5 ms·

Some context: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/solar-power-advocates-slam-new-california-proposal-to-reduce-subsidies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/solar-

Some context: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/solar-power-advocates-slam-new-california-proposal-to-reduce-subsidies.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/13/solar-power-advocates-slam-n... Specifically: >The California Public Utilities Commission said the proposed changes, in a decision known as NEM 3.0, are meant to encourage consumers to install battery storage systems alongside solar panels, so they can store the excess power generated by solar panels and feed it back to the grid when it’s most needed.

ksec 5y ago
This CNBC article is 10x better. Thx
JadeNB 5y ago
Agreed with ksec that this article is much better than the original submission—thanks! But the article says that the plan is to reduce payments to those who contribute to the grid, not to charge contributors. Are these conflicting reports, or just different spins of the same underlying facts?
- simplyaccont 5y ago
  different parts of same suggestion. it's both reduce payments and charge for installed solar capacity
errcorrectcode 5y ago
99% of deployed solar systems in California are stupid. They don't have any battery storage and they don't operate during a power outage. The problem is they're using the wrong kind of transfer switch system. The ones that allow grid, generator, batteries, and solar are more useful than the grid-dependent ones that were deployed. If NEM 3 is another grid-dependent "solution" that doesn't work during a power outage, then it continues to not be in the interests of the customer.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Not to mention the problem of absorbing all those small intermittent sources in the grid without buffering. Without storage, grid tie system are not removing high carbon emitters, but in the contrary displacing nuclear and hydro low emission base load while promoting dispatchable high emission natural gas turbines
Factorium 5y ago
It would be simpler to regulate EVs to allow them to charge and discharge based on grid conditions. Why install a massive battery for your house when we'll soon have a giant one on wheels?
elzbardico 5y ago
Despite all the heat in the discussions this is something that was unavoidable. Grid tie is not a scalable idea as it is today, everyone who have minimal knowledge of the physics of AC generation and distribution kind of new that the day when grid tie systems without storage would have to pay their fair cost at least to the system.
- hedora 5y ago
  They’re charging ~ 100% the price of generation for distribution (and time shifting/storage) of the excess power, and they’re doing it regardless of whether you have your own energy storage. On top of that, there’s a separate part of the proposal that forces houses on the solar rate to pay more for peak hour energy than non-solar customers. Assuming that’s actually what it costs to maintain the grid, it’s getting to the point where we may as well just abandon the power grid.

ksec 5y ago

This CNBC article is 10x better. Thx

JadeNB 5y ago

Agreed with ksec that this article is much better than the original submission—thanks! But the article says that the plan is to reduce payments to those who contribute to the grid, not to charge contributors. Are these conflicting reports, or just different spins of the same underlying facts?

simplyaccont 5y ago
different parts of same suggestion. it's both reduce payments and charge for installed solar capacity

errcorrectcode 5y ago

99% of deployed solar systems in California are stupid. They don't have any battery storage and they don't operate during a power outage. The problem is they're using the wrong kind of transfer switch system. The ones that allow grid, generator, batteries, and solar are more useful than the grid-dependent ones that were deployed. If NEM 3 is another grid-dependent "solution" that doesn't work during a power outage, then it continues to not be in the interests of the customer.

elzbardico 5y ago
Not to mention the problem of absorbing all those small intermittent sources in the grid without buffering. Without storage, grid tie system are not removing high carbon emitters, but in the contrary displacing nuclear and hydro low emission base load while promoting dispatchable high emission natural gas turbines

Factorium 5y ago

It would be simpler to regulate EVs to allow them to charge and discharge based on grid conditions. Why install a massive battery for your house when we'll soon have a giant one on wheels?

elzbardico 5y ago

Despite all the heat in the discussions this is something that was unavoidable. Grid tie is not a scalable idea as it is today, everyone who have minimal knowledge of the physics of AC generation and distribution kind of new that the day when grid tie systems without storage would have to pay their fair cost at least to the system.

hedora 5y ago
They’re charging ~ 100% the price of generation for distribution (and time shifting/storage) of the excess power, and they’re doing it regardless of whether you have your own energy storage. On top of that, there’s a separate part of the proposal that forces houses on the solar rate to pay more for peak hour energy than non-solar customers. Assuming that’s actually what it costs to maintain the grid, it’s getting to the point where we may as well just abandon the power grid.