Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Renewable Energy Reduces the Highest Electric Rates In the Nation (phys.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the contrary-to-popular-belief dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Coal is the primary fuel source for Midwest electric utilities. Michigan Technological University researchers found that increasing renewable and distributed generation energy sources can save Michigan electric consumers money. As renewable energy technologies and access to distributed generation like residential solar panels improve, consumer costs for electricity decrease. Making electricity for yourself with solar has become more affordable than traditional electricity fuel sources like coal. However, as three Michigan Tech researchers contend in a new study, while utility fuel mixes are slowly shifting away from fossil fuels toward renewable sources, Michigan utilities, and U.S. utilities broadly, continue a relationship with fossil fuels that is detrimental to their customers.

In the paper, Prehoda and co-authors Joshua M. Pearce, Richard Witte Endowed Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, and Chelsea Schelly, associate professor of sociology, note that in the U.S., "70 percent of coal plants run at a higher cost than new renewable energy and by 2030 all of them will." The researchers provide a breakdown of savings per kilowatt hour by county that Michigan residents could achieve if they produce their own electricity with solar photovoltaic panels. The most significant impacts of distributed generation with solar are in the Upper Peninsula, where residential customers could see savings of approximately 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Assuming the average residential consumer uses 600 kilowatt hours of electricity monthly, this is a savings of $42 per utility bill. Downstate, the average savings per utility bill under the researchers' model is approximately $30 monthly. However, not all Michigan consumers can take advantage of the opportunity to self-generate, as some utilities are blocking additional net-metered distributed generation in their areas. The study has been published in the journal Energies.

81 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. another way to save money... by js290 · · Score: 1

    is to use less energy... Nicole Foss on renewables @AutomaticEarth http://bit.ly/2rzS5Pq

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:another way to save money... by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 1

      I sort of laugh at the savings of $30 when I look at my electric bill being $38. I could lower that by using less electricity, a single monitor instead of two. Certainly using my own solar system I could save up to $38. I live in Portland, OR, so it's pretty mild year round. In a green certified building I don't use A/C in the Summer, a window fan is enough, and occasionally need to open the window in the Winter as it gets too warm. We've been here for two winters and have never turned on the heater.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    2. Re:another way to save money... by js290 · · Score: 1

      I sort of laugh at the savings of $30 when I look at my electric bill being $38. I could lower that by using less electricity, a single monitor instead of two. Certainly using my own solar system I could save up to $38. I live in Portland, OR, so it's pretty mild year round. In a green certified building I don't use A/C in the Summer, a window fan is enough, and occasionally need to open the window in the Winter as it gets too warm. We've been here for two winters and have never turned on the heater.

      Compressed Earth Blocks: Why and How, Here and There... Warm in winter, cool in summer... https://youtu.be/IuQB3x4ZNeA?t...

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  2. The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The problem with the present developments is that the network infrastructure and baseline power sources have to remain in place to provide electricity when the sun isn't shining etc. There's going to be a lot of bankruptcies out there.

    1. Re:The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Power use has changed, demand no longer drives supply due to regulatory changes in the US power market companies can buy and sell demand which causes the demand curve to follow the supply curve rather than the traditional opposite.

      On top of that wind is typically complementary to solar in that they tend to operate when the other isn't. And storage is getting so cheap at this point that it's nearing the price where it's competitive with the spot power market prices.

      The 21st century power market is nothing like the one that existed in the 20th. People need to get over this and realize the market has changed. The assumption of the prior era no longer apply.

    2. Re:The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Solar panels and batteries require, roof space, square meterage, to function. They can only do so much in that space ie supply the residence reliably and TAX FREE (the money you generate by not paying electricity bills in entirely tax free income). You probably will generate a surplus, depending upon the efficiency of panels, the location and area of panels, which you can sell back to the grid.

      So that does the suburban home but it certainly means, higher density residential will simply lack the roof area to generate sufficient electricity, so they will need power off the grid, coming from suburban homes and their batteries. Probably have sufficient for low density commercial as well.

      Then you hit industrial and high density commercial and residential and their power will have to come from other sources, either renewable or preferable nuclear (we just have to stop burning shit as much as possible) and or by burning the gases produced by our sewerage, methane better to burn than to release to atmosphere, every effort made to collect as much as possible, why not, an environmentally expensive waste turned into energy.

