7 ms·

We'll see about getting screwed. It seems to me the most effective way to get households to use a lot more electricity is to encourage them to get electrical/pl

We'll see about getting screwed. It seems to me the most effective way to get households to use a lot more electricity is to encourage them to get electrical/plugin hybrid cars.

2sk21 9y ago
Agreed - quite a lot of the power from my solar panels is currently being fed back into the grid but this will change in a few years when I replace my hybrid car with a full electric. Electric transport is definitely the main source of growth in electric power consumption.
fooker 9y ago
I would hazard a guess that people buying electric cars are also more likely to buy solar panels and in the near future, large-ish batteries.
- LeifCarrotson 9y ago
  They've already bought a large battery - bolted under their electric car. Perhaps one day our cars will drive us into work, we'll plug into the grid there (or have it drive itself home), and home solar will talk to the grid and tell it how much to,charge our car during the day. Then we'll go home and run our house off the car battery overnight, making sure to leave enough battery power to get to work the next morning. Or party on Friday night because it was sunny and we have a couple dozen extra kilowatts that don't need to be saved for commuting in the morning!
  - checkyoursudo 9y ago
    Neat ideas. What happens when my wife has the car with the big battery at work while I'm at home on a cloudy day?
    - stale2002 9y ago
      The same thing that happens now. Some energy sources will be low directing certain times of the day, and others will be high, causing it to mostly average out. And for the stuff that doesn't average out, there is peaker plants. Things could be further made better using varying electric pricing, such that when energy is plentiful it is cheap, and when it is scarce it is expensive.
eppp 9y ago
TVA has essentially made home solar financially untenable in the areas they serve. If you want to use grid tie solar, you must sell all the electricity you generate to TVA at wholesale cost and buy it back at retail. https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-metering-creates-obstacle-household-solar-power/ https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-m...
- sharpshadow 9y ago
  Years ago somebody explained to me the same here in Germany and I was shocked that they allow crooked laws like this.
  - phil21 9y ago
    You mean they don't allow rich solar panel owners to get their grid battery subsidized by poor folks who lack the capital for their own solar? This is a good thing. No power company should be forced to pay retail for power. It is a regressive tax on those that can least afford it. I don't think it was inappropriate to offer to get the industry off the ground, but it's quickly approaching the time to do away those subsidies - especially those that come directly from other rate-payers.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price. They already paid the capital costs for generating their own power. You want them to pay again? For the transmission lines and peaking plant that they aren't using? Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak. Otherwise, all you are doing is forcing the customer to use bigger batteries to route around your obnoxious local generation policy. That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. If you encourage people to use their own redox reaction batteries, you're lowering the efficiency of the entire system, and everyone loses.
pasbesoin 9y ago
Back in the 1980's, Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, would say that the easiest way to "expand" energy production by 25%, was to deploy existing high-efficiency technology. I saw him present with the head of a power company in Iowa. As they said, one might think this was bad news for the power company and that they would fight it -- more power equals more revenue. However, some of that power is very expensive power with low margins -- quick but costly production to meet demand peaks. With deployment of high efficiency devices, those peaks declined. Other means of shifting consumption, such as "cooling rooms" that run at night, building ice or other thermal sinks to drive cooling during the daytime, also helped. The utility had lower absolute demand, but flatter demand for which they could better plan and produce, at lower production cost. So, the efficiency push ended up being a plus for the utility. They were busy distributing then-new compact fluorescent bulbs and the like, as part of public outreach. We don't face the exact same scenario, now. But, institutions can either get with the program, or get left behind. (Or, they can try to "capture" and monopolize the system. Such as the Koch brothers with their "clean coal" and all; not wanting to lose their sunk costs and anticipated earnings.) One thing I don't support, is the existing entities that have dragged their feet also using their assets and momentum to take over the... "next generation" energy system. I'd rather limit the perpetuation of their mindset and behavior. Some conservatism, especially in large, essentially public and critical endeavors, is good. Distorting same to meet personal goals, is not.

