PV politics

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
SageBrush said:
johnlocke said:
SageBrush said:
I don't have any problem with wholesale rates, so long as they are spot market prices.
Consumers have to learn to self-consume PV to get the most value from its production. The missing piece is billing that lets consumers consume power distant from their production location.

In a word: Produce at home, charge your EV at work and heat water during the day. From 5pm - 7am power home from EV. The utility gets to bill for its wires, but the consumer obviates the need for energy storage.
If you power your home from 5 PM to 7 AM with your EV, how do you get to work and back home during the day? Using your employer's power to charge your EV every day?

You misunderstand my point: your PV production at home is net metered while you charge at work. In the evening at home, your EV powers your home..

In short, the PV energy is time shifted via the EV battery
You missed my point. Net metering is going to go away. I guess if your employer is OK with you taking home 20-30 KWH every day then you could use your EV to power the house in the evening but that is not time shifting your solar power. Unless your employer is being reimbursed somehow for the solar you generated at home while you charged your car at work, then you are simply offsetting the net metering you would have normally used at night.
 
Just noticed a change in SDG&E billing rates. While the overall rate stays the same, the rate for generation has dropped to $.0932/KWH from $.22701/KWH. Transport charges went from $.06419/KWH to $.198/KWH. This means that SDG&E could pay you only the generation cost Of $09/KWH for excess power you produce but sell power to you at $.29/KWH making $.20/KWH on the exchange. That's if they are even willing to pay "Retail" rates for power generation. If they get to pay "Wholesale" rates, you might get as little as $.03/KWH for power you generate and still pay $.29/KWH for power you import.

I'm willing to bet that their base costs for infrastructure didn't triple overnight and that their generation costs didn't fall by 60% overnight either.
 
johnlocke said:
Just noticed a change in SDG&E billing rates. While the overall rate stays the same, the rate for generation has dropped to $.0932/KWH from $.22701/KWH. Transport charges went from $.06419/KWH to $.198/KWH. This means that SDG&E could pay you only the generation cost Of $09/KWH for excess power you produce but sell power to you at $.29/KWH making $.20/KWH on the exchange. That's if they are even willing to pay "Retail" rates for power generation. If they get to pay "Wholesale" rates, you might get as little as $.03/KWH for power you generate and still pay $.29/KWH for power you import.

I'm willing to bet that their base costs for infrastructure didn't triple overnight and that their generation costs didn't fall by 60% overnight either.

I'm sure you are correct. I suspect the old billing rate was just wrong.

The issue should be more like: "what is fair?"

If someone can product 100% of their monthly kWh use, and use the grid for free storage, is that fair?

What should the billing rate of storage be?

What is the utility level cost of storage?
 
WetEV said:
johnlocke said:
Just noticed a change in SDG&E billing rates. While the overall rate stays the same, the rate for generation has dropped to $.0932/KWH from $.22701/KWH. Transport charges went from $.06419/KWH to $.198/KWH. This means that SDG&E could pay you only the generation cost Of $09/KWH for excess power you produce but sell power to you at $.29/KWH making $.20/KWH on the exchange. That's if they are even willing to pay "Retail" rates for power generation. If they get to pay "Wholesale" rates, you might get as little as $.03/KWH for power you generate and still pay $.29/KWH for power you import.

I'm willing to bet that their base costs for infrastructure didn't triple overnight and that their generation costs didn't fall by 60% overnight either.

I'm sure you are correct. I suspect the old billing rate was just wrong.

The issue should be more like: "what is fair?"

If someone can product 100% of their monthly kWh use, and use the grid for free storage, is that fair?

What should the billing rate of storage be?

What is the utility level cost of storage?
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Utility companies don't think it's fair if it costs them anything. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels by going to PV and wind power is necessary. Of course the utilities would like to retain their monopolies and be the sole producers of power. Is that fair? I want to be able to generate my own power for local consumption. Is that unfair?

I can't speak to utility level costs but I can speak to my costs for a retail purchased 84 KWH storage system. Cost was $60K. 84KWH X 365 days X 15 years (5500 Cycles) gives me a levelized cost of $.13/KWH storage. I'm sure that a commercial MWH storage system would be considerably cheaper and provide grid stabilization to boot. A Tesla Megapack costs $1,000,000 for 3 MWH storage. That would work out to $.06/KWH and you get grid stabilization and time shifting capabilities as well. I'd be willing to pay $.10/KWH for storage of my excess power for use at a later date.

Keep in mind that utility level storage confers other benefits to the utility as well. Minimizing or eliminating peaker plants and the related costs, improving grid stability, and localized backup power in the event of a grid failure come to mind. Rental of storage to end users is just a perk and adds to the bottom line.
 
WetEV said:
If someone can product 100% of their monthly kWh use, and use the grid for free storage, is that fair?
What should the billing rate of storage be?
What is the utility level cost of storage?

If your neighbor uses the grid to consume the PV power you generate, is that "storage" ?
 
WetEV said:
I'm sure you are correct. I suspect the old billing rate was just wrong.

The issue should be more like: "what is fair?"

If someone can product 100% of their monthly kWh use, and use the grid for free storage, is that fair?

