Slashdot Mirror


Companies Are Using California Homes As Batteries To Power the Grid (qz.com)

"Companies like Tesla and SunRun are starting to bid on utility contracts that would allow them to string together dozens or hundreds of systems that act as an enormous reserve to balance the flow of electricity on the grid," reports Quartz. "Doing so would accelerate the grid's transformation from 20th century hub-and-spoke architecture to a transmission network moving electricity among thousands or millions of customers who generate and store their own power." From the report: In theory, networked home-solar-and-battery systems, acting in coordination over a single geographical area, could replace things like natural gas "peaker" plants need to help support the grid on a moment's notice. But it's an open question whether it makes financial sense. Kamath says renewable mandates could keep home solar-storage solutions for the grid going for a while, but the idea will have to prove itself on the market, perhaps by aggregating large areas, if it wants to seriously compete with existing energy assets.

SunRun told investors in 2017 that its pilot programs suggest it could competitively generate $2,000 worth of services by managing electricity flow back to the grid. The company has recently dropped its combative stance with utilities dragging their feet on accepting home solar. Instead, it's pursuing cooperation with the utilities now, in hopes of selling them home-based power. That would allow it grab a chunk of the billions being spent on modernizing the grid. "We don't want to be in a position of building two competing infrastructures," SunRun's Jurich said.

208 comments

  1. Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Once again, California leads the way for the rest of the US. You're welcome, and please don't come here.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Golden State by Dins · · Score: 4, Funny

      please don't come here.

      Won't be a problem.

    2. Re:Golden State by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      You seem overly proud of this. What part did you play?

    3. Re:Golden State by arbiter1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also leading the the US in people being homeless with little attempt to do anything about it. Yea keep on leading.

    4. Re:Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta keep the supply of artisanal curbside dookie flowing. It just wouldn't smell like home otherwise.

    5. Re:Golden State by Pezbian · · Score: 2

      California... where people think mountains top out at 25 meters.
      California... where Hollywood is a species.
      California... they're "trying real hard".
      California... not "technically" a virus.

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    6. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      California leads the way for the rest of the US...

      ... just like it is near the top in inequality, housing costs, poverty rates, poor schools, political polarization, debt, and numerous other negative social indicators.

      You're welcome, and please don't come here.

      Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.

    7. Re: Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that 30% 9f California lives in poverty, and has the lowest quality of life in the nation, I don't think that people coming there (except illegally over the border) is going to be a problem for you.

    8. Re:Golden State by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, I pay $1300 to $1800 (depending upon one-time shot or installments) and I have a guaranteed backup power for 10 years. I've lived in my current home for 5, down here in Ventura, and have lost power exactly once, for 2 hours, when SCE replaced/upgraded the transformer in our subdivision (and which the announced a dozen times the month before, so it was no surprise to anyone). So I guess what is being offered here is backup power for the amazingly affordable price of $650 to $900 per hour. Hurray, California!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    9. Re:Golden State by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Don't forget taxes! We're not number one in taxes yet, but we're working hard! And Second Amendment violations, we're also pushing hard to beat everyone else there, too (I think we're close to number one, trailing only DC).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Golden State by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.

      They're not leaving, they're being destroyed. But that doesn't differentiate California from anywhere else. This is a big state, most of it is not inside LA county or the bay area. Most of the people are, though, which puts paid to the notion that they can't afford to live where it's expensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: Golden State by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They're leaving too, check it out: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice anecdote. In the real world that's not at all how these things work. A backup is like insurance. Even if you never use it, it's still worthwhile to have.

    13. Re:Golden State by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So - are you willing to pay $1300 to $1800 for a backup that may get used a few hours every decade? Really?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Golden State by suutar · · Score: 1

      10 to 15 per month? I pay more than that to backup my data. If this would ameliorate the dozen or so one-second blackouts I've gotten in the past year it'd be a win.

    15. Re:Golden State by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... You can get a 1300W UPS for $330, and other than the heavy appliances (stove, refrigerator/freezer, clothes washer/dryer) it will supply 1300W for 6-7 minutes; that would run the typical US household (sans heavy appliances which are not disrupted by a few second blackout) for about 10 minutes. For a one to ten second blackout, this would be, potentially, overkill. Seems like a lower cost solution is available to you right now!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thanks. If I'm generating my own electricity, I want to be paid for it. The reason I got solar was to offset my utility bill, not to power freeloaders. What was once a net positive offset on my bill will end up net negative again in a few years, I'm sure, and I'll be right back where I started except minus the investment in the panels.

    17. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      ... just like it is near the top in inequality, housing costs, poverty rates, poor schools, political polarization, debt, and numerous other negative social indicators.

      Since I've moved here, I'm really amused at how obsessed with California conservatives in other states seem to be.

      Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.

      Most of the people leaving California are low-income, not "middle-class". And since we've recently gone from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest economy in the world, losing a million residents over a 10 year period is not a bad thing. It means there will be less traffic when I have to drive down to LAX or up to Frisco to catch a plane when I go on one of my charity missions to bring shoes and toothbrushes to people in red states.

      http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/A...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Don't forget taxes! We're not number one in taxes yet, but we're working hard!

      Taxes here in California are high, but they're worth it. Plus, states like Texas just make up the difference with fees, tolls, property taxes, etc. And after you pay all those fees, tolls, property taxes, etc, you're still in goddamn Texas.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re: Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      From your link: "particularly lower-income residents".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Golden State by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Dude, go and look at a topo map of California. I'll wait.

      *ROFLCOPTER*

    21. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Since I've moved here, I'm really amused at how obsessed with California conservatives in other states seem to be.

      Why are you telling me? I have lived in California for many years, and I'm not a conservative.

      You seem to have moved here only recently. And I suppose from your socialist vantage point, everybody who doesn't toe the socialist party line is a "conservative".

      Most of the people leaving California are low-income, not "middle-class"

      If by "low income" you mean "people making less than $110000/year, then I suppose that's true. I call those people "middle class".

    22. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Taxes here in California are high, but they're worth it.

      Really? What do Californians get for it? Bad roads, bad schools, traffic jams, urban sprawl, homelessness, massive social problems.

      Plus, states like Texas just make up the difference with fees, tolls, property taxes, etc.

      Data says otherwise

      And after you pay all those fees, tolls, property taxes, etc, you're still in goddamn Texas.

      Isn't it great? It's a place where people like you just don't go.

    23. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Bad roads, bad schools, traffic jams, urban sprawl, homelessness, massive social problems.

      Where have you been in California? There's none of that where I live.

      Data says otherwise [usnews.com]

      "affordability" rankings are nonsense. Hamburger helper is more affordable than filet mignon, but you're eating packaged starch instead of a nice steak. I've lived in Houston and I live in California. When I count the fact that I save a lot of money on utilities (I don't have to heat or cool my house) and health care (my health insurance costs went way down) and food (groceries are about 30% cheaper in California than in Houston, plus I'm in a beautiful place instead of an ugly, polluted one, I figure it's a great deal.

      Isn't it great? It's a place where people like you just don't go.

      I've lived in Texas. It's a shithole state. It's a place where their most famous military battle is one where the Texans got massacred and their state bird is a mosquito. It's terribly polluted and the state politicians in Texas are so corrupt it would make a Chicago alderman blush (I'm from Chicago, so I know).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      No doubt California is wonderful to you; as a retired academic, you are the recipient of significant monetary transfers from the working population and you can pick yourself a nice little corner of California to live in. You have no ambition to create anything or contribute either, so California's stifling regulations don't matter to you. Your positions are perfectly rational from your point of you. What makes you such a jerk is that you try to tell other people that what's best for you is best for them, a bald faced lie. For those of us who actually have to work and pay the cost of your cushy retirement, the pyramid scheme that works so well for you makes little sense.

    25. Re:Golden State by Xenocrates · · Score: 1

      However, that is plug limited, and requires more maintenance. I'm no Tesla fanboy, but a whole home battery is worth 1500-1800, even for short run times, so long as it also deals with low voltage events (brownouts). I spend probably 60$ a year maintaining a trio of UPS's that size (replacing one set of batteries per year, doesn't include potential waste charges for SLA batteries), which only handles network gear and a pair of desktops.

      So, presuming that it lasts the ten years of a powerwall warranty, I'm looking at 180$ a year, if I spread the cost out. Compared to the three Trip-lite units I have, at a purchase price of call it 200$ each (600$ total, which is around what I spend, since I bought two on sale and was given the third when someone moved), I have 120$ per year in costs. That starts looking much more attractive. Add in that many people will also get their load centers modernized, which can save a lot of cash, plus the maintenance is somebody else's problem. That's quite nice.

    26. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      No doubt California is wonderful to you; as a retired academic, you are the recipient of significant monetary transfers from the working population and you can pick yourself a nice little corner of California to live in.

      Correct, but you don't seem to understand how academic pensions work. They are not "monetary transfers from the working population". (See: TIAA-CREF) I can understand your confusion though, since you apparently don't have any experience with higher education. But you shouldn't be ashamed. The world need customer service reps and tech support, too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't afford to live in California, then you should leave and go somewhere poor like the midwest or one of the southern states.

      I remember once I had to go to a backward shithole called "St. Louis" and the cabbie telling me how nice and expensive the homes along their pathetic "waterfront" were. "Oh they are very expensive. About $1000 a month!". I just laughed at him and told him my waterfront (on the beach, a real waterfront) apartment only costs $3500 a month and how I didn't even bat an eye at that because I make enough to pay that 5 times over.

      Broke idiots come to California, can't pull their own weight and end up homeless. It's not the state's fault. Do yourself a favour and just stay away. California is for people with intelligence and skill, not average Joes from flyover land.

    28. Re: Golden State by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Poor people are leaving, rich people are coming in. Net is that more people are leaving than coming.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Correct, but you don't seem to understand how academic pensions work. They are not "monetary transfers from the working population"

      I wasn't talking about your pension; I was talking about the infrastructure and services you enjoy in California.

      I can understand your confusion though, since you apparently don't have any experience with higher education.

      Since you spent your life studying and teaching critical theory and postmodernism, it's obvious that it is actually you who doesn't have any experience with higher education; you just shamelessly pretended to be an academic and scholar for a few decades.

