0
billvon

Warmer climate = more power interruptions

Recommended Posts

AtrusBatleth

I didn't think I would have to explain this, but the future risk I was referring to was a problem with your solar cells, inverters, and/or batteries. I was not referring to the sun going out.



I see. So you're going with the "you shouldn't own your own home, because you'll have to pay for the maintenance yourself" position.

Yeah, when home improvements are made, they must be maintained. Rarely is that reason to not make them.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235

***I didn't think I would have to explain this, but the future risk I was referring to was a problem with your solar cells, inverters, and/or batteries. I was not referring to the sun going out.



I see. So you're going with the "you shouldn't own your own home, because you'll have to pay for the maintenance yourself" position.

Yeah, when home improvements are made, they must be maintained. Rarely is that reason to not make them.

I'm in favor of making an informed cost/benefit/risk decision. To use the homeowner analogy, there are many pros and cons of homeownership vs. renting. If a friend of mine thinks they should buy a home where the mortgage is $800/mo vs rent a comparable home for $1000/mo because "it will save me money", yeah I'm going to remind them of the true cost of homeownership. If they have considered the added costs of insurance, routine repairs, periodic renovations, etc, and they still think they will save money, then fine.

In the case of electricity, I am very satisfied with getting my money's worth from my local utility. They provide a reliable dependable service at a reasonable cost and I don't have to think about any of it. I just turn on the switch and I can trust the power will always be there, day or night, for my entire lifetime. I'm not particularly interested in devoting my time and resources to getting into the utility business on my own small scale, but to each his own. If you want to go off-grid, go right ahead.
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In the case of electricity, I am very satisfied with getting my money's worth from my local utility. They provide a reliable dependable service at a reasonable cost and I don't have to think about any of it.



I know what you mean. I'm your northern neighbour here in Manitoba. Hydro power, we'll sell you some more if you like. On demand and reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

In the case of electricity, I am very satisfied with getting my money's worth from my local utility. They provide a reliable dependable service at a reasonable cost and I don't have to think about any of it.



I know what you mean. I'm your northern neighbour here in Manitoba. Hydro power, we'll sell you some more if you like. On demand and reliable.



I agree. Hydro is great if your region has the capacity. Unfortunately the US has developed about all the hydro it practically can already. I suspect as we continue to shutdown our coal and nuclear plants, we will be buying more hydro power from you. As I recall that's what New England had to do when they pushed for early retirement of their larger coal and nuclear plants.
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

In the case of electricity, I am very satisfied with getting my money's worth from my local utility. They provide a reliable dependable service at a reasonable cost and I don't have to think about any of it. I just turn on the switch and I can trust the power will always be there, day or night, for my entire lifetime. I'm not particularly interested in devoting my time and resources to getting into the utility business on my own small scale, but to each his own. If you want to go off-grid, go right ahead.



You post as though the middle ground is unreasonable. For example, there's nothing unfair about solar panel installers receiving fair market value for their excess power. Just because you choose not to install panels doesn't mean they should have to subsidize your power needs.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235

You post as though the middle ground is unreasonable. For example, there's nothing unfair about solar panel installers receiving fair market value for their excess power. Just because you choose not to install panels doesn't mean they should have to subsidize your power needs.



If they receive fair market value for the excess power, then that's fair. But the market value changes throughout the day (every 5 minutes in typical markets). Most rooftop solar installers sell their excess power at the same averaged rate that customers pay (net metering), which is NOT the price that the utility is paying to supply that power on any given moment. The excess solar is sold back at a time of day when the market price is low, and they buy back power at the peak when the market price is high. When time-of-day pricing is fairly accounted for, the cost benefits of solar start to vanish. It is not solar installers that are subsidizing my power needs, but I who am subsidizing their unbalanced power needs.
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

If they receive fair market value for the excess power, then that's fair.



You're advocating the customer pay one rate if the power flows in one direction, but receive a different rate if the power flows in the opposite direction. There's nothing fair about that.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235

***If they receive fair market value for the excess power, then that's fair.



You're advocating the customer pay one rate if the power flows in one direction, but receive a different rate if the power flows in the opposite direction. There's nothing fair about that.

It's got nothing to do with which direction the power is flowing (although there are some other technical challenges to reverse flow which I won't bother getting into). It has to do with what time of day you're doing the selling. The price of power changes throughout the day. For traditional customers, the utility sells them power at a loss during times of peak demand, and sells power above cost during times of low demand. It averages out over the course of a year. In the case of distributed generation with net metering, the homeowner gets to sell their excess power back to the utility at that same annually averaged rate. But in the case of solar generators, the times of the day when they are selling their excess tend to be times when the market cost is below the annual average, thus the utilities are forced to pay more than what the power is really worth AT THAT TIME. I don't know how it typically works out for wind, since I don't think there has been substantial installation of homeowner excess wind generation like there has been with solar.

