5 ms·

The issue here is the mandate that when you create electricity with solar that the electric company must buy that electricity from you as you feed it back into

The issue here is the mandate that when you create electricity with solar that the electric company must buy that electricity from you as you feed it back into the grid, regardless if they currently need it or not based on demand. These power companies dont want to become energy storage companies, its too expensive. They prefer to simply make as much electricity at the moment as is needed. I agree with the electric companies on this point. If they dont need the electricity, why should they be forced to buy it? That will increase costs for non-solar customers as they end up footing the bill for the battery storage needed by solar customers. I think the proper way to do these installs is to have customers always have on site batteries which store the energy for their own homes use. Yes, its nice to sell back electricity to the grid, but that feels like a very hackish way to use 'solar'. It makes sense also. If you want to save money on your electricity, you need to make your own, so you draw less from the grid- Not make it for someone else when nobody wants it. Does anyone know if the power company is required to buy all forms of electricity currently? Could you just setup thousands of solar panels in a field you own and demand money from the grid? Seems like a easy return on investment, depending on the cost of panels/equipment.

maxerickson 11y ago
The laws are usually based on "net metering", so they probably only apply to the amount of electricity you can pass through a residential meter.
lotsofmangos 11y ago
You are conflating the electricity producers with the grid. The grid itself actually saves money by installing storage, when compared to upgrading links, and does so when it can. As to, if they do not need the power, why should they buy it? Well, there are two reasons, one is that everyone else on the grid already gets to, so it would be anti-competitive to not allow it for the little guys, and the other is that someone will always want power, so it makes economic sense to buy the power and build storage to offset it and make money through arbitrage.
brownbat 11y ago
Most net metering programs take solar from a home when the grid is facing its highest demand and energy is most expensive for the power company. They then provide a credit to your bill in watts. With a solar installation, you're drawing energy at night, when the grid basically wants to give away power to keep things balanced. So you contribute a dollar worth of power, and you take out the same power at a later point in time, and the power company basically gives you a 5 cent credit. The power companies make fistfulls of cash on the arbitrage. They still hate it though, because distributed power generation threatens the model of power monopolies that get to fix prices while steadily reducing service. Hawaii in particular has faced historically terrible load balancing, so some of the distributed generation is a response to the poor existing services and constant outages. HECO basically created all the incentives for the public to hate and want to work around them. You couldn't just give them an out on whether they wanted to buy the power or not, since they despise distributed solar generation. They'd just build a messy and expensive quick spin up generator, buy expensive power from that during midday, and claim they don't "need" the solar, to deter investment in the technology, even though it'd be better for everyone if they bought the solar. You can't ask a kid how much he needs foul tasting medicine. Sometimes you just have to deliver it.
- hueving 11y ago
  You state the following as a given, which is exactly what your parent says is wrong. >Most net metering programs take solar from a home when the grid is facing its highest demand and energy is most expensive for the power company. They then provide a credit to your bill in watts. With a solar installation, you're drawing energy at night, when the grid basically wants to give away power to keep things balanced. Do you have a source that states production from solar meets peak demand?
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    We can take it as given that solar panels produce the most power during the day, particularly when the sun is directly overhead. The assumption is that air conditioning and refrigeration is a major electricity use that consumes the most power when the sun is shining. Presumably that is the case for residential, office, retail, and most service industry use. There are industries whose electricity use is not correlated with time of day, but they're not based in Hawai'i. If you want evidence that the damnedpowercompany would like to give away power at night, take a look at their awful "security light" programs.
pjc50 11y ago
Could you just setup thousands of solar panels in a field you own and demand money from the grid? Seems like a easy return on investment, depending on the cost of panels/equipment This depends on your jurisdiction; in the UK you can put up to 4kW on an inhabited building and get a subsidy. Larger installations require pre-approval.
- codecamper 11y ago
  Of course in the UK a 4kW system will rarely produce 4kW!
crdoconnor 11y ago
>I agree with the electric companies on this point. If they dont need the electricity, why should they be forced to buy it? A) Because they are operating a utility monopoly. We are forced to be their customers. They should be forced to be ours. B) They could use it, but they would rather sell you the output from their oil fired power stations because the profit is higher for them. That is why they don't want your solar panels hooked up - not because your neighbors couldn't use the electricity they generate - because it challenges their monopoly position and eats into their profit margins. If this were truly about electric companies not needing the electricity (as opposed to them viewing any challenge to their monopoly as a 'free market evil'), then they would be arguing for market pricing for your solar generated electricity. They are not. They want your solar panels to be completely disconnected. Ideally you shouldn't even have them at all. >Yes, its nice to sell back electricity to the grid, but that feels like a very hackish way to use 'solar'. Your argument for how energy policy should be set are informed by what you think "feels hackish"?
- ronniemcdon 11y ago
  I think you hit the nail on the head. Their monopoly is in jeopardy and they aren't happy about it. Hawaii tried geothermal, but for some odd reason it made a loud whistle sound when letting off exhaust. People didn't like that, so the idea stopped cold. I'd have just had some shitty engineer spend ten seconds proposing an easy fix for that, but then again if the power company gave me millions NOT to do that, why would i?
- thomaskcr 11y ago
  I'm really surprised people on HN don't see the complexity of having distributed power generation that you have no visibility on. I don't really think this is as trivial a problem as people seem to think it is. As for the situation of selling power back to the grid, I would argue the solar users are still the customers. The power companies don't want it because the changes need to be paid for by current customers but only benefit ex-customers. The solar users are using the grid as a giant battery and an insurance policy for cloudy days. If the power companies are paying what they charge, then the laws of physics say they are losing money due to losses to heat, etc. So of course their margins are higher on their power.
lutorm 11y ago
Having just gotten our PV panel installed on our roof this year, this is fresh in my mind. Of course everyone is doing it -- electricity in Hawaii is insanely expensive. Before we turned on the system, we paid $200/month for power! And this is in a house with no heat and no AC. Do they have to buy the power? Yes, but not without limits. The system is built on "net metering". Every kWh we deliver to the grid can only go to offset one that we already have or will use. If your system is so large so as to make you a net producer of energy when averaged over a whole year, you will be giving that away to the utility for free. The rules also limit installation of PV systems to a level that will not exceed the minimum daytime load on the local circuit, exactly because there is nowhere to store the power. So every kWh they get from us is one they would otherwise have to generate to supply to one of my neighbors. It's clear that the utility companies aren't happy with this. But studies have shown that these "extra costs" the utilities talk about being saddled with are offset by savings to them as well. Solar power typically produces power during times of high power demand, so the net effect of solar is actually to even out the daily load variance. This is good for the utility because they need to make sure they have capacity to handle peak load, even if it's only for a small fraction of the time. These "peak power" plants are expensive, because you almost never get to operate them. When PV reduces peak load, they don't need these plants and this is a net win for them.