    30. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about your pension; I was talking about the infrastructure and services you enjoy in California.

      I'm a California taxpayer. I don't start collecting a pension for some years yet, thank you. I pay for what I use, and there's a little left over to send to the poor red states like South Carolina.

      Since you spent your life studying and teaching critical theory and postmodernism

      That's not what I spent my life studying. That's just my area of expertise. I was also a Director of Computing, a cameraman for sports television and a director of films for medical education. I put myself through school driving a cab and playing in a band. I now teach martial arts. I was already accomplished when I started pretending to be an academic and scholar. Currently, I surf.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re: Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Net is that more people are leaving than coming.

      Yes, that is the general idea.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when a car crashes into a pole and takes out your power for hours what do you do? Construct as many strawmen as you like, it's quite useful for quite a lot of people, your personal anecdotes aside.

    33. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I'm a California taxpayer. I don't start collecting a pension for some years yet, thank you. I pay for what I use, and there's a little left over to send to the poor red states like South Carolina. ... Currently, I surf.

      You implied earlier you had been an academic and were making your money from a pension, but I guess you're just a surfer. And unless you make more than $90k/year, other people are subsidizing you.

      That's not what I spent my life studying. That's just my area of expertise. I was also a Director of Computing, a cameraman for sports television and a director of films for medical education. I put myself through school driving a cab and playing in a band. I now teach martial arts. I was already accomplished when I started pretending to be an academic and scholar. Currently, I surf.

      With a CV like that, California is indeed perfect for you.

    34. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      With a CV like that, California is indeed perfect for you.

      And it's perfect for me. When I was younger, I undervalued the importance of living somewhere beautiful and what a tonic it can be for the soul. My sleepy little coastal town is as perfect a place as I've ever been, and that includes the coast of Montenegro. I get up in the morning and cannot believe I'm in such a perfect place.

      Seriously, ooloorie, I really didn't mean to upset you. I understand that there are problems in California, especially in the two biggest metro areas. It's far from perfect, but unlike many other places in the US, there actually seems to be a will to try to fix these things. There's a budget surplus in Sacramento and people seep pretty happy about their state governance, except for a handful of inland cranks and right-wing talk radio hosts. At least California's not trying to balance its budget on the backs of the people teaching their kids.

      You should also know that I really liked the people in Houston. Some of the best people I've ever met. Definitely some of the best taco trucks I've ever met. But the problems there seem so much more intractable than any I've seen in California. I will admit that my opinion may be skewed by the fact that my last memory of Houston was Hurricane Harvey, which was the first time I had ever experienced that kind of deadly natural disaster up close and personal. We were all ready to leave and the truck was supposed to come to pick up our belongings the day Harvey hit, and we had to postpone our trip for a week while we huddled in a room with water rising all around us and nothing but disaster porn on the TV. Rain pounded on the windows for five straight days and the sound was enough to make you insane. When we came over the hills into our little sleepy coastal town, there were real tears of joy on my wife's face, and that first glimpse of the Pacific as the sun started dipping made me feel like my heart was going to burst. Maybe I'll come to my senses someday and get tired of all this beauty, but not today.

      Now you have a good Memorial Day weekend, ooloorie. If I said anything overly insulting or unnecessarily mean, I'm honestly sorry. If you come this way, I'll be happy to buy you an adult beverage of your choice.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      If yiure nit a conservative what are you?

    36. Re:Golden State by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Wow, I wish I didn't have to pay property taxes in CA. Or high sales taxes. Or toll roads (which there are several in the LA area - not to mention bridge tolls in the Bay). And our roads are pretty trashed, but it's OK we'll soon have High Speed Rail (at 100 MPH!) between Bakersfield and Fresno, so we have that going for us...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    37. Re:Golden State by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Martial Arts and Surfing is a good fit.
      What MA are you practicing/teaching?

      A few years ago an "experienced" stand up paddle board girl wanted to "teach me how to paddle" :D I think the first day I dropped into the water about 4 times ... and the next 2 weeks occasionally. I explained to her: it is like martial arts, you take a deep stance (on such a board a variation of Neko Dachi or Sanchin Dachi) bend your knees, it is super easy to hold balance (I do Aikido/Kenjutsu and Goju Ryu Karate)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:Golden State by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And unless you make more than $90k/year, other people are subsidizing you.

      What a nonsense. As long as he makes more money than he spends, no one is subsiding him.

      I find his CV exciting enough, and you seem to have a bad day today?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:Golden State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or as other countries call it, rail.

    40. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      What a nonsense. As long as he makes more money than he spends, no one is subsiding him.

      In the US, government spends about $21000/person/year on infrastructure, services, and other expenses and that money needs to come from somewhere. Just maintaining the California beach town he loves so much takes a lot of money. Given the US progressive tax system, you hit the balance where you pay more in taxes than you consume in services in about the 80th percentile, that is at around $95000.

      I find his CV exciting enough

      Indeed, but an "exciting CV" doesn't pay the national bills. That is, the fact that he can hang out in a California beach town and surf is only possible because people in Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, etc. are working their asses off and paying massive amounts of taxes. And as many more people emulate him, namely having fun instead of working the stressful, dreary job that society spent large amounts raising and training him for, the country increasingly slides into insolvency.

    41. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      If yiure nit a conservative what are you?

      A classical liberal. Meaning, I think you should be free to do whatever you want to, but nobody else should be forced to pay for the consequences of your choices.

    42. Re:Golden State by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I loved zipping from Shanghai to Nanjing in a little over an hour, or Brussels to Cologne in under 2 hours, riding trains rolling at 240 KPH or faster. Here in Southern California, I often find myself on my motorcycle, cruising down the 101 at 110 KPH, and watch as I pass the Amtrak train - itself "speeding" along at a brisk 90 KPH!

      Yeah, we don't have High Speed Rail - but then again, we still don't know how we're going to get it to Los Angeles, and it's only going to cost $100 billion and not be ready until 2033. But hey, High Speed Rail! :(

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    43. Re:Golden State by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Given the US progressive tax system, you hit the balance where you pay more in taxes than you consume in services in about the 80th percentile, that is at around $95000.

      Sorry, but that sounds absurd. You must have absurd prices for the things the government is doing if you need such an absurd income to be in equilibrium with your tax spendings and what the government is paying for you.
      Or you must have plenty of jobs that pay minimum that wage (like minimum half the work force). Both sounds very doubtful.

      That is, the fact that he can hang out in a California beach town and surf is only possible because people in Silicon Valley, Boston, New York, etc. are working their asses off and paying massive amounts of taxes.
      He did not say he is "hanging out and only surfs"

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      there actually seems to be a will to try to fix these things. There's a budget surplus in Sacramento

      If that were true, California could lower some of its crushing tax burden. In reality, I think those are nice political fictions based on creative accounting and irrational assumptions; in reality, California is in for massive fiscal and economic problems.

      And it's perfect for me. When I was younger, I undervalued the importance of living somewhere beautiful and what a tonic it can be for the soul. My sleepy little coastal town is as perfect a place as I've ever been, and that includes the coast of Montenegro. I get up in the morning and cannot believe I'm in such a perfect place.

      Oh, it's great for you personally, but it's a selfish choice. Since you are below your pension age, these should be your peak earning years and the peak years in which you pay taxes. With the choice you are making, you will likely never pay back the money society invested in you. Of course, you don't care, and I don't blame you for that.

      I will actually join you, in that I'm planning on retiring early to some nice place: I don't see why I should be working my ass off when other people are making choices like you do. However, I won't be retiring to a California beach town. As California's and America's welfare system invariably deteriorates, these beautiful communities will increasingly be filled with human misery. I have seen enough beach towns in the third world to know that I don't want to live in such a place.

      However, I think you ought to reflect on your behavior against your political views. What's the leftist motto for a perfect society? From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Is your maximum ability to contribute to society that of a surfer? Do you have a need to live in a beach resort? Of course not. Your ability to contribute is that of working as an IT manager until you die from a heart attack, and your need is for a few hundred square feet close to work, in a dull gray city. You only have the freedom to make the choices you are making because the US does not implement your political views.

    45. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Martial Arts and Surfing is a good fit.
      What MA are you practicing/teaching?

      I'm an absolute noob on the surfboard, but you're right about the stance. I practice strictly Chinese MA (mainly the internal ones for the past 15 years - Xing Yi, Bagua Zhang and of course Tai Chi Chuan) and the flowing weight distribution (ying/yang) is also very applicable. On the paddleboard I made the mistake initially of trying to maintain an evenly-distributed "horse" style stance and got nowhere. I like to imagine the waves are like a push-hands partner.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    46. Re:Golden State by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ah, interesting. I'm a fan of Bagua, but never practiced it. It is super rare in Germany but funnily there is a great teacher about 45km away from me.

      Well, horse stance sounds incredible exhausting for surfing :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    47. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that sounds absurd. You must have absurd prices for the things the government is doing if you need such an absurd income to be in equilibrium with your tax spendings and what the government is paying for you.

      US government spending is indeed very wasteful, starting with the massive military budget and interest on the national debt, but also much higher spending on social welfare, education, retirement, and healthcare.

      But the biggest difference is tax progressivity. Median household income (middle class) in the US is around $60000. Average federal income tax at that income is 3.8%, and about 12% with social security and Medicare/Medicaid. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and low income earners actually "pay" negative taxes (they get additional money from the government). In contrast, median household income in Germany is about $46000, and average taxes at that income level are around 22%, and about 40% with social security. That is, Europe taxes its middle class much more heavily than the US, while the US places a much larger burden on high income earners and redistributes the revenue.

      He did not say he is "hanging out and only surfs"

      I didn't say that he just "hangs out". He seems to work in fitness (surfing, martial arts); a typical annual income would be $40000 and he'd probably have no income tax liability at all.

    48. Re:Golden State by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, horse stance sounds incredible exhausting for surfing :D

      Now you tell me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    49. Re:Golden State by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, and they don't pay other taxes around that income bracket?
      Sounds quite absurd from an european point of view, especially when you hear all the whining of "middle class" americans about the high taxes.

