for the sake of argument let's assume that that what you say is true. As a non-solar customer (a valid assumption, I think), how much is solar costing you? How much higher is your bill than it would be if there were no solar on the grid?

 

[iwire]

Utilities pay for the energy produced by distributed generation, the same as if they were buying it from anywhere else. Through rebates, utilities buy power generating capacity, the same as if they were using those funds to build another power plant.

But for the sake of argument let's assume that that what you say is true.

Please explain to me in plain terms what you feel about my post was untrue.

Any costs the power company pays for anything is passed along to all of its customers.

Right now the costs to the power companies of being a 'free battery' for solar users is passed along to all the customers.

As a non-solar customer (a valid assumption, I think),

It is valid, but I also have earned a living installing solar. The company I work for does vast amounts of solar. So please don't you use that broad brush you mentioned earlier and paint me as anti solar.

how much is solar costing you? How much higher is your bill than it would be if there were no solar on the grid?

That is smoke and mirrors, and is not the point. The point is those costs to the utilities are real and they have to be recouped by passing the costs along to all customers.

Why should non-solar uses continue to subsidize solar users?

 

[ggunn]

Please explain to me in plain terms what you feel about my post was untrue.

Any costs the power company pays for anything is passed along to all of its customers.

Right now the costs to the power companies of being a 'free battery' for solar users is passed along to all the customers.



It is valid, but I also have earned a living installing solar. The company I work for does vast amounts of solar. So please don't you use that broad brush you mentioned earlier and paint me as anti solar.



That is smoke and mirrors, and is not the point. The point is those costs to the utilities are real and they have to be recouped by passing the costs along to all customers.

Why should non-solar uses continue to subsidize solar users?

I didn't paint you as anti-solar, just as a non solar customer, which I assumed (correctly, it seems) from what you posted.

In the first place, what are the real costs to the utility for being a "free battery" to solar customers? Solar typically produces power during the time of day when the utility may need to go out and buy energy on the spot market when it is most expensive. I believe the case can be made that harvesting energy from local producers during those times actually saves the utility money and those savings are shared by the rate payers (locally, Austin Energy has published numbers that bear that out). And any time the utility has to buy energy and energy generating capacity those costs are distributed among the rate payers; why does it make any difference if they are buying it from people who are also their customers?

But above and beyond that my question is NOT smoke and mirrors. I judge the validity of anyone's complaint about anything by the magnitude of the damage that person has suffered. If solar is costing you hundreds of dollars a month, I agree that you have a beef. If it is costing you a few cents a month, not so much. How badly are you hurt?

 

[SolarPro]

Maybe I do not understand but why should non-solar customers be subsidizing solar customers?:huh:

That is pretty much what is happening now.

You know what is also happening now? Everyone in the country bears substantial costs associated with the fossil fuel industries: cleaning up superfund sites, dealing with air and water pollution and the health effects thereof, rebuilding infrastructure loss to global warming. Who pays for oils spills, coal ash spills, nuclear waste disposal?

Just saying. Solar and storage aren't the problem. The utility grid of the future will operate more reliably and efficiently because of them. Utility regulators just have a lot of work to do to develop policies and standards that will provide the most benefit all parties (ISOs/asset owners/customers). It's a brave new world. Get ready. It's coming.

 

[iwire]

You know what is also happening now? Everyone in the country bears substantial costs associated with the fossil fuel industries: cleaning up superfund sites, dealing with air and water pollution and the health effects thereof, rebuilding infrastructure loss to global warming. Who pays for oils spills, coal ash spills, nuclear waste disposal?

For sure, and I point out once again I am not anti solar.

But I am of the belief two wrongs don't make a right, or in this case 77 wrongs don't justify adding another.

ust saying. Solar and storage aren't the problem. The utility grid of the future will operate more reliably and efficiently because of them. Utility regulators just have a lot of work to do to develop policies and standards that will provide the most benefit all parties (ISOs/asset owners/customers). It's a brave new world. Get ready. It's coming.

I am ready and I firmly believe it is coming.

I am just asking a simple question about the justification of non-solar users subsidizing solar users even though those subsidies have helped put money in my bank.

 

[ggunn]

For sure, and I point out once again I am not anti solar.

But I am of the belief two wrongs don't make a right, or in this case 77 wrongs don't justify adding another.



I am ready and I firmly believe it is coming.

I am just asking a simple question about the justification of non-solar users subsidizing solar users even though those subsidies have helped put money in my bank.

Maybe you look somewhat anti solar because the issue of "non-solar users subsidizing solar users" is the same old tired argument that people who are anti solar trot out in every discussion.

 

[iwire]

Maybe you look somewhat anti solar because the issue of "non-solar users subsidizing solar users" is the same old tired argument that people who are anti solar trot out in every discussion.

It is brought up because it is a legitimate topic.

I could say you seem to ignore it because you are 'pro-solar'

 

[iwire]

In the first place, what are the real costs to the utility for being a "free battery" to solar customers?

Come on you know this.

I find it easier to look at things if we magnify the issue.

For the sake of argument lets say 100% of the customers where on net metering producing what they each need for electricity. They ship it to the utility during the day and they take it back at night resulting in a Kwh charge from the utility of $0.00.

Under those circumstances where does the utility get the money to maintain their infrastructure?


The same thing is happening in reduced scale with some of the customers on net metering. The utility is getting less $ to maintain the infrastructure that is being used as free storage to those folks.

Please don't say 'they have to do it anyway' of course they do but now they have to do it with less income or much more likely raise their rates across the board.

I judge the validity of anyone's complaint about anything by the magnitude of the damage that person has suffered. If solar is costing you hundreds of dollars a month, I agree that you have a beef. If it is costing you a few cents a month, not so much. How badly are you hurt?

Well I entirely disagree with that view point so we will have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[K8MHZ]

What, exactly, are the extra costs that the POCO's incur from people using the grid as a battery?

To me, all that is happening is that energy is coming from other sources and the output of the POCO is reduced. I don't see any extra 'wear and tear' caused by the practice.

What else could there be except for a loss of profit from sales? How much is that loss, actually? And isn't at least some of that offset by not having as much stress on the infrastructure for an increased overall demand?

 

[iwire]

What, exactly, are the extra costs that the POCO's incur from people using the grid as a battery?

Please see my post 378.