The time-of-day cost differences is why some utilities actually offer customers the choice (or maybe even require?) to pay a lower rate for power during low demand, but a higher rate for power during high demand. It provides financial incentive for customers to shift their power requirements to low demand times. It works out pretty well if you have an EV charging at night for example, or you are willing to let the house warm up in the summer during the day and then turn the thermostat down at night, or delay running your electric dryer until night-time, etc. As I said earlier, Hawaii was forced to adopt some form of time-of-day pricing to account for all the rooftop distributed solar being added to the grid and compounding the problems of the duck curve. After they did, it discouraged further expansion of rooftop solar installations because there wasn't as much cost benefit from selling power back to the utility when demand is lower.
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit to add (but too late for me to actually edit apparently):
The annual average cost per kWh that a traditional customer pays is actually higher than just the average cost of generating the electricity; a significant portion of the extra overhead goes towards maintaining the transmission system. That's another way that net metering customers get to unfairly benefit at the expense of traditional customers. With net metering, your net bill may be extremely small or even negative (utility pays you money), but it still costs the utility money to maintain the transmission lines throughout the system including your local neighborhood and up to your house, and you don't pay your fair share of that cost. It's similar to gas taxes that pay for road maintenance which EV drivers don't have to pay, or people who build a tiny house or live on a boat in the middle of a lake in Alaska to avoid paying property taxes. They all represent unfair advantages which make it look more cost effective than it really is. Sooner or later, regulations (and utility price structures) will catch up to the new method to attempt to level the playing field. When it does, the cost benefits won't be as appealing as they are now.

So for those who have rooftop solar and net metering; enjoy it while you can. I don't think I would feel right taking advantage of my neighbors like that, but they'll be coming after you eventually.
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we all know, or should know by now that the ability to sell power back into the system is a subsidy. Subsidies are given for a reason. Usually to encourage a behavior. The problem with this one is that it is mandated by either government agencies, or sometimes legislated by bodies who don't have to directly pay for them.

Clearly, if they are successful in inducing the changes they are aimed at on a large scale they are unsustainable. But fear not, somehow the grid will survive and the end customer will pay to make sure that happens. A system starved of resources is unable to maintain and upgrade it's equipment as needed. There are many examples around the world of electrical systems that don't function at a level we would accept in Canada or the USA.

A lot of people, probably the majority want reduced CO2 emissions and this industry is an easy target for them. Compared to asking the population to drive and fly less that is. But if our air conditioners stop working and our food starts spoiling we will put up with coal burning to fix it. Nuclear? Only if the industry can get the capitol costs under control. And there is no real sign of that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

Refreshing to hear an informed poster who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid



What Kool Aid? This was a lesson in energy grid economics for which I am very much appreciative. As a result, I intend to study this a bit more. That said, I read no inherent wrongness to Solar Power in the postings.

The fact is that public policy is often shaped by these sorts of inequities. Cigarette smokers, as a matter of public policy, are heavily taxed to affect that behavior.

I see that as good policy. Subsidizing solar, at least here and now, also seems like good policy. But then I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235

***If they receive fair market value for the excess power, then that's fair.



You're advocating the customer pay one rate if the power flows in one direction, but receive a different rate if the power flows in the opposite direction. There's nothing fair about that.

So the utility should install & maintain the lines, transformers, and all the other "non-generating" parts of the grid for free?

If a 'generating source' was willing to go to the effort (and expense) of getting the power to (say) the nearest substation, then I might say 'pay them what they pay'.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>No, you're not.

Yes, I am.

My primary solar power system is a 9.88kW system that generates during the day. It covers our daytime needs (and a lot more.)

My secondary system is a 1.2kW system backed up with a battery system (salvaged from EV's.) It charges during the day and then discharges into the grid between 6 and 9pm, when the highest generation ramp rate for the grid occurs.

In addition, we have two EV's. They charge from midnight to 4am, when the grid has excess capacity (i.e. nuclear power plants that can't easily throttle.)

So our generation/load profile is close to the opposite of the CAL-ISO demand curve. See attached.

One thing that is missing from the system right now is good control. I set the battery based inverter to start selling back at 6pm because that seems like a good time to do it based on an average CAL-ISO curve during the summer. But some days there is less solar and more wind, or vice versa. And that changes the ramp rate at the end of the day. So some days it would likely be better to dump power at 5pm; other days 7pm. Right now I have no way to get that information from the utility (other than some sort of messy graphical capture of the CAL-ISO demand page.)

That control could be provided by real time pricing, which prices power according to how badly the utility wants to sell it (or get it.) Prices high? Your system sells. Prices low? Your system charges all your EV's (and/or heats your water, or starts your dishwasher etc.)

