Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Reduces the Highest Electric Rates In the Nation (phys.org)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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/
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.
The sun us nit renewable.
The correct term is non-carbon energy