Slashdot Mirror
The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
Lucas123 writes: Distributed rooftop solar is a threat not only to fossil fuel power generation, but also to the profits of monopolistic model of utilities. While the overall amount of electrical capacity represented by distributed solar power remains miniscule for now, it's quickly becoming one of leading sources of new energy deployment. As adoption grows, fossil fuel interests and utilities are succeeding in pushing anti-net metering legislation, which places surcharges on customers who deploy rooftop solar power and sell unused power back to their utility through the power grid. Other state legislation is aimed at reducing tax credits for households or businesses installing solar or allows utilities to buy back unused power at a reduced rate, while reselling it at the full retail price.
It is important to vote out the corrupt politicians who take industry money and write their laws. Otherwise, it can only get worse.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I think solar is great - I have some panels on my camper, which is very conducive to solar type use because it's already designed to function off-grid. But let's be realistic. Let's say every home in America stuck a couple thousand watts of solar power on their roof, and wanted to sell the power into the grid (as opposed of having to store it on-site). How is that supposed to work? If no power generation is required by the power company when the sun is shining, but the full normal generation is required the instant clouds sweep over a community or at night, etc, then how is that supposed to work? None of the power generation plants can function in that "instant on / instant off" type of a mode. Particularly not nuclear. The point is, once the adoption reaches some (rather smallish) percentage, there will be some major problems and costs that will have to be addressed.
Regarding the incentives (tax credits and the like), again, once solar hits some critical mass, why would the government provide incentives? The incentives did their job, and got some number of people to adopt solar.
Nothing is stopping anyone from using solar. It's just that it may not be a profitable (as in selling electricity or getting a tax break) endeavor. So don't whine when it can't be used purely for an economical advantage.
Better known as 318230.
The current system lets the home owner use the power grid as a battery, storing excess energy for later use. And this battery is free. But it's not free - someone has to pay for the power lines, meters, and generation or storage capacity that makes it work.
Electric bills have two components, the supply cost and the delivery cost. The supply cost is what the electric company should be paying for electricity it buys from the home owner. But the electricity the home owner buys back should include the delivery cost.
In effect, the utilities are subsidizing home generation, which may make sense for now, but is not a plausible end game.
The thing is that with net metering, solar power users are effectively using the grid as a giant battery that they charge up during the day and discharge during the night.
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
It's not a problem when only a microscopic percentage of users have net-metered solar power - but if a large number of people do it, then there could be a huge problem...and if there is ever more daytime solar power being generated (eg on cloudy days in winter) than is being consumed - then there will be a GIGANTIC problem to resolve - and that's going to require massive investments that they won't have.
So I do have *some* sympathy for them. They should, at some point, be allowed to charge for the service of effectively storing your power for you...although we're not remotely close to that point right now.
www.sjbaker.org
What they they be doing is admit that there are two separate features of their industry - the maintenance/connection to the grid and the supply of power. It costs a lot of money to maintain the grid as well as to supply the charge.
What they should be doing is to charge a set amount X dollars per month to connect to the grid and in addition a per kilowatt charge - that is of course smaller than the existing one. And that charge must be reasonable - based on their actual costs to maintain the grid.
These charge changes must go to ALL their customers - both those that sell power back and those that don't.
This gets rid of their only valid objection to selling power back to the grid - the cost of maintaining the grid.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It forces utility companies to buy a product they themselves manufacture and can't resell at a profit, all the while spending money to keep the grid up and running.
Letting the market set the prices is precisely what solar advocates don't want. They want to be guaranteed a 1:1 credit for their feed-in, rather than being paid wholesale spot prices for what they feed into the grid.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I agree. The monopolists only want the government subsidizing them. It's not much different than the car dealers: the govt has legislated a bit of market protection from outsiders and they want to keep it that way.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Okay, I'm going to have to critique the article a bit. Please note that I live in Alaska and almost purchased solar panels myself - it's just that the distributor I looked at purchasing the panels from made break-even assumptions that not even I could swallow. It definitely doesn't make sense to pay somebody to install them up here.
