6 ms·

Is it possible for there to be any push back on this from electric utility providers?

grandpa 12y ago
Utilities should be happy about this. One of their biggest problems is uneven load on the grid - low at night, too high during a heatwave - and this has the potential to make that problem a lot easier.
- astazangasta 12y ago
  Utilities won't be happy about thus. They are already upset about having people with rooftop solar selling to the grid (taking their revenue); this will only make it worse.
  - snsr 12y ago
    I imagine generation and transmission rates will certainly be adjusted to cope with changes in demand and grid topology.
  - ammaar 12y ago
    Is there a legitimate concern for maintenance of the grid? Don't current utility costs partially go back into standard maintenance and improvement?
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      It's not just maintenance. The system as a whole was architected to take advantage of the economies of scale you get when you assume that your customers remain consumers and you control the production. Nobody foresaw back then that each house could be a potential power plant. When you start to change that, you're still having to maintain the current infrastructure, which is steadily becoming obsolete, while also building new infrastructure to handle random power spikes and draws in arbitrary locations. You have to do this across the whole grid, everywhere in the country. This has the utilities very very nervous.
- msandford 12y ago
  They should be, but they won't be. Because it makes people less dependent upon them. If you bought one of these and enough solar panels you could go completely off-grid. Which the power companies desperately don't want. It's to the point where they're charging people for being hooked up at all, lest everyone think about putting in solar and only buying power when the sun isn't shining. The utilities would be happy about this if they controlled it, but they won't because the capital expense would be way too high. They'll only be happy about it if they somehow are the only ones who have control and get to use it for free. Somehow I doubt that'll happen.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Hey, utilities are often run by public-spirited folk with no greedy agenda. They make decisions that are aimed to balance the needs of the many, which can appear to be against the wants of the few.
    - msandford 12y ago
      You're absolutely right! Some are. But some aren't, and some power companies are very scared and lashing out. There was an attempt in Arizona to get monthly connection fees of up to $100/mo if you have solar at all. Hawaii has blocked people from getting solar hooked up to the grid. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/19/solar-energy-arizona-net-metering http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/19/solar-energy-ariz... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-successfull-its-been-halted/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-su... The problem is obvious, of course. At some point the only people left paying any kind of substantial monthly fees are those who can't afford solar, and those are likely the poorest. And then what happens is that there's a regressive tax. I get that you can't have that kind of bad outcome. But at the same time, grid maintenance is fairly cheap and peak power generation is very expensive, which is why utilities will pay people to be able to turn off their A/C at peak times. This is quite literally where solar shines: the more A/C load there is the more likely you're getting good power out of solar. If the utilities need to prevent a regressive tax situation then they need to change incentives to be more transparent rather than just flailing about. If peak power is expensive, make it easier for people to put solar up and get paid for it. If nighttime power is cheap, make it cheaper on the bill. Power companies are basically complaining that arbitrage is hard. They're the ones who are in charge of their own business models, though, not me. So if they fail to adapt to the world as it stands, you'll forgive me for not feeling sympathy.
reportingsjr 12y ago
Absolutely. People have been installing batteries like these in their homes for quite a while now. Southern California Edison has been rejecting and even threatening to disconnect people with battery backups [0]. Their argument is that people with batteries can charge them during low load periods (normally night) and then push that energy back on to the grid at high load times (evening/morning) to make money. The article says Tesla is in talks with many utilities so hopefully they can get a good deal worked out. This could really help wind and solar if these battery packs are cheap and utilities allow them to help regulate the power grid. [0]: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08/solar-battery-backup-under-attack-in-california http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08...
SEJeff 12y ago
Massively so, but that is a losing game. http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/20/the-solar-challenge-part-2-utilities-push-back-on-rooftop-solar/ http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/20/the-solar-challenge-part-... http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/09/02/survey-finds-customers-support-solar-as-utilities-push-back/ http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/09/02/survey-finds-cus... But they are unlikely to prevent it. It just means their existing monopolies won't be as profitable in the future.