maxerickson 11y ago

The laws are usually based on "net metering", so they probably only apply to the amount of electricity you can pass through a residential meter.

lotsofmangos 11y ago

You are conflating the electricity producers with the grid. The grid itself actually saves money by installing storage, when compared to upgrading links, and does so when it can. As to, if they do not need the power, why should they buy it? Well, there are two reasons, one is that everyone else on the grid already gets to, so it would be anti-competitive to not allow it for the little guys, and the other is that someone will always want power, so it makes economic sense to buy the power and build storage to offset it and make money through arbitrage.

brownbat 11y ago

Most net metering programs take solar from a home when the grid is facing its highest demand and energy is most expensive for the power company. They then provide a credit to your bill in watts. With a solar installation, you're drawing energy at night, when the grid basically wants to give away power to keep things balanced. So you contribute a dollar worth of power, and you take out the same power at a later point in time, and the power company basically gives you a 5 cent credit. The power companies make fistfulls of cash on the arbitrage. They still hate it though, because distributed power generation threatens the model of power monopolies that get to fix prices while steadily reducing service. Hawaii in particular has faced historically terrible load balancing, so some of the distributed generation is a response to the poor existing services and constant outages. HECO basically created all the incentives for the public to hate and want to work around them. You couldn't just give them an out on whether they wanted to buy the power or not, since they despise distributed solar generation. They'd just build a messy and expensive quick spin up generator, buy expensive power from that during midday, and claim they don't "need" the solar, to deter investment in the technology, even though it'd be better for everyone if they bought the solar. You can't ask a kid how much he needs foul tasting medicine. Sometimes you just have to deliver it.

