3 ms·
It seems to me if it's true that the cost of distribution is something like 77%, then it really argues in favor of more houses being off grid -- For the cost it
by maerF0x0 5y ago
It seems to me if it's true that the cost of distribution is something like 77%, then it really argues in favor of more houses being off grid -- For the cost it may have been better to build self sufficiency, and/or micro community grids rather than a giant regional one. The economy of scale in generation is lost in the costs of distribution.
- 7952 5y agoIn practice local generation and storage has fewer possible customers. The grid has limits on how much can be exported from a residential substation. A generator connected to a big substation can send electricity to millions of potential customers. And a battery can receive energy from all over the grid. The local intermittency is easier to iron out when you can benefit from geographical separation, different modes of generation and different weather conditions.
- ed25519FUUU 5y agoThat distribution cost is not at all related to solar. With rooftop solar your power travels across the powerline maybe 1 city block to your neighbor. It's not traveling thousands and thousands of miles.