Utilities should be happy about this. One of their biggest problems is uneven load on the grid - low at night, too high during a heatwave - and this has the potential to make that problem a lot easier.

astazangasta 12y ago
Utilities won't be happy about thus. They are already upset about having people with rooftop solar selling to the grid (taking their revenue); this will only make it worse.
- snsr 12y ago
  I imagine generation and transmission rates will certainly be adjusted to cope with changes in demand and grid topology.
- ammaar 12y ago
  Is there a legitimate concern for maintenance of the grid? Don't current utility costs partially go back into standard maintenance and improvement?
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    It's not just maintenance. The system as a whole was architected to take advantage of the economies of scale you get when you assume that your customers remain consumers and you control the production. Nobody foresaw back then that each house could be a potential power plant. When you start to change that, you're still having to maintain the current infrastructure, which is steadily becoming obsolete, while also building new infrastructure to handle random power spikes and draws in arbitrary locations. You have to do this across the whole grid, everywhere in the country. This has the utilities very very nervous.
msandford 12y ago
They should be, but they won't be. Because it makes people less dependent upon them. If you bought one of these and enough solar panels you could go completely off-grid. Which the power companies desperately don't want. It's to the point where they're charging people for being hooked up at all, lest everyone think about putting in solar and only buying power when the sun isn't shining. The utilities would be happy about this if they controlled it, but they won't because the capital expense would be way too high. They'll only be happy about it if they somehow are the only ones who have control and get to use it for free. Somehow I doubt that'll happen.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Hey, utilities are often run by public-spirited folk with no greedy agenda. They make decisions that are aimed to balance the needs of the many, which can appear to be against the wants of the few.
  - msandford 12y ago
    You're absolutely right! Some are. But some aren't, and some power companies are very scared and lashing out. There was an attempt in Arizona to get monthly connection fees of up to $100/mo if you have solar at all. Hawaii has blocked people from getting solar hooked up to the grid. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/19/solar-energy-arizona-net-metering http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/07/19/solar-energy-ariz... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-successfull-its-been-halted/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-solar-boom-so-su... The problem is obvious, of course. At some point the only people left paying any kind of substantial monthly fees are those who can't afford solar, and those are likely the poorest. And then what happens is that there's a regressive tax. I get that you can't have that kind of bad outcome. But at the same time, grid maintenance is fairly cheap and peak power generation is very expensive, which is why utilities will pay people to be able to turn off their A/C at peak times. This is quite literally where solar shines: the more A/C load there is the more likely you're getting good power out of solar. If the utilities need to prevent a regressive tax situation then they need to change incentives to be more transparent rather than just flailing about. If peak power is expensive, make it easier for people to put solar up and get paid for it. If nighttime power is cheap, make it cheaper on the bill. Power companies are basically complaining that arbitrage is hard. They're the ones who are in charge of their own business models, though, not me. So if they fail to adapt to the world as it stands, you'll forgive me for not feeling sympathy.

reportingsjr 12y ago

Absolutely. People have been installing batteries like these in their homes for quite a while now. Southern California Edison has been rejecting and even threatening to disconnect people with battery backups [0]. Their argument is that people with batteries can charge them during low load periods (normally night) and then push that energy back on to the grid at high load times (evening/morning) to make money. The article says Tesla is in talks with many utilities so hopefully they can get a good deal worked out. This could really help wind and solar if these battery packs are cheap and utilities allow them to help regulate the power grid. [0]: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08/solar-battery-backup-under-attack-in-california http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08...

SEJeff 12y ago

Massively so, but that is a losing game. http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/20/the-solar-challenge-part-2-utilities-push-back-on-rooftop-solar/ http://insideenergy.org/2014/08/20/the-solar-challenge-part-... http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/09/02/survey-finds-customers-support-solar-as-utilities-push-back/ http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/09/02/survey-finds-cus... But they are unlikely to prevent it. It just means their existing monopolies won't be as profitable in the future.