      In Germany about 7k income is tax free ... towards about 12k of income you get social aid ... above roughly 12k income you start paying taxes, it is a it absurd, because if you come into strange "brackets", you drop after taxes so low in income that you get social aid again, while still paying taxes. (Of course that all changes if married and if you have kids) There are plenty of tax reform suggestions including various UBI or flat rate tax systems plus minimum wage etc. but no one really has the guts to reform the system. Instead of that they simply continue to tweak the same old parameters by screwing a little screw here or there.

      I mean if your situation was much more known, I know plenty of people who would love to have an easy living on 45k or 60k income. However in Germany you would not come far with that, as everything, housing, food etc. is much more expensive than in the US.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    50. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Wow, and they don't pay other taxes around that income bracket?

      Not a lot. Average sales tax is around 7%. Gas taxes are small compared to Germany. Property taxes are around 1% per year, a little lower than in Germany.

      Sounds quite absurd from an european point of view, especially when you hear all the whining of "middle class" americans about the high taxes.

      It is indeed absurd. Keep in mind, however, that more than half of all American tax payers will make more than $100000/year for several years during their lifetime and people making $200000-500000/year would still consider themselves "middle class" in the US.

      In any case, Americans recognize that there is a problem: America spends about as much per capita on social welfare as Sweden (on top of massive military spending), but doesn't collect enough in taxes to pay for it, leading to massive debt. But nobody knows how to fix it in a way that voters would vote for.

    51. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      From wikipedia, for convenience: The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared.[50] James Kurth, Robert E. Lerner, John Micklethwait, Adrian Wooldridge and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism.[51] According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.[

    52. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared

      I certainly don't share it. That's why I emphasize that I am a classical liberal. Modern American "liberalism" is an authoritarian leftist ideology.

      According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.

      So? Why would I care that some pompous "neo-liberal" British ass lumps together classical liberalism and American conservatism? They are not the same. As a classical liberal, I think you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to, but you should have to accept responsibility for the consequences. The conservative American position is that the law should prohibit you from f*cking and marrying people social conservatives disapprove of, so that's not a classically liberal position. The modern "liberal" American position is that you should be free to f*ck and marry whoever you want to and the state should force others to pay for the consequences, again, not a classically liberal position either. That's why classical liberals are neither conservatives nor modern "liberals".

      Classical liberalism is closer to conservatism only in the sense that classical liberals and conservatives can actually have rational discussions about issues and agree to disagree. Nobody can have a rational discussion with American "liberals" anymore: if you disagree with their party line, they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist and try to destroy your life.

    53. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Read the words. The first sentence is not about classical liberalism. You ignored several US opinions about liberalism to make a comment about nationality that is wholly irrelevant. I'm a "liberal" treat have not called you a Nazi and don't believe you are one. It is entirely possible to have a rational debate with some modern liberals just as with some classical liberals you just get called extreme left! I believe though when you say you are a classical liberal, but in the USA, and to some extent in the UK, this is associated with conservatism. I certainly don't see a particular distinction between your views and mainstream conservatism that also values individual liberty. My views fall closer to modern liberalism in many areas, and I value individual freedom and self-reliance, but also recognise value in collective action and social justice that it's unlikely to arise out of a free market. I also recognise that a free market is not always efficient, although technically that is also part of classical liberalism too.

    54. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      to make a comment about nationality that is wholly irrelevant

      I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.

      My views fall closer to modern liberalism in many areas, and I value individual freedom and self-reliance, but also recognise value in collective action and social justice that it's unlikely to arise out of a free market.

      If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).

      it is entirely possible to have a rational debate with some modern liberals

      It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:

      I believe though when you say you are a classical liberal, but in the USA, and to some extent in the UK, this is associated with conservatism.

      For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".

      So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.

    55. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You exactly made a comment about nationality referencing the fact that a commentator was British. Do you not remember?

    56. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      to make a comment about nationality that is wholly irrelevant

      I didn't "make a comment about nationality"; I refered to "American liberalism" because. as a political movement, it is distinct from contemporary European liberalism, neo-liberalism, and classical liberalism. "American liberalism" is a label for an ideology, not your nationality. Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe.

      My views fall closer to modern liberalism in many areas, and I value individual freedom and self-reliance, but also recognise value in collective action and social justice that it's unlikely to arise out of a free market.

      If you believe that social justice is a valid political objective and that the free market needs to be restrained, you are an authoritarian leftist. Saying that you "value individual freedom and self-reliance" is just a fig leaf. As a classical liberal, I strongly oppose social justice as a political objective because it is in fundamental conflict with a just society and equality under the law (in addition, social justice is also a harmful policy for government to pursue).

      it is entirely possible to have a rational debate with some modern liberals

      It is certainly not possible to have a rational debate with you at this point because you haven't even stated a rational, consistent political or moral position. That's characteristic of the modern American left, which has rejected rationality and instead embraces critical theory, identity, and postmodernism. You even illustrate this nicely:

      I believe though when you say you are a classical liberal, but in the USA, and to some extent in the UK, this is associated with conservatism.

      For you, "association" with something is sufficient to identify me with that something, ignoring the clear explanation I gave of how conservatism and classical liberalism actually differ. That's what I was getting at with my hyperbolic statement "they will call you a Nazi and white supremacist": you don't reason and you ignore rational arguments, you just "associate".

      So, yes, classical liberalism is "associated with" conservatism in the US, but they are still different ideologies. I am not a political conservative.

      it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism. So it seems that "they will call you a left wing authoritarian" is something I could say. You've accused me of that (without foundation), yet I have not launched any such attack on you.

      .

    57. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      P.S. I can't demonstrate anything about the American left as I'm European.

    58. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You exactly made a comment about nationality referencing the fact that a commentator was British. Do you not remember?

      You attempted an appeal to authority in support of your argument and quoted Deepak Lal. I'm saying that even if I considered your appeal to authority valid, I do not consider Deepak Lal an authority on the US; he is a British neo-liberal and expert on Asia, not a US policy wonk.

    59. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism

      Well, yes it is, and that is your view. After all, you hold the view that everybody to the right of center is a conservative.

      I contrast, I recognize that there are many political viewpoints: classical liberal, libertarians, conservatives, democratic socialists, communists, etc. All of those groups are capable of rational discourse, even if they vehemently disagree. And then there are American progressives and American liberals, who are different from all the aforementioned groups.

    60. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      P.S. I can't demonstrate anything about the American left as I'm European.

      As I was saying Many Europeans are "American liberals", they just call themselves something different in Europe. Where do you think crap like critical theory and postmodernism comes from originally? From Europe (specifically, France and Germany), not from the US.

    61. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      For your handy reference, here is a map of political orientations.

      Here is another more detailed quiz determining where you fit on a 2D map

      Actual political orientation is probably higher dimensional than that, but you might at least try to figure out where you fit on these 2D maps.

    62. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I've done these sort of tests before. They never categorise me as left authoritarian as you would pigeonhole me

    63. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      it is very hard to have a rational debate with someone who has such a binary view of the world which is apparently either unfettered capitalism or authoritarianism

      Well, yes it is, and that is your view. After all, you hold the view that everybody to the right of center is a conservative.

      I contrast, I recognize that there are many political viewpoints: classical liberal, libertarians, conservatives, democratic socialists, communists, etc. All of those groups are capable of rational discourse, even if they vehemently disagree. And then there are American progressives and American liberals, who are different from all the aforementioned groups.

      No, I don't think everyone right-of-centre is a conservative. There are people who are part of the authoritarian right, and I have a right libertarian friend, and an American conservative friend. Your characterisation of the American left, though, seems very odd, especially given that it does not at all fit with American liberals that I know. Your view seems very close minded and partisan. And you also accused me of being left authoritarian, as that seems to fit your pre-conceived ideas, yet according to your own preferred test is not the case.

      what I do believe is that American conservatism is currently the home of classical liberals. I would note that this it's not the same as saying the GOP, as to me it looks like Conservatism spans both major US parties, with some right libertarian and right authoritarians in the GOP, and modern liberals in the Democrats, and nuance half-a-dozen socialists, and even a few soft right authoritarians.

    64. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      what I do believe is that American conservatism is currently the home of classical liberals

      You're playing meaningless word games. The fact remains that I'm a classical liberal, not a conservative. I explained to you the difference, you simply refuse to even read the explanation.

      Your characterisation of the American left, though, seems very odd, especially given that it does not at all fit with American liberals that I know.

      It seems odd to you because both the American left and you do not actually have a logically consistent political position, you are merely engaging in empty political posturing. That's why you can simultaneously advocate authoritarian positions and policies, while at the same time stating and believing that you "value liberty".

      Your view seems very close minded and partisan

      I grew up in Europe and even voted there, became a registered Democrat after naturalization and then became an independent, so my political positions are rooted in ample experience and I have demonstrated my willingness to change my political positions based on rational arguments. How about you?

      Now, about your charge of partisanship: the only position I have expressed is a criticism of the American left. So which group are you accusing me of being a partisan for? Surely not conservatives, since I reject many of their political views. What you are actually revealing is merely your own partisanship and narrowmindedness: it is you who divides the world into your tribe and "everybody else" and accuse people who criticize your tribe of "partisanship".

    65. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I've done these sort of tests before. They never categorise me as left authoritarian as you would pigeonhole me

      I merely gave those quizzes to get you to think about political orientations in a multidimensional way and, in particular, that conservatism is in a different place from libertarianism (which is closest to classical liberalism on that chart).

      But the axes are mislabeled. You can see that the actual distribution of responses is roughly triangular, with the classical liberals concentrated in the bottom right corner; anything outside the bottom right quadrant is authoritarian. In other words, in a society with maximum individual liberty, there can't be any political left-right distinctions anymore.

    66. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that on the multi-dimensional aspect. Two dimensions are a start, if limiting. Often the questions lack sufficient context, though.

      If you want to define classical liberalism as libertarianism with some understanding of human nature and consequences, I might agree with you.

      anything outside the bottom right quadrant is authoritarian

      That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though. I mentioned your suggestion that you considered me to be authoritarian on this basis, and I now need to clean tea off the bed sheets. She's American, by the way.

    67. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      You believe I am playing mindless word games, but to me it seems like you are also doing so. I am happy to agree to disagree, though.

