4 ms·

I only see this route going if the power companies themselves are responsible enough to make the transition to renewable energy (I'm not sure they are, at least

I only see this route going if the power companies themselves are responsible enough to make the transition to renewable energy (I'm not sure they are, at least in any relatively quick timeframe). So if the case comes that fossil fuels become more and more expensive, then and only then will they really make an effort to transition to mostly renewable energy. And it'll happen at a slow and crippling pace for all us tree-huggers out there. So storage still makes a lot of sense, because if I want to do anything about renewable energy, I unfortunately have to do it myself. Putting some sort of solar system on my house will cost ME money; either outright, leased, or through a home-improvement loan plan. Which is sad, but it is what it is (and kudos to what the government HAS done to bring down these costs). Since it's all on me to reduce my carbon footprint, that energy produced must be stored, and these home battery systems (Tesla or not, there's about 2 other choices though, it seems in my research with companies locally) are not all that expensive considering the cost and installation of a solar array, especially Tesla's pricier solar roof option. And that's giving you complete independence from the electric company. I talked to a rep about a solar solution and he understood my concern for wanting to go "net zero" since it feels like locally, the power company is devaluing what you put back into the sub-system more and more. He explained that more and more people exploring their alternative energy solutions are interested in these battery/storage systems for the exact same reasons. With a minimum investment of about 30k or 40k for a whole-home solution, a lot of people don't trust that their power fed back into the grid won't be devalued over time (at least a rate higher than the natural decay of battery technology).

thatwebdude 9y ago
> the power company is devaluing what you put back into the sub-system more and more. Here's a related article to what I'm talking about here, I think this is happening across the country though: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article38981193.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article38... Specifically: > Power companies argue that a solar house doesn’t pick up enough of the cost of all it takes to make energy available around the clock. If those solar homes don’t pay for upkeep, they contend, other customers eventually get stuck with higher bills. Honestly, a solar house seems like it really is only beneficial to itself; it only has the capacity to produce power for itself, and maybe a fraction above. Nothing worth selling back "wholesale".
- protonfish 9y ago
  Unless you consider that peak electric demand correlates to daytime usage on the sunniest days of the year (for cooling purposes.) Electric companies are actively trying to discourage use during these times by offering a discount for interruptible power (they can remotely shut off power to your hot tub/water heater and other non-critical uses) or offering variable rates (proportional to overall grid demand.) Even if a solar installation merely reduces electric usage, it will almost always correlate to peak times making it immensely valuable to power companies. But I wouldn't expect their PR to confess to this.
tertius 9y ago
> Putting some sort of solar system on my house will cost ME money It will cost you regardless of how it's implemented. Through taxes, increased utility costs etc. I'm okay with this.
- al3xnull 9y ago
  Likewise. If you want to do something, why should you not pay for it? Consumers storing electricity and load balancing it between devices in their house. Money in coming up with that technology and selling. In the mean time, you relieve the need to force companies to change for you. Instead they will move with the market.
  - tertius 9y ago
    You should pay for it! Early adopters help everyone who come after. You thereby help create the market. A much better tactic than trying to shut down market economics. Or making other people pay for what you want through threat of violence (taxation).
maxerickson 9y ago
I would expect power companies to be extremely responsive to costs. Power company cooperatives run the largest storage systems on the planet already, they built pumped storage because it was win-win for their cost structures (they use them to more efficiently operate baseload generators). They also do things like run around buying old appliances to get green credits (a response to a negative cost imposed by regulators). As far as selling power to the grid, the price should be fair for everyone, not just a big reward for having the upfront capital to install solar. Especially as the need to spur investment in solar tech goes away (because in more and more areas it is already cost competitive and an easy choice).
- thatwebdude 9y ago
  Yes, I'm definitely not blaming them, I can see somewhere on my bill where my energy is coming from; but it's still mostly fossil (because obviously). They are making great strides in alternative and renewable energy. I would think their cost to go mostly with renewables are much more expensive to them than my cost to go mostly renewable. They're going to move slow on this.

thatwebdude 9y ago

> the power company is devaluing what you put back into the sub-system more and more. Here's a related article to what I'm talking about here, I think this is happening across the country though: http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article38981193.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article38... Specifically: > Power companies argue that a solar house doesn’t pick up enough of the cost of all it takes to make energy available around the clock. If those solar homes don’t pay for upkeep, they contend, other customers eventually get stuck with higher bills. Honestly, a solar house seems like it really is only beneficial to itself; it only has the capacity to produce power for itself, and maybe a fraction above. Nothing worth selling back "wholesale".

protonfish 9y ago
Unless you consider that peak electric demand correlates to daytime usage on the sunniest days of the year (for cooling purposes.) Electric companies are actively trying to discourage use during these times by offering a discount for interruptible power (they can remotely shut off power to your hot tub/water heater and other non-critical uses) or offering variable rates (proportional to overall grid demand.) Even if a solar installation merely reduces electric usage, it will almost always correlate to peak times making it immensely valuable to power companies. But I wouldn't expect their PR to confess to this.

tertius 9y ago

> Putting some sort of solar system on my house will cost ME money It will cost you regardless of how it's implemented. Through taxes, increased utility costs etc. I'm okay with this.

al3xnull 9y ago
Likewise. If you want to do something, why should you not pay for it? Consumers storing electricity and load balancing it between devices in their house. Money in coming up with that technology and selling. In the mean time, you relieve the need to force companies to change for you. Instead they will move with the market.
- tertius 9y ago
  You should pay for it! Early adopters help everyone who come after. You thereby help create the market. A much better tactic than trying to shut down market economics. Or making other people pay for what you want through threat of violence (taxation).

maxerickson 9y ago

I would expect power companies to be extremely responsive to costs. Power company cooperatives run the largest storage systems on the planet already, they built pumped storage because it was win-win for their cost structures (they use them to more efficiently operate baseload generators). They also do things like run around buying old appliances to get green credits (a response to a negative cost imposed by regulators). As far as selling power to the grid, the price should be fair for everyone, not just a big reward for having the upfront capital to install solar. Especially as the need to spur investment in solar tech goes away (because in more and more areas it is already cost competitive and an easy choice).

thatwebdude 9y ago
Yes, I'm definitely not blaming them, I can see somewhere on my bill where my energy is coming from; but it's still mostly fossil (because obviously). They are making great strides in alternative and renewable energy. I would think their cost to go mostly with renewables are much more expensive to them than my cost to go mostly renewable. They're going to move slow on this.