Anyways - very first paragraph, 'ensure utility companies pay for unused power that is routed back into the power grid - a practice known as net metering'. To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail. To put it another way, let's say you're a biodiesel producer in your spare time, and every so often you have some surplus. Do you expect the local biodiesel station to purchase your fuel* for the pump price? Or are they going to want to pay the price they get it from their distributor for?
Now, the actual situation is quite a bit more complicated- electricity isn't really stored, and the marginal cost per watt during peak times can be quite a bit higher than what you're charged as a home customer, without time cost considerations. Electricity costs tend to be a bit higher during the day, so the argument has been that panels tend to displace expensive power, not cheap power. But as market penetration increases, it can change the paradigm that utilities operate under, and unlike most industries, if it's doing it's job the power company IS looking 40 years ahead.
The argument is that grid-tie solar users are often close to even production, and due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid. They effectively use the grid as a giant battery.
So, while the answer for any given solar install is 'complex', on average net metering is a subsidy. Whether it's a worthy subsidy, that's up to individuals to decide.
The problem with rooftop solar being 'on par with prices for common fossil-fuel power generation in just two years' is that we may face a situation where power becomes MORE EXPENSIVE during the night(and late evenings when people are still up). Again, are we talking about utility, IE right at the plant, or retail, after it's traveled through potentially hundreds of miles of power line? Because the former is around $.02/kwh, the latter more like $.08. Browsing the citing document, not only are they using retail, but they're not predicting the price drop he predicts. They're predicting it'll drop below standard retail prices. Which includes grid maintenance.
Disconnecting from the grid is possible(in most areas), but it substantially increases costs to the solar installer to put in a battery bank and often even a generator. Operating the generator is obviously, much more expensive than buying power from the electric company.
If made into law, the Kansas legislation would allow utilities to pay solar customers using net metering less than the retail rate of electricity. In turn, utilities could use the excess electricity that customers were turning back to them and sell it at the retail rate.
So... Like how a regular business operates? I know, lose a little on each sale, but we'll make it up on volume!
Anyways, I support more solar power, but we have to realize that we'd see some drastic changes if it ever exceeds 20% of electricity generation here in the States. It's not anywhere near that yet, but like I said, the power companies are looking ahead. Heck, we might face a future where daytime power is much 'cheaper' than night time, and there's a big push for people to charge their vehicles at work. Of course, that means all those home panels will be producing electricity that has to transition the grid... Please note that I'm looking 10-20+ years into the future here.
As a bigger fan of electric vehicles, I can't help but imagine a system where 'retired' EV batteries are used to make homes, if not entirely self-sufficient, at least only really dependent upon a 'neighborhood grid'.
*Let's say you're good at it and it's identical to their normal product.
I don't read AC A human right
Also, the centralized grid system is an outdated liability. Decentralization is a good thing. Utilities rage on about decentralization hurting grid stability, but they've got better stability in Denmark & Germany where they use more decentralized renewables. In the US we have centralized plants that fail during extreme weather events when they're most needed, like heat waves or unseasonable ice storms.
Now is the time to start planning for the future. Fossil fuels incentives, subsidies, and tax credits outweigh solar & wind 10 to 1. We need to stop investing in century old technology, and start investing in energy infrastructure that will serve us better in the future. It's clear which way things are moving. The smart utilities are embracing slow change & planning for it now. The ones that are dragging their feet should be taken behind the barn and shot dead for everyone's good.
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
Oh no, that isn't the case.
Even in places that bill by net metering, the home owner still pays for the use of the grid during that time. Some states charge a fixed fee per month, others charge a "tax" per kilowatt-hour for the power that the homeowner puts back on the grid. Maybe both.
In other words, that one episode of Black Mirror.
You would be doing other things to reduce the wage gap and fund welfare properly, and the whine you have would be unnecessary.
It's not like NOT using net metering will mean that the poor will be better off. The electric company is making more profit off asymetric metering, an d they won't put it back in as reduced charges, so your "complaint" is that since you can't un-stiff the poor, you're damn well going to stiff the non-poor.