      I grew up in Europe and even voted there, became a registered Democrat after naturalization and then became an independent, so my political positions are rooted in ample experience and I have demonstrated my willingness to change my political positions based on rational arguments.

      Yet you seem to have the close-minded views of a true believer, which baffles me. No matter what I say to say that I am not what you consider me to be, despite me indicating I am not, you are intransigent. I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.

    68. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though.

      There are many political scientists and economists that have proven that point. Your ignorance of that work doesn't change the correctness of their arguments. While they make long argument, it's also pretty obvious: any political ideology that involves imposition of social norms, redistribution of income, government attempts to increase equality of outcome for different groups is necessarily authoritarian since it involves government taking of private property and interference in freedom of association, if necessary at gunpoint, hence authoritarian.

      It's also quite obvious simply by looking at the economy: European conservatives, social democrats, and progressives have created systems in which the majority of economic activity is under state control; more than 50% of state control over economic interactions is reasonably considered authoritarian (with 100% being totalitarian).

      I mentioned your suggestion that you considered me to be authoritarian on this basis, and I now need to clean tea off the bed sheets. She's American, by the way.

      And just like many privileged, American women, she gets into bed with authoritarians..

    69. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.

      Well, and again you demonstrate that you are not interested in rational discussion. To wit: (1) This discussion started with you calling me a "conservative"; I responded "I'm not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal, here is why the two are not the same: ...". Your response? Nothing related to my points, instead more of an appeal to authority or intuition "you're a conservative because classical liberalism is associated with conservatism". (2) You view "authoritarian" as an insult and a label, instead of as a possibly valid description of your ideology. So your response is "you are closed minded", "you are insulting me", "you're a partisan", "nobody has shown that", etc. The proper response would be "why would you believe that?" and "who else made that argument?"

      Your beliefs and style of reasoning are typical of the European intelligentsia and the American left. Like many classical liberals (as well as conservatives), I started out as a member of your tribe until I realized what those groups actually stand for and what their history actually is.

      Yet you seem to have the close-minded views of a true believer, which baffles me.

      I'm a "true believer" only in one thing: a rejection of the American left and related ideologies. And that happened because I opened my mind to other ideologies, which is why I moved away from your political beliefs. The problem is your closed-mindedness, not mine.

    70. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      That's your opinion, not borne out by evidence, though.

      There are many political scientists and economists that have proven that point.

      You are confusing having opinions with evidence. It's not always backed by evidence.

      Your ignorance of that work doesn't change the correctness of their arguments. While they make long argument, it's also pretty obvious: any political ideology that involves imposition of social norms, redistribution of income, government attempts to increase equality of outcome for different groups is necessarily authoritarian

      There is some merit in this argument, however, I believe in the minimum amount of this to ensure people have reasonable lives, and the minimum interference of government in other areas of people's lives.

      it involves government taking of private property

      Private property would not exist in any meaningful way for an extended period without government backing it up, though. It would be nice if it didn't require this, but realistically it does.

      and interference in freedom of association, if necessary at gunpoint, hence authoritarian.

      Er, I don't see much interference of freedom of association from the libertarian left, so that seems to be inserting your prejudice and imposing it on what you believe to be the views of others, when it is not.

      It's also quite obvious simply by looking at the economy: European conservatives, social democrats, and progressives have created systems in which the majority of economic activity is under state control; more than 50% of state control over economic interactions is reasonably considered authoritarian (with 100% being totalitarian).

      If you think that, I don't think you know what authoritarian means, which is probably why we argue at cross-purposes.

      And just like many privileged, American women

      She grew up dirt poor.

    71. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I consider the authoritarian label to be as insulting as it is incorrect.

      Well, and again you demonstrate that you are not interested in rational discussion. To wit: (1) This discussion started with you calling me a "conservative"; I responded "I'm not a conservative, I'm a classical liberal, here is why the two are not the same: ...

      My response was to indicate that many believe that conservatism and classical liberalism to be the same thing. That seems like rational debate to me.

    72. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      My response was to indicate that many believe that conservatism and classical liberalism to be the same thing. That seems like rational debate to me.

      "Many believe that..." is not a rational argument.

    73. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      There is some merit in this argument, however, I believe in the minimum amount of this to ensure people have reasonable lives, and the minimum interference of government in other areas of people's lives.

      So does everybody, for some definition of "reasonable" and "minimum". Even the Nazis believed that, they simply thought that "minimum" meant carting Jews off to the gas chambers. Modern Europeans believe that it means taking more than half of people's productive labor (that's more than under slavery). It's the definition of "reasonable" and "minimum" where all the differences between political views are.

      Private property would not exist in any meaningful way for an extended period without government backing it up, though. It would be nice if it didn't require this, but realistically it does.

      I know of no evidence for this. To the contrary, game theory and biology suggest the opposite. Nor is government required to create free markets.

      Er, I don't see much interference of freedom of association from the libertarian left, so that seems to be inserting your prejudice and imposing it on what you believe to be the views of others, when it is not.

      More weasel words ("much interference", "from the libertarian left", "your prejudice", etc.). Do you have a specific point to make?

      If you think that, I don't think you know what authoritarian means

      I gave my definition and criteria for authoritarianism. You're welcome to do the same, instead of refering to unnamed authorities. Specifically, why do you think that a form of government that forcibly takes around half of the labor of people and regulates pretty much every aspect of their public and private lives shouldn't be called "authoritarian"?

    74. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It is simply a short hand for having to dig through an present a larger boxy of evidence. It is not necessarily a logical fallacy unless the larger body of evidence does not exist. It's also a statement of fact in an of itself. This is seen informal internet forum so I'm not going to spend the effort to organise detailed citations as I would for an academic paper.

    75. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Comparison to the Nazis is extreme. To me, it is also painful as my wife's grandmother was a guest of that regime in Auschwitz. (My wife is very upset with this comparison) The game theory paper is essentially a review paper, and is only one example and would seem to be "a researcher believes", not even "researchers". In particular, it looks at animal studies but lacks human studies, rather appeals to political philosophers. If you seriously think that if you leave your front door open and dismantle the police you possessions will be respected, you are delusional. As for the word authoritarian, I like to use the dictionary term "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." as opposed to the definition "there are taxes". If you are just going to redefine words when it suits you then rational debate is impossible. Goodbye.

    76. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Comparison to the Nazis is extreme.

      I didn't compare you to the Nazis, I made the point that every political ideology has its own definition of "reasonable" and "minimal", even the most deplorable ideologies.

      To me, it is also painful as my wife's grandmother was a guest of that regime in Auschwitz. (My wife is very upset with this comparison)

      I didn't call you a Nazi, so spare me the outrage. I made a point about the fact that your statement of what you believe, a statement that you seem to believe is moderate, is so wide ranging that it even encompasses the Nazis, precisely because I was assuming that you are not a Nazi. That is, your statement of your political ideology is meaningless, because it encompasses everything from liberal centrism to the most extreme and murderous ideologies.

      The game theory paper is essentially a review paper, and is only one example and would seem to be "a researcher believes", not even "researchers". In particular, it looks at animal studies but lacks human studies

      Look, you made the claim that private property wouldn't exist without government, with no proof or evidence. I gave you one paper that explains to you why it is false (private property exists even in animals, without government). And as a "review paper", it has lots of references you can follow.

      As the paper shows, private property is something that even animals are hardwired to respect, and it is something that game theoretically arises among interacting individuals without government. So, that contradicts your point that private property wouldn't exist without government. At this point, not only have you failed to provide any evidence for your point of view, you also haven't explained why a reasonable, mainstream, well-sourced review paper that contradicts you is wrong.

      And you still haven't stated a clear political ideology, instead stating something so vague that it encompasses everything from liberal centrism to extreme totalitarianism, depending on your definitions of "minimal" and "required".

    77. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      As for the word authoritarian, I like to use the dictionary term "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom."

      That's an excellent definition; I agree.

      as opposed to the definition "there are taxes".

      I didn't use "there are taxes" as a definition, I used it as an indicator. I'm sorry, I should have recognized that the connection isn't clear to you. Wouldn't you say that if government authorities force me at gunpoint to work 1000 hours for the government, that meets the definition of "enforcing strict obedience to the authority at the expense of personal freedom"?

      If you are just going to redefine words when it suits you then rational debate is impossible

      Lucky then that I'm not "just redefining words" but actually telling you what I mean. I'm still waiting for a rational response from you.

    78. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It is simply a short hand for having to dig through an present a larger boxy of evidence

      You have provided neither evidence nor arguments for the idea that conservatism and classical liberalism are the same. I have provided both evidence and arguments against it.

    79. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Private property does not exist in animals in the sense that humans have it. It's a false equivalence. Animals defend territory I some instances, but generally on an individual basis with relatively evenly matched teeth and claws. Where there is not an even match (e.g. An individual versus a pack) then if there is competition for the same resource then the individual loses. Whilst the concept of private property can exist without government your ability to hold onto property is limited if there is an imbalance of power. Thus without structures to enforce the rule of law then much like a mugging in a park the unnamed individual loses to the gang with knives unless they are a particularly bloody mined yorkshireman in central park that convinces them via debate to leave him alone. When societal groups are small then family relationships can dominate,but in larger groups government of some form emerges to ensure rights.

    80. Re:Golden State by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I thought you had already told me what i believe, so went would i stage my views. Well, i have but you told me i couldn't it and was wrong, so went should i bother to restate it?

    81. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I thought you had already told me what i believe, so went would i stage my views. Well, i have but you told me i couldn't it and was wrong, so went should i bother to restate it?

      Your statement of your political beliefs seems to amount to "I value everything that's good and oppose everything that's bad, I am for moderation when moderation is called for, and strong action when strong action is called for." I merely pointed out that that's not a meaningful statement of political beliefs, it is simple empty posturing, which it obviously is. Based on that feedback, you could clarify a statement a statement of your political positions, but you haven't done so.

    82. Re:Golden State by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Private property does not exist in animals in the sense that humans have it. It's a false equivalence. Animals defend territory I some instances, but generally on an individual basis with relatively evenly matched teeth and claws.

      All you are revealing there is your total ignorance of animal behavior.