What should the billing rate of storage be?

What is the utility level cost of storage?

I can't speak for all states, but the one I live in use to offer over +50% over your retail rate for solar power production. So if 1 kWh of power cost $0.10 back then, they (the electric utility) might pay you $0.15 per kWh if you had an abundance of power on a sunny day. A long time back, the utilities changed to only offering the same retail rate for your solar. So any extra power you produced just means it will take much longer for the solar installation to pay for itself, if ever. The problem is, the companies that *installed* said systems never told the customers about this rate reduction, so instead of an installation paying for itself within 5 to 7 years, it jumped up to a level that would never pay for itself because the rates were the same and you are basically losing money every year instead.

First problem, people saw these as *income* solar projects. Second problem, companies were still installing said installations and lying to the customer about how it was *ever* going to pay for itself. The only installation that makes sense now is a solar + battery to run the actual things in your home to reduce your electric bill or just eliminate it completely instead. I followed the latter route for my solar installation +12 years ago, I use it power the home and didn't spend the extra money on tying it into the grid to sell power. I did track how much money it saves on my electric bill and it paid for itself after only 5 years, the last 7 years has basically been free power and very low electric bills for times when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow as well as I would like (I use a dual solar + wind turbine setup).

So fair is what you agree to really. If someone knows ahead of time that their solar installation is a money loser and still want to do it, that's fair.

As for free grid storage, putting out extra power to the grid might be a type of virtual storage in terms of the money spent, but technically we all know it's not really being stored anywhere, your neighbors are using it the moment it is created.

What should the billing rate be? Whatever is agreed upon, that's the only fair way.

What is the utility level cost of storage? I think it's just taking the concept of the storage and trying to twist it into some terms of use for payments while never really having any real world storage values that benefit anyone.

Just my $0.02, I'll see my way out of the rest of this topic... :lol:
 
johnlocke said:
I can't speak to utility level costs but I can speak to my costs for a retail purchased 84 KWH storage system. Cost was $60K. 84KWH X 365 days X 15 years (5500 Cycles) gives me a levelized cost of $.13/KWH storage. I'm sure that a commercial MWH storage system would be considerably cheaper and provide grid stabilization to boot. A Tesla Megapack costs $1,000,000 for 3 MWH storage. That would work out to $.06/KWH and you get grid stabilization and time shifting capabilities as well.

At a rate of return on investment of 0.0%.

Even the Federal governemt can't borrow that cheaply. And a utility scale storage facility is higher risk.
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
If someone can product 100% of their monthly kWh use, and use the grid for free storage, is that fair?
What should the billing rate of storage be?
What is the utility level cost of storage?

If your neighbor uses the grid to consume the PV power you generate, is that "storage" ?

If the storage is full, and the utility needs to curtail wind power production matching your solar production, you still want paid, right?
 
knightmb said:
As for free grid storage, putting out extra power to the grid might be a type of virtual storage in terms of the money spent, but technically we all know it's not really being stored anywhere, your neighbors are using it the moment it is created.

As a kid, I toured a pumped storage facility, the Cabin Creek hydro plant, shortly after it opened in 1967. Generates roughly 324 megawatts and can sustain that for hours. Memories from that tour include that it was 3-4 hours at full output, and that round trip efficiency is about 50%. Yes, electric power is stored, and has been stored and released daily for years. For decades.

With increasing amounts of solar and wind, storage becomes more important, and more will be added. Properly accounting for that isn't as easy as some seem to think.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
If someone can product 100% of their monthly kWh use, and use the grid for free storage, is that fair?
What should the billing rate of storage be?
What is the utility level cost of storage?

If your neighbor uses the grid to consume the PV power you generate, is that "storage" ?

If the storage is full, and the utility needs to curtail wind power production matching your solar production, you still want paid, right?

You do realize that has never happened, right ?
What has happened (a fair amount) is that utilities prioritize fossil sources, leading to wind curtailment.
 
SageBrush said:
You do realize that has never happened, right ?
What has happened (a fair amount) is that utilities prioritize fossil sources, leading to wind curtailment.

So what happens when there isn't any fossil source to prioritize?

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-04-29/solar-power-water-canals-california-climate-change-boiling-point

95% renewable, and over 100% counting nuclear, with some power exported.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
You do realize that has never happened, right ?
What has happened (a fair amount) is that utilities prioritize fossil sources, leading to wind curtailment.

So what happens when there isn't any fossil source to prioritize?

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-04-29/solar-power-water-canals-california-climate-change-boiling-point

95% renewable, and over 100% counting nuclear, with some power exported.

4 seconds, not including Los Angeles, and still burning huge amounts of NG

Wake me up in 5 years or so
 
WetEV said:
johnlocke said:
I can't speak to utility level costs but I can speak to my costs for a retail purchased 84 KWH storage system. Cost was $60K. 84KWH X 365 days X 15 years (5500 Cycles) gives me a levelized cost of $.13/KWH storage. I'm sure that a commercial MWH storage system would be considerably cheaper and provide grid stabilization to boot. A Tesla Megapack costs $1,000,000 for 3 MWH storage. That would work out to $.06/KWH and you get grid stabilization and time shifting capabilities as well.

