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

#81

Post by jjjeffrey » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #46

ollysb wrote: post #3

The culture of protecting existing businesses is becoming infuriating to read about. Businesses are there because they're the most efficient way to solve the needs of a group of people. If circumstances change and a better solution presents itself then both new and _existing_ businesses have an opportunity to take advantage of it. There's absolutely nothing to stop the existing utility companies being the companies t…

You frustration is from your false assumption. Businesses are there to make their owners as much money as possible. This frequently does not involve efficiency.

Taking a look at things from society's perspective, society decided that individuals should privately own for-profit businesses because, for a large subset of society's needs, that is the most efficient way to produce these needs. In that sense, capitalism as it exists is meant to serve society. It merely works out that the incentive to maximize profit in this system _approximately_ aligns with society's interest in acquiring goods at minimum cost---that is, if certain conditions, such as adequate competition, are met.

Of course this isn't the only reasonable perspective, but it certainly isn't false.

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

#82

Post by marshray » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 10:54 PM UTC

yxhuvud wrote: post #69

marshray wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cooling in the summer requires much less energy compared to heating in the winter. It's also a lot more of an optional comfort than a critical survival need.

That obviously depends on where you live. If you claim more energy is spent on heating overall I'd want a reference on that, since that goes against what I've heard. Especially since houses in cold climates tend to be a lot better insulated than houses in southern climates.

Obviously I'm talking about places that have both a real winter and a real summer. How well insulated your house is is primarily a function of the available technology and the cost of energy when it was built.

Probably the simplest reference I could give would be to point out that a lot of heavily populated places like Seattle, Chicago, the US Northeast, and much of Europe don't even install central air conditioning in homes at all. If we're talking about human survival standards of comfort, then obviously people have been living closer to the equator than you and I for a long time before AC was invented.

In the winter, often a furnace is used to burn gas or electricity in a pure "burning" of utility energy to heat. Some people have heat pumps which are more efficient, but when they hit their limits the backup furnace kicks in. Often additional water must be added to the inside air, and that must be heated as well. The temperature differential which must be maintained by the burning fuel is easily 40 deg F (say 28 to 68 on a mild day).

In the summertime, reasonable cooling involves using a refrigeration process to move heat out of the building. The refrigeration cycle isn't perfect, but it's surprisingly efficient since it's more moving the heat from one place to another. As a side effect, the inside air gets dehumidified which helps too. The summer cooling temperature difference is only 25 degrees F (say 98 to 75) on a hot day.

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

#83

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 10:59 PM UTC

quantumstate wrote: post #76

cinquemb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the tech for batteries is getting cheaper and better. Check out this Hak5 rig of van with PV and batteries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWmCpt2KXOs From this, it is not hard to imagine if one scaled this setup one could be off the grid now.

I was recently in rural South Sudan, at a place where there are no power lines within 80 miles. So the systems they use must be off the grid by necessity. There were several PV and battery setups there which worked pretty well. Obviously you need to be careful with the amount of power that you use, but it can run computers, TV and lighting with a reasonable setup. There was a computer lab at one installation which ha…

Thats why i think CSP and thermal storage (via molten salts KNO3+NaNO3) might work better in the long run (at least in an environment with an atmosphere).

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

#84

Post by ownagefool » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

tedsanders wrote: post #49

revelation wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. This might be the current problem for utilities, where laws demand that solar power can be inserted into the grid (often as a priority or for a guaranteed price) by what would normally be just consumer households. This article is talking about using your solar power system to actually fulfill your complete power needs, without any grid.

Could you point to where the article talks about people disconnecting from the grid? I couldn't find it in my read through. For instance, the article says at one point, "What happens if a whole bunch of customers start generating their own power and using the grid merely as backup?" I think the risk of people disconnecting from the grid is fairly low, since the necessary lead acid batteries cost thousands of dollars.…

It's obviously speculative. Both battery tech and methods of local power generation technology is improving. At some point one can imagine a tipping point that it'll become a worthwhile investment for those that aren't super rich. The assumption is the utility companies will act to protect their levels of revenue and raise prices to compensate. This will result in more people investing in solutions. Rince and repeat until your utlility companies are getting bailouts.

