Slashdot Mirror

Citation you can see from space needed.

Give it a read, it's not a joke: https://www.pge.com/nots/rates...

Solaren is using an innovative space-based solar technology, which, if successful, would represent a break-through in the renewable power industry. While emerging technologies like space solar face considerable hurdles under a traditional viability analysis, PG&E believes that potential, significant benefits to its customers from a successful space solar installation outweigh the challenges associated with a new and unproven technology

Space is expensive (and dangerous) and there are lots of losses in harnessing energy (the second law of thermodynamics is a bitch).

Utility-scale power generation is expensive (and dangerous) and there are lots of losses in harnessing energy (the second law of thermodynamics is a bitch). Starting with 4x the power density really helps, though.

You have to get past your 1970s ideas about launch costs and difficulties. Current, real-world, for sale today launch costs are about 1/10th what they were in the 70s, if you include the cost of government subsidies. And costs look to keep falling - reusable rockets are a real thing now, not a SF dream.

I doubt PG&E abandoned it due to NIMBY unless it was concerns about the giant space death ray that the design calls for. PG&E only builds what the regulators tell them to build (or buy).

You'll note the pdf is a proposal to the regulators by PG&E. Good guess as to the rest of it.

Its hard to see how orbital solar can compete but I haven't crunched the numbers on it yet.

There is a launch cost at which it makes sense. (For most stuff currently done in space, the payload is the dominant cost, but solar thermal is dead simple compared to a communications sat.) And power generation is a trillion dollar industry - if it starts moving into space, we'll get significant economies of scale vs the currently tiny space launch industry.

PG&E electricity rates in Socal are well above $0.13/kWh - about double that to start, and more than triple as usage climbs. Making it more than price-competitive with diesel. By your own numbers.

Subsidies for uneconomic power technologies that were put in to make people feel good about saving the planet and not to generate electric power.

I have never met a green that could either see past their nose, or wasn't flat out lying about the problems of their religion.

Always blindsided by what anyone with a braincell can see

http://reason.com/blog/2017/09...
wow switch to renewables your power availability goes down and your prices become the highest in the world
or closer to home
https://www.pge.com/en/about/n...
and oddly enough your rates in the golden state are going way up
https://abcnews.go.com/US/stor...

Really if you live in CA and you run into someone advocating renewables do yourself a favor and knock out a few of their teeth.

The summary (and the article it links to) explain the proposal very poorly. The actual PG&E announcement is here: Moss Landing Battery Proposal

There are 4 battery systems being installed for a combined output of 567.5 MW and a specified discharge duration of 4 hours.

Tesla's contribution to this is a 182.5 MW x 4 hours discharge duration, aka 730MWh capacity. Pending approval is a further proposal to expand this to a 6 hour duration -approximately 1.1 GWh from Tesla.

Nothing stops Google & Apple from buying and use only "clean" energy - most utilities have a method to source energy this way. They can pay a premium and they sure have the capital to do so. Here is one such offering, which covers the Silicon Valley:

PG&E Green Energy Option

Another option is the CCA (Community Choice Aggregation) and many wealthy communities have chosen to do so. But again, just because one community is affluent and can spare Star Bucks pocket change for their high electric utility, that might be the different in grocery money in another community that cannot afford to do so.

One issue with both these companies with huge cash reserves is that they want everyone to pay this same premium, right now, no matter everyone else's financial situation. Sure, it's great that G & A are flush with cash, but the rest of the economy needs time to grow into these new requirements. Some medium and small utilities need time to transition as well.

Additionally, we need more options for growth of the power mix. Especially here in California, we need more hydro. We have huge amounts of water that is being dumped during flush years followed by droughts. Not only is this water a great source of clean base power, storing water for lean years is very wise.

For those that say it is not, that hydro is bad, then why doesn't San Francisco give up Hetch Hetchy and tear down the O'Shaughnessy Dam? Restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley, which after 50 years or less will rival Yosemite Valley again - which as an avid outdoors person that would be wonderful to see in my lifetime. San Francisco can afford to get power and water elsewhere, and should be building desalinization plants for their population, as again, they can afford to do so.

But this is yet another case of, "We got ours, but everyone needs to do it green and pay their fair share to grow". If these "green" folks really care about being green, then make cuts in their own backyard where it hurts most and lead by example.

Yes, we need to move toward greener solutions, but we need to do it slowly, over time, and let industry, innovation in tech, and changes to infrastructure have a chance to keep up and even be planned in a wise manner and not overnight with the stroke of the Executive Order pen.

