One of the best tales regarding an entrenched utility, costs, and an individual wanting to hook into the grid. Ken Adelman has made his name known for a number of things, but his fight w/ PG&E was one of the more memorable ones --
Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
101–110 of 143 posts
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the article is talking about customers who buy their own solar installations. The thing is, no system is available (afaik) that is 24/7 solar power (batteries add a massive cost to user solar installations) so the only way for you to have power at all times is to sell the surplus generated solar back to the utility (which is where the engineering problems come in) during peak solar hours and using the gird of…
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…
> The only difference to them is that you draw less power than you used to.
That is not the only difference; the pattern of your load changes too.
With 100% grid-supplied power, changes in load are driven by slow-moving, predictable systems like sunrise/sunset, weather, and seasons.
If you are running your own solar array, though, you will vary your grid load on much shorter time scales unless you invest in a big battery pack to smooth out the variations in insolation from clouds and storms. And even the normal daily variation will be stronger, since when it gets dark you'll not only be increasing your load (turning on lights, TV, cooking, etc), you'll also be losing your local generation.
The current electric grid is not built to handle such large changes in load on such short timeframes.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#103Original report here: http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivecha... I believe that distributed energy is the future, plugging your house into your car, charging your car with solar and selling power to the grid when your forecasted household demand is lower then your forecasted supply. Because of the internet we now have distributed information and it is changing the world in every way. Anyone can s…
The analogy to the Internet is apt. But it's worth remembering that the Internet backbone was not built on the existing phone network. Instead the Internet backbone was developed as a separate infrastructure, by separate companies, which was then hooked to the existing telephone (and eventually cable) last-mile infrastructures.
I'm not sure the same thing is possible in power generation, because power plants, substations, and power lines are so much more expensive than telecomm switches.
What we need is the power equivalent to the fiber optic cable--a huge breakthrough in line capacity. The only thing that could compare is probably high-temp superconductivity.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
They charge you for feeding excess power back into the grid?
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 wat…
"Spinning Reserve is the on-line reserve capacity that is synchronized to the grid system and ready to meet electric demand within 10 minutes of a dispatch instruction by the ISO. Spinning Reserve is needed to maintain system frequency stability during emergency operating conditions and unforeseen load swings." http://www.caiso.com/docs/2003/09/08/2003090815135425649.pdf The poster isn't saying they're producing ener…
Spinning reserve ought to be replaced with batteries. I bet some of it could be replaced with batteries today with the utilities' customers saving money, aside from the sunk costs not then providing the proper return on capital to their investors.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#106Earlier 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.
I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in New Zealand at least, power going each way is metered separately. Power is sold to the electric company at a much lower rate than the power that is bought from the electric company. So you might buy power for 27c/kwh and sell it for 3c/kwh.
In the US it depends on where you are at and who your power company is. Some times they do it the way you describe in NZ, but in many areas it is more the way the OP describes, where there is one meter, and sometimes it literally runs backwards- only if there is an excess at the end of the month is it credited at the lower rate.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There are many different regulatory environments, but the utility I worked at, where I wrote programs to calculate the hourly price of electricity, the utility made zero dollars from usage by residential customers.
Residential customers payed a fixed rate to be connected, and every penny the utility collected for energy was remitted to the market operator.
The utility also made no money on energy by large users, but they were billed based on their own hourly use and the hourly price, and some also would have had demand charges.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#108Earlier 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…
> Would it be practical for EVERYONE to buy these things up used?
Forget practical - it wouldn't even be possible. There isn't enough lead on earth for that.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#109Not to mention lumen per dollar increase rate of LED lighting, tablets that consume 4 watts, refrigerators that use half the power of the average installed fridge, etc. The falling prices of solar PV panels has been incredible. Most expected the price of $0.72 per peak watt to be reached in 2028, not 2013.
> Not to mention lumen per dollar increase rate of LED lighting
The energy efficiency of LEDs still doesn't beat CFL, except for really really expensive LEDs.
Re: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
#110How 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
The goal is to enhance shareholder value. End of story.