      The idea that we should take into account persevering company profits based upon primitive wasteful and environmentally destructive profits, utterly INSANE, the quicker they are put out of business the better, especially after the climate change denial rubbish, not only put out of business but charged with crimes against humanity, for their insane psychopathic greed, privatise the profits and socialise the losses.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by Chas · · Score: 1

      Once we solve that...

      Okay. Solve it.

      Until then, you're simply blowing pie in the sky. Whereas baseline is a real concern.

      Remember, not every place can simply pump water uphill. Or build a bajillion flywheels, or set aside a few square miles to superheat containers of salt, etc.
      Worse, we simply CANNOT produce the amount of batteries that would be necessary at that level.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re: The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by Chas · · Score: 1

      It's also the only one that's 100% stable.
      It's also the only one that produces concentrated waste product.
      Whereas the rest simply blow byproduct out into the environment.
      And before you talk about wind and solar, where EXACTLY are those MEGATONS of End-Of-Life equipment going to go?
      LANDFILL. Because there's ZERO planning for recycling of the materials.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re: The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by Chas · · Score: 1

      non sequitur much?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      As more and more EV's come online they can become part of the storage solution. Its not an overnight thing.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    7. Re:The sunk cost of the network is going to HURT by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Actually it is not tax free. It counts as an improvement to the home, and so your (or our landlords) property taxes go up.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  3. Free riders ... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comparing PV kWh cost to current mains kWh cost doesn't tell the whole story. Currently the upkeep costs for the coal power plants is calculated into those prices. When enough people go PV, the upkeep costs will have to go into the connection costs instead ... whether you'll still be able to come out ahead then is questionable with current PV prices.

    That doesn't mean you shouldn't be a free rider and fuck the poor with higher electricity prices in the mean time of course, gotta look out for number one ... and you get to pretend you're doing it for CO2 too.

    1. Re:Free riders ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are very few states in the US that allow power companies to offload maintenance costs for the power plant into flat rate charges on the customer bill. Instead what will happen is that the per kwh cost of that coal power will rise and as it rises it will become even less competitive.

      Individually owned solar, ie rooftop solar, is already generally charged a monthly fee to cover the grid maintenance costs they are no longer contributing to as part of their power purchases but none of that money is ever intended to cover maintenance on a power plant, the very idea is counter to whole idea of how the power markets work in the US. Everyone pays for the grid, and you only pay for the power you use. Traditionally in the past both costs were rolled into one regulated power price but in the future the only way it will be fair is for these costs to be itemized out and billed separately.

    2. Re:Free riders ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Everyone pays for the grid, and you only pay for the power you use. Traditionally in the past both costs were rolled into one regulated power price but in the future the only way it will be fair is for these costs to be itemized out and billed separately.
      Done like this in Europe since decades.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Free riders ... by crow · · Score: 1

      Imagine if everyone had PV on their roofs to supply a net of 100% of their needs (including businesses). The power company would be left with utility lines to maintain, and they would have to buy power at night to provide power when the sun goes down (or pay for fuel if they own the plants). Thanks to net metering, the only fees homeowners pay is the monthly connection charge.

      This model will lead to the following sequence:

      • Very high monthly connection charges.
      • Severe time of use rates, such that the credit for power during the day is near zero while the cost at night is high.
      • Strong incentives for homeowners to also get battery systems to avoid pulling power at night and instead supply power at night.
      • Sufficient power from home battery systems to eliminate the power plants.
      • Many customers deciding it's not worth paying the monthly connection fee, and instead just using their battery all the time.
      • Utilities going out of business

      So where does that sequence break down? With EV charging, it's not practical to store enough power to charge your cars overnight, so the grid is still needed. Also some states (I believe Florida) it's illegal to not connect to the grid. And of course, many homes have too much shade to install solar panels, so they get left out.

      But following that logic is important for planning what the grid needs to look like in ten years. There will still be a lot of electricity flowing through it, but with both large-scale and home storage and generation, it will be a lot different from today.

      Some people argue that it's more efficient to have large scale solar farms and industrial storage facilities, but I think it makes the whole system much more resilient to have much of the generation and storage distributed. The question is then how will we pay for the grid once we get there, and how do we get there?

    4. Re:Free riders ... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'm in Oregon and I've had separate delivery and usage charges listed since my first apartment in the 1990s.

    5. Re:Free riders ... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You can't have the electricity from the PV make it to the wall outlets without having a grid-tied system. If you want to PV to battery, you have to use totally separate plugs.