One example of this is what has been done in California. I don't agree with the timetables, I think they should have been stretched out longer (double the time). By 2020, 33% of energy used in California must be from "renewable" sources based on a law passed in 2011, and by 2030 it climbs to 50% based on a law passed in 2015. One important fact is that this excludes all big hydro. Why does this matter? Because California imports a huge amount energy, 25-33% from outside of the state. 6% of that is coal, and a large majority is totally clean hydro energy from the Pacific Northwest which isn't considered a "renewable". They've been working to pass a law to require 100% of energy in California to be "renewable" by 2045. This is far too agressive.

Yes, California is ahead of schedule to meet 50% "renewable" energy by 2020, but I would estimate this is because the larger firms have gobbled up the low hanging fruit and easier wins, whereas the smaller local munis and irrigation districts will be forced to pick up the more expensive slack. Growth beyond 50% is going to be very hard, and must have breakthroughs in energy storage. We're just not there yet with technology.

Consider this: California has more Venture Capital firms invested in energy than the rest of the other 49 states combined - this isn't just about going green, it's about making money as well. Another fact is that California has gobbled up a large amount of renewables from outside its borders, because of these local laws and because it can afford to. The other states don't ha

I agree. The improvements in battery tech from one generation to another is significant, in that it can be lifestyle-changing. Range anxiety can be a real and frustrating issue to deal with.

I helped a friend go a different approach for an EV-as-a-commuter/second car option: Buy used, and the price drop from a lot of off-lease vehicles can be significant (e.g. Fiat 500e, Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, Mitsubishi i-Miev, BMW i3, etc).

Some back-of-the-napkin math using a Nissan Leaf as an example:

• 2017 lease: $229/month for 36 months + $2,000 at signing = $10,244 + taxes + etc
• 2014 off-lease purchase with ~32K miles: $8,500-$11,000 using Kelly Blue Book / Private Party valuation

Some areas even give additional incentives, even to pre-owned buyers (e.g. $500 PG&E Clean Fuel Rebate), and older EVs may still have the Clean Air Vehicle (CAV) sticker that may eventually phase out in January 2019 in California.

If you're patient and do your research, you might find a very good deal that may work to your advantage. My friend ended up getting a 2013 Fiat 500e with 27,000 miles for $6400 after taxes and rebates. Decent commuter vehicle, and the owner gets to enjoy company-provided charge stations (so effectively "free miles" while employed).

I call BS. Houston power starts at $0.087 per kWh.

Those rates assume 2000KWh of energy use/month - which is 6 months of my power usage in California since the climate is mild enough to need little heating or cooling.

Plus they don't include TDSP delivery charges (which vary between 3.6 and 7.6 cents/KWh (plus $3.50 - $10/month)) depending on your energy provider. So the true cost is somewhere between 12.3 - 16.3 cents/KWh.

and power from PG&E for the Paso Robles area (central coast) start at $0.199 per kWh and go up.

Those prices don't include any credits, the true cost ends up being around 15.6 cents/KWh

Though if you're going to look at prices for living on California's central coast, you ought to pick a town that's actually on the coast, not 45 minutes inland.

I call BS. Houston power starts at $0.087 per kWh. And power from PG&E for the Paso Robles area (central coast) start at $0.199 per kWh and go up. That's over twice as much. Using GasBuddy.com, gas in CA averages $3.07 per gallon, and in TX it is around $2.12 per gallon.

Paso Robles, CA is around 1.44 times the national average for cost of living, Houston is at 1.02 - just about average for the US.

Property tax rates in CA are fairly low compared to TX, but the average home in Houston is around $220,000. In Paso Robles, houses are twice that price. Sure, property taxes are a bit lower in CA, but we also have a 13.3% income tax compared to 0% for TX. If you make just about anything more than $10,000 per year, your property tax "savings" in CA are swallowed up by State income tax.

So how much actual coal is that per mile?

Probably takes 2000 pounds of coal to make the electricity to charge it up once?

Especially the coal electricity California imports from Utah.

The math's pretty easy: according to http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm, it takes about one pound of coal to generate one kilowatt hour of electricity. The long range battery has a capacity of 75kWh, so that'd be about 75 pounds of coal. Assuming a gas vehicle gets 50mpg, the gasoline needed to travel 310 miles weighs 39 pounds, a far cry from your 2000 pounds claim. Either way, a centrally-located power plant would be able to more readily control its emissions than a smaller, mobile gasoline engine.

Depending on your power mix, that's a worst-case scenario. In California, which you mention, PG&E generates ~70% of its power from renewable and greenhouse gas-free sources, like nuclear, hydro, and unspecified "renewable" sources. 17% is from natural gas, which is very much cleaner than gasoline or coal, and "unspecified" other sources. Sounds much less polluting than gasoline.