We'll see about getting screwed. It seems to me the most effective way to get households to use a lot more electricity is to encourage them to get electrical/plugin hybrid cars.

2sk21 9y ago

Agreed - quite a lot of the power from my solar panels is currently being fed back into the grid but this will change in a few years when I replace my hybrid car with a full electric. Electric transport is definitely the main source of growth in electric power consumption.

fooker 9y ago

I would hazard a guess that people buying electric cars are also more likely to buy solar panels and in the near future, large-ish batteries.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
They've already bought a large battery - bolted under their electric car. Perhaps one day our cars will drive us into work, we'll plug into the grid there (or have it drive itself home), and home solar will talk to the grid and tell it how much to,charge our car during the day. Then we'll go home and run our house off the car battery overnight, making sure to leave enough battery power to get to work the next morning. Or party on Friday night because it was sunny and we have a couple dozen extra kilowatts that don't need to be saved for commuting in the morning!
- checkyoursudo 9y ago
  Neat ideas. What happens when my wife has the car with the big battery at work while I'm at home on a cloudy day?
  - stale2002 9y ago
    The same thing that happens now. Some energy sources will be low directing certain times of the day, and others will be high, causing it to mostly average out. And for the stuff that doesn't average out, there is peaker plants. Things could be further made better using varying electric pricing, such that when energy is plentiful it is cheap, and when it is scarce it is expensive.

eppp 9y ago

TVA has essentially made home solar financially untenable in the areas they serve. If you want to use grid tie solar, you must sell all the electricity you generate to TVA at wholesale cost and buy it back at retail. https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-metering-creates-obstacle-household-solar-power/ https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-m...

sharpshadow 9y ago
Years ago somebody explained to me the same here in Germany and I was shocked that they allow crooked laws like this.
- phil21 9y ago
  You mean they don't allow rich solar panel owners to get their grid battery subsidized by poor folks who lack the capital for their own solar? This is a good thing. No power company should be forced to pay retail for power. It is a regressive tax on those that can least afford it. I don't think it was inappropriate to offer to get the industry off the ground, but it's quickly approaching the time to do away those subsidies - especially those that come directly from other rate-payers.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price. They already paid the capital costs for generating their own power. You want them to pay again? For the transmission lines and peaking plant that they aren't using? Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak. Otherwise, all you are doing is forcing the customer to use bigger batteries to route around your obnoxious local generation policy. That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. If you encourage people to use their own redox reaction batteries, you're lowering the efficiency of the entire system, and everyone loses.

pasbesoin 9y ago

Back in the 1980's, Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, would say that the easiest way to "expand" energy production by 25%, was to deploy existing high-efficiency technology. I saw him present with the head of a power company in Iowa. As they said, one might think this was bad news for the power company and that they would fight it -- more power equals more revenue. However, some of that power is very expensive power with low margins -- quick but costly production to meet demand peaks. With deployment of high efficiency devices, those peaks declined. Other means of shifting consumption, such as "cooling rooms" that run at night, building ice or other thermal sinks to drive cooling during the daytime, also helped. The utility had lower absolute demand, but flatter demand for which they could better plan and produce, at lower production cost. So, the efficiency push ended up being a plus for the utility. They were busy distributing then-new compact fluorescent bulbs and the like, as part of public outreach. We don't face the exact same scenario, now. But, institutions can either get with the program, or get left behind. (Or, they can try to "capture" and monopolize the system. Such as the Koch brothers with their "clean coal" and all; not wanting to lose their sunk costs and anticipated earnings.) One thing I don't support, is the existing entities that have dragged their feet also using their assets and momentum to take over the... "next generation" energy system. I'd rather limit the perpetuation of their mindset and behavior. Some conservatism, especially in large, essentially public and critical endeavors, is good. Distorting same to meet personal goals, is not.