>During the early evening when solar generation is waning yet the overall demand is
>reaching the peak (as people get home from work), prices are high on the power market.
>Other supply sources need to ramp up even more dramatically because solar generation is
>going down just as demand is needed the most.

Exactly. And that's when I dump the battery power back to the grid.

>So with net metering, you get to sell power for more than it's worth and buy power for
>less than it's worth.

Well, right now I am selling power when it's most valuable, at the same price I always do. So the utility gets a sweet deal there.

But for most solar installations you are right. Which is another reason that real time pricing makes sense.

LoadGeneration.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

net metering customers get to unfairly benefit at the expense of traditional customers. With net metering, your net bill may be extremely small or even negative (utility pays you money), but it still costs the utility money to maintain the transmission lines throughout the system including your local neighborhood and up to your house, and you don't pay your fair share of that cost.



I don't know what different jurisdications do, but where I am (Toronto,Ontario), power bills are divided into a fixed and variable amount. So the consumer might at first think there's a great deal of savings by using power at night rather than during peak pricing periods -- The variable rate for one is double that of the other. But the fixed costs predominate.

Taking my bill for example on one summer month (small house, with no a/c use), only 43% of my pre-tax bill was the variable amount for electricity used, and the rest was a fixed charge for delivery to my home.

This may well be better way to allocate costs than charging purely by the kilowatt-hour, but it does somewhat diminish the usefulness of trying to save money by using off-peak power, despite all the energy saving hype about it!

So I would want that those providing renewable power out from their homes at times, still pay their share for the whole grid system and administration.

(It could still be argued that if a home really does put out a lot of power, maybe a net surplus, then they shouldn't need to pay the same amount as a regular home user, and a more complex pricing model should be adopted.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're advocating the customer pay one rate if the power flows in one direction, but receive a different rate if the power flows in the opposite direction. There's nothing fair about that.


Sure there is.

When you pay for power, you are paying for two things:

1) The power itself, supplied by a generator, who must pay for fuel/maintenance/depreciation etc.

2) The service to get the power to you.

Think about it like ordering from Amazon. You might pay $20 for the latest Bluetooth tchotchke and $5 for shipping. Sure, you might get free shipping, but that's just Amazon trying to get you to buy more stuff. Someone still has to pay UPS.

Same with the power system. There are fixed costs relating to maintenance and build out of the grid, and variable costs relating to generation.

Right now net metering is effectively a way to encourage people to use solar. And it's worked; solar is growing at geometric rates in the US. However, utilities are now complaining that they aren't getting enough money from grid tie customers - and they have a point as well. Some utilities, like APS, are starting to charge a large fixed monthly fee, and using that to support infrastructure, rather than variable net-metering pricing. Here in San Diego, the fixed cost has been going up slowly (now it's $10 a month) - so that's what we pay for power, since we generate more than we use. If everyone paid $10 a month, it would not be enough to support the grid, even if every home generated more power than it used.

There are two ways to change this.

The first is a feed in tariff (FIT.) You pay 10 cents for power you use, and get 6 cents for power you generate. The difference is used by the utility to maintain the grid. This can work provided there's enough regulation that utilities can't decide "it's 10 cents for use, you get paid .0001 cents when you generate, because we're the f'ing power company."

The second is a combination of real time pricing for power and a monthly charge. The monthly charge goes towards paying for grid upkeep. The real time pricing represents the actual cost of power for the utility. This has one very big advantage - it drives people's behaviors in directions that both minimizes their costs AND helps the utility out when power is scarce/expensive. It means if you are on a limited income, and are willing to shift your loads to midnight (i.e. get a timer for your hot water heater, run your dishwasher and dryer at night etc etc) you pay very little for power. It also means that you are generating solar and/or wind, you are incentivized to generate power when they need it, and use power when they want to get rid of it. This might be as simple as pointing your array west instead of south (so you generate the most when demand starts rising fast) or as complex as having a battery backed inverter or a V2G EV or PHEV for a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeWeber

***Refreshing to hear an informed poster who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid



What Kool Aid? This was a lesson in energy grid economics for which I am very much appreciative. As a result, I intend to study this a bit more. That said, I read no inherent wrongness to Solar Power in the postings.

The fact is that public policy is often shaped by these sorts of inequities. Cigarette smokers, as a matter of public policy, are heavily taxed to affect that behavior.

I see that as good policy. Subsidizing solar, at least here and now, also seems like good policy. But then I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Nothing wrong with solar...it's just not applicable in some parts of the country. Unfortunately public policy up to now has been written on the west coast. Here in the flyover states we'll still need coal, nuke, and natural gas. I'm seeing more wind sites here in Ohio. Seems we have more windy days than sunny.