EVs have the advantage that the source of the power feeding the grid can be changed without requiring all users to switch to something else: switching all gasoline cars to something that's compatible with their engines and fuel systems but is less polluting and damaging to the environment would be quite difficult. Replacing aging coal power plants with cleaner-burning natural gas plants dramatically reduces emissions while still pushing the same electrons through wires. Adding nuclear, wind, solar, etc. can further improve the cleanliness of electricity supply without any change from consumers.

0.18/kWh peak price? My heart bleeds for them.

My current peak price in CA is $0.44/kWh, with the lowest price $0.12. In fact, the high price works in my favour, because that's what the power company is paying to buy the power that my solar panels are producing.

More typical in this area is the E1 tariff, which varies from $0.18 to $0.40 for a kWh, depending on total usage, not time of use.

Tiered pricing is already being done. For instance, by PG&E.

15 cents per kWh is baseline. Almost no home uses less than the baseline. The average price for a PG&E customer is $0.20526 / kWh.

It's unfortunate that, due to tiered rates, a wealthy person gets back 33 cents [pdf] for each kilowatt-hour saved, while a poor person gets only 16 cents.

They could encourage energy consumption even among the poor without burdening them by setting rates at a flat 27 cents per kWh and refunding 100% of the revenue equally to everyone through a tax refund.

This can be fixed with flexible pricing of electricity. Charge more when electricity is scarce, and less when it is plentiful

People use electricity when they need to no matter what the price. We turn on lights when it is dark. We cook dinner at dinner time. We have showers in the morning or evening. We wash cloths when we have time. Little of this will be re-scheduled based on the cost of electricity. Are you really going to get up at 3AM to do laundry? I doubt it. Even if you have a timer are you going to leave your wet cloths in the washer till you get up? You might not remember and those cloths will sit for another ten hours. Are you going to skip your morning shower because it will cost you a dollar extra?

The other issue with wind power is that it can vary uncontrollably minute by minute. This is the kind of instability that needs to be leveled out by more storage. Storage has two functions; time shifting and supply leveling.

Look at what is happening now. Certain jurisdictions like California have peak and off-peak electricity rates. The demand is still high during high peak rate times. If you look at those two graphs you will see that price has little or no effect on demand.

Peak consumption is around 7 pm, after solar drops off.

I live in California, and I pay "time of use" rates. I pay more for noon to 6pm. That would make no sense at all if the "peak" was at 7pm. According to PG&E: Peak periods occur from noon to 6 p.m., May through October.

Visit the California ISO site caiso.com and look at their renewable graphs.

I found nothing on that site that backs your assertion. Can you cite a specific page?

Solar's production curve does not match the peak user curve of electrical power.

I beg to differ. For hot, sunny climates, judging from the power companys' behavior, solar looks like an ideal match for electricity demand.

Here's a program from each of the big 3 down here.

San DIego Gas and Electric has Reduce Your Use days, which they enact when they fear the grid is under strain. On those days they will refund you back 4 times the cost of a Kw/H if you reduce vs the day before between 11 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Pacific Gas and Electic offers Peak Demand Pricing which adds a surcharge to your regular time-of-use rate during the peak period from 2-6 p.m.

Southern California Edison has Critical Peak Pricing CPP. Events will only be activated during SCE’s summer season between noon and 6:00 p.m.

this is horrible, imagine if they could build out for peak capacity in the right locations for the right times so there wouldn't be anymore rolling blackouts in july and august

presumably the next step is for the power companies to control your thermostat to cut back your A/C during peak times.

They already do:

http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/s...

considering solar is during the day. the peak usage is from 830am to 9pm, so basically the energy company is getting cheap solar from consumer, selling it at the highest peak rates and then complaining to get more of a handout.

  http://www.pge.com/en/mybusiness/rates/tvp/toupricing.page?WT.mc_id=Adwords_peak%20electricity%20hours_b_c

The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.

60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.

I'm not sure I understand their math. A Tesla 60 gets at least 3 miles per kWh (http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range), so your 60 mile day would take about 20 kWh. At 5 cents per kWh, that is $1/day, so about $30/month. To get a cost of $150/month would take electricity at $.25/kWh. At $.05/kWh, you end up getting more than 200 miles/gallon equivalent, and that's if gas is $3.57/gal. Around here (Bay area) it's closer to $3.80. Like I said, the math is squirrelly.

The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.

60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.

I'm not sure I understand their math. A Tesla 60 gets at least 3 miles per kWh (http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#range), so your 60 mile day would take about 20 kWh. At 5 cents per kWh, that is $1/day, so about $30/month. To get a cost of $150/month would take electricity at $.25/kWh. At $.05/kWh, you end up getting more than 200 miles/gallon equivalent, and that's if gas is $3.57/gal. Around here (Bay area) it's closer to $3.80. Like I said, the math is squirrelly.

The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.

60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.

