5 ms·

One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-co

One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-competed by utility companies. Edit: Unless you're taking advantage of tax incentives to do it at house scale. Its hard to beat the economics of just being handed free money.

dylan604 3y ago
An individual can take action now whereas the grid scale action is molasses like. It's even worse when your state is not in the pocket of but the actual pocket of Big Oil
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  But an individual can't take action without the grid taking action to provide customers with the different pricing rates.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    What? The entire premise was that it is cheaper at night. Thanks for jumping into the middle of the convo though and trying to jerk the wheel.
    - mcbishop 3y ago
      Settle down. A lot of the U.S. doesn't have time-differentiated rates.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        And that has precisely squat to do with my intrigue into looking at a system like this. If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't be interested. So what's your point exactly?
        mcbishop 3y ago
        > If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't be interested. It may or may not make sense depending on your location. Many utilities would prefer to make customer-owned solar a very poor financial choice thru rate design (e.g. very high minimum charges, per-kw-installed solar charges, low daytime rates relative to evening rates, wholesale-rate compensation for exported production, etc). Some succeed.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        And much of that does is nowhere near the real cost differences. I might see a difference on/off peak price difference of 0.05 on a $0.40/kwh, but wholesale prices fluctuate from negative prices at peak to much higher rates.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      If you claim is that "An individual can take action now" by installing a battery to charge at lower rate, then the question of if they can actually purchase power at that lower rate is fundamental. If household power purchase price doesnt change with time/generation cost, then there is not ability to act faster than the power company.
antisthenes 3y ago
> One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-competed by utility companies. Depends. It may be more profitable for utility companies, but they keep the profit of the economies of scale. It is almost never passed on to the customer. If you DIY your own energy system, you're free to keep all the surplus generated by it through the life of the system.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Only if they let you by giving you a big price discount to charge
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Their alternative is to find some way to generate a lot more cheap electricity after sunset. If whatever they're doing can't beat the cost of solar panels on your roof + batteries and a small generator to top them up in exceptional circumstances, people will just stop paying them altogether.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-competed by utility companies. Utility companies have to pay for distribution networks, and generally pass that cost on in the price per kWh. Which you avoid the less you use the grid -- and which then become a higher proportion of the prices the utility has to charge the more people do that.
- dylan604 3y ago
  In a lot of urban locations, it is not legal to have a residence that is not connected to the grid. If you have home generation capabilities and storage that means you take the least amount from the grid provider, you can be technically still connected to the grid without using any power. If this continues, I would not put it past the grid provider to come up with a minimum monthly bill so it is impossible to have a $0 payment. Otherwise, who's going to pay for the administrative costs of having you as a customer?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Large minimum monthly fee + required to buy service seems like the kind of thing that would piss off voters.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      Ah, I see where you strayed from reality. Your comment seems to be based on a premise that voters are rational.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        The rational thing for voters to do is to mostly ignore what the government does unless it directly impacts them in a way they can understand well enough to rally around and get it changed. Which, it turns out, is mostly what they do. That just has terrible results most of the time, because it means that people generally ignore or otherwise don't understand what the government is doing, which leads to all kinds of inefficiency and corruption. But "law requires you to buy this expensive thing you don't want" is simple enough for people to understand and get mad about, and affects enough people to make politicians care.
rstuart4133 3y ago
> if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale There is a reason home generation wins. It's because retail prices are 3 times what the generator is paid. (That's true where I live). So yes, in absolute terms power generated by home solar costs more than a utility generating it. But it's not 3 times more, so if you install home solar and use the power, it's always a big win. It will be the same with batteries. The traditional forms of generating power, coal, gas, hydro and nuclear only win because home generation costs using those technologies (eg, putting a coal mine and generator in your back year) costs far more than 3 times. You can't put wind, or pumped storage in your back yard either. But solar and batteries are different animals. They are different in other ways too. It always makes sense to over provision solar. The question is not whether to do it, but by how much. So home generators will always be looking to sell power, and since it's free selling it at 1/3 of what they would pay for the same power looks like money for jam to them. It makes you wonder how many utility generators will be left standing if solar takes over the world.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > it's always a big win AFTER you finish paying off the financing of the source of home generation. so maybe it'll be a big win for the people in your location after you're gone???
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  This brings up an interesting consideration. Is it possible that in the age of solar, power grids are simply uneconomical in areas of insufficient density? That people in more rural areas would be better off not having a grid and just installing rooftop solar and batteries instead? My gut tells me that the added reliably of a grid is probably worth paying 3x the price, but its hard to be sure.

