Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities • Hacker News Board

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#51

Post by sophacles » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:09 PM UTC

criley wrote: post #31

sophacles wrote: post #18

I work in this space. I think it is worth noting that, yes this is true for some players, particularly at middle management and executive levels. However it is equally work noting that some of the resistance is just conservative engineering. Would you just grab the latest 0.1 release of the hot new database and throw it up on your production systems because everyone keeps talking about the promise of it? This is a re…

Excuse my ignorance (I am a layperson and simply interested in this subject), but are you suggesting that the utility themselves would rollout distributed solar to their customers, and thus the utilities engineers are skeptical of the technology and how it would be rolled out? It seems to me that the whole point is that consumers will begin the rollout themselves, generating and storing power on their own and the onl…

I was not talking about the completely off grid case at all. Maybe I misunderstood the article. I was talking in terms of grid-connected solar installs, which I feel just make more sense. What happens if you get a cloudy week? You have no power until the sun shines again... or have to fire up your inefficient generator (the existence of which may in fact negate any savings anyway... because price and inefficiency at small scale of generation). It could be my bias showing too... I'll admit that.

However, there are interesting regulatory consequences here. Various levels of government have regulations in place that are designed to protect the consumer, but also put a strain on utilities. In a very large number of places, the power company is only allowed to charge a certain rate or less. This rate is partly based on building out the infrastructure for all houses, businesses, etc in the region, and assuming certain usage values. They are also required to make power available to anyone in those areas. They are also required to provide power under certain conditions, regardless of the customer paying (e.g. they can't shut off power in the winter in many places, because that could kill someone). The utility being constrained by the rules in these places must figure out how to operate profitably (being a publicly traded company in many cases) with these constraints. So, if suddenly everyone starts going off-grid, they are still required to sell at a certain rate or lower, still required to be able to provide power to everyone, and being told that they can't necessarily charge enough for that service, because a lot of people will just go off-grid.

It is a sticky situation, and until operating models and regulations can be worked out to account for wide-spread off grid people, it is kind of a catch-22 for everyone. I don't want my power to go out because the utility can't afford maintenance because they can't charge me what they need to for reliable service, because half of my neighbors are off-grid now.

Basically, the question is: if you were under regulation to act a certain way, and those regulations were based on assumptions, wouldn't you be against allowing behavior that breaks those assumptions without a change in your regulatory responsibility?

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#52

Post by criley » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #48

criley wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! But in that paradigm, where you generate 80%+ of your needed energy and rely on the grid for the rest, how does that affect the utility? The only difference to them is that you draw less power than you used to. Sure, it would benefit them to learn your habits so they can manage steady power delivery at scale, but they don't get a say in your solar rollout. They don't get to prevent it. They don't get to be skept…

But what if you generate 110% of your electricity needs? You would push out more power than is coming in, sometimes literally running the meter backwards.

Are we saying that there is no way to prevent power from going backwards back to the utility?

I figured what you generated went directly to your storage system, you drew from your storage system OR the grid, or some third part intelligently drew from the grid or your system as necessary.

Is it functionally impossible to have solar panels that don't "run the meter backwards?" Because I can see how that would threaten the infrastructure that wasn't designed for it.

I mean, I see places like Apple generating all their electricity on location for their new planned office and using the grid as backup. Is Apple sending their excess power back to the utility? Totally different scale, I'm well aware, but just curious.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#53

Post by tedsanders » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #23

ck2 wrote: post #8

I doubt most people can afford enough solar and battery storage to power all the air conditioning needed for the longer, hotter summers we are having. We'll just use less coal which is a great thing, until the coal industry starts getting subsidies to stay alive in a few decades (which is certainly going to happen considering their political power). Grid-tie is a much better answer for people and utilities though. So…

While you may doubt, I am quite confident. Forklift batteries are readily available and not terribly expensive. Heavy, yes, but you weren't going to put the batteries on your roof for a bunch of other reasons anyhow.

How not terribly expensive are forklift batteries? I imagine they're similar to lead acid golf cart batteries, which if I recall cost roughly $250/kwh. They're still too expensive compared to natural gas backup.

-A former utility employee

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#54

Post by tedsanders » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:13 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #17

Ironically widespread availability of solar power could lead to increased pollution. Purely hypothetically, if somehow it became popular for people to generate some, but not all, of the power they need from solar panels then perhaps people would pay less money to the power companies. Power production becomes less profitable and there's less demand for expanding supply. Meaning that the cheapest power production that…

Peaker plants are typically natural gas, not coal. Coal plants are very large, very capital heavy, and cannot be adjusted as finely. (At least in California/USA. I can't comment on other parts of the world.)

