4 ms·

Maybe not. I’ve heard that the fixed costs of a traditional grid are substantial enough that if large numbers of homeowners moved to PV generation the grid cost

Maybe not. I’ve heard that the fixed costs of a traditional grid are substantial enough that if large numbers of homeowners moved to PV generation the grid costs could become unsustainable and ultimately unmaintainable/collapse.

abraae 7y ago
The grid would not collapse but instead would evolve (maybe wiping out whole swatches of companies and utilities in the process but so what). Many people won't (or can't) install their own PV/storage, but everyone needs electricity. Those without PV and/or storage will need to purchase their electricity from others. The mechanism for getting the electricity from seller to purchaser will be a grid of some sort. La plus ca change and all that.
kjksf 7y ago
Or the company maintaining the grid will raise prices. If you had to make the choice between "no electricity to power my fridge, my lights, my laptop" vs "pay double for the electricity", you'll pay double. If people respond rationally, this would lead to re-designing the grid to be more decentralized and maintain the lower cost of energy we get from solar.
mr_toad 7y ago
This a largely an accounting problem. Most consumers pay by kWh, with no separation between generation and transmission cost components. If more people generated their own power, they’d have to seperate out the generation and transmission costs.
- cobookman 7y ago
  PGE & Peninsula Clean Energy already breaks out transmission and generation costs. Most the costs are for transmission. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/for-residents/ https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/for-residents/ https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PCE_EcoPlus_Sample_Bill.pdf https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- weaksauce 7y ago
  I know that they separate the generation and transmission costs in southern california and I'd imagine there are others that do that. I wonder what kind of pivot we will see from the utilities.
  - dver 7y ago
    Minimum connection fees, legislated enforced grid connect.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Or just let it go. It'll still be a thing in cities because you don't have enough area to collect sunlight for tall buildings on the buildings themselves, but that's also where the costs are lowest because the density is highest. If technology makes it so you no longer need a power grid in rural or suburban areas, and the economics are no longer viable there, why should we pay a lot of money to continue to have one there?
      - solatic 7y ago
        The question is how long-term transmission costs will look. If cities won't be able to self-generate their own electricity, then the electricity has to come from somewhere. Currently we assume that it'll have to come from a centralized generation plant, but why? Hypothetically, if the capex to install PV is low enough, and the transmission costs are low enough, then you could build a type of decentralized generator where suburban and rural generation feeds urban demand. There's early work being done on "smart grids" which enable this pattern, but I could imagine a future company that markets to a private homeowner, one who already had sufficient generation for their own needs, with the offer of upgrading their private PV in exchange for most of the generation profits.
        AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        That would require you to continue to maintain the grid in suburban and rural areas. And then install more panels there, so they can generate for the city as well as themselves. It seems like it would be a lot more cost effective to just put the additional panels (or whatever other generation method) in a few centralized locations outside the city and then only have to wire those specific locations up to the grid.
- adrianmonk 7y ago
  I would bet there are also a bunch of fixed costs (per unit area of land that is served by the grid, let's say) that don't drop if you lose customers. You've got to have utility poles, trim trees away from power lines, etc. regardless of whether you serve 100% or 25% of the customers in that area. If you lose a lot of customers, you will have to raise prices on the ones that remain. If you're competing against something that already took away some of your customers, then raising prices could have a snowball effect and cause you to lose more.
tw04 7y ago
Co-ops don’t need to be profitable, just one more reason to use them.
tomrod 7y ago
My understanding from PUCT dockets is that fixed costs account for 90% of transmission firm costs.
dzhiurgis 7y ago
Let it crumble over time... Lax the regulation how reliable it has to be - that will drive the cost of maintenance down. Upgrade it in a way that failures can be isolated (my house supplies couple of houses around me, etc).

abraae 7y ago

The grid would not collapse but instead would evolve (maybe wiping out whole swatches of companies and utilities in the process but so what). Many people won't (or can't) install their own PV/storage, but everyone needs electricity. Those without PV and/or storage will need to purchase their electricity from others. The mechanism for getting the electricity from seller to purchaser will be a grid of some sort. La plus ca change and all that.

kjksf 7y ago

Or the company maintaining the grid will raise prices. If you had to make the choice between "no electricity to power my fridge, my lights, my laptop" vs "pay double for the electricity", you'll pay double. If people respond rationally, this would lead to re-designing the grid to be more decentralized and maintain the lower cost of energy we get from solar.

mr_toad 7y ago

This a largely an accounting problem. Most consumers pay by kWh, with no separation between generation and transmission cost components. If more people generated their own power, they’d have to seperate out the generation and transmission costs.

cobookman 7y ago
PGE & Peninsula Clean Energy already breaks out transmission and generation costs. Most the costs are for transmission. https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/for-residents/ https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/for-residents/ https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/PCE_EcoPlus_Sample_Bill.pdf https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017...
weaksauce 7y ago
I know that they separate the generation and transmission costs in southern california and I'd imagine there are others that do that. I wonder what kind of pivot we will see from the utilities.
- dver 7y ago
  Minimum connection fees, legislated enforced grid connect.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Or just let it go. It'll still be a thing in cities because you don't have enough area to collect sunlight for tall buildings on the buildings themselves, but that's also where the costs are lowest because the density is highest. If technology makes it so you no longer need a power grid in rural or suburban areas, and the economics are no longer viable there, why should we pay a lot of money to continue to have one there?
    - solatic 7y ago
      The question is how long-term transmission costs will look. If cities won't be able to self-generate their own electricity, then the electricity has to come from somewhere. Currently we assume that it'll have to come from a centralized generation plant, but why? Hypothetically, if the capex to install PV is low enough, and the transmission costs are low enough, then you could build a type of decentralized generator where suburban and rural generation feeds urban demand. There's early work being done on "smart grids" which enable this pattern, but I could imagine a future company that markets to a private homeowner, one who already had sufficient generation for their own needs, with the offer of upgrading their private PV in exchange for most of the generation profits.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        That would require you to continue to maintain the grid in suburban and rural areas. And then install more panels there, so they can generate for the city as well as themselves. It seems like it would be a lot more cost effective to just put the additional panels (or whatever other generation method) in a few centralized locations outside the city and then only have to wire those specific locations up to the grid.
adrianmonk 7y ago
I would bet there are also a bunch of fixed costs (per unit area of land that is served by the grid, let's say) that don't drop if you lose customers. You've got to have utility poles, trim trees away from power lines, etc. regardless of whether you serve 100% or 25% of the customers in that area. If you lose a lot of customers, you will have to raise prices on the ones that remain. If you're competing against something that already took away some of your customers, then raising prices could have a snowball effect and cause you to lose more.

tw04 7y ago

Co-ops don’t need to be profitable, just one more reason to use them.

tomrod 7y ago

My understanding from PUCT dockets is that fixed costs account for 90% of transmission firm costs.

dzhiurgis 7y ago

Let it crumble over time... Lax the regulation how reliable it has to be - that will drive the cost of maintenance down. Upgrade it in a way that failures can be isolated (my house supplies couple of houses around me, etc).