At a rate of return on investment of 0.0%.

Even the Federal governemt can't borrow that cheaply. And a utility scale storage facility is higher risk.
You asked for numbers, I gave them to you. If the utility used a 4% bond issue, it would work out to $.12/KWH. The utility gets to add the capital cost to their rate base, they also get to take depreciation on the Megapack, and write off the interest. That pretty much offsets the bond costs. Also keep in mind that there's nothing that says they can't over-subscribe the storage with intent of using lower cost power to replace power "stored". If the utility can buy power at $.03/KWH( their claimed wholesale rate), store it for later use and charge $.10/KWH to you, it seems that there's a profit to made. If you can come up with better numbers, please present them.

They still get all the other benefits that grid level storage provides as well. Even without charging for storage most utilities are putting in grid level storage as fast as they can so it must be profitable even without charging for solar "storage".
 
SageBrush said:
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
You do realize that has never happened, right ?
What has happened (a fair amount) is that utilities prioritize fossil sources, leading to wind curtailment.

So what happens when there isn't any fossil source to prioritize?

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-04-29/solar-power-water-canals-california-climate-change-boiling-point

95% renewable, and over 100% counting nuclear, with some power exported.

4 seconds, not including Los Angeles, and still burning huge amounts of NG

Wake me up in 5 years or so


You may be getting a wake-up call a couple of years early. As for this year:
CALIFORNIA BREAKS RECORD BY ACHIEVING 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE FIRST TIME


https://www.earthday.org/california...ving-100-renewable-energy-for-the-first-time/


As Earth Month drew to a close, the state of California was recently able to produce virtually all of their energy needs from renewable sources for the first time ever.

In early April, the state achieved a new record at 97.6% renewable power, and on May 2 they were able to reach 99.9%. On May 8 the record was broken yet again, with 103% of the state’s power needs being met by renewables for a few hours. . . .

To set our sights on a fully carbon-free future, however, there is still work to be done to ensure that clean power is available at all times; when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, California must still rely on fossil fuels to meet its energy demands.

Large-scale battery projects are essential to providing clean energy around the clock, allowing solar power generated during the day to be stored and used after sunset. The state has invested in massive efforts to scale up the grid’s storage capacity in recognition of this need, and battery storage in California has already increased 20-fold since 2019 . . . The US is also home to one of the largest deposits of lithium (an essential mineral for battery production), of which only 1% is currently being used; sustainably extracting this resource will be necessary to achieve the speed and scale needed for the US to meet its climate goals.

For California to achieve 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2045, solar and wind projects will need to be built 3 times faster and battery storage expansion will need to be developed 8 times faster. In addition to the trends in battery production described above, the renewable energy industry is evolving to bring this goal well within reach. Clean power production in California has tripled since 2005, largely due to increased cost efficiency in renewable energy. Over the last decade, the price of renewable energy has plummeted: wind has become 3 times more affordable and solar has become 10 times more affordable, making it more cost effective than any fossil fuel-burning power source. . . .


It'll be interesting to see when we'll first manage to meet our needs via renewables & storage for an entire day, then a week, a month, a season/quarter and ultimately a year. While battery storage is viable for handling daily peak demand, for longer-term seasonal storage we'll want H2 or what have you for cost and resource reasons. In the meantime California's done an about-face and is extending Diablo Canyon's operating license beyond the planned shutdowns in 2024 and 2025 (respectively Unit 1 & 2) to 2030, assuming they get all the required approvals from the NRC on down.
 
GRA said:
You may be getting a wake-up call a couple of years early.

Hardly. There is still a massive untapped demand for daytime generated clean energy that will show up as transport transitions to EV and TOU pushes them to daytime charging. And if that is not enough, the transition from NG to electric has not even started.

You and WetEV are extrapolating when you should be recognizing a market signal.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
You may be getting a wake-up call a couple of years early.

Hardly. There is still a massive untapped demand for daytime generated clean energy that will show up as transport transitions to EV and TOU pushes them to daytime charging. And if that is not enough, the transition from NG to electric has not even started.

You and WetEV are extrapolating when you should be recognizing a market signal


Both the state of California and I recognize there's going to be a significant increase in electrical demand as both transport and heating/cooking shift from fossil fuels to electricity, along with the concurrent shift in electrical generation from fossil fuels to RE. But as shown by the info posted previously, that transition is already starting here, and elsewhere we're also beginning to see a shift from fossil fuels to electricity in manufacturing (steel, cement etc.). Early days yet, and we'll need a considerable increase in generating capacity and storage, but it's under way. Despite the increasing demand, I won't be surprised if we hit 100% RE + storage for 24 hours in the next two years.

Edit: Took me awhile to find this again:
BloombergNEF

New
Energy
Outlook
2022

https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/
 
GRA said:
CALIFORNIA BREAKS RECORD BY ACHIEVING 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE FIRST TIME

Shocking, isn't it? I had to search for a while to find a good almost breaking headline rather than a breaking 100% headline.

It's a good habit to check not only references, but see what else you can find. Maybe Sage will learn.
 
Back
Top