7 ms·

Another opportunity to point out the duck curve. I think there is profit to be made if you have a battery that you charge with solar, then feed it back to the g

Another opportunity to point out the duck curve. I think there is profit to be made if you have a battery that you charge with solar, then feed it back to the grid in the evening when demand is highest. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-... Also with these flex alerts, PG&E was willing to pay us $2 a kwh below normal usage between 4-9pm https://energyupgradeca.org/flex-alert?utm_source=aw&utm_medium=paid-search&utm_campaign=2022-fa-al&utm_term=gm-en-all-ca&utm_content=fa-tips https://energyupgradeca.org/flex-alert?utm_source=aw&utm_med...

hedora 4y ago
That's really frustrating. I'm currently selling power on to the grid, but it's capped at the rate my solar panels produce, probably by policy. So, even if I was eligible for this rate, it wouldn't give me any meangful credit. They need a rate that is proportional to marginal carbon emissions. Then, I could set my battery to that. It could look at the forecast for tomorrow, and make a killing by doing the obvious thing. Grr. The legislation around here is decades behind the technology.
- tims33 4y ago
  Safe to assume you’re getting net meetering? That is likely more valuable.
  - hedora 4y ago
    I am, but I could make $40-60 in the next few hours by dumping the batteries' charge into the grid in the next three hours. That's much less than what I'd get normally. Basically, I want net metering to be proportional to carbon (and therefore peaker plant use). It's less about the amount of money I get back. In related news, my batteries aggressively charge themselves during the morning CO2 peak because power is cheap then. They should sell solar production into the grid during those hours and start charging at ~ 10 am.
    - tims33 4y ago
      I love net metering, but long term it isn’t an entirely fair system. I imagine once they move off of that they’ll be able to have better incentives for those on solar with batteries.
      - colechristensen 4y ago
        The cost structure for power lines and grid connection doesn’t really reflect the added feature of net metering. Some jurisdictions give you a much better deal than they ought to, some much worse. It probably won’t stabilize into something more reasonable until people who both use and produce power are much more common.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      Do peaker plants produce any more carbon? I thought a small amount less because theyre usually natural gas. The problem with peaker plants is it’s expensive keeping them around when they only operate for a short time, and bigger peaks mean more capacity needed.
      - hedora 4y ago
        In California they do, since we have hardly any coal plants.
        colechristensen 4y ago
        More than what?
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      >Basically, I want net metering to be proportional to carbon (and therefore peaker plant use). It's less about the amount of money I get back. Maybe I don't understand. Then you would receive very little compensation for the useless solar you send to the grid at mid day and pay very high prices for any power you use from the grid at night.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    People often claim that, because they like to portray net metering as a pointless subsidy for rich folks, but I'd say in California it's probably short changing the benefit of solar/batteries to the grid. Value of solar tariffs that work this out in detail get pushback from grid operators for being too high, same as net metering. It's almost as if they don't like paying a fair rate for energy and their excuses are exactly that.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  How much are you selling for? What’s the price? How is it determined?
  - hedora 4y ago
    My power bill is opaque, but its something like buy/sell for $0.31 per kWh off peak and $0.39 on peak. Peak is 4-10pm. I have no idea how it is determined.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      So you're already heavily subsidized by legislation. Power plant operators sell electricity for something like $0.05/kWh on average, which is 15-20% of what you're getting for it. They'd love to be able to sell it for $.30/kWh. The power company also would love to not have to lose a whole lot of money on buying extremely expensive electricity from you. Nevertheless, you're the one getting a sweet deal here, and you need to thank legislators for subsidizing people who can afford to install residential solar.
      - hedora 4y ago
        I'm not complaining about the free money that they send me. I'm complaining because they set the incentives wrong, and the incentives control the (closed source) battery software's policy. Therefore, the equipment I bought is offsetting way less carbon than it could. Now, multiply that waste by the number of home batteries in California.
- sand500 4y ago
  That's interesting. Is it because the wires into your house cannot safely take it if you dump your batteries's contents in a few hours.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If your house is rated for 200 amps in, you can deliver 200 amps to the grid. If setup correctly you could possibly deliver 200 amps to the grid whilst also consuming 200 amps yourself.
  - hedora 4y ago
    30kWh / 3 hours is 10kWh per hour, or 10 kW. 10kW at 240V is 41 amps. Our connection to the grid is hundreds of amps. There are two reasons I can't do it: This is a Tesla pilot, and it is not a Tesla system. More fundamentally, this is a weird emergency response program. They should just set the rate structure so that people always have a financial incentive to minimize CO2 and also stabilize the grid. The rate structure does neither of those things, so we end up with lots of idling home batteries during peak demand events like the current one. On normal days, the batteries idle while peaker plants uselessly spew CO2.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-virtual-power-plant-pge-2022 https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-virtual-power-pla... (Have to be in PGE territory I believe unfortunately)