The average kwh cost in the US is about twelve cents, or $0.90 to $1.20 to go 25 miles.

PG&E has standard rate plans that vary from 11c/kWh (which is so little that you can't afford a refrigerator) to 30c/kWh. There are also special plans (time- and season-driven); one of them is specifically intended for charging EVs. In that plan, IIRC, the rate is about 5 c/kWh - but that is at night only. I do not recall what is the rate during the day. Utilities hide the actual rate tables. PG&E has a convenient calculator. I tried it with Tesla S60 and 60 miles per day. I got about $150/mo on plan EV-A.

60 miles per day * 30 = 1800 miles per month. If we convert this to a gas car, $150 pays for about 42 gallons of gas. This results in efficiency of 42.85 mpg. This not something to write home about. My own Prius does 52 mpg on flat land, and 45 mpg if you add climbing of the surrounding hills. If these calculations are correct, it is not efficient to use an EV even if you got it for free. At best it equals the hybrid that costs a third of the price of the EV.

...while...your natural gas company...have far more in-depth information on you and far more experience at mining that data - and far, far more interest in seeing Mitt Romney elected...

Do you suppose they even make Romney and the Republicans pay for that data, or just give it to 'em gratis?

Sometimes it seems like they have lots of in-depth information, and sometimes it seems like they're couldn't tell whether I'm warming a cup of milk or cooking dinner for 8 people.

PG&E bills me by the kilowatt hour for my electricity, but they can't seem to get more granular data than a therm (100 cubic feet) when it comes to how much gas I've used. Whether I have my stove on for 5 minutes or 45 minutes, I get charged for 1.02 therms of gas that day. I've methodically tested it. It's only a couple dollars per therm, but if you use your stove every day and they're charging you $2 every time you turn it on versus the 50 cents of gas you're using, they're squeezing an extra $45 a month out of you for gas they still have in the pipeline.

Unless... wait... <SARCASM>are you saying they do know how much of their product they deliver to us? I think you're giving them too much credit.</SARCASM>

>>On the standard Tesla charger, a *full* charge (not a daily commute charge, but a "I just drove 200 miles" charge) takes 3 1/2 hours.

So you have to spend between 2x and 4x as much time driving the car charging it? That's not a good selling point.

>>the DOE has already extensively studied this (as have many, many other groups). In every case, the conclusion is that even on our current grid, EVs are notably cleaner than gasoline cars.

I'd like to see a citation for this. But in lieu of one, let's run some numbers and figure it out for ourselves.

The Tesla holds 53 kWh on a full charge and gets 300 miles.
Therefore, a charge here in California will run you between $5 and $26 (depending how much energy you use a month - http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ERS.SHTML) If you're charging your car off the grid, you'll be in the $26/charge tier, but you'll probably be smart and running it off-peak, so we'll call it $13 or so. So you get about 23 miles per dollar.

A gallon of gas has 36.6 (call it 37) kWh in it. It's $3.90 a gallon right now in California. A 510 horsepower Jaguar XKR with the same 0 to 60 time gets around 20mpg, or 5 miles per dollar.

So the Tesla is cheaper as long as you charge it at night, and compare it against a gas guzzler. =)

In terms of CO2 output per kWh -

I'm using the data from here: http://www.stewartmarion.com/carbon-footprint/html/carbon-footprint-kilowatt-hour.html

Their data is wrong for PG&E - PG&E draws a lot of power from NG, but it lists it at 0%, which is obviously in error (Actual mix is 35% NG - http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/). So we'll just use the national average instead, which is about 1 pound of CO2 per kWh.

Using the EPA and IPCC estimates of CO2 per gallon of gas, we see it's about 20 pounds per gallon (http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm). The BlueSkyModel.org website estimates it at 14 pounds per gallon, but we'll take the word of the EPA on this one, since they fucked up pretty badly on PG&E's numbers above.

The Tesla generates 53 pounds of CO2 per 300 miles, or about 6 miles per pound of CO2 generated.
The Jaguar XKR drives 20 miles on a gallon of gas, so it gets a nice even 1 mile per pound of CO2 generated.

Conclusion: If you are contrasting the Tesla against a similar price and performance Jaguar, then it's about 6x better at CO2 emissions than the Jag, and costs about 4x less to "fill up". The Jag will have a much longer range, can "fill up" faster, and looks a bit more manly, but on these two stats alone, the Tesla has the advantage.

>>On the standard Tesla charger, a *full* charge (not a daily commute charge, but a "I just drove 200 miles" charge) takes 3 1/2 hours.

So you have to spend between 2x and 4x as much time driving the car charging it? That's not a good selling point.

>>the DOE has already extensively studied this (as have many, many other groups). In every case, the conclusion is that even on our current grid, EVs are notably cleaner than gasoline cars.

