4 ms·

Safe to assume you’re getting net meetering? That is likely more valuable.

by tims33 4y ago

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.
  - hedora 4y ago
    I'm OK with them not paying for the useless power that I dump on the grid at noon. I have 12-24 hours of battery backup, so I can get through the night on it. Plus, they should pay more for peak usage hours (4-9pm and 6-10am) than they charge over night (the overnight power produces less than 70% as much carbon as peak power in the morning and evening), so I'd still end up selling back at a profit vs. storing electricity for my own use. Also, the cost minimizer in the battery would then charge the battery at noon, when electricity is worthless (unlike what it does now). I want to set the battery to "minimize atmospheric CO2". The details of my power bill are rounding errors vs. the ongoing damages I am already incurring from climate change.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Can you find a single day in the CAISO records where the net grid demand (so not including home solar, grid solar or grid wind) is below the amount produced by their nuclear and hydro? If you can't, and I don't think you can, why do you claim his solar is useless? I'd guess a early-spring/ late-fall weekend might be the best place to find such a day. (Weirdly, just checking this myself and his complaint that the battery charges at 9am seems to actually be the best time for a battery to charge as net demand is lowest then) There's been lots of headlines over the last few years about negative prices and too much solar, but any time I checked, they generally still have fossil generation running. Here's some modelling suggesting 120 Billion saving from distributed solar and batteries: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f4637895cfc8d77860d0dbc/t/60fb265c64858d2713dea3b3/1627072097936/California+Local+Solar+Roadmap+final+2.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f4637895cfc8d77860d0...
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
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.

Safe to assume you’re getting net meetering? That is likely more valuable.

by tims33 4y ago

Safe to assume you’re getting net meetering? That is likely more valuable.

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.
- hedora 4y ago
  I'm OK with them not paying for the useless power that I dump on the grid at noon. I have 12-24 hours of battery backup, so I can get through the night on it. Plus, they should pay more for peak usage hours (4-9pm and 6-10am) than they charge over night (the overnight power produces less than 70% as much carbon as peak power in the morning and evening), so I'd still end up selling back at a profit vs. storing electricity for my own use. Also, the cost minimizer in the battery would then charge the battery at noon, when electricity is worthless (unlike what it does now). I want to set the battery to "minimize atmospheric CO2". The details of my power bill are rounding errors vs. the ongoing damages I am already incurring from climate change.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Can you find a single day in the CAISO records where the net grid demand (so not including home solar, grid solar or grid wind) is below the amount produced by their nuclear and hydro? If you can't, and I don't think you can, why do you claim his solar is useless? I'd guess a early-spring/ late-fall weekend might be the best place to find such a day. (Weirdly, just checking this myself and his complaint that the battery charges at 9am seems to actually be the best time for a battery to charge as net demand is lowest then) There's been lots of headlines over the last few years about negative prices and too much solar, but any time I checked, they generally still have fossil generation running. Here's some modelling suggesting 120 Billion saving from distributed solar and batteries: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f4637895cfc8d77860d0dbc/t/60fb265c64858d2713dea3b3/1627072097936/California+Local+Solar+Roadmap+final+2.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f4637895cfc8d77860d0...
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago

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.