      Switching by time of day is fine for hermits, but most households that's a complete non-starter. People want to use their wall plugs, and they don't want all their appliances to be flashing 12:00 twice a day.

      And so with a grid-tied system, your meter measures the flow both directions. During the hours you're generating a surplus, it goes out over the lines to your neighbors, and you get credited at wholesale rates, minus delivery. So about a quarter what you pay for delivered power, assuming delivery and usage costs are about the same, as is true locally. Then when the sun goes down, the power is flowing the other way.

      It is actually a bit better than that if you're using AC during the day, because the meter doesn't see the power you generate and use.

      So if every house has PV, then daytime AC is mostly from locally (neighborhood-level) power, nighttime still comes from what the utility sources, and there is still money to run the grid. They're making money off the daytime generation, because the neighbor that uses it still pays the full delivery + usage. So they actually end up with more money, rather than less. They do almost no maintenance from your generation, and it doesn't change what infrastructure the neighborhood has.

      For EV, that's a good use case for a non-grid-tied battery system. You can make that part one way if you don't generate enough to charge the car, and still have it pull what it needs off the grid. And if you do have a surplus, you just wait to send it to the grid until after you've charged the car.

    6. Re: Free riders ... by Chas · · Score: 1

      Build your own power grid.
      THEN bitch about grid providers.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:Free riders ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Don't you have a choice of energy suppliers in the US?

      In the UK you can pick. Obviously they don't hook their cables up to your house, they just sell you energy that they buy from generators and contribute some fixed amount towards maintenance of the grid. You can pick ones that, for example, only buy from renewable sources, or you can pick the cheapest.

      It's far from a perfect system, but it does mean that if your electricity supplier tries to jack up prices to cover some costs they have you can switch to a better one.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Free riders ... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Genuinely the free riders at this point are the coal plants. Utility solar and wind power is now usually cheaper than the marginal cost of coal; cheaper than the coal needed to make the energy, ignoring the cost of the plant. If you think about it, that means you would never want to use coal if you have any choice at all. And choices exist, wind, solar and gas (CCGT) are cheaper and CCGT can run for both base and peak demand and can start up and stop as needed, whereas coal can ONLY run at constant output for baseload generation.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    9. Re:Free riders ... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Imagine if everyone had PV on their roofs to supply a net of 100% of their needs (including businesses). The power company would be left with utility lines to maintain, and they would have to buy power at night to provide power when the sun goes down (or pay for fuel if they own the plants).

      What power company? If everyone has the ability to generate 100% of their energy needs, there is no need for a power company.

      So where does that sequence break down? With EV charging, it's not practical to store enough power to charge your cars overnight, so the grid is still needed.

      You are rather confused, aren't you? Either people have enough PV to supply 100% of their needs, or they don't. If they do, they don't need a power company. If they don't, they need one. At some point, it's quite possible that so few people need one that they stop existing.

      Over the last 20 years my electricity bills have been going down, and not only am I not cutting anything out of my life, I keep moving into bigger and bigger places and I have more electronics. 10 years ago I was in a 900 sq ft apartment. Now I'm in a 2400 sq ft house. My electric bill is lower now than it was back then. The next furnace and AC I purchase will be far more efficient than the current ones. The next appliances I buy will be more efficient. Next TV, next computer, etc.

      Currently, the average household energy expenditure in the US is about 900 kWh per month. I'm at half that, in a bigass house, with no real skimping on anything. Efficiency is half the battle when we're talking about going to renewables.

      Teslas can come equipped with a 100 kWh battery, which gets you 330 miles. The average person in the US drives about 13,500 miles every year. That's 41 charge cycles, or 4100 kWh every year, which is 341 kWh every month. That plus my current electricity usage doesn't rise to the level of what the average household is currently using.

      Lets say you have 2 electric cars, and my current electricity usage. That hits about 1200 kWh per month. Living in the upper midwest, it looks like I'd need a 13,140W solar system. Given a standard 320W panel, that's about 41 panels. Most homes top out at about 20 panels for rooftop solar, so that's going to require some creativity or a neighborhood solar park for the other half of the panels.

      But we're close even with current technology! That I could run my house and two electric cars on twice the available roof-top solar is fucking crazy!