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#55

Post by sophacles » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:13 PM UTC

dmckeon wrote: post #9

More like: business model of utilities disrupted by distributed energy resources. Also, peak demand in CA is at 9 pm, not noon: https://www.caiso.com/outlook/outlook.html The underlying problem is the mismatch between the old business model: Generate, distribute, and deliver electricity; charge for connection to grid and for electricity delivered and consumed. and the new situation: Generate *or* purchase electricity…

You are missing one giant term in the equation: utilities are subject to a shitload (technical term) of regulation. Of course they are opposed to the changes in the assumptions behind those regulations, without a carefully considered change to the regulations such that they can repsond to disruption, and therefore have an actual chance of surviving/pivoting/whatever.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#56

Post by tedsanders » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

madaxe wrote: post #27

How long before the utilities (likely successfully) lobby to make PV/DER illegal, I wonder. Soon, I'd wager. As I see it, the purpose of this report is FUD, which is usually the opening move of any protectionist initiative. Edit: alternately, they'll push to tax it to high hell, or at least argue that they own sunshine (like water utilities do over rainwater collection) and should therefore be paid by PV users.

I think that's an unfair and cynical view of the goals of utility companies. Some utilities may lobby to make distributed PV illegal, but I believe only to protect people and the integrity of the grid.

-A former utility engineer

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#57

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:22 PM UTC

I wonder when CSP tech is going to be talked about in the mainstream. It seems like when it comes to solar, people just think of PV.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#58

Post by drpgq » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 7:42 PM UTC

sophacles wrote: post #18

I work in this space. I think it is worth noting that, yes this is true for some players, particularly at middle management and executive levels. However it is equally work noting that some of the resistance is just conservative engineering. Would you just grab the latest 0.1 release of the hot new database and throw it up on your production systems because everyone keeps talking about the promise of it? This is a re…

I live in Ontario, which through some poor green power policies has really expensive power now. In response, I've reduced my power usage, plus I'm often in Germany for large periods of time. Now I'm starting to notice that the connection charge is on its way to dominating my power bill. I guess this is where the future is going.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#59

Post by msandford » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 8:08 PM UTC

tedsanders wrote: post #53

msandford wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may doubt, I am quite confident. Forklift batteries are readily available and not terribly expensive. Heavy, yes, but you weren't going to put the batteries on your roof for a bunch of other reasons anyhow.

How not terribly expensive are forklift batteries? I imagine they're similar to lead acid golf cart batteries, which if I recall cost roughly $250/kwh. They're still too expensive compared to natural gas backup. -A former utility employee

Here you can find a 24kWh 48VDC "industrial" battery (forklifts being the primary use) at around $190 per kWh. http://gbindustrialbattery.com/Forklift_Battery_Sizes_and_Sp...

They are more expensive than natural gas backup if you buy them new at retail. But these things get un-useful in an industrial setting quite regularly while still retaining quite a bit of utility for people who just want medium term household energy storage.

Would it be practical for EVERYONE to buy these things up used? Not a chance. But if you just want to set yourself up nicely look around. They go for a few hundred used as that's all the recyclers will pay for them.

EDIT: I wasn't thinking of them in comparison to natural gas backup until you brought it up. When 10kW of solar cells cost $10k and a 5kW inverter costs another $3k-$5k the idea of paying another $5k to put in a rather large-sized battery doesn't seem all that out of place to me. But you're right that a small natural gas generator would win re: batteries.

Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

#60

Post by toomuchtodo » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 8:19 PM UTC

criley wrote: post #52

sp332 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if you generate 110% of your electricity needs? You would push out more power than is coming in, sometimes literally running the meter backwards.

Are we saying that there is no way to prevent power from going backwards back to the utility? I figured what you generated went directly to your storage system, you drew from your storage system OR the grid, or some third part intelligently drew from the grid or your system as necessary. Is it functionally impossible to have solar panels that don't "run the meter backwards?" Because I can see how that would threaten…

Yes, you can configure inverters to not dump excess current back to the utility. You either charge batteries or you dump the power into a load like an electric water heater.

In almost all grid-tied scenarios though, you want to sell the power back to the utility. I'm not familiar with commerical operations, as they would fall under power purchase agreements (PPAs), but with residential installations your meter quite literally does spin backwards or a separate meter is used to determine how much power you've sent back to the grid. This is dependent on how the utility compensates you for the power you generate (spin the meter back if its a credit or the same price as what your purchase it from them at, separate meter if the pricing paid to you is different than the retail rate).

As the article states, we don't have the issues in the US that Germany has yet, because Germany produces so much more solar energy than in the US. At some point though, questions will need to be answered about who is going to pay for the spinning capacity (likely natural gas generators) that isn't used except for those rare times when the wind isn't blowing, the sun isn't shinning, and you can't drag enough power in from another geographic region over HVDC transmission lines.