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

#85

Post by EEGuy » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:07 PM UTC

asynchronous13 wrote: post #32

_delirium wrote: post #11

Something that would be interesting: a map estimating the areas in which a typical suburban home roof covered with PV panels would produce enough energy to power a typical suburban home's worth of electrical usage, assuming some level of battery technology. I'm not actually sure what it'd look like. Seems like there might be a tradeoff between hotter areas, which have both higher PV output and higher peak electricity…

I'm an electrical engineer and I've done these calculations for my own home. The roof area of a 1200 sq ft ranch home is much larger than the surface area of solar panels needed to power the home. (in other words, your map would show pretty much all of north America). But covering all of a roof with solar panels is very expensive. The biggest problem is that the "typical suburban home" is ridiculously inefficient. In…

> Don't even consider solar panels until you've reduced energy needs first.

Absolutely, asynch13! That's what I did. It took over two years, starting with a home energy monitor.

Using a home energy monitor such as [1] or [2], one can get frequent measurements, every six seconds for [1], then identify individual loads by switching them on and off during a period of otherwise steady demand. Other loads silently switch on and off of course;

Then one can start making evaluations and upgrades. Some can be surprising; I was able to reduce my demand by well over 20 KWh / day; details here [3].

After that, a 5KW / 8000+ KWh-per-year grid-tie no-storage solar PV system went in. My utility charges $11 for a month when the PV system produces more than the home consumes during a billig period.

The utility did change out their transformer (to a smaller 25 KW unit feeding 3 other homes) on the power pole in my back yard. But home and location is 40 years old, so I can imagine the old transformer was fully amortized long ago.

---

[1] http://currentcost.net [2] http://www.theenergydetective.com/ [3] https://discussions.zoho.com/powersave/topic/how-much-i-ve-b...

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

#86

Post by marshray » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:10 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #60

criley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> who is going to pay for the spinning capacity (likely natural gas generators) that isn't used

That doesn't sound like a bad problem to have.

Fukushima showed us how hard it is to turn a nuke on and off quickly, but I would think most hydrocarbon burning and other generation systems could be throttled according to demand.

If you really have a problem with too much energy, well, smelt some aluminum or electrolyze water or something.

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

#87

Post by EEGuy » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:19 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #11

Something that would be interesting: a map estimating the areas in which a typical suburban home roof covered with PV panels would produce enough energy to power a typical suburban home's worth of electrical usage, assuming some level of battery technology. I'm not actually sure what it'd look like. Seems like there might be a tradeoff between hotter areas, which have both higher PV output and higher peak electricity…

Here's a PV power estimator: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/pvwatts/version1/

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

#88

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:37 PM UTC

msandford wrote: post #59

tedsanders wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

This sounds interesting. Looks like these guys will just come out to your house and drop off a $1745 700-pound battery rated at 60 amps at 12 volts (720 watts) for 20 hours, and pick up your previous battery at no charge. They apparently will last up to 7 years even in forklift service. The main drawback seems to be that the forklift batteries are not maintenance-free.

Is that your take on it?

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

#89

Post by jusben1369 » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:43 PM UTC

I think this is a fascinating argument and makes sense. However, Is the EEI really someone we trust with a report like this? It seems - given their position - they have a lot to gain and little downside in trying to scare what are essentially politicians into helping protect them. Perhaps that's why the media ignored this report to begin with?

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

#90

Post by jusben1369 » Sat, Apr 13, 2013, 11:45 PM UTC

ghouse wrote: post #75

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…

Part of the reason demand in CA is at 9 PM is due to more than 1 GW of "behind the meter" solar. From the perspective of the grid, this is a decrease in daytime demand. However, the primary reason for 9 PM demand is that it's spring. Summer peak demand is mid-afternoon, and winter has two peaks -- morning (~8 AM) and evening (~ 6 PM).

Correct. Many of us who were in CA during the brown out dot com boom years became addicted to that site and understood the cycles.