      All it's going to take is another decade or two of solar PV innovations combined with more efficient everything, and I'm really not going to need to be tied to the grid. Nobody will really be. And I'm in the cold north, and not somewhere particularly good for solar! Everywhere south of here is going to get there far quicker.

      Today it's not quite doable. But we are tantalizingly close to being able to be self-sufficient in terms of energy use.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    10. Re:Free riders ... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The coal plants pay their dues by providing reliable power regardless, the question is who pays for power to be reliable. Will it increasingly be the poor who can't put the money aside to invest in PV?

      Or in Australia's case, who pays for power to be unreliable ... because the incentives don't adequately reward reliability. Something which can very easily happen with the interaction of poorly designed renewable incentive schemes and poorly regulated oligopoly electricity companies. Australia is just ahead of everyone else.

  4. Except rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in the "greenest" areas are among the highest. Cal is quite high and rates in austin have been rising quickly. Then you have Hawaii and they got hammered again when their green geothermal got lava'ed.

  5. Save money 24/7? by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Troll

    By having energy production only when the sun is usable? When the wind in not too slow, not too fast?
    Productive export jobs need 24/7 low cost energy all year.
    No stopping and starting production lines due to the cost over power every day.
    Not strange new energy cost for a few hours every day.
    With new changes to energy prices at night.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Save money 24/7? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      The cost of non-renewable backups are never figured into the renewable plans. It's just assumed they'll be there. So it's an actual, real-life cost that is required to make a solar/wind supply work - and it's ignored because it already exists... The reality is that solar and wind is a cost in addition to the existing fossil (typically gas and coal) energy supply - but it's never really calculated that way.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Save money 24/7? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The cost of non-renewable backups are never figured into the renewable plans. It's just assumed they'll be there.
      Because they are there. You don't to build new power plants to have "back up". You already have them ... you are silly.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Save money 24/7? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So CO2 and other pollution spewed out by coal and gas plants to back up solar/wind is not counted? The externalities are dropped? That is silly. It's like saying because you already own a few pairs of shoes, you no longer need to budget for shoes. If coal and gas are integral to the deployment of renewables, then costs related to those coal and gas plants must ALSO be considered in the costs of renewables. Flat out.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Save money 24/7? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're going in circles, but you haven't noticed that those plants already exist and that means you don't need to double-count them.

      I understand, you hate hippies. You've always hated hippies. Green power is hippie shit. But still, that doesn't mean you get to double-count the extant power plants to blame them on the hippies.

    5. Re: Save money 24/7? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Where are the cost factors for disposal of End Of Life wind turbines and solar panels?

      Oh wait. There aren't any?

      How about the recycling plans?

      Oh wait. There aren't any?

      Know what that means?

      LANDFILL.

      You wanna talk about environmental damage?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:Save money 24/7? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they didn't just pop into existence magically.
      A portion of the ammortized cost STILL has to be factored.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:Save money 24/7? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I'm not double-counting them. What I'm saying is that you cannot ignore them in the quantification of impact of renewables. It's like only counting the calories in the crust, not the filling, of your pie. Can renewables reliably support power generation without them? No? Then they are necessarily part of the renewable strategy - and have to be included in any cost/benefit analysis.

      If you need fossil fuel plants to backup - then any costs associated with that backup when it's run must be included in your analysis. Otherwise you're ignoring actual costs of your system. Can't do that if you want to be consistent and logical. Hippies or not.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Save money 24/7? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      If coal and gas are integral to the deployment of renewables, then costs related to those coal and gas plants must ALSO be considered in the costs of renewables. Flat out.
      Do you have mental problems? No, the cost of already existing coal plants have nothing to do with the switch to renewables.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Save money 24/7? by careysub · · Score: 1

      This is how the situation is going to play out over the next decade, because this is what is already happening and the coal producers have already factored into their business plans:

      Natural gas is replacing coal everywhere, and will complete the coal phase out around 2030. The coal industry has not only not been bidding on new coal leases for several years, they have been returning ones they already have because they know they will never mine the coal in them. Except for metallurgical coal (the use of which is also declining) there will be no demand for coal, or use for electricity production.

      The current rate of wind and solar deployment is 1% a year of total capacity, and renewable production in 2020 will be 20%, the same as nuclear. In 2030, and this is just with current trends, the grid will be 50% non-carbon emitting and 50% natural gas (which in modern combined cycle plants emits roughly half the CO2 of coal).