hedora 4y ago

That's really frustrating. I'm currently selling power on to the grid, but it's capped at the rate my solar panels produce, probably by policy. So, even if I was eligible for this rate, it wouldn't give me any meangful credit. They need a rate that is proportional to marginal carbon emissions. Then, I could set my battery to that. It could look at the forecast for tomorrow, and make a killing by doing the obvious thing. Grr. The legislation around here is decades behind the technology.

tims33 4y ago
Safe to assume you’re getting net meetering? That is likely more valuable.
- hedora 4y ago
  I am, but I could make $40-60 in the next few hours by dumping the batteries' charge into the grid in the next three hours. That's much less than what I'd get normally. Basically, I want net metering to be proportional to carbon (and therefore peaker plant use). It's less about the amount of money I get back. In related news, my batteries aggressively charge themselves during the morning CO2 peak because power is cheap then. They should sell solar production into the grid during those hours and start charging at ~ 10 am.
  - tims33 4y ago
    I love net metering, but long term it isn’t an entirely fair system. I imagine once they move off of that they’ll be able to have better incentives for those on solar with batteries.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      The cost structure for power lines and grid connection doesn’t really reflect the added feature of net metering. Some jurisdictions give you a much better deal than they ought to, some much worse. It probably won’t stabilize into something more reasonable until people who both use and produce power are much more common.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Do peaker plants produce any more carbon? I thought a small amount less because theyre usually natural gas. The problem with peaker plants is it’s expensive keeping them around when they only operate for a short time, and bigger peaks mean more capacity needed.
    - hedora 4y ago
      In California they do, since we have hardly any coal plants.
      - colechristensen 4y ago
        More than what?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    >Basically, I want net metering to be proportional to carbon (and therefore peaker plant use). It's less about the amount of money I get back. Maybe I don't understand. Then you would receive very little compensation for the useless solar you send to the grid at mid day and pay very high prices for any power you use from the grid at night.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  People often claim that, because they like to portray net metering as a pointless subsidy for rich folks, but I'd say in California it's probably short changing the benefit of solar/batteries to the grid. Value of solar tariffs that work this out in detail get pushback from grid operators for being too high, same as net metering. It's almost as if they don't like paying a fair rate for energy and their excuses are exactly that.
xyzzyz 4y ago
How much are you selling for? What’s the price? How is it determined?
- hedora 4y ago
  My power bill is opaque, but its something like buy/sell for $0.31 per kWh off peak and $0.39 on peak. Peak is 4-10pm. I have no idea how it is determined.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    So you're already heavily subsidized by legislation. Power plant operators sell electricity for something like $0.05/kWh on average, which is 15-20% of what you're getting for it. They'd love to be able to sell it for $.30/kWh. The power company also would love to not have to lose a whole lot of money on buying extremely expensive electricity from you. Nevertheless, you're the one getting a sweet deal here, and you need to thank legislators for subsidizing people who can afford to install residential solar.
    - hedora 4y ago
      I'm not complaining about the free money that they send me. I'm complaining because they set the incentives wrong, and the incentives control the (closed source) battery software's policy. Therefore, the equipment I bought is offsetting way less carbon than it could. Now, multiply that waste by the number of home batteries in California.
sand500 4y ago
That's interesting. Is it because the wires into your house cannot safely take it if you dump your batteries's contents in a few hours.
- bombcar 4y ago
  If your house is rated for 200 amps in, you can deliver 200 amps to the grid. If setup correctly you could possibly deliver 200 amps to the grid whilst also consuming 200 amps yourself.
- hedora 4y ago
  30kWh / 3 hours is 10kWh per hour, or 10 kW. 10kW at 240V is 41 amps. Our connection to the grid is hundreds of amps. There are two reasons I can't do it: This is a Tesla pilot, and it is not a Tesla system. More fundamentally, this is a weird emergency response program. They should just set the rate structure so that people always have a financial incentive to minimize CO2 and also stabilize the grid. The rate structure does neither of those things, so we end up with lots of idling home batteries during peak demand events like the current one. On normal days, the batteries idle while peaker plants uselessly spew CO2.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-virtual-power-plant-pge-2022 https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-virtual-power-pla... (Have to be in PGE territory I believe unfortunately)