If you're fortunate enough to live where solar can replace the others then good for you. I'd like to see more work done to address someplace other than where it's 80 and sunny 300 days per year.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nothing wrong with solar...it's just not applicable in some parts of the country. Unfortunately public policy up to now has been written on the west coast. Here in the flyover states we'll still need coal, nuke, and natural gas. I'm seeing more wind sites here in Ohio. Seems we have more windy days than sunny.

If you're fortunate enough to live where solar can replace the others then good for you. I'd like to see more work done to address someplace other than where it's 80 and sunny 300 days per year.


As you mentioned, wind is often deployed in such places. Wind power is growing at a tremendous rate in the US - 7 gigawatts a year, equivalent to 7 midsize nuclear reactors a year.

Unfortunately it's not growing in Ohio very quickly because of draconian zoning laws - some of the worst in the country when it comes to wind. Although Ohio is a great location for wind, Ohio only installed 72 megawatts, and that's steadily going down due to the 2014 zoning law. So if you want to see more work done on renewable energy in Ohio, getting those laws changed would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

It's got nothing to do with which direction the power is flowing (although there are some other technical challenges to reverse flow which I won't bother getting into). It has to do with what time of day you're doing the selling. The price of power changes throughout the day. For traditional customers, the utility sells them power at a loss during times of peak demand, and sells power above cost during times of low demand. It averages out over the course of a year. In the case of distributed generation with net metering, the homeowner gets to sell their excess power back to the utility at that same annually averaged rate. But in the case of solar generators, the times of the day when they are selling their excess tend to be times when the market cost is below the annual average, thus the utilities are forced to pay more than what the power is really worth AT THAT TIME. I don't know how it typically works out for wind, since I don't think there has been substantial installation of homeowner excess wind generation like there has been with solar.

The time-of-day cost differences is why some utilities actually offer customers the choice (or maybe even require?) to pay a lower rate for power during low demand, but a higher rate for power during high demand. It provides financial incentive for customers to shift their power requirements to low demand times. It works out pretty well if you have an EV charging at night for example, or you are willing to let the house warm up in the summer during the day and then turn the thermostat down at night, or delay running your electric dryer until night-time, etc. As I said earlier, Hawaii was forced to adopt some form of time-of-day pricing to account for all the rooftop distributed solar being added to the grid and compounding the problems of the duck curve. After they did, it discouraged further expansion of rooftop solar installations because there wasn't as much cost benefit from selling power back to the utility when demand is lower.



You're claiming that solar customers are taking energy from the grid during the day when power is expensive and they're capable of producing their own power with solar cells, but they're pumping excess power back to the grid during the cool night, when their power isn't worth as much.

Call me skeptical.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

Edit to add (but too late for me to actually edit apparently):
The annual average cost per kWh that a traditional customer pays is actually higher than just the average cost of generating the electricity; a significant portion of the extra overhead goes towards maintaining the transmission system. That's another way that net metering customers get to unfairly benefit at the expense of traditional customers.



The power company is the customer. Why should they get to avoid paying for the overhead required to produce the power they purchase? The homeowner invested in solar power. Their home improvement investment should not have to go towards subsidizing your power needs.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

So the utility should install & maintain the lines, transformers, and all the other "non-generating" parts of the grid for free?



No. Nor do they, generally. As pointed out above, they include overhead in customer rates.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on that description, the utility would be getting a free ride from the customer if the customer is not allowed to charge the utility for their overhead.

Retail one way, wholesale the other is not fair.

I'm not saying the current system is optimal. I'm saying it's not less fair than the alternatives I've thus far seen advocated.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jcd11235



Retail one way, wholesale the other is not fair.

I'm not saying the current system is optimal. I'm saying it's not less fair than the alternatives I've thus far seen advocated.



Define "fair" please.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

******Refreshing to hear an informed poster who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid



What Kool Aid? This was a lesson in energy grid economics for which I am very much appreciative. As a result, I intend to study this a bit more. That said, I read no inherent wrongness to Solar Power in the postings.

The fact is that public policy is often shaped by these sorts of inequities. Cigarette smokers, as a matter of public policy, are heavily taxed to affect that behavior.

I see that as good policy. Subsidizing solar, at least here and now, also seems like good policy. But then I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Nothing wrong with solar...it's just not applicable in some parts of the country. Unfortunately public policy up to now has been written on the west coast. Here in the flyover states we'll still need coal, nuke, and natural gas. I'm seeing more wind sites here in Ohio. Seems we have more windy days than sunny.

If you're fortunate enough to live where solar can replace the others then good for you. I'd like to see more work done to address someplace other than where it's 80 and sunny 300 days per year.

Quote

where it's 80 and sunny 300 days per year.



Fantastic. I'll spread the word. Better yet, I''l spray paint on the sign at the border: Oregon, where it's 80 and sunny 300 days per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0