      In attempting to replace all CO2 emission from the grid you do hit a problem when the proportion of non-nuclear, non-hydro power exceeds 80% (that is to say, the present mix of 20% nuclear, 8% hydro and with 58% solar/wind, 86% of all power generation is non-carbon emitting) due to the periods where weather conditions over the entire North American continent conspire to create inadequate insolation and wind for a period of more than a day (up to that point shipping power in HVDC lines can handle it).

      What to do then? Notice that we are talking about a time a few decades out now, if we increase the current rate of wind and solar deployment to 2.5 times the present level we reach that point in 2040. So even with a greatly accelerated deployment LynwoodRooster's "the renewable sky is falling" rants don't even become an issue for 20 years.

      If we then go to 100% non-carbon emitting for regular production, then the 72% from wind and solar would need supplemental power 20% of the time - from either excess wind and solar capacity, storage... or natural gas backup. This last one does not take you to 100% non-carbon emitting, but as a cheap half-way measure, as part of the mix, it gets you a lot closer while advanced storage options are deployed over time. We can then consider the cheapest ways to phase out this last bit of fossil fuel power.

      Also notice that the natural gas plants and pipelines that have been already built, but phased out of regular production. If half of that that last 20% of 72% is natural gas, then we are down to 92.5% total non-carbon-emitting power, without any sky having fallen.

      And we can expect some pretty good storage options to be available over the next 30 years. Sodium ion batteries which are under development, the cheap abundant cousin of lithium ion batteries, look quite promising.

      Natural gas is in the process of replacing coal. That cake is baked. Replacing natural gas will then be the challenge, but it can be reduced to a small fraction of total annual production, without even having to pull in storage technologies, and that not for maybe 30 years. In reality storage will be deployed much sooner than that at some level, and eventually natural gas can be taken out entirely whenever we decide to spend the money to do it.

      See Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States, Matthew R. Shaner, Steven J. Davis, Nathan S. Lewis, Ken Caldeira (Energy & Environmental Science, 2018; DOI: 10.1039/c7ee03029k) for an analysis of the effects of renewable production variability. Their analysis is based on only wind and solar grids, ignoring existing conventional hydro and nuclear entirely.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Save money 24/7? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      But not into the costs of the renewables, it is just cost for power plant owner. He has to see himself where to put them. The only argument you could make: if he never had the coal plant in the first place and not its associated costs, then he could sell power even cheaper.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. Lower cost with higher renewables? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Informative

    How did they break the trend of electricity costs increasing with deployed renewables that has struck all other nations?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      How did they break the trend of electricity costs increasing with deployed renewables that has struck all other nations?

      Yay, another guy trying to disprove decades of work by thousands of climate scientists by liking to a single climate skeptic's blog.

    2. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      By avoiding citing that they're doing renewable energy at all, so the companies can't use it on the marketing to increase the price?

    3. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      The optimum mix of generation is a mix.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    4. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Where are the numbers wrong? The sources of data are shown, and it's a scatter plot of countries showing cost of electricity against installed solar/wind per person. Data is data - if you don't like it, you don't get to ignore it. Unless you want to be unscientific?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Europe has winter all over, a bit of wind somewhere isn't enough unless we have orders of magnitude overcapacity.

    6. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Europe has winter all over, a bit of wind somewhere isn't enough unless we have orders of magnitude overcapacity.
      What is that supposed to mean? Many typos?
      Yes we have still winter ... and hence we have a lot of wind!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Whenever my utility invests in renewable generation, which they've been doing for decades, the rates go down relative to rates in states that didn't do that sort of investment, and relative to prior rate predictions.

      Maybe your blogger is just full of shit?

    8. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      For those of us with public utilities, it is the opposite; when they're marketing renewables it means the prices are going down.

      Probably because their books are public, and if there is money left over at the end of the year, nobody gets to take it home! They just lower the rates the next year. Or more realistically, defer increases due to inflation.

    9. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Chas · · Score: 1

      By ignoring cost structures that are inconvenient to recognize, and completely blow their premise out of the water.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    10. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Nuclear (where it makes sense), Geothermal (where it makes sense), Hydro (where it makes sense) for baseline power.
      Augment with various forms of wind, solar and storage (and if worst comes natural gas) to handle peaking.

