4 ms·

If that's true, why is self-generation (with storage!) cheaper than paying PG&E?

jfengel 3y ago
Because PG&E is paying for a ton of infrastructure, and you're not. PG&E is also carrying on a lot of legacy generation capability. They'd love to replace it all with renewables and storage (and peaker plants), but it takes time and money. So for the moment they're selling more-expensive power. When they're all done they'll be providing power cheaper than your home solar setup, even with their additional requirements (like paying for rural electrification). But that's some time off.
- nlewycky 3y ago
  > When they're all done they'll be providing power cheaper than your home solar setup, even with their additional requirements Really? Could you cite a source with some numbers? On my PG&E bill, the cost of power generation is about 44%, the remaining extra requirements (transmission/distribution, billing, legal compliance, etc.) are the other 56%. Based on that I extrapolated to thinking that the long term future of electricity is to remove the grid because the cost of moving power around exceeds the cost of generating it, but that extrapolation makes for a big assumption. I'd love to see an analysis if you know of one?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Utility-scale solar is two thirds cheaper than rooftop [1]. In 2021, transmission and distribution was 7% of American electric utilities' operating expenses, production 40% [2]. [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf Figure ES-1 [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_03.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_03.html
    - jfengel 3y ago
      That does still leave 53% in other overhead, and it must be awfully tempting to leave that behind and just cut yourself off from the grid entirely. That's kinda dicey, since it leaves you without recourse if you get a few days of no sun, unless you've got truly ginormous battery packs. The grid overhead is unfortunate, but it's a great backup that has to be funded even if you rarely use it. Perhaps some of that overhead can be reduced by more renewables. It does seem awfully high to have more than half of the costs be unrelated to power.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > does still leave 53% in other overhead Which is less than two thirds. (PG&E's unique incompetence seems to make the bargain less clear in California.)
        zbrozek 3y ago
        The article is specifically about California, so looking at PG&E, SDG&E and SCE is appropriate. They all have eye-watering prices for electricity. For example, PG&E's default residential plan rates range from $0.41 to $0.54 per KWh. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-TOU-C.pdf https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED... It's fairly easy to put together a solar system that pays itself off in single digit years but lasts 20-30.
      - zbrozek 3y ago
        Fossil fuel in a generator completely solves that problem. Looking at my usage for last year, I would've needed to burn about 20 gallons of gasoline to cover my solar shortfall. All of it was in two tranches during atmospheric river events. If my full solar array was up, it would have been zero gallons. And I already have the generator and the fuel because PG&E uptime is bad and forces me to maintain parallel infrastructure anyway. Once income-based connection charges go live, there's no reason for me to stay connected to the grid at all.
        toomuchtodo 3y ago

Because PG&E is paying for a ton of infrastructure, and you're not. PG&E is also carrying on a lot of legacy generation capability. They'd love to replace it all with renewables and storage (and peaker plants), but it takes time and money. So for the moment they're selling more-expensive power. When they're all done they'll be providing power cheaper than your home solar setup, even with their additional requirements (like paying for rural electrification). But that's some time off.

nlewycky 3y ago
> When they're all done they'll be providing power cheaper than your home solar setup, even with their additional requirements Really? Could you cite a source with some numbers? On my PG&E bill, the cost of power generation is about 44%, the remaining extra requirements (transmission/distribution, billing, legal compliance, etc.) are the other 56%. Based on that I extrapolated to thinking that the long term future of electricity is to remove the grid because the cost of moving power around exceeds the cost of generating it, but that extrapolation makes for a big assumption. I'd love to see an analysis if you know of one?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Utility-scale solar is two thirds cheaper than rooftop [1]. In 2021, transmission and distribution was 7% of American electric utilities' operating expenses, production 40% [2]. [1] https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/77324.pdf Figure ES-1 [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_03.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_03.html
  - jfengel 3y ago
    That does still leave 53% in other overhead, and it must be awfully tempting to leave that behind and just cut yourself off from the grid entirely. That's kinda dicey, since it leaves you without recourse if you get a few days of no sun, unless you've got truly ginormous battery packs. The grid overhead is unfortunate, but it's a great backup that has to be funded even if you rarely use it. Perhaps some of that overhead can be reduced by more renewables. It does seem awfully high to have more than half of the costs be unrelated to power.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > does still leave 53% in other overhead Which is less than two thirds. (PG&E's unique incompetence seems to make the bargain less clear in California.)
      - zbrozek 3y ago
        The article is specifically about California, so looking at PG&E, SDG&E and SCE is appropriate. They all have eye-watering prices for electricity. For example, PG&E's default residential plan rates range from $0.41 to $0.54 per KWh. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-TOU-C.pdf https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED... It's fairly easy to put together a solar system that pays itself off in single digit years but lasts 20-30.
    - zbrozek 3y ago
      Fossil fuel in a generator completely solves that problem. Looking at my usage for last year, I would've needed to burn about 20 gallons of gasoline to cover my solar shortfall. All of it was in two tranches during atmospheric river events. If my full solar array was up, it would have been zero gallons. And I already have the generator and the fuel because PG&E uptime is bad and forces me to maintain parallel infrastructure anyway. Once income-based connection charges go live, there's no reason for me to stay connected to the grid at all.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago