4 ms·

I like option 3. Why is it a bad outcome for the average electricity user? As the demand on the grid reduces the prices should fall down for those using the gri

by hrjet 13y ago

I like option 3. Why is it a bad outcome for the average electricity user? As the demand on the grid reduces the prices should fall down for those using the grid. In the very least, they shouldn't be affected.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
As the population on the grid falls, the infrastructure cost per head increases and the cost of borrowing for infrastructure upgrades also goes up, because a company that is losing customers is a risky bet for the bank.
- waps 13y ago
  From the article : "Disconnecting from the grid is not realistic for most people, Chung said. The current state of battery technology means they have to be replaced after a few years, he said. And putting a system with batteries on a typical house would cost $40,000 versus $25,000 for one without the storage component, he said. Moreover, the battery portion isn't eligible for the tax credits." So population on the grid does not fall. What mostly falls is the revenue from them. 90% of the time they're not paying (or even paying negative amounts thanks to the laws the greens forced through). The company can't disconnect them, and if the greens have anything to say about it, can't charge them. They need to provide backup power though, because the solar installations can't do that (without tripling in cost).
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    So population on the grid does not fall. It does in the point I was actually answering to though. I was answering the question; "I like option 3. Why is it a bad outcome for the average electricity user?", where option 3 is "Solar people buy batteries and don't return power to the grid." You are basically saying you think there is a low likelyhood of the topic of the question someone else asked becoming reality. But I didn't propose how likely it was one way or another, I was just answering the question that they asked about the downsides.
waps 13y ago
because the electricity company will still need the full capacity of the grid in power plants spinning idle to be able to react to renewble output changes. So not much savings on existing infrastructure. That combines with selling 50-60% less in the limited deployment case, 90-95% less. That means prices will need to increase by a factor 3 in the limited deployment case, factor 10-20 in the green's "dream scenario" case.

by hrjet 13y ago

moocowduckquack 13y ago

As the population on the grid falls, the infrastructure cost per head increases and the cost of borrowing for infrastructure upgrades also goes up, because a company that is losing customers is a risky bet for the bank.

waps 13y ago
From the article : "Disconnecting from the grid is not realistic for most people, Chung said. The current state of battery technology means they have to be replaced after a few years, he said. And putting a system with batteries on a typical house would cost $40,000 versus $25,000 for one without the storage component, he said. Moreover, the battery portion isn't eligible for the tax credits." So population on the grid does not fall. What mostly falls is the revenue from them. 90% of the time they're not paying (or even paying negative amounts thanks to the laws the greens forced through). The company can't disconnect them, and if the greens have anything to say about it, can't charge them. They need to provide backup power though, because the solar installations can't do that (without tripling in cost).
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  So population on the grid does not fall. It does in the point I was actually answering to though. I was answering the question; "I like option 3. Why is it a bad outcome for the average electricity user?", where option 3 is "Solar people buy batteries and don't return power to the grid." You are basically saying you think there is a low likelyhood of the topic of the question someone else asked becoming reality. But I didn't propose how likely it was one way or another, I was just answering the question that they asked about the downsides.

waps 13y ago

because the electricity company will still need the full capacity of the grid in power plants spinning idle to be able to react to renewble output changes. So not much savings on existing infrastructure. That combines with selling 50-60% less in the limited deployment case, 90-95% less. That means prices will need to increase by a factor 3 in the limited deployment case, factor 10-20 in the green's "dream scenario" case.