I'd like to see a citation for this. But in lieu of one, let's run some numbers and figure it out for ourselves.

The Tesla holds 53 kWh on a full charge and gets 300 miles.
Therefore, a charge here in California will run you between $5 and $26 (depending how much energy you use a month - http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ERS.SHTML) If you're charging your car off the grid, you'll be in the $26/charge tier, but you'll probably be smart and running it off-peak, so we'll call it $13 or so. So you get about 23 miles per dollar.

A gallon of gas has 36.6 (call it 37) kWh in it. It's $3.90 a gallon right now in California. A 510 horsepower Jaguar XKR with the same 0 to 60 time gets around 20mpg, or 5 miles per dollar.

So the Tesla is cheaper as long as you charge it at night, and compare it against a gas guzzler. =)

In terms of CO2 output per kWh -

I'm using the data from here: http://www.stewartmarion.com/carbon-footprint/html/carbon-footprint-kilowatt-hour.html

Their data is wrong for PG&E - PG&E draws a lot of power from NG, but it lists it at 0%, which is obviously in error (Actual mix is 35% NG - http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/electric/energymix/). So we'll just use the national average instead, which is about 1 pound of CO2 per kWh.

Using the EPA and IPCC estimates of CO2 per gallon of gas, we see it's about 20 pounds per gallon (http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm). The BlueSkyModel.org website estimates it at 14 pounds per gallon, but we'll take the word of the EPA on this one, since they fucked up pretty badly on PG&E's numbers above.

The Tesla generates 53 pounds of CO2 per 300 miles, or about 6 miles per pound of CO2 generated.
The Jaguar XKR drives 20 miles on a gallon of gas, so it gets a nice even 1 mile per pound of CO2 generated.

Conclusion: If you are contrasting the Tesla against a similar price and performance Jaguar, then it's about 6x better at CO2 emissions than the Jag, and costs about 4x less to "fill up". The Jag will have a much longer range, can "fill up" faster, and looks a bit more manly, but on these two stats alone, the Tesla has the advantage.

>>Payback at the rates you are absurdly claiming would be a couple of months.

Oh, you think I'm lying about PG&E's top tier rates?

Read it for yourself:
http://www.pge.com/nots/rates/tariffs/electric.shtml#RESELEC_TOU

There's different plans available, but the top tier during peak hours is indeed above 50c/kWh, as I said. The average E6 customer will pay 44c/kWh at 130% of baseline (baseline is basically normal power use without running your AC - if you run your AC, you'll hit top tier easily) and 48c/kWh at top tier (200% and above). There used to be an even higher tier (300%+), but they just raised tier 4 prices to match tier 5, I guess.

You can get a more human-readable explanation here:
http://solarpowerrocks.com/pge/pge-wants-to-take-advantage-of-customers-who-have-gone-solar-%E2%80%93-don%E2%80%99t-let-them-screw-you/

The biggest problem is you really needed to have Power Company buy-in. The real way to get it moving was to have the Power Company send the info to Google (after the customer opted in). There are many problems with this. First this requires the Power Company to have Smart Meters, second to have a way to export this data to Google, and third, there are all sorts of laws and legal concerns the Power Company has to deal with regarding this. What do they gain? Little, and as we see with Google here, even if they jumped through all these hoops, it could all be shut down.

Now consumers could buy their own gadget and make all of their house run through it and send it to Google, but that is expensive and not convenient.

The real solution here is for the Power Company to publish the info for the customer to consume.

I'm not a Pacific Gas & Electric (a California utility company) electricity customer, but I know I can see my daily gas usage on their website. I suspect those that use them for electricity can do the same.

I know my employer, Modesto Irrigation District, a local water and electricity company, is working toward making this information available for rate payers with their electronic bill. This is the best long-term solution for customers as it is sustainable.

And I'm not actually sure it transmits the data over the phone line, I think it only records time based usage, as opposed to just total usage, that the meter-reader then downloads with a PDA-like device.

The smart meters I just recently got from PG&E are actually connected to some sort of wireless network. I don't think it's 802.11. It uses some kind of network mesh to transmit hourly meter reads to home base by using a nearby device (usually another meter) as a repeater until it reaches a network access point that's installed on a power pole somewhere.

It's pretty neat, actually. Here's a link.

No, in the first month (30 days) it would use:

400W x 24H x 18 [days] + 400W x 12H x 12 [days] = 230400 Watt-hours = 230.4 kWh

At an average rate of 12.78 cents per kWh, that works out to about $29.44 -- not a whole lot, really.

Now, change that to the GP's "more typical setup," using 4000 Watts of lighting, and your cost of electricity becomes $294.40 - still cheap really considering the value of the product.

