4 ms·

There is a deaded comment here about California killing solar in April. I'm wondering, what is that about? Is there a looming regulation change? The states com

There is a deaded comment here about California killing solar in April. I'm wondering, what is that about? Is there a looming regulation change? The states compete against themselves. If California does something silly regarding solar, that puts other states at an advantage.

IvyMike 4y ago
California is adopting NEM 3.0 for new installs: "Customers using solar panels can receive an average rate of 30 cents per kilowatt-hour under NEM 2.0, but under NEM 3.0, this rate would be reduced to only 8 cents per kilowatt-hour." Note that current systems (and those installed before the deadline) are covered under a legacy law and don't have to worry just yet. https://housemethod.com/solar/nem-3-0-why-april-2023-will-change-the-solar-game-in-ca/ https://housemethod.com/solar/nem-3-0-why-april-2023-will-ch... Personally I think this is an incentive to build solar + storage, so that during peak generation (early afternoon) you store your power rather than selling it back, and at peak usage (evenings) you use that. From the grid's perspective, this is much better than what has been happening. But from the public's $$ perspective, not quite as enticing.
- kurthr 4y ago
  The power generators have discovered that they would like to be making the profits from installing solar rather than their customers. It's all just a margin grab typical of the customer/supplier relationship.
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    Or maybe it is because power generation is only a small part of the cost in delivering electricity to homes. Grid maintenance is typically factored into your price per kWh, and under the old NEM those costs get shifted to your neighbors. Technology Connections has done a recent video about this on their second channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cNnVK412U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cNnVK412U
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  >Personally I think this is an incentive to build solar + storage It's been explicitly stated by the state agencies. I like my NEM2 pricing because it means I can charge the battery at night when power is cheapest, and sell back what I generate during the day. Also means I have a full battery most of the time in case the power goes down. This would be a way less attractive option under NEM3, and I don't quite understand why this isn't what people are being instructed/incentivized to do generally. I would think the utility would love the flexibility that offers.
majormajor 4y ago
Currently CA residential customers get paid retail rates for excess energy they produce and send back into the grid. In the near future they'll get wholesale rates. A big chunk of that retail vs wholesale rates difference is the cost of maintaining the grid infrastructure; a residential user isn't paying that cost in the first place, and IMO makes more sense to pay them as a pure "power generator" vs as a retail grid-provider. If you have excess power, get some storage, use it overnight, get some of that money back on the retail rates you are otherwise paying at night currently. And that's a greener, more economic system anyway.
- freetime2 4y ago
  When I looked into battery storage a couple of years ago to go along with rooftop solar, it was still far from making sense economically. The number of years it would take me to recoup my investment on a battery was something like 15 to 20 years - longer than the typical warranty on a battery. (Note that I don't live in sunny California). With electricity prices increasing, and many power companies paying less for electricity fed back into the grid, it will certainly make storage batteries more appealing. But I suspect they are still too expensive to make financial sense in many regions. And once a significant percentage of households have installed battery storage, I expect power companies will start raising their flat service fees to ensure they can keep earning their sweet, sweet profits.
  - lightedman 4y ago
    I would suggest not looking at new battery tech, and instead look at far more mature (but bulkier) storage tech. Just get a bank of AGM batteries for your wall. 12V, 100+Ah. That's 1,200w per battery. To match a 13.5kWh Powerwall, you need 12 (you'll slightly-exceed the Powerwall.) Renogy 100Ah 12V batteries are ~$200, so $2400 total for the required 12. Tesla Powerwall is almost $13,000. You can get 4-5,000 0-100-0 cycles with the AGMs, The Powerwall gets you about 3,000. 12 batteries doesn't take up a huge amount of space, either. Inverters/charger/instant-switchover systems run around $3-5K depending upon solar array power (up to 20kWh.) B-grade panels still last 30 years until 70% output, produce all the same power as their a-grade brethren, yet only cost about $80 for a 310w panel in bulk (and that was5-ish years ago when I was manufacturing them) so ~$320 in solar to generate 1.2kWh at full tilt. $3,840 to be able to refill your entire battery bank in one hour in full sunlight in optimal conditions. For not even the price of the Powerwall alone, you can have power self-sufficiency. Dump that saved money into basically doubling your storage, and never worry about energy again, in reality. ~1% degradation per year on the solar panel means even in 50 years you're still pushing ~7kWh full-tilt, that's around what most current residential systems push today. You're actually ahead of the game using older tech.