Fund welfare with your taxes, LET tax rates increase, and THEN you can claim you were worried for the plight of the poor.
Otherwise your complaint is more like hiding behind a human shield of "think of the poor!!!" homilies.
My neighbors who've deployed solar panels on their roofs do it by leasing from a PV distributor. They're not shoveling out $20,000 to have it installed. It's typically free, and then you pay a fixed rate that's generally a little lower than your typical retail electricity rates. So it's NOT the rich deploying distributed solar.
2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our government give subsidies and tax breaks to those altruistic generators of fossil fuels to which you so warmly refer to as "acting in the interests of the little guy"? (Spit a little Diet Pepsi out of my mouth with that one).
3) Utilities get to sell any power returned through the grid at full-blown retail rates. Yeah, they're not facing bankruptcy... just yet.
4) Distributed solar represents what... less than 1% of all energy generated? I think PG&E will survive the assault for at least another week or two.
what is logic and reason doing on my slashdot? what do you think you're doing here exactly sir?
Net metering is just another subsidy for solar, and it is already well known that solar subsidies are one of the least cost effective methods to compact climate change. We could reduce CO2 emissions by ten times as much if the money was spent on attic insulation or LED lighting, and a hundred times as much if it was spent on contraceptives for third world women.
Whoa cowboy. With net metering we have an additional source of resources for the monopoly that controls electricity in a given region. And its generated at the point of use, reducing distribution cost. If they're too stupid to figure out how to use new technology and load balance, they should be obligated to figure it out or rescind their monopoly.
"Its well known" that you make shit up. There are many different scenarios and some are not conducive to solar. However in my state (high coal usage), my rooftop solar panels are currently cheaper today than coal generated electricity. They'll generate back the power that it took to make them within a year or two and over 20 years I'm looking at an 8-10% ROI. How is eliminating coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
I'm with you that insulation and LEDs are the way to go but even I think 10x is optimistic (back to: you're making shit up). I also agree contraception should be ubiquitous and lower population is an excellent way to fix most of the problems in the world today, but start in the US. A lower class american consumes orders of magnitude more resources than most Africans, Indians, and rural Chinese.
I have yet to see an example of "the XXXXX industry" acting in the interests of anyone but themselves. Benefits to outside parties are pretty much always coincidence.
"The wealthy" are the people putting solar on their roof, and net-metering pushes costs onto people less well off. So at least in this case, "the fossil fuel industry" is acting in the interests of the little guy.
One of the laws involved, at least here in Florida, prohibits non-utilities from selling power.
See: what has happened in some states is that companies have offered a deal where *they* fund the solar panels on your roof and, in exchange, you pay a certain per kw/h rate for what power they provide that you consume. This means that the poor could, indeed, get solar power (and one presumes it's less expensive than grid power or no one would take the deal).
Your conclusion is based on an apparently flawed pre-condition.
Right keep believing that.
FTA:
For example, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) -- the state's public utilities authority -- voted to charge $0.70 per kilowatt (KW) to rooftop solar owners to help offset utility revenue losses.
It's about loss revenue for the utilities. It has nothing to do about the little guy.
The thing is that with net metering, solar power users are effectively using the grid as a giant battery that they charge up during the day and discharge during the night.
The grid is not a battery, it is a generation system only. The power plants must stay hot for when solar/wind power drops.
There is no decommissioning of plants or even shutting them down, they have to pick up the slack far too fast.
As for the reliability of output - if you have storage it's reliable enough, and induction heating is only one of many industries.
If I was to lay odds on which one would suffer most from a momentary eclipse - an Internet server farm or a factory using solar-generated heat, I think I'd choose the server farm.
Oddly, the server farms are among the most likely to be buying into solar.
thats only until home battery storage catches up, http://www.theverge.com/2015/2...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I can't speak to your utility company, but each of the two electricity utilities that I've purchased service from have charged me a monthly fee for the privilege of being connected to its grid. Nor did that utility company pay to connect my house to that grid: I did. Even if I generate an excess, the utility is still compensated for the maintenance of the grid.
Enter, Solar.