This analysis completely ignores tiering, where you may pay more for kWh above the baseline allotment, which is the practice of my gas company. This may very well raise the price to the $800 figure the GP asserts.

Oh, and I pay more like $0.10/kWh in Washington state, not your $0.30/kWh.

Lucky you. Here, in PG&E land, the baseline is just enough to power one refrigerator and one night light. After that you are quickly pushed into the territory of 30 cents/kWh.

To be fair, PG&E does offer E-9 rate for EVs. But there is a catch, of course - they will rape you during the day, look at how much they want for any energy that you may need in summer+daytime. Take note on when the "peak time" ends - at 9 pm. Your water heater, your electric oven/range, your lights, your TV and radio, your computers will be all powered with the expensive energy ($0.28/kWh.) You can of course cook at midnight and take shower at 2am, but most families would strenuously object to that.

Myself, I'm installing a fairly large PV system, it should go online around Christmas. I expect to sell the spare energy into the grid. If at some point in the future an EV becomes financially interesting - and able to climb the hills that we have here - then I probably can charge it from the solar panels. But for the moment I'm sufficiently happy with a Prius.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509669,00.html

You really should consider actually arguing the issue instead of trying to substitute other arguments instead. Especially if you aren't even going to look at those.

Changing the temperature in your house requires you adapt to a new lifestyle. The regulators realize (correctly) that people will resist this. But when changing lightbulbs, you still get light, the same amount of light. You don't have to change your lifestyle, just change your bulb.

As to your idea of hammering people who use more energy with higher rates, they already do.

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf

You get your first N kWh at one rate, your next M at a higher rate and anything beyond that at a much higher rate. So if you run all your electricity-sucking appliances, you do pay higher fees.

This policies are on top of that level of encouragement to save energy. And they're really not onerous.

You are making blind arguments instead of getting informed. You really should consider reversing these two things.

The poster asked why a 20 year payback period is a problem for PV systems. We're not talking about systems with a payback time of less than 20 years.

The poster exhibited what many others have, the false belief PV systems are too expensive to pay back their cost.

Warranties usually specify that the system will operate at some fraction of it's rated capacity after a certain amount of time. If your PV system is warranted to 80% after 20 years, your profit is going to be quite a bit less than you might hope since it is entirely generated by the less-than-peak-performance you get later in the system's life.

That is, er should be, accounted for payback period analysis. Even if not though a lose of 1% a year, your 20% over 20 years, that only extends the payback period. For one at 7 years a loss of efficiency of 1% a year won't even add a year.

One thing you don't account for though is inflation, higher energy costs reduce the payback period. And energy prices go up all the tyme. And with the prices set by time of use, California electricity prices are higher in the middle of the day than in the morning and at night a grid connected system pays back even faster. PV produce more electricity when it's bright and sunny, precisely when demand and prices is highest. And yes CA does charge more depending on the time of use.

Falcon

the DoE reports that California's average was $0.1459 per KWh. Are there enough taxes to raise that by 66%?

At least for PG&E, the minimum is $0.14784/kWh, but it rises as you use more than the "baseline usage" until the marginal rate for usage above 3 * baseline is $0.41049/kWh, according to the tariff book. On the coasts, the baseline usage for gas-heated houses is 9.8kWh/day=408W. So yes, if you turn on a 2kW electric heater or use a bunch of appliances it is quite easy to rack up a large bill. Great incentive to insulate.

Charge time isn't an issue on Oahu. Oahu has the US's first rapid charging network. Here's the current map, and here's where they're building more.

Here's some prices on fast chargers (at least 1999 prices), in case you're interested:

60kW Aerovironment PosiCharge: $40,000
120kW Aerovironment PosiCharge: $80,000
35kW Norvick Minit Charger: $35,000
250kW Norvick Minit Charger: $125,000

So, the bigger ones are about the same price as gas station per-pump.

As is usual whenever electric cars comes up, it's time for some mythbusting.

No, they don't increase pollution and overload the grid; precisely the opposite (more specifically, the only pollutant that goes up is particulate matter, and it's displaced away from population centers. NOx and SOx remain the same, CO2 drops, and CO and VOCs are nearly eliminated; the grid gets to make use of its surplus off-peak capacity and, with smart charging, can eliminate the supply/demand fluctuations that are currently so troublesome).

Yes, they are far more energy efficient than their alternatives.

No, modern batteries don't take forever to charge. The phosphates, titanates, modern spinels, and others can all charge in 5-20 minutes, given sufficient power.

Yes, fast chargers exist. The SAE J1772 standard covers Level 3 charging at hundreds of kilowatts. Yes, chargers as strong as 250kW exist. Yes, there's already a network of 60kW Level 3 chargers in place around Oahu. Install one yourself.