      Whilst the concept of private property can exist without government your ability to hold onto property is limited if there is an imbalance of power. Thus without structures to enforce the rule of law then much like a mugging in a park the unnamed individual loses to the gang with knives

      And what prevents the private park owner from hiring security guards to keep private park visitors from being safe? Whether in my home, at work, or most places where I go for recreation, it is private security, not government police, that protects me and my property. In fact, the police are pretty much completely useless when it comes to property crime: they rarely prevent it, rarely investigate it, and even more rarely recover it.

      When societal groups are small then family relationships can dominate,but in larger groups government of some form emerges to ensure rights.

      In larger groups mechanisms merge to ensure rights; those mechanisms are frequently non-governmental even today.

  2. By The Power of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TRUMP!

      I bet you thought I'd say greystone.

    1. Re:By The Power of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grayskull

  3. Well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may even catch up with South Australia one day. The state govt is in the process of a similar scheme already.

    1. Re:Well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Panda bears are cute. They are my favourite kind of bear.

    2. Re:Well done by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      Don't stop there - it's to the tune of 50000 installations in one scheme and another 40000 installations in a second scheme.

      South Australia leads the way for the rest of the world. You're welcome, and please DO come here.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

    3. Re: Well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they taste like chicken.

    4. Re:Well done by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      South Australia leads the way for the rest of the world. You're welcome, and please do come here.

      No thank you.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Well done by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Panda bears are cute. They are my favourite kind of bear."

      They drink too much, hence the black eyes.

      BTW, why did the Lion lose at poker?
      He was playing with a Cheetah.

    6. Re:Well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The state of California alone has an economy more than double the size of the whole country of Australia.

    7. Re: Well done by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      No really, thank you.

    8. Re: Well done by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      I know. What a shameful state of affairs to be such a big ecomomy and having to play follow the leader. Chin up cobber.

    9. Re:Well done by harlequinn · · Score: 1

      (thank you for reminding me about that picture that is - it's a funny pic)

  4. Not sure if this is a good idea... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A big part of me is afraid this will simply game the market rather than add predictability to pricing, although that is arguably is inevitable. I would much prefer a rate sheet that is easier to understand the implications of use in order to better allow proactive demand-side management. Too many things are grossly inefficient with reactive load management.

    But, I don’t know an easy solution to the current ramp-rate profile without batteries and punitive rate structures.

    1. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

      Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but the underlying reality is that's just more middlemen taking a cut - usually with a % going back to said politicians. Best you can do is run it as a monopoly in which case you don't get those stupid peak charges and you can do sane long term capacity planning. Admitted that does assume a well run monopoly but it can work.

    2. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems like a bad idea. Batteries tend to be combustible, and California is very prone to wildfires. This is just making an already dangerous situation worse. We should mandate that all homes and businesses have both solar panels and wind turbines, implement a large carbon tax, and use the tax revenue to subsidize the aforementioned renewable energy systems. It will be far safer and far more effective at reducing fossil fuel use.

    3. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

      That's why in the Netherlands a split was made between generation and distribution. There are companies that manage the grid and other companies you buy power from. The market for companies that manage the grid is regulated and they are not allowed to charge more than a maximum for transport and connections.

    4. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

      Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but the underlying reality is that's just more middlemen taking a cut - usually with a % going back to said politicians. Best you can do is run it as a monopoly in which case you don't get those stupid peak charges and you can do sane long term capacity planning. Admitted that does assume a well run monopoly but it can work.

      It is a monopoly unless and until the consumer makes his/her own electricity and stores it in his/her own battery wall. At that point you get a very competitive industry where many providers of solar panel packages, wind generators and battery walls compete to sell their products wherever they can market it which is pretty much anywhere that has a road network.

    5. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't. What the grid buys you is reliability. Once you factor in the cost of backup for when the solar / battery dies grid is cheaper almost everywhere except remote areas.

    6. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cars go boom, we all carry around 1000s of gallons of highly reactive fuel to and fro our homes and places of business.

      Somehow we survive...

    7. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly.

      No. Distribution is a natural monopoly. Generation is not. There is no reason that the same company should do both, and in many jurisdictions they do not.

    8. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generation is also a natural monopoly. The up front cost of building new plans is what determines that. With 'competition' in generation all that happens is that the free market sits around waiting for someone to blink. That's why you have all those failed nuclear projects - they would be economic but for ....

    9. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive. You need to have sufficient generation capacity for the winter when daylight hours are short, which means you are greatly over-capacity in summer. You could set up a system for selling this excess, but then you are back to the need for a distribution network - which remains as much a natural monopoly as before. Plus generating is simply cheaper in bulk, when you have economy of scale. Which do you think is cheaper: Sixty thousand little 100W rooftop wind turbines, or one 6MW monster of a commercial-scale turbine?

    10. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive.

      Try having the power company run a mile of utility poles or underground service to send grid power to your home if you don't live in a development or beside existing service

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Generation is also a natural monopoly. The up front cost of building new plans is what determines that.

      That's like saying that owning a car is expensive because cars are fairly expensive items. Despite that, millions of people own them. And in my case, a photovoltaic system capable of powering my home would cost me less than a third of what a cheap car would cost me.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Ditto UK

    13. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      1000s? I drive a car to the store, not a tanker!

    14. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When we reach a point where disconnecting from the grid becomes feasible things will get interesting. Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

      You got it half right. Plenty of states allow you to choose who you buy your power from. When my parents lived in Texas they could. I believe that here where I live, I ordinarily could, except my town has its own municipal light department, so I can't. But the day is coming when I will be able to. In the mean time my rates are as low, or lower, than I could get if I had a choice, so I'm not losing any sleep over my lack of choice.

    16. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What could go wrong.
      Buy solar for the roof.
      Its free solar all day.
      Have city inspect the solar and the grid power company accept extra power.
      Buy a big battery.
      Have the battery inspected, approved and connected.
      Buy energy at consumer prices.
      Get a set low rate to sell solar back to the grid. Solar power not used is a credit for coupons, discounts, a very low set price?
      Sell "extra" battery power back at what the "free" market will pay.
      After all the big spending and not been paid much for the extra power every year the user will be in profit when?
      Pay back that solar and the big battery.
      The big battery last how many years of power in and out?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When we reach a point where disconnecting from the grid becomes feasible things will get interesting. Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

      That is the plan in parts of Europe and that is what some people in Puerto Rico would like to do. That is also why the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner, Republican heavyweights and representatives of the fossil fuel industry are hard at work drawing up plans for Puerto Rico to become a 'fossil fuel energy hub' for the entire Caribbean. What are you willing to bet that aid payments to rebuild Puerto Rico's energy infrastructure will be conditional on them being spent on fossil fuel power plants backed up by anti renewables legislation and the forced privatisation of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority? I particularly love this quote by Rob Bishop, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee: "Energy to Puerto Rico ... is going to have to be imported. Natural gas would be a brilliant way to do that.”. In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours. This bozo takes one look at that and concludes the only viable way of generating energy in a country that close to the equator which get that much sun is to import natural gas.

    18. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No there are many companies that build, own, and operate power plants and it is not a monopoly. The market changed over 2 decades ago with merchant generation and wholesale generators entering the market. Prior to that even with cogeneration plants using PURPA to build plants and sell power at avoided cost.

      Sorry but you are thinking of something that has been long gone. Most large utilities sold off their generation already. Only a few remain that own the plants and T&D.

    19. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

      I have half a dozen wires going to my home, plus several conduits. Several of those carry Internet. The only reason there aren't more options for other utilities is because of government-mandated monopolies, not natural monopolies.

      On top of that, power generation and distribution aren't one thing, they can be separated.

      Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but the underlying reality is that's just more middlemen taking a cut - usually with a % going back to said politicians.

      At best, you are arguing for a monopoly of the last mile wires; your arguments simply don't apply to generation and distribution in general.

      And even for government mandated monopolies, private ownership is still preferable to public ownership because it makes companies auditable, reveals their financials, lets anybody benefit from the company by investing in it, forces companies to survive without subsidies (or makes subsidies transparent), and can be replaced.

    20. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

      That's not off the grid then.

      The town where I live – pop 20K or so, about 5000 households – has its own municipal light department. We already have pretty much exactly what you describe. (Some of the adjacent towns have their own light departments as well; others are served by one or more commercial electric companies.)

      You don't have to be a small town to do this either. Los Angeles' DWP is a large scale example of this.

    21. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, Breitbart said it, so it must be true? Many states allow you to pick the generator that you buy your electricity from. My parents, when they lived in Texas, had a choice. I would have a choice if I didn't live in a town with its own municipal light department (and my rates are lower than anything I could choose if I did have a choice.)

      Here where I live there are dozens of generators, some solar, some wind, a lot of nat gas turbines, a couple of nukes (mostly soon to be shutting down), and hydro.

      I suggest you educate yourself, lest you look like a hick or a rube from a flyover state.

    22. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poorly engineered Lithium Ion batteries tend to be combustible.

      FTFY

      California tends to be prone to wildfires.

      Non sequitur. Lots of places have fire problems. California is not unique. And I don't think you can point to a single California wildfire that was caused by batteries.

      Well, Chicken Little, is the sky falling too?

    23. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive. You need to have sufficient generation capacity for the winter when daylight hours are short, which means you are greatly over-capacity in summer.

      Peak usage is in the summer because cooling is electrical while heating is predominantly fossil-fueled. In many areas, the production and usage line up much better than what you describe.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It is a monopoly unless and until the consumer makes his/her own electricity and stores it in his/her own battery wall. At that point you get a very competitive industry where many providers of solar panel packages, wind generators and battery walls compete to sell their products wherever they can market it which is pretty much anywhere that has a road network.

      Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive.

      What on earth does that response have to do with the comment to which you replied, which clearly said absolutely nothing about off-grid solar?

      Which do you think is cheaper: Sixty thousand little 100W rooftop wind turbines, or one 6MW monster of a commercial-scale turbine?

