3 ms·

100% off-grid is economically not the most cost effective as you have to oversize capacity for peak too much. Current consensus is that 70% is the sweet-spot. O

100% off-grid is economically not the most cost effective as you have to oversize capacity for peak too much. Current consensus is that 70% is the sweet-spot. Off grid will be taxed when the uptake becomes less niche. The benefits in terms of (partial) autonomy will remain. Since my previous comment where I said there will be clawbacks for lost revenue by the grid operators was downvoted, let me quote from relevant studies [1]: "It should be noted that, in a scenario in which {such systems} undergo a significant uptake, this mechanism is unsustainable since it generates revenue shortfalls for government, municipalities and system operators. These losses of revenues need to be somehow compensated, either by increasing the network tariffs or by changing the tariff structure, e.g. switching from a volume (i.e. per kWh) remuneration to a fixed or to a capacity remuneration for the grid connection. Interestingly, this modification of the tariff structure is already ongoing in various EU countries" [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333420646_Techno-economic_Analysis_of_Residential_PV-battery_Self-consumption https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333420646_Techno-ec...

toomuchtodo 7y ago
As utility rates increase to offset grid defections as storage costs come down, a death spiral occurs (already occurring in Germany as you mention) [1]. I think it'll be politically untenable to attempt to rake people over the coals financially, but TBD at this time. It's not necessary to oversize your system for peak load either; you can opt to instead shed large loads (AC), thereby reducing your capital costs for average system loads (lighting, refrigerator, etc). [1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-the-utility-death-spiral-looks-like https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-th...
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  AC is pretty rare in Europe
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I agree, but I included it for the sake of argument. Any self supporting power system without AC is much easier to accomplish.
    - PeterStuer 7y ago
      Obviously if your energy needs are reduced and your potential energy production remains equal, then your personal energy autonomy becomes easier. That does not mean there is no difference in where that budget reduction comes from. AC is typically active when it is hot, usually when there is lots of PV potential. You are using more energy when your own energy production is higher. Suppose you do not have AC but instead electric heaters, then it is reversed. You are requiring more energy when your own production is lower. So even if your total energy budget would be the same, the former scenario would involve less strain than the latter on energy autonomy because of how consumption would correlate in time with production or not. From the grid's macro perspective, in an environment without much AC (or other appliances following the same consumption pattern), it has to potentially absorb (or refuse) much more energy delivered to it when demand is lower, while being able to still satisfy demand when it peaks and supply potential is reduced. At that grid level scope, widespread AC usage, even though in aggregate using far more energy and thus net negative, might be easier to smooth out demand wise and thus easier to satisfy.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

As utility rates increase to offset grid defections as storage costs come down, a death spiral occurs (already occurring in Germany as you mention) [1]. I think it'll be politically untenable to attempt to rake people over the coals financially, but TBD at this time. It's not necessary to oversize your system for peak load either; you can opt to instead shed large loads (AC), thereby reducing your capital costs for average system loads (lighting, refrigerator, etc). [1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-the-utility-death-spiral-looks-like https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-th...

PeterStuer 7y ago
AC is pretty rare in Europe
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  I agree, but I included it for the sake of argument. Any self supporting power system without AC is much easier to accomplish.
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    Obviously if your energy needs are reduced and your potential energy production remains equal, then your personal energy autonomy becomes easier. That does not mean there is no difference in where that budget reduction comes from. AC is typically active when it is hot, usually when there is lots of PV potential. You are using more energy when your own energy production is higher. Suppose you do not have AC but instead electric heaters, then it is reversed. You are requiring more energy when your own production is lower. So even if your total energy budget would be the same, the former scenario would involve less strain than the latter on energy autonomy because of how consumption would correlate in time with production or not. From the grid's macro perspective, in an environment without much AC (or other appliances following the same consumption pattern), it has to potentially absorb (or refuse) much more energy delivered to it when demand is lower, while being able to still satisfy demand when it peaks and supply potential is reduced. At that grid level scope, widespread AC usage, even though in aggregate using far more energy and thus net negative, might be easier to smooth out demand wise and thus easier to satisfy.