      Places like California, where nuclear (in EARTHQUAKE COUNTRY) is a dumb idea. Places like this could become havens for grid-scale renewables and storage.
      They could then bring baseline power in from out of state, and sell peaking capacity back out in a form of grid-scale (or inter-grid scale) net metering.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    11. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What is your utility?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You should take a look from Michigan over to Ontario. Where the utility investing in renewable(PV and windmills), put the prices of electricity through the roof. So much so that the previous government took out future bonds to off-set the price because it became such a hot-button issue for the upcoming election they thought that buying people off with more debt was the way to win.. When do those bonds come due? About 7 years give or take a little bit. At my place in Florida, I belong to a electrical co-op and have yet to see a price per-kWh over about 0.053 at peak. Compared to the 0.185kWh during all peak that's one hell of a difference. Especially since nearly 40% of the entire population of Canada lives between Windsor and Ottawa.

      This of course gets worse, because Ontario sells electricity to the US at a loss. And when it's bought from the US, sometimes it's double the market production rate. Bonus points for naming the government that created that shitshow too.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's wrong because it's arse about face, as the Australians would say.

      Is it the case that countries deploying renewable energy see costs go up, or is it the case that countries with expensive electricity are the first were renewables are cheaper than the alternatives?

      If a country has to import a lot of coal, or subsidise a lot of nuclear, or even rely on oil for electricity, then it's going to be one of the first to switch to renewable energy which will be cheaper. As the costs for renewables come down other countries that are not properly accounting for their true energy costs will reach the point where wind and PV are cheaper too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Time. I mean sure if you're going to use data and talking points built up from last decade mixed in some garbage data (Australia's electricity price had nothing to do with renewables as much as deregulation, god plating, and the government fucking up the market) you can make the trend say anything.

      Do you own a computer? Here let me show you a graph from the 80s which proves that computers are only available to the top 1%... because we all know prices are fixed across time.

    15. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The data is from 2016 - and most of the data is NOT from Australia. Explain all the other countries on the graph, then. Especially Germany and Denmark who loudly trumpet their wind power initiative.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Michigan is a region where the utility companies are closely tied to the coal companies, you're not describing economic effects you're describing market manipulation. Duh.

      Bonus points for not being mealy-mouthed with a secret political agenda you encourage people guess at.

    17. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The type where I vote on the commissions who run it, the books are public, and if they have money left over at the end of the year, nobody gets to run off with it.

    18. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Can you share the name of the utility, since the books are public?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      When you have low wind area (ie. dunkelflaute) covering 90% of your wind turbine generating capacity, the remaining 10% still has to be generate 100% of the required power.

      So just because the wind always blows somewhere doesn't necessarily help, unless you're willing to pay for tremendous overcapacity under optimal conditions.

    20. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      unless you're willing to pay for tremendous overcapacity under optimal conditions.
      This what we actually are willing to do, and are doing.

      And Germany wide flautes are basically impossible.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why do you ask?

    22. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Would love to be able to tell my local utility how to constrain costs, like yours.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re:Lower cost with higher renewables? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      My community did that 100+ years ago, by voting. There is a known formula.

      The city across the river has a totally different public utility. They have slightly lower rates, but also slightly older equipment; because their community is a little poorer and tells them to prioritize low rates first. My community tells them to prioritize uptime first, rates second.

      The rural areas outside of town have a third public utility, with their own needs.

      Other cities in the region have their own utilities. The public utilities always have lower rates, better uptime, and faster response to problems.

  7. Re:Solar at night? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since electrical power usage tends to peak during the daytime, the solution is to use solar electricity during the day, and sell the excess to the grid, and then use grid electricity during the night.
    The grid benefits by not having to generate as much peak power, and you benefit from having the grid power during the night, when there tends to be excess power available.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  8. I'm not really buying your source by rsilvergun · · Score: 2
    It includes such gems as this:

    Ask anyone and get confused: It’s poles and wires, gaming of the system by capitalist pigs, excessive taxes, privatization, and record gas prices.

    I'm just sensing more than a wee bit of bias. To be honest I can't be bothered to check his sources in detail for a /. post. Next time find better base sources.

    Anyway, as for why it works, I can't speak to Australian but here in the States we've been pulling subsidies to Coal mining and plants while simultaneously making them clean up their messes. We've also allowed lawsuits to go forward when their poison rivers with sludge and poison miners with poor dust control. We even put one of their CEOs in jail for unsafe mines just because he knew they were unsafe (go figure).