IvyMike 4y ago

California is adopting NEM 3.0 for new installs: "Customers using solar panels can receive an average rate of 30 cents per kilowatt-hour under NEM 2.0, but under NEM 3.0, this rate would be reduced to only 8 cents per kilowatt-hour." Note that current systems (and those installed before the deadline) are covered under a legacy law and don't have to worry just yet. https://housemethod.com/solar/nem-3-0-why-april-2023-will-change-the-solar-game-in-ca/ https://housemethod.com/solar/nem-3-0-why-april-2023-will-ch... Personally I think this is an incentive to build solar + storage, so that during peak generation (early afternoon) you store your power rather than selling it back, and at peak usage (evenings) you use that. From the grid's perspective, this is much better than what has been happening. But from the public's $$ perspective, not quite as enticing.

kurthr 4y ago
The power generators have discovered that they would like to be making the profits from installing solar rather than their customers. It's all just a margin grab typical of the customer/supplier relationship.
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  Or maybe it is because power generation is only a small part of the cost in delivering electricity to homes. Grid maintenance is typically factored into your price per kWh, and under the old NEM those costs get shifted to your neighbors. Technology Connections has done a recent video about this on their second channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cNnVK412U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cNnVK412U
arrosenberg 4y ago
>Personally I think this is an incentive to build solar + storage It's been explicitly stated by the state agencies. I like my NEM2 pricing because it means I can charge the battery at night when power is cheapest, and sell back what I generate during the day. Also means I have a full battery most of the time in case the power goes down. This would be a way less attractive option under NEM3, and I don't quite understand why this isn't what people are being instructed/incentivized to do generally. I would think the utility would love the flexibility that offers.

majormajor 4y ago

Currently CA residential customers get paid retail rates for excess energy they produce and send back into the grid. In the near future they'll get wholesale rates. A big chunk of that retail vs wholesale rates difference is the cost of maintaining the grid infrastructure; a residential user isn't paying that cost in the first place, and IMO makes more sense to pay them as a pure "power generator" vs as a retail grid-provider. If you have excess power, get some storage, use it overnight, get some of that money back on the retail rates you are otherwise paying at night currently. And that's a greener, more economic system anyway.

freetime2 4y ago
When I looked into battery storage a couple of years ago to go along with rooftop solar, it was still far from making sense economically. The number of years it would take me to recoup my investment on a battery was something like 15 to 20 years - longer than the typical warranty on a battery. (Note that I don't live in sunny California). With electricity prices increasing, and many power companies paying less for electricity fed back into the grid, it will certainly make storage batteries more appealing. But I suspect they are still too expensive to make financial sense in many regions. And once a significant percentage of households have installed battery storage, I expect power companies will start raising their flat service fees to ensure they can keep earning their sweet, sweet profits.
- lightedman 4y ago
  I would suggest not looking at new battery tech, and instead look at far more mature (but bulkier) storage tech. Just get a bank of AGM batteries for your wall. 12V, 100+Ah. That's 1,200w per battery. To match a 13.5kWh Powerwall, you need 12 (you'll slightly-exceed the Powerwall.) Renogy 100Ah 12V batteries are ~$200, so $2400 total for the required 12. Tesla Powerwall is almost $13,000. You can get 4-5,000 0-100-0 cycles with the AGMs, The Powerwall gets you about 3,000. 12 batteries doesn't take up a huge amount of space, either. Inverters/charger/instant-switchover systems run around $3-5K depending upon solar array power (up to 20kWh.) B-grade panels still last 30 years until 70% output, produce all the same power as their a-grade brethren, yet only cost about $80 for a 310w panel in bulk (and that was5-ish years ago when I was manufacturing them) so ~$320 in solar to generate 1.2kWh at full tilt. $3,840 to be able to refill your entire battery bank in one hour in full sunlight in optimal conditions. For not even the price of the Powerwall alone, you can have power self-sufficiency. Dump that saved money into basically doubling your storage, and never worry about energy again, in reality. ~1% degradation per year on the solar panel means even in 50 years you're still pushing ~7kWh full-tilt, that's around what most current residential systems push today. You're actually ahead of the game using older tech.