hueving 11y ago
You state the following as a given, which is exactly what your parent says is wrong. >Most net metering programs take solar from a home when the grid is facing its highest demand and energy is most expensive for the power company. They then provide a credit to your bill in watts. With a solar installation, you're drawing energy at night, when the grid basically wants to give away power to keep things balanced. Do you have a source that states production from solar meets peak demand?
- jessaustin 11y ago
  We can take it as given that solar panels produce the most power during the day, particularly when the sun is directly overhead. The assumption is that air conditioning and refrigeration is a major electricity use that consumes the most power when the sun is shining. Presumably that is the case for residential, office, retail, and most service industry use. There are industries whose electricity use is not correlated with time of day, but they're not based in Hawai'i. If you want evidence that the damnedpowercompany would like to give away power at night, take a look at their awful "security light" programs.

pjc50 11y ago

Could you just setup thousands of solar panels in a field you own and demand money from the grid? Seems like a easy return on investment, depending on the cost of panels/equipment This depends on your jurisdiction; in the UK you can put up to 4kW on an inhabited building and get a subsidy. Larger installations require pre-approval.

codecamper 11y ago
Of course in the UK a 4kW system will rarely produce 4kW!

crdoconnor 11y ago

>I agree with the electric companies on this point. If they dont need the electricity, why should they be forced to buy it? A) Because they are operating a utility monopoly. We are forced to be their customers. They should be forced to be ours. B) They could use it, but they would rather sell you the output from their oil fired power stations because the profit is higher for them. That is why they don't want your solar panels hooked up - not because your neighbors couldn't use the electricity they generate - because it challenges their monopoly position and eats into their profit margins. If this were truly about electric companies not needing the electricity (as opposed to them viewing any challenge to their monopoly as a 'free market evil'), then they would be arguing for market pricing for your solar generated electricity. They are not. They want your solar panels to be completely disconnected. Ideally you shouldn't even have them at all. >Yes, its nice to sell back electricity to the grid, but that feels like a very hackish way to use 'solar'. Your argument for how energy policy should be set are informed by what you think "feels hackish"?

ronniemcdon 11y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head. Their monopoly is in jeopardy and they aren't happy about it. Hawaii tried geothermal, but for some odd reason it made a loud whistle sound when letting off exhaust. People didn't like that, so the idea stopped cold. I'd have just had some shitty engineer spend ten seconds proposing an easy fix for that, but then again if the power company gave me millions NOT to do that, why would i?
thomaskcr 11y ago
I'm really surprised people on HN don't see the complexity of having distributed power generation that you have no visibility on. I don't really think this is as trivial a problem as people seem to think it is. As for the situation of selling power back to the grid, I would argue the solar users are still the customers. The power companies don't want it because the changes need to be paid for by current customers but only benefit ex-customers. The solar users are using the grid as a giant battery and an insurance policy for cloudy days. If the power companies are paying what they charge, then the laws of physics say they are losing money due to losses to heat, etc. So of course their margins are higher on their power.

lutorm 11y ago

Having just gotten our PV panel installed on our roof this year, this is fresh in my mind. Of course everyone is doing it -- electricity in Hawaii is insanely expensive. Before we turned on the system, we paid $200/month for power! And this is in a house with no heat and no AC. Do they have to buy the power? Yes, but not without limits. The system is built on "net metering". Every kWh we deliver to the grid can only go to offset one that we already have or will use. If your system is so large so as to make you a net producer of energy when averaged over a whole year, you will be giving that away to the utility for free. The rules also limit installation of PV systems to a level that will not exceed the minimum daytime load on the local circuit, exactly because there is nowhere to store the power. So every kWh they get from us is one they would otherwise have to generate to supply to one of my neighbors. It's clear that the utility companies aren't happy with this. But studies have shown that these "extra costs" the utilities talk about being saddled with are offset by savings to them as well. Solar power typically produces power during times of high power demand, so the net effect of solar is actually to even out the daily load variance. This is good for the utility because they need to make sure they have capacity to handle peak load, even if it's only for a small fraction of the time. These "peak power" plants are expensive, because you almost never get to operate them. When PV reduces peak load, they don't need these plants and this is a net win for them.