      Okay, let me just unpack just what a nonsensical example this is. First, and most importantly, we are talking about solar here and not wind. Your attempt to reframe the debate to be about wind when it is not is a cheap tactic. We are talking about solar. Second, with the recent proliferation of affordable grid-tie microinverters, the only cost disadvantage of residential solar is in installation. If solar is added to new home construction (as is going to be required in California) then that cost differential is minor.

      TL;DR: Your comment was disingenuous from stem to stern.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Generation is also a natural monopoly. The up front cost of building new plans is what determines that.

      Any dickhead with $400, solar exposure, and a free electrical outlet can set up a 250W grid-tie solar system, and any dickhead with a $5 used netbook can make ignorant posts to slashdot.

      Once upon a time, power generation was expensive to involve yourself with. Now, it isn't. You can get started on the micro scale for very little money.

      That's why you have all those failed nuclear projects - they would be economic but for ....

      ...the fact that the risk-reward ratio is too poor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Your peak usage maybe. Where I live, domestic air conditioning is a rare thing.

    27. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours

      That's nice. But you still need to account for the other 35%, and cloudy days, etc. Batteries are expensive. Solar is expensive. Handling peak demand is expensive. Despite all the subsidies to solar, fossil fuels are still the most efficient and reliable methods for energy.

    28. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      After all the big spending and not been paid much for the extra power every year the user will be in profit when?

      Yeah, exactly. The batteries are the killer. Dave Jones of EEVBlog gave a recent update on 5 years of solar panels down in Sydney, Australia. The panels are doing okay, and will pay for themselves in a few more years. Installing a battery would take decades, and that's assuming they kept their operating efficiency, which is dubious.

    29. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solar is becoming cheaper by the day and is soon to overtake even fossil fuels within the next decade. To forsake Solar for fossil fuels at this point, especially in the equator is completely foolish.

      Batteries are also getting more equip for the job thanks to companies like Tesla putting in the work. You can see how they have helped in other areas thanks to their batteries being able help smooth the power flow.

      If I were any nation along the equator, I would be looking very strongly into Solar power for my energy needs with potential wind to handle in shortfalls if I have anything near the ocean and batteries to offset that. The closer you get to the equator, the more viable those things are.

    30. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Solar is cheaper than NG, coal, nuclear. Solar with battery can easily compete with any fossil fuel.
      Here is a good comparison that shows its cheaper. This is from two years ago. Solar is much cheaper now.
      https://cleantechnica.com/2016...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    31. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Tesla's big battery in Australia will pay for itself in less than a year by outcompeting fossil fuel power plants to provide grid power (from wind).
      https://www.theguardian.com/te...
      https://futurism.com/teslas-au...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    32. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you smoking?
      electrical distribution is about as close as you can possibly get to a natural monopoly. What % of places have parallel electricity distribution networks? Every public electricity distribution system that has been privatised jacked up the price and the customers are always worse off. Why? It's obvious, because profits dummy.

    33. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong.

      Buy solar for the roof.

      Its free solar all day.

      Have city inspect the solar and the grid power company accept extra power.

      Buy a big battery.

      Have the battery inspected, approved and connected.

      Buy energy at consumer prices.
      Why would you do this? You have solar and can also buy power at low nighttime rates to charge your battery

      Get a set low rate to sell solar back to the grid. Solar power not used is a credit for coupons, discounts, a very low set price?

      Sell "extra" battery power back at what the "free" market will pay.
      Charge at cheap night rates
      Sell power at peak rates,
      Profit!

      After all the big spending and not been paid much for the extra power every year the user will be in profit when?
      If you can't make money on this you're doing it wrong.

      Pay back that solar and the big battery.

      The big battery last how many years of power in and out?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    34. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours

      That's nice. But you still need to account for the other 35%, and cloudy days, etc. Batteries are expensive. Solar is expensive. Handling peak demand is expensive. Despite all the subsidies to solar, fossil fuels are still the most efficient and reliable methods for energy.

      The 65% is high levels of sunlight, a large portion of the other 35% is partially cloudy skies. Solar panels do not stop generating energy just because there is no direct sunlight, plus, if you combine solar, wind, batteries and design the grid properly you can compensate for localised gaps in generation. At worst Puerto Rio could reduce it's reliance on NG by as much as 60-70%. Also, renewables are now as cheap as NG and in a place as sunny as Puerto Rico probably cheaper since solar panels are extremely efficient down there. Also there are billions being sunk into lithium mining and battery production so I expect battery prices to fall off a cliff over the next decade, plus, there are other ways to store energy than batteries.

    35. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Solar is cheaper than NG, coal, nuclear.

      From your link: "On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included."

      Yeah, that pesky peak demand and times when solar/wind just isn't there because the weather isn't cooperating.

      Solar with battery can easily compete with any fossil fuel.

      No, batteries are THE problem. They're very expensive.

    36. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Tesla and Musk is known for hype. We need a skeptical look at costs and capabilities before you can extract that solar/wind + batteries is now the solution going forward and fossil is obsolete. Tesla can't even deliver properly on their cars yet.

    37. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason there aren't more options for other utilities is because of government-mandated monopolies, not natural monopolies.

      Curse the government for supporting property rights!

      And even for government mandated monopolies, private ownership is still preferable to public ownership because it makes companies auditable, reveals their financials, lets anybody benefit from the company by investing in it, forces companies to survive without subsidies (or makes subsidies transparent), and can be replaced.

      In your world, private companies have open finances, investments, and don't demand bailouts?

      Because our world is different. The utilities with open records are public, they have meetings, and even votes to change their governance.

      Meanwhile, Enron...

    38. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only a problem until batteries get cheaper. As the market for electric cars grows, the secondary market for cheap used battery packs will also grow, to the point where their cells can be reused in a household battery.

      A cell that only holds 50% of its original capacity is no longer worth carrying around in a car, so it may sell for only 10% of its original price. That means that a home battery pack with the capacity of that in a Tesla car would be twice the size and weight, but cost one fifth as much. You can't have a battery the size of a refrigerator in your car, but you can easily have one in your house (between your roof and solar panels).

      Once the electric car boom has created a market for cheap used Li-Ion cells, having household batteries will become feasible for most people.

      dom

    39. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The 65% is high levels of sunlight, a large portion of the other 35% is partially cloudy skies. Solar panels do not stop generating energy just because there is no direct sunlight

      Huh, so I guess there's no significant nighttime in Puerto Rico. Interesting.

      plus, if you combine solar, wind, batteries and design the grid properly you can compensate for localised gaps in generation

      Yeah, so we keep on hearing. When the renewable market proves its efficiency and capability, it will happen without all the incessant claims.

    40. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don’t understand how it works. You also don’t understand the enormous costs of building those large power plants that you are assuming are cheaper. They are insanely expensive to build, insanely expensive to operate and maintain and insanely expensive to decommission at the end of their life. Solar and batteries are a fraction of the cost. And not to mention the whole carbon emission problem:)

    41. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Hate feeding the troll, but the one point nobody else called you out on is nuclear. Centralization is precisely the reason why nuclear doesn’t work well today. If you could build modular 50-250MW reactors today, and Co-locate multiple units close to demand where needed (and the neighbors agree), and you potentially have a modern solution.

      What distributed generation really does is help to remove transmission lines from being the main choke points in the system.

    42. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Xenocrates · · Score: 1

      There's something similar in the US. Retail electrical prices are regulated, and are kept at a limited profit margin based on investment and costs. Wholesale prices include a large number of generators, transmission operators, etc, and are constantly moving. Now, to protect the consumer from these rapidly fluctuating prices, and to allow the grid to be paid for, most residential and commercial customers are on fixed rate or time of use metering. Some kilowatts you get are much more expensive that what you pay, while others the utility is paid to take. Industrial customers will often enough purchase at wholesale or arrange other contracts (see Apple buying all renewable energy for it's operations)

    43. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Expensive is relative. A recent Tesla install of batteries, not even involving renewable, was used to smooth out demand, and the $55mil of batteries has saved $35mil in fuel in 6 months. Even fossil fuel power plants can benefit from batteries.

    44. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      When we reach a point where disconnecting from the grid becomes feasible things will get interesting. Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

      I don't know if there is any similar thing in GB, but there is a template here. In Mountainous PA, small villages pool money and build micro cable TV systems. The antenna system is on a local hill or mountaintop, and a few amplifiers get the signal to the valley, then distributed to the houses. I've seen some, and the quality ranges from very professional to amusing. But they can do it, and so can micropower grids.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    45. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours

      That's nice. But you still need to account for the other 35%, and cloudy days, etc. Batteries are expensive. Solar is expensive. Handling peak demand is expensive. Despite all the subsidies to solar, fossil fuels are still the most efficient and reliable methods for energy.

      So tell me, if these batteries are simply too expensive, talk to us about the cost of transferring natgas to an island - is that free? If another hurricane tears into P Rico again, and another Republican is president, is the NatGas going to continue after it is gone? You might look into where Solar and wind are these days.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    46. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "Why would you do this? You have solar and can also buy power at low nighttime rates to charge your battery"
      The battery power and solar may not cover all the energy needs 24/7 and have enough to export...
      Re 'Charge at cheap night rates Sell power at peak rates"
      Not every power company is going to allow that creative use of their grid network and ensure such payments to every battery approved home.
      Re "If you can't make money on this you're doing it wrong."
      No power company will allow a grid payment system that costs the power company money.
      So who pays for the exported battery power back to the grid? All other grid users have to pay for new battery power exports back to the grid? The grid users without a battery pay back the battery with a profit? The power company? Tax payers and a few levels of government?
      How much will the battery has to extract from the grid? The cost to buy the battery. The cost of the new replacement battery after some years constant use?

      Thats a lot of very expensive power to pay back in a short time to the grid connected battery owner.
      It works if all tax payers pay a lot. All other grid users pay a lot more. Someone has to pay for all that new battery power getting used and later battery replacement costs.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    47. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what Tesla's big battery in Australia does.
      Power is cheap at night and expensive during the day. It's called arbitrage.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    48. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      So tell me, if these batteries are simply too expensive, talk to us about the cost of transferring natgas to an island - is that free?

      Shipping is cheaper than you think.

      If another hurricane tears into P Rico again, and another Republican is president, is the NatGas going to continue after it is gone? You might look into where Solar and wind are these days.