dylan604 3y ago

An individual can take action now whereas the grid scale action is molasses like. It's even worse when your state is not in the pocket of but the actual pocket of Big Oil

s1artibartfast 3y ago
But an individual can't take action without the grid taking action to provide customers with the different pricing rates.
- dylan604 3y ago
  What? The entire premise was that it is cheaper at night. Thanks for jumping into the middle of the convo though and trying to jerk the wheel.
  - mcbishop 3y ago
    Settle down. A lot of the U.S. doesn't have time-differentiated rates.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      And that has precisely squat to do with my intrigue into looking at a system like this. If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't be interested. So what's your point exactly?
      - mcbishop 3y ago
        > If it didn't make sense, I wouldn't be interested. It may or may not make sense depending on your location. Many utilities would prefer to make customer-owned solar a very poor financial choice thru rate design (e.g. very high minimum charges, per-kw-installed solar charges, low daytime rates relative to evening rates, wholesale-rate compensation for exported production, etc). Some succeed.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      And much of that does is nowhere near the real cost differences. I might see a difference on/off peak price difference of 0.05 on a $0.40/kwh, but wholesale prices fluctuate from negative prices at peak to much higher rates.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    If you claim is that "An individual can take action now" by installing a battery to charge at lower rate, then the question of if they can actually purchase power at that lower rate is fundamental. If household power purchase price doesnt change with time/generation cost, then there is not ability to act faster than the power company.

antisthenes 3y ago

> One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-competed by utility companies. Depends. It may be more profitable for utility companies, but they keep the profit of the economies of scale. It is almost never passed on to the customer. If you DIY your own energy system, you're free to keep all the surplus generated by it through the life of the system.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
Only if they let you by giving you a big price discount to charge
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Their alternative is to find some way to generate a lot more cheap electricity after sunset. If whatever they're doing can't beat the cost of solar panels on your roof + batteries and a small generator to top them up in exceptional circumstances, people will just stop paying them altogether.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> One thing to consider is that if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale and you'll likely be out-competed by utility companies. Utility companies have to pay for distribution networks, and generally pass that cost on in the price per kWh. Which you avoid the less you use the grid -- and which then become a higher proportion of the prices the utility has to charge the more people do that.

dylan604 3y ago
In a lot of urban locations, it is not legal to have a residence that is not connected to the grid. If you have home generation capabilities and storage that means you take the least amount from the grid provider, you can be technically still connected to the grid without using any power. If this continues, I would not put it past the grid provider to come up with a minimum monthly bill so it is impossible to have a $0 payment. Otherwise, who's going to pay for the administrative costs of having you as a customer?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Large minimum monthly fee + required to buy service seems like the kind of thing that would piss off voters.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Ah, I see where you strayed from reality. Your comment seems to be based on a premise that voters are rational.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The rational thing for voters to do is to mostly ignore what the government does unless it directly impacts them in a way they can understand well enough to rally around and get it changed. Which, it turns out, is mostly what they do. That just has terrible results most of the time, because it means that people generally ignore or otherwise don't understand what the government is doing, which leads to all kinds of inefficiency and corruption. But "law requires you to buy this expensive thing you don't want" is simple enough for people to understand and get mad about, and affects enough people to make politicians care.

rstuart4133 3y ago

> if that's profitable to do at house scale, then it's probably even more profitable to do at grid scale There is a reason home generation wins. It's because retail prices are 3 times what the generator is paid. (That's true where I live). So yes, in absolute terms power generated by home solar costs more than a utility generating it. But it's not 3 times more, so if you install home solar and use the power, it's always a big win. It will be the same with batteries. The traditional forms of generating power, coal, gas, hydro and nuclear only win because home generation costs using those technologies (eg, putting a coal mine and generator in your back year) costs far more than 3 times. You can't put wind, or pumped storage in your back yard either. But solar and batteries are different animals. They are different in other ways too. It always makes sense to over provision solar. The question is not whether to do it, but by how much. So home generators will always be looking to sell power, and since it's free selling it at 1/3 of what they would pay for the same power looks like money for jam to them. It makes you wonder how many utility generators will be left standing if solar takes over the world.

dylan604 3y ago
> it's always a big win AFTER you finish paying off the financing of the source of home generation. so maybe it'll be a big win for the people in your location after you're gone???
Ajedi32 3y ago
This brings up an interesting consideration. Is it possible that in the age of solar, power grids are simply uneconomical in areas of insufficient density? That people in more rural areas would be better off not having a grid and just installing rooftop solar and batteries instead? My gut tells me that the added reliably of a grid is probably worth paying 3x the price, but its hard to be sure.