It provides power exactly when the demand peaks. If solar meets the peak power demand, the spot price for electricity will fall. For brief period an Australian utility had to sell power at *negative* prices at the peak! There was so much solar power feeding into the grid, they had to pay people to take their power, lest their generators overheat and burn.
The amount of solar electricity created might be small in terms of energy produced. But when it comes to profits, this probably cuts deep into the profits of the utilities.
Eventually the utilities will reduce their peak capacity to create an artificial shortage and trade. The net metered roof top solar energy is bought back at wholesale prices by law. They typically get sold instantly in the spot market at peak prices. The utilities are making tons of money on the net metering, all their talk about roof top solar being free loading is just bull shit.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
FWIW, I agree with you completely, sir, and I don't even "believe" that AGW is likely to be catastrophic or that CO_2 is intrinsically bad (I actually have pretty good reasons for my beliefs, but not worth the flame wars asserting them entail). Solar power SHOULD come into its own when it is cost effective. Indeed, it is the capitalist way. In the case of power, though, since power companies are hardly capitalist enterprises -- they are publicly sanctioned local monopolies and nearly completely protected from anything like actual competition -- it is entirely within the rights of the same commonwealth that gave them the monopoly to require them to run the damn meter backwards for people that put energy back into the system by whatever means. It is POSSIBLY OK for them to add in a "tax" of some sort and pay back the added power at a SMALL discount, since the consumer is using company resources to effectively redistribute their energy surplus on lines maintained by the company. But then, they are also helping the company load balance and avoid building new generation facilities, so it isn't even clear that should be the case.
I myself already have replaced my windows, my roof, added in a double layer of high-R insulation in the attic, replaced all of the old furnaces and AC units with uber-high-efficiency units and use tankless gas hot water (which leaves a bit to be desired, actually). My energy costs are so low there isn't a lot leftover to pay off an investment in solar out of reduced cost of purchased electricity (one of the paradoxes of this is that your amortization scheme depends on how much you pay out, and conservation measures elsewhere actually increase amortization to where the advantage of PV solar once again is marginal to lose-a-little).
Still, I expect to PROBABLY bite the bullet and do rooftop solar in the next 2-4 years, sooner if hardware gets cheaper faster (reducing the amortization schedule). For the electric utilities, though, solar is already a no brainer win and they are building their own solar farms just because if I can break even or win a bit at full retail costs for solar, they can probably double my payback via economy of scale in solar farms. That may be why they are opposing the buyback option -- they can make more money making solar on their own than reselling solar energy you made and sold back to them at cost. In fact, they don't MAKE any money on the latter.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
It is very hard to find suitable sites for pumped storage. Here is an old example: Storm King Mountain.
You should also read the feasibility analysis of pumped storage by Tom Murphy, a physics professor at UCSD
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
$7/month for a 10 KW service has to be compared to $0.11/kw-hr for Arizona electricity, scaled out to the actual energy consumed by the household. If I am paying $150/month for electricity and drop that to zero, netting $143 doesn't increase the amortization schedule for the hardware by an enormous amount. Is it reasonable? Hard to say. Charging the consumer SOMETHING for the use of the lines isn't crazy. I pay $15/month just to have power turned on to a cabin I hardly ever use and that consumes no electricity at all. But it is cheaper than having the power turned on and off when I do use it.
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Here is the thing: when I "sell" back to SMUD, I am getting a small payment, but I ALSO get the usage of that KW I pushed on the wire when I pull it back down later.
I make 10 extra KW at peak solar, I get the money. I use 10 KW of grid power during off peak solar evening-night-morning I don't pay for those KW because my meter ran backwards, and is now running forwards for a net of 0 (zero) KW charged.
It is perfectly fair. I get a small payment when I generate during peak and save them spinning up more capacity, and I get to use them as a free battery during off solar times.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Incorrect.
Nearly all power transfer in the electrical grid is via completely passive transformers. There is no "one way" capability to AC transformers. If you are delivering power then it is being distributed proportionally to all other users, minus link losses. The only exception may be HVDC systems, in which power transfer may be unidirectional or bidirectional depending on the design.