      This statement is a non-sequitur. Basically, the entire electric grid of Puerto Rico was wiped out. Do you think solar+wind+batteries would have fared better? And what does a Republican president have to do with anything?

    49. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      A cell that only holds 50% of its original capacity is no longer worth carrying around in a car

      Electric cars with 150,000 miles still have about 90% of their rated capacity. Going to take a bit to get to 50%. Your point is spot on, but you should say something more like "80%". A car battery pack with 80% capacity can run most homes for 5 days. It's ridiculous how great these would be to just re-use.

    50. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Power prices go up to pay for trendy new battery power?
      Prices stay up to replace the next new battery as the battery has a set usage span.
      Pay for the first battery. Pay for the next battery.
      Thats not a way to grow jobs and ensure energy prices stay low.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    51. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive.

      It is also illegal in most jurisdictions where a grid connection is required unless you want your house condemned whether you need it or not.

    52. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Your peak usage maybe. Where I live, domestic air conditioning is a rare thing.

      We're talking about California (which isn't where I live).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    53. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Solar without batteries is cheaper than any fossil or nuclear power since a decade. Including batteries it is minimum 3 years now that solar is cheaper.

      You must be living under a rock.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    54. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that pesky peak demand and times when solar/wind just isn't there because the weather isn't cooperating.

      The GP talked about Puerto Rico. You might be interested to look on a map where that is.

      And then you might be bright enough to realize how less sense your statement makes.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    55. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, depends a bit how you define monopoly.
      In germany it is not. First of all we have 4 main control zones, operated by different grid operation companies. Then we have minimum half a dozen transport grid operators. And then most communities have their local grid by a local grid operator.
      And all those grids are required to accept transport or feed in for a reasonable fee by any market player. The maximum amount of the transport/feed-in fee is set by an government agency.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    56. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sell "extra" battery power back at what the "free" market will pay.
      Charge at cheap night rates
      Sell power at peak rates,
      Profit!

      That would be extremely dumb

      If you have a battery and solar power, you team up with others having a similar set up. That is called a virtual power plant. That is actually what the article/summary is about: balancing power

      Usually a 5 man company is enough to handle such a virtual power plant :D Germany has nearly a hundred of them.

      So, what is the trick? You get payed for loading your batteries!! If the grid has surplus power not only the price goes down for "ordinary customers", but you, as part of a virtual balancing power plant, get payed for sucking up the surplus power. Just like a pumped storage plant.

      Likewise you get payed when the grid needs power and the grid operator orders your virtual power plant to provide it.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    57. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Same thing.
      (BTW, it's "paid", not "payed")

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    58. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Solar without batteries is cheaper than any fossil or nuclear power since a decade.

      Bullshit.

      Including batteries it is minimum 3 years now that solar is cheaper.

      Bullshit.

    59. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The GP talked about Puerto Rico. You might be interested to look on a map where that is.

      Wow, you're pretty dumb. What would Puerto Rico's location on a map tell me about cloud cover for any particular day?

    60. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by mspohr · · Score: 1

      You really don't understand.
      The battery reduces the cost of electricity during peak times by providing cheap electricity that it stored off-peak. The result is cheaper power. This has been proven in Australia.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    61. Re: Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Payed seems to be an accepted alternative to paid.
      After all, the spelling correction does not underline it red.

      But thanks for the hint, I try to remember that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    62. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You really live under a rock? But you can say bullshit very good ;D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    63. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No one cares about the cloud cover of a particular day. Why would that be interesting if I want to plan for a solar plant?

      Insulting others as dumb when you actually never read anything about how solar power works and gets integrated into grids: that is dumb. Especially when raise the topic about wind and are to lazy to look on a map :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    64. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      No one cares about the cloud cover of a particular day. Why would that be interesting if I want to plan for a solar plant?

      The patent stupidity of this statement is beyond words. Congratulations.

      Especially when raise the topic about wind and are to lazy to look on a map

      What does Puerto Rico's location on a map tell me about wind? That's right, nothing.

    65. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 0

      You aren't intelligent enough to even parrot renewable propaganda credibly.

    66. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The patent stupidity of this statement is beyond words. Congratulations.
      You are an idiot. Hint: google how a solar plant is integrated into a grid ... then read a year or two.

      What does Puerto Rico's location on a map tell me about wind? That's right, nothing.
      Yes, you are an idiot. If you would least look on the map and then think 10 seconds, or a minute, you would most likely realize what looking on a map tells you. Except, you really are an idiot, but for that you type to well.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    67. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. Hint: google how a solar plant is integrated into a grid ... then read a year or two.

      People are talking about solar as if it is going to replace fossil fuels. In other words, cloudy days matter.

      If you would least look on the map and then think 10 seconds, or a minute, you would most likely realize what looking on a map tells you.

      The map tells me where Puerto Rico is located. You seem to think because it's an island that weather is constant, be it wind or solar. I'd tell you to learn to think critically, but I'm afraid you are a lost cause.

    68. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, it tells you it is an island?
      And mothing else?

      I guess you are a lost cause ...

      Are you able to describe the one condition under which that partiular island has no wind?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    69. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 0

      Wow, it tells you it is an island?
      And mothing else?

      Please, enlightenment me with your erudite map skills.

      Are you able to describe the one condition under which that partiular island has no wind?

      Wind is variable, even in relatively windy places. You haven't given any indication as to why you think wind blows 100%, outside of your own personal huffing and puffing.

    70. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They used to do something similar to parts of of the UK, but I don't know if they still do. I think satellite coverage fixed most of it.

      These days communal broadband is more common. Laying in fibre optic connections because British Telecom wants silly money to do it. Using wifi for some of the gaps and last mile stuff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    71. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      They used to do something similar to parts of of the UK, but I don't know if they still do. I think satellite coverage fixed most of it.

      These days communal broadband is more common. Laying in fibre optic connections because British Telecom wants silly money to do it. Using wifi for some of the gaps and last mile stuff.

      Over here, we have miles and miles of fiber strung on poles that was put in in the early oughts going through some pretty rural places. My county is just about saturated with fiber, but Its never been lit, and rural people are still using dial-up.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    72. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a waste. The UK doesn't have much fibre at all, or dial up any more. Anyone with a phone line can at least get 250kb ADSL.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    73. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I pulled your leg now often enough.
      If you don't feel the urge to google and enlighten yourself, that is your sad problem.

      To give you a small hint, I answer my own question:
      Q: Are you able to describe the one condition under which that partiular island has no wind?
      A: When the eye of a hurricane is over the island.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    74. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      If you don't feel the urge to google and enlighten yourself, that is your sad problem.

      First it was "look at a map", now it's "google". The "sad problem" is you.

      Q: Are you able to describe the one condition under which that partiular island has no wind?

      Really? So where's your 24/7/365 data on wind for Puerto Rico? Reliable power is built on data, not huffing and puffing by armchair propagandists.

    75. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The data is easy to google ...
      And if you had not skipped your geography classes in school, you would know that PR has not only every day enough wind but also an exceptional high average wind speed.
      Those things (like average wind speed per month, windy days per year) are all over the intternet, learn to use it instead of making yourself look dumb because you write nonsense.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    76. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The data is easy to google ...

      Which is why you don't do it yourself and back up your claims, right? It's not my job to substantiate your huffing and puffing.

      Those things (like average wind speed per month, windy days per year) are all over the internet

      Go ahead, make of fool of me. Post the data. But average doesn't count when talking about reliable power generation. 24/7/365. You won't post it, though. You'll either slither away or come back with more huffing and puffing.

    77. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I don't post you any data, you easy can google yourself.
      The point is not data anyway, but your ignorance.
      As I said before: you should not have skipped your geography classes in school, then you would know why PR always has wind :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    78. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      As predicted, more huffing and puffing, nothing to back up your claims. Too easy.

    79. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I made no claims, except that you have no clue about geography and - hu ho - wind.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    80. Re:Not sure if this is a good idea... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I made no claims, except that you have no clue about geography and - hu ho - wind.

      So you made no claims, except the claims you made. Real genius here.

  5. Worked in Oz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Admitted that was a dedicated system but peak charges can be orders of magnitude higher than bulk power so yes, it does make economic sense.

  6. MOD PARENT DOWN: PopeRatzo is trolling yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Once again, PopeRatzo shows he's a troll. The statement about California leading the way again is an attempt to incite conservative commenters who generally disagree with California's policies. Also, PopeRatzo has previously indicated that he lives in Houston. He is being dishonest when he implies that he lives in California. Even if he's recently moved to California, his statement imploring people not to go to California is then very hypocritical. To summarize, PopeRatzo is a troll and he's trolling yet again. His post should be moderated to -1 troll.

  7. I apologize to everyone... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I know this is off-topic, but I know of no better way to apologize to everyone for my behavior. I'm very sorry for my behavior on Slashdot and elsewhere.

    * One of my children asked me why I insult people, repost the same personal attacks repeatedly, and even make threats. This was a life-changing moment for me, knowing that my children can Google me and see how I act online. It's awful that they have to be embarrassed of their father's behavior online, and even worse that they might think my behavior is acceptable and imitate me. That affected me more than anything else, and convinced me I couldn't continue in my behavior.

    I want to apologize to Ash-Fox, Brockmire, Coren22, amicusNYCL, Ol Olsoc, BarbaraHudson, PopeRatzo, arth1, Zontar The Mindless, and all the other people I've offended. I can't undo my behavior, but I won't be repeating my past conduct. I've been attacking people like this for two decades and it's time for me to stop. I will post this comment a few times in different articles so as many people as possible can see that I'm apologizing to them. I will not, however, be reposting my comment and spamming articles when this off-topic comment is properly moderated to -1. I am truly sorry for my behavior, and I will also be apologizing to my family for how I've acted and embarrassed them. I have deserved every bit of the criticism that I have received and then some.

    I will continue to develop my hosts file software in hopes that it is useful as part of a comprehensive security solution. I want to be known for the quality of my software, not my vile behavior.