No, the batteries are not toxic. Current li-ions are only mildly toxic, and this only because of their cobalt-based cathode. The phosphates and spinels eliminate this cathode in favor of nontoxic elements.

No, lithium is not running out.

Yes, the batteries last a long time. The phosphates last 7000+ gentle cycles, having only 20% capacity loss after 1000 abusive cycles. The titanates? 20,000 cycles. Accelerated aging tests suggest LG Chem's packs will last 40+ years in typical use.

Yes, both rapid charging stations and EVs make financial sense.

Hmm, did I miss any?

Very informative article! Thanks for posting that. BTW, slashdot "adjusts" long lines by inserting spaces (to defeat page-widening-posts). I've made a link so others can just click and enjoy. http://www.pge.com/docs/pdfs/biz/rebates/high tech/06_DataCenters-PGE.pdf

It's Roland the Plogger, wrong as usual, spamming to promote his blog. The Slashdot editors gave him two links this time, one without a "nofollow". Ka-ching!

OK, now the real info. Thermal energy storage has been around for years. There are thousands of installations. It's used when there's a big difference between day and night power rates. During the night, water is chilled, or ice frozen; during the day, the cold water is used for air conditioning. See Thermal Energy Storage Strategies for Commercial HVAC Systems for details on how to configure such a system. Also see CALMAC, which makes such gear. It was a spinoff from their ice-rink equipment business.

Not quite everything you envisioned, but it is in use today: Bio-Gas Digester Generators. And an article in the NYTimes today was projecting a large increase in bio-fuels if carbon were taxed, I would assume that some of it would be this.

You mean like in California? PG&E gives cash back on all kinds of energy saving appliances including light bulbs.

My favorite part is no one in the US seems to want to actually deal with the consequences of their beleifs. Most claim they want to do something about global warming, until it means I can't fly to Tahiti this summer.

Hmm, I thought I was in America, but according to you, I must be living somewhere else. I wonder why we pay American federal income tax and get to send representatives to the American legislature.

I paid to have solar panels put on my roof. Not only do they generate clean, silent power, they are already about a third of the way done paying for themselves in reduced power bills after just a few years -- and after they've done that, they still have about a decade of expected useful lifetime, making them a profitable investment rather than an extra cost.

I am telecommuting 2-3 days a week to avoid driving in to the office. In fact, I'm typing this from my living room couch. In addition to pumping out less CO2 and saving me money on fuel, telecommuting also gives me a quiet work environment and saves me 45 minutes a day of useless time sitting in my car, leaving me more time to spend with my girlfriend and post to Slashdot. Here too, doing the environmentally friendly thing is also better in other respects. If you consider posting to Slashdot a good thing, anyway.

I've been using compact fluorescents instead of incandescent bulbs for years. More expensive up front, but they last for ages so once again, I save money (and that's just on the bulbs, not even on the power.)

Until California removed my ability to choose my electric utility, I was paying my monthly power bill to a renewables-based energy company. It was partially the loss of that choice that motivated me to invest in the solar panels.

So please take your cynical, incorrect overgeneralizations somewhere else. Or else, please explain how your model of US behavior (remember, you said "no one" here acts on their beliefs, not "many people") squares with the fact that there are several-months-long waiting lists for hybrid cars. Hint: there were waiting lists before the recent jump in fuel prices, too.

I think this was the site I was thinking of. (I go through a lot of these kinds of sites on the Mozilla Reporter)

If the user wishes to run off of electric power as much as possible, drawing off the grid should they be so inclined, why not offer this option? I would anticipate that power generation at a centralized plant (hopefully even after taking distribution losses into account) will generally be more ecologically friendly than doing so from smaller plants optimized for in-vehicle use.

Natural gas is almost entirely domestically produced. It costs less than $1.50 a gallon of gasoline equivalent, and it is renewable and clean. Plus, here in California an alternative fuel and low emission vehicle gets you permission to use the commuter lanes, even over toll-bridges, which can save considerable time and money.

And in case you hadn't guessed, I like mine pretty well. Range and trunk space aren't good, but they aren't embarrasing either. Availability needs to be improved, but I happen to have a PG&E station just along my commute path, so it works out fine for me.

Davis: What happen?
SoCal Edison: Somebody set up us the blackout.

PG&E: We get bankruptcy.
Davis: What !

PG&E: Electricity turn off.
Davis: It's you !!

BC Hydro: How are you gentlemen !!
BC Hydro: All your power are belong to us.
BC Hydro: You are on the way to Stone Age.

Davis: What you say !!
BC Hydro: You have no chance to Chapter 11 make your payment.

PG&E: Governor !!

Davis: Take off every 'regulation' !!

Davis: You know what you doing.

Davis: Move 'regulation'.

Davis: For great darkness.