    Basically, when the cost of coal isn't pushed off to the workers and the people living near the plant and mines it's not nearly as economical. Add to that Natural Gas taking over coal's niche in making electricity on a cloudy days in December and it's kind of a no brainer. Eventually nuke will probably take over Gas (there are zero emissions gas plants though, so that might take a while) too.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Fixed cost of solar too by tomhath · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't explain how the monthly savings are calculated. The dollar amounts they quote certainly wouldn't cover the installation cost of solar panels (before subsides of course, since they don't change the cost of the installation).

    1. Re:Fixed cost of solar too by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Making electricity for yourself with solar has become more affordable than traditional electricity fuel sources like coal.

      The above quote is utter BS. I really have to wonder where such claims come from.

      Among other things not mentioned, is the fact that now that China has cornered the market on photovoltaics, the Chinese government is ceasing its massive subsidies and prices will be going up. Way up.

      Gee, who'd have thought? (Actually lots of people, and we were hardly quiet about telling others... most of whom refused to listen.)

      In this part of the U.S., solar is completely useless for a very significant part of the average year. I'm talking like 30%.

      And nobody ever seems to talk about the cost of local storage, or the ludicrously expensive interface gear you need to buy to hook to the grid.

  10. Re:Solar at night? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure about Michigan, but in more ideal areas of the USA, renewable + batteries is cheaper than coal. And the cost is dropping fast.

  11. Stop calling it renewable by rossdee · · Score: 2

    The sun us nit renewable.

    The correct term is non-carbon energy

  12. Profits aka viability by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    It's not about 'preserving profits', it's about ensuring that there's money to keep the service alive at all. If we reduce the demand for baseload provision to the point where it's no longer rational for companies to provide it, there will be times when the electricity supply fails. Yes, for a period it will be profitable for existing power stations to carry on rather than close, but they will wear out and not be replaced. Perhaps forms of storage will save us - but it's not inevitable.

  13. Re:Solar at night? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Renewable?

    Sure!

    Renewable + batteries?

    Uh. Debatable.

    And how many people have (or are able to finance) the $10-40K for such a system? Or more as solar subsidies go away.

    Grid-scale solar?

    Sorry, NOT cheaper. And grid storage at those levels are HIGHLY situational.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  14. Re:In my sunny state Solar money didn't make sense by Chas · · Score: 1

    They're deploying on rooftops in California in and around the area of the Tesla HQ.
    They're still DEFINITELY in "testing" phase (hence why all the installs are so close to home and being monitored regularly).

    It's a neat idea which isn't ready for worldwide deployment at this point.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  15. Re:Solar at night? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Nobody in that situation seems to have a problem financing a huge, gas guzzling, pickup truck.

    (which will then be mostly used to drive a single person around).

    --
    No sig today...
  16. Re:Solar at night? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    How does one get power at night? Wind you say? How about at night with no wind. yes that happens.

    Coal has a bit of an advantage then. There is always natural gas I guess.

    Are coal and gas the only alternatives on your "base power" list?

    I think I see the problem...

    --
    No sig today...
  17. Re:Solar at night? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Oh wow.

    So pointing out the fact that the math is wrong automatically has people reaching for coal rollers...

    Never mind that someone can also use the same money to finance a hybrid or a pure electrical vehicle too.
    Or a fuel-efficient ICE vehicle.

    Or they could go out and spend a couple grand on a beater and just drive it into the ground and bank the rest.

    Most people NEED to be able to get to work. And public transit isn't always an answer.
    Most people also have OPTIONS on where they get their power from.

    And, right now, purely renewable energy is NOT the cheaper option. Reality. Not cooked numbers.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  18. Re:You're a sexless moron Chas. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Sorry? Why should I give a shit what a dickless AC has to say?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  19. Re: Hey faggot Chas... guess what? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Wow. Such a BRAVE AC!
    Talking SO tough!
    SUCH a badass!

    *SNERK!*

    Seriously, all you're doing is regurgitating decades-old bile against the energy sector.
    You're pissed because they aren't simply pulling unlimited free, clean energy from their asses.

    Boo fuckin' hoo.

    Welcome to REALITY kiddo!

    And, unlike you cowardly little ACs, I DO want to pay for things.

    Border walls.
    Nuclear power.
    A decent education.