    I also apologize for my recent outbursts and alleging other users are impersonating me. I've done these things a few times even after posting my apologies. It is just hard for me to control my anger toward other users and unlearn 20 years of bad behavior, but I promise that I am trying. I greatly regret disowning my own apologies in other stories by claiming I was impersonated. The story about RobLimo's passing moved me, since he wasn't much older than I am now. I can't help but wonder and fear what other Slashdot users would say about me if I passed. I truly am sorry for my awful behavior, and I sincerely want to change and finally act my age.

    APK

    P.S.=> I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize to everyone who I have offended and attacked... apk

    1. Re:I apologize to everyone... apk by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      FAKE, it's grammatically correct and making sense! Better luck next time.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:I apologize to everyone... apk by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

      Go and sin no more.

      BTW, there is life beyond social media. I tell myself that as I think of punting Facebook.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
  8. AMO cold phase: Will CAGW survive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to see the alarmists continue to cry warming as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation shifts to the cold phase. It's like climate alarmism makes people ignore every other branch of science. It should be fun to see how the climate scientists justify their adjustments to the data. What's hilarious is the final minus raw data graph. The anthropogenic signal really stands out then! LOL and it's just like skeptics predicted: Adjust the past cooler and adjust the present as high as possible.

    1. Re:AMO cold phase: Will CAGW survive? by kanweg · · Score: 1

      I hate to bring it up, but there is only one reality. And it doesn't depend on your or my opinion at all, left alone on one's political or religious inclination.

      You will probably have an occupation different from mine. Do you think that I could do a better job than you do in your field? Do you think it is likely that I can validly point out that you're wrong and I'm right? Personally I don't think so. Now, there is not just one expert but there are thousands of experts in all fields relating to climate change. And your opinion differs from their's. Do I think it is likely that you are right and they are wrong? It is exactly like creationists. They believe that scientists are off by a factor of about 2 million when it comes to the age of the universe. And they know that for sure (despite any evidence).

      I think it is a moral imperative to be honest, and accept reality even if you don't like it.

      Bert
       

    2. Re:AMO cold phase: Will CAGW survive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought deniers already claimed we were cooling, our was it not getting hotter, or is it now it's getting hotter, but it well be getting colder real soon now? If it does start getting cooler, then climate scientists will adjust models and breathe a sigh of relief over a disaster averted. I am not a climate scientist, but I know one very well and have talked to many, and they'd be very happy to not have CAGW. An event like massive cooling due to AMO would keep them employed to retirement.

  9. Why do Americans shit their pants in Walmart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just don't know.

  10. Economics of scale. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They would have to compensate the home owners for the wear-and-tear on their batteries. And if you can make it work financially with small systems then you can do it cheaper per kwh on a large scale in a consolidated facility. Just do that.
    Anything you can do, your utility can do cheaper.

    1. Re:Economics of scale. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      That only works if your sole concern is kW/kWh. When you add reliability and contingency planning into the mix, decentralization can provide huge value.

    2. Re:Economics of scale. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you could just properly plan your home to be able to generate all its own power and not be wasteful. Usually this means including wind with the solar.

      This is nothing more than a cashgrab, is *bad* for the environment, and won't help anyone, except Elon get richer.

    3. Re:Economics of scale. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Assuming you live in California, how often do you lose power in your home - and for how long - such that this kind of promised backup (for $1300 to $1800) is a desirable feature? Remember, the consumer is paying $1300 up-front, or $1800 over time, and giving up a space inside the garage or other area of the home, for the pleasure of a backup system. Not for lower costs of power.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Economics of scale. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Centralization is bad. For example, there's still billions of photos on the Web that are still broken.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Economics of scale. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Now imagine the Star Trek fans. They need a battery backup and a secondary backup.

      Why, you ask?

      GILORA: Starfleet code requires a second backup?
      O'BRIEN: In case the first backup fails.
      GILORA: What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?
      O'BRIEN: It's very unlikely, but in a crunch I wouldn't like to be caught without a second backup.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Economics of scale. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have this already. Main power > UPS > Laptop/Smartphone/Tablet battery

    7. Re:Economics of scale. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, they only have to pay the home owners their marginal rate while in their own facility they pay the fully-allocated cost. The relative merits depend on what their utilization is like. The summary specifically mentions 'replace things like natural gas "peaker" plants need to help support the grid on a moment's notice"'so we already know the utility is looking to address the short-term variable portion of demand so a dedicated facility will have low utilization.

    8. Re:Economics of scale. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Bicycle generator.

    9. Re:Economics of scale. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Anything you can do, your utility can do cheaper.
      No he can't.

      And to do what you propose, a few hundred or a thousand solar+battery owners simply form a virtual power plant. For balancing power.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  11. financial sense for who? by ooloorie · · Score: 2

    But it's an open question whether it makes financial sense.

    You always need to ask who it makes financial sense for. It certainly makes financial sense for Tesla and the politicians they lobby.

  12. Re: MOD PARENT DOWN: PopeRatzo is trolling yet aga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not one mention of Professor Stefan Halper on any of the fake news sites this morning.

    I know!

    We have an honest-to-God, American hero who risked his career, if not his life, to collect evidence that a presidential candidate was conspiring with the "Evil Empire" (as President Reagan named them) to undermine our electoral system. I can't believe more people aren't talking about this man.

  13. Outsourcing to consumers? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

    This sounds like trying out outsource the cost of reliable power delivery to a subset of consumers. If you spend a lot of money to add batteries to a grid-tied solar system and you use those batteries to help balance the grid, you (the consumer) are paying to help the power company balance the grid. If it is just you (all of your neighbors don't also have battery systems), you end up paying more for the public power system then your neighbors do.

    Most solar systems are grid-tied and don't have batteries. Grid-tied is popular (way less expensive) because with off-grid you need batteries to store power for cloudy days and dark nights and you need a much larger system to gather enough power when it is sunny to store in the batteries for when it is not.

    Tesla, Enphase, and others are now offering battery systems that work in conjunction with grid-tied solar systems. These systems allow you to add some battery storage to your system. What is new with this model is that you can add just a portion of the battery storage you would otherwise need for a full off grid system.

    There are three reasons to add batteries to a grid-tied system, only two of which are of value to the end consumer. 1) Store power for use during a power outage - a whole house UPS. 2) Store power for time of use and cost optimization - store solar or utility power when power rates are cheap (off peak times), use the stored power during expensive (peak) times. 3) Provide reserve grid power for grid balancing - what the article is talking about. Of these things the first two are things that it makes sense for a consumer to invest in - they provide a benefit to the consumer for their investment. The last thing is a cost to the consumer that is really benefiting the consumer's neighbors and power company. This cost is disproportionate to your neighbors if you neighbors are not also investing. In addition, if you do 3, you will potentially reduce the potential run time of 1 and the dollar savings of 2.

    I suppose if the power companies offered significant discounts or other incentives to people who agreed to join their private batteries to the public grid it would be all good, but the cynical side of me thinks that it's an attempt to get a subset of customers to help pay for grid reliability that everyone should be paying for.

    1. Re:Outsourcing to consumers? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I suppose if the power companies offered significant discounts or other incentives to people who agreed to join their private batteries to the public grid it would be all good, but the cynical side of me thinks that it's an attempt to get a subset of customers to help pay for grid reliability that everyone should be paying for.

      If the power companies do not extract rents which should have gone to the customer, then they are doing it wrong. Investments in lobbying usually pay off by an order of magnitude more than any other investment.

    2. Re:Outsourcing to consumers? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      3) Provide reserve grid power for grid balancing - what the article is talking about. Of these things the first two are things that it makes sense for a consumer to invest in - they provide a benefit to the consumer for their investment. The last thing is a cost to the consumer that is really benefiting the consumer's neighbors and power company.

      That is complete nonsense.

      1) and 2) are super dumb!
      You go for 3) obviously! That is how you really make money.

      The problems with "idiots" like you is: you never ever even tried to grasp how a grid works.

      There are 3 kinds of balancing power plants:
      I) those that only provide power, e.g. gas turbines, fast reacting coal plants, that get powered up after the gas turbines
      II) those that provide power and suck up surplus power: pumped storage is a prime example
      III) those that only suck up power (surprised?), e.g. a refrigerated warehouse

      Guess what a Solar + Battery installation is? It is a type 2) balancing power plant. You get payed for charging the battery and you get payed for discharging it.

      If you try to beat that by buying yourself during low prices and selling yourself during peak times: good luck! (You can only sell to the local grid you are attached, too ... so you basically will never have a chance to make a profit if you handle all yourself)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Outsourcing to consumers? by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Guess what a Solar + Battery installation is? It is a type 2) balancing power plant. You get payed for charging the battery and you get payed for discharging it.

      If you get paid for storing and returning power to the grid AND that payment generates a profit even after accounting for the cost of battery installation, sure it's a good thing (I even said so much in my last paragraph). My point was that if you personally pay for this (the batteries) you are subsidizing the cost of a stable power grid (and subsequently if your neighbors are not also doing this, your aggregate cost for a stable energy source is higher than your neighbors.)

      If you try to beat that by buying yourself during low prices and selling yourself during peak times: good luck! (You can only sell to the local grid you are attached, too ... so you basically will never have a chance to make a profit if you handle all yourself)

      I said purchase and store cheap power and consume the stored power when purchasing power would be expensive. I didn't say sell stored power. I am talking about avoiding purchasing power at peak rates.

    4. Re:Outsourcing to consumers? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      My point was that if you personally pay for this (the batteries) you are subsidizing the cost of a stable power grid (and subsequently if your neighbors are not also doing this, your aggregate cost for a stable energy source is higher than your neighbors.)
      No you are not. The grid operator is. You and the grid operator go into a win - win position, your neighbours have nothing to do with that.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  14. The Zero Marginal Cost Society by happyfeet2000 · · Score: 1

    By Jeremy Rifkin. It's all in there. New big companies seem to be following it step by step. https://www.thezeromarginalcos...

  15. Electric cars could also act as power storage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric Cars could be charged using cheap off peak power that they could return during peak period for a price.

  16. Try not to be so dense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So - are you willing to pay $1300 to $1800 for a backup that may get used a few hours every day/week/month/year? Really?
    Do you have insurance? Why?
    Do you wear seatbelts? Why?
    Do you wear a helmet? Why?

    Are you still struggling with the whole concept of time and which way it points?