by KaiserJeep » Sat 16 Sep 2017, 16:58:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '-')snip-
I think both KJ and baha have a good point here. I agree with KJ that if you're connected to the grid, you should pay your share of the connection fee. After all, the utility (i.e. all the people connected) are benefitting from the utility maintaining the grid, and the power the utility provides from the grid).
However, what I believe will happen over time as more people go mostly solar, is the utility will raise its prices for electricity AND connection, to ensure they (and their shareholders) have a profit -- no matter how little net electricity they provide. (Even negative, if the politicians will let them get away with it).
I believe the prices will get truly outrageous, and the politicians will let them do this.
And if the politicians do pass net metering everywhere, it will just be harder on the utilities' bottom lines.
But I think Baha has a point. If he's producing plenty of electricity for the utility, he should be paid for it. I don't agree he should get the full rate the electric utility is charging -- but I think he should get a high percentage of that -- maybe 80% or so. (I'm not married to that number if someone has figures that demonstrate why the percentage should be, say, 70% or 90%). However, I am wedded to the principle.
Eventually if there is enough solar, the utility COULD be transformed into something that is 90+% about storing excess power from the community in batteries, pumped hydro, hot rocks, or whatever, maintaining the grid, and just keeping the lights on. If the community it serves produces enough excess solar and wind on average to keep the lights consistently on with their total setup -- great.
The biggest problem I see is imagining how in ALL circumstances, there won't need to be FF powered standby central power, at least in some climates. But I'll freely admit that may just be a lack of imagination. Maybe it's just a matter of a critical mass of people having solar roofs or wind turbines and it's done.
This isn't happening this year, or IMO, in one decade. But we're moving that direction, and policies and laws should be moving to prepare for and reflect that. Ir seems to me that overall reliability should improve from a decentralized system. No single point to hack. No single big production system to go down. Power produced for much of the community (or maybe all) whenever the sun shines.
Oh, and if Tony Seba's solar cost curve is remotely correct, electricity prices should decrease a lot in the next two to three decades. So the key thing will be keeping corrupt politicians and the utility lobby from making the mandatory grid fee outrageously high, for people who choose or need to stay on the grid.
(As corrupt as the system is, I'm concerned that piece won't happen). Will a cost "death spiral" occur as outraged customers leave the grid en masse entirely at some point?)
OS, there are two problems with your analysis:
One missing piece of informat is that about half the population (52%) lives and works in high density urban environments, where rooftop solar and wind turbines are not possible. The 48% that live in rural or suburban homes which CAN utilize distributed power generation is really what this thread is about. Note also that with the new lower cost Chinese PV panels, the batteries - especially a premium product like a Powerwall - are the highest cost components, and the cost per kWh with batteries is typically
doubled vs. simple grid-connected renewables.
Demographics are US Census figures from 2010:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.htmlThe urban populations in high density housing are suited to large central power plants. The place for distributed power is the 48% in lower density rural areas and suburbs. The trend is also clear: as time passes, more and more people are packing themselves into smelly cities.
Secondly, as time passes and the demographics tilt more from rural to urban environments, the power plant economics also change. I don't know where you got the idea that electricity will get cheaper over time, as solar/wind/etc. is relatively expensive compared to FF power. The infrastructure costs are also higher in rural areas, cities are amongst the lowest connection costs per grid consumer.
Although in the recent past many large central coal power plants have converted to gas/coal operation, this trend is about played out, as the power industry has met or surpassed EPA goals from coast to coast, at least in the lower 48.
What I see are population and power statistics in flux, but long term, the needs of the cities will be paramount. That is not what the thread is about, we are discussing the shrinking minority in rural/suburban environments.
Before you chastise me again for being obsessed with money, that is after all what we use to measure feasability.