A Santa Cruz Perspective:

Santa Cruz, in case you don't know, is famous for its outrageous rental prices, pot smoking hippies, and almost 80 percent engineering drop out rate.

Personally, since last summer, I've been a little more conscientious-- Fluorescent bulbs, don't live in an area with a need for ac, but I'll do the dishes by hand during the day rather than run a load.

However, many people don't, well, live in santa cruz. My home town is normally lit up brighter than...Nevermind. My family shuts off lights a little more, and fluorescent bulbs are in style now, but other than that I haven't noticed much difference. Frankly, noone I know was hit by a rolling blackout-- My home area has a Little Power Plant , so that was never a problem, and in santa cruz, the longest non-centralized on UC Santa Cruz campus power outage was perhaps 30 minutes-- In an area way out in the middle of nowhere.

Basically, it didn't do much other than remind me that as a college student, I really can't afford the cost of keeping my computers on 24/7 anymore. It now gets turned off, and it seems to save me quite a bit of money.

So, I guess the answer to your questions are, the energy I use is less because it costs 70% more. I turn off lights more often, read by the window more often, and use fluorescent lights. Local govt. isn't doing jack shit to promote energy efficiency, except playing the same annoying commercial every three minutes on the best radio station here .

Oh, yeah, and I stopped working for the lumber lobby, and started working for a nature conservancy. /ex

"Also, you say 'right now' in your post - it's right now and looking like forever. There haven't been any new nuke plants commissioned since 1979. All orders after 1973 have been cancelled. Nuclear power is on its way out as a consumer power supply."

Wrong wrong wrong! No new nuclear plants have been ordered since 1979. There were several plants that completed construction and low power testing and received full power licenses all through the 1980's and even the first part of the 1990's! Look up the Seabrook Station (1990) in NH and check out it's entering commercial service date. Also ANO2 (1980), San Onofre (1984), Diablo Canyon (1985), Commanche Peak (1993), Watts Bar (1996). I could go on and on. But facts aren't going to dissuade you obviously, never mind.

At least very few people live there... Diablo Canyon Power Plant is in a fairly densely populated area (comparatively) and is sitting on top of what is one of the most active fault lines in the United States, that is, the San Andreas Fault system (no maps off the top of my head)...

/ex

Davis: What happen?
SoCal Edison: Somebody set up us the blackout.

PG&E: We get banruptcy.
Davis: What !

PG&E: Electricity turn off.
Davis: It's you !!

BC Hydro: How are you gentlemen !!
BC Hydro: All your power are belong to us.
BC Hydro: You are on the way to Stone Age.

Davis: What you say !!
BC Hydro: You have no chance to Chapter 11 make your payment.

PG&E: Governor !!

Davis: Take off every 'regulation' !!

Davis: You know what you doing.

Davis: Move 'regulation'.

Davis: For great darkness.

--
Do I play Hockey?
Posting at -1 since April 18/01.

Contrary to what those in other sections of the world may think (what? you don't keep up with everything that happens in California? why not?), this is not exactly a new topic.

It comes down to, essentially, a truly awful economic decision and a great deal of FUD spread by (who else?) the power companies and the media.

Deregulation started in 1995, when the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in San Francisco started studying the possibility. Other states (most notably New Jersey/Delaware/Pennsylvania/Maryland, which forms one power region) had managed to successfully deregulate power, so California figured it was a Good Thing (TM).

The bad economics come in when you realize that it was only the wholesale market that was deregulated, but that Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) were under a CPUC-imposed rate freeze, which meant they could not raise their rates.

Added to this was a requirement that Edison, at least (I'm not sure about PG&E), was forced to divest itself of its power plants. These power plants were bought up by companies that were essentially startups. The new generators of electricity raised the price of electricity, and SCE and PG&E were stuck.

It amounts to a larger version of the rent control in my hometown of Santa Monica - costs may rise but the end-users pay a fixed rate set by the government.

An interesting side note for those who care to research further - San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) was under no such rate freeze, and prices, predictably, tripled this summer. SDG&E, you notice, is not facing bankruptcy, because they are free to raise their rates.

As for the environmental "cartel" whining about nuclear power, it was my last knowledge that both Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant north of San Luis Obispo and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS, aka "the iron tits" due to their unfortunate shape) were both running (with some exceptions due to kelp in the intake at DCNPP).

The cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Glendale, Riverside, and San Bernadino (among others) are NOT affected, no matter what FUD you may see in the national media, because they have municipal utilities which have long-term contracts and were never regulated (the CPUC has no authority over municipal utilities).

You can check the status of the grid at the California Independent System Operator's website, but it may be down (slashdotted without ever being posted on slashdot, imagine!) We have had no rotating outages yet. Let's hope the broken system gets fixed soon.