    But you want everything given to you.
    And you've invaded enough institutions with your idiocy that simple, sane requests like these WITH AN OFFER TO PAY, is met with "No no no! You can't do THAT! Because we said so!"

    Fuck you.

    You couldn't handle me.

    We'll do whatever we want.

    Yeah. Keep telling yourself this.

    Out tax dollars built the grid

    Not true. The institutions running the grid have been private from the start.

    But, assuming it WERE, then you should have no problem coming up with the billions it takes to build yourself out a parallel grid and run it in your cockeyed fantasy of "fairness".

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  20. Re: Solar at night? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    Oil and Gas are not batteries, they are single use.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  21. rate reasons by Vanyle · · Score: 1

    is coal getting more expensive because of technology or regulation? it seems dishonest to compare technologies using modified numbers.

  22. Pretend? by DogDude · · Score: 1

    you get to pretend you're doing it for CO2 too.

    Why, because nobody really cares about CO2? Just because you're a selfish, cynical asshole, doesn't mean that everybody else is. I'd be happy to pay a lot more for power if I could get it from solar or wind.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  23. Re:How are coal and wood not renewable? by careysub · · Score: 1

    One year, a hundred million years, what's the difference? Its all just "years". Exactly the same. Yeah, right.

    In rough, round numbers we are burning oil a million times faster than it formed. Same with coal.

    Do you think you are "renewing" your bank account when you put back one penny for every $10,000 you spend?

    Oh, and wood is currently maxed out as a source of energy production, at about 1% of total world energy.

    So solar panels are not "renewable" because it is humans that renew (make) them? Unlike coal power plants that grow out of the ground by themselves?

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  24. Re: Solar at night? by mprindle · · Score: 1

    The grid has always required some type of base load to provide the minimum amount to service customers and to keep the frequency at 60hz. Historically this has been coal. With more and more solar and wind coming online the mininum base load keeps reducing. While not currently a perfect solution, battery storage is quickly becoming a contender to provide that base load with inputs from wind, solar and peeking gas plants. See the latest trial that was run in Australia with a Tesla battery. The ROI was very high and from the reports it provided a very fast reacting stable base.

  25. Correlation != Causation by Brannon · · Score: 1

    If A is correlated with B then it either means A causes B, or B causes A, or C causes both A & B.

    So if a study shows that people who drink diet sodas are fatter it either means that diet soda makes people fat, or being fat makes people start drinking diet soda, or some third thing causes people to both be fat and drink diet soda.

    The correlation your study is pointing out is that countries with higher energy costs have a higher proportion of renewables. This either means that renewables raise energy costs, or countries with high energy costs are more likely to invest in renewables, or some third thing causes both (i.e., in first world countries everything costs more, and they're more likely to be leading the way on renewables).

    How's that for scientific?

  26. Re:You pointed out bubpkiss, bumpkin. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Get your terminology straight kid.

    Wind turbines and solar panels are RENEWABLE. Anyone who knows how they're made (and how they'll eventually be disposed of), as well as the ecological damage they do can tell you they're ANYTHING but "green".

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  27. Re:Already solved!!! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Yep!

    And how far along is that grid-scale flywheel tech?
    And how are we supposed to do that in the flats of the central US? A few trillion in concrete and then megatons of dirt for every artificial reservoir?
    Yep. Melt salt. Google up "Ivanpah fire". Also, look up the sheer number of birds and bats killed by such schemes. Oh yes, and let's NEVER talk about the sheer amount of land use and ecological damage wrought!
    The grid isn't a fucking battery! They have to have the storage capacity available or you're basically just paying them to ground out the excess capacity.
    Yes, batteries. EXPENSIVE batteries with a limited life cycle which we quite literally DO NOT HAVE the capacity to manufacture or capital sufficient to pay for.

    And your :rule of thumb" is why you get brownouts and blackouts. You don't plan for things like quiet, windless nights.
    You ALSO don't plan for wilder weather where it's cloudy and so windy you HAVE to shut a wind turbine down to prevent it from ripping itself apart. (Yeah. They have a maximum safe utilization factor.)

    The other thing you're missing is that the US has PASSED peak grid-scale hydro. Mainly for the ecological damage it creates.

    Micro-hydro has some local promise. But at grid-scale, it's insignificant.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  28. Stop being needlessly pedantic. by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    Do you honestly think you're going to change the common usage of that word?

    It's renewable unless you bring in billion-year timescales which are simply not relevant in this context.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson