U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2018, 06:48 PM
 
36,706 posts, read 37,489,691 times
Reputation: 14587

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
so in theory, he is hurting the power plant and other residents by providing his own power, thus less demand on the plant.

Just to reiterate in a net metered system he is 100% dependent on that infrastructure and power plant. He can opt to store his own power but that is typically much more expensive than net metering.



Quote:
No wonder they lobby states to tax the hell out of solar residents.

For residential systems there is 30% tax credit from the feds. It varies by state but two of the major things often available is a tax credit which is typically 20% and a renewable energy credit. That REC can be sold to power distributors to meet renewable energy mandates, the cost of that is passed onto ratepayers.

How much more do you expect? If chose to install a solar system here in PA I'm going to get a 50% tax credit on that purchase between the feds and the state. If I choose to install a coal boiler I get $0.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2018, 07:04 PM
 
340 posts, read 87,316 times
Reputation: 808
The issue is and always has been inextricably tied to battery technology.
Musk has come closest but, still not affordable for homeowners.
I do believe the approach would have to be on site generation/consumption, otherwise the politics rule and the populace takes it in the shorts.
Jim
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 06:23 AM
 
4,956 posts, read 1,202,161 times
Reputation: 3739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Copymutt View Post
The issue is and always has been inextricably tied to battery technology.
Musk has come closest but, still not affordable for homeowners.
I do believe the approach would have to be on site generation/consumption, otherwise the politics rule and the populace takes it in the shorts.
Jim
You dont think much better battery tech exists?! When was the last time you saw someone on Youtube or social media trying to get the word out about their great new battery, one that beats all others hands down? LOL (theres a reason why we dont see this).

The problem is, they suppress anything that is a little 'too good'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 06:49 PM
 
2,178 posts, read 911,990 times
Reputation: 1915
Not sure whats so hard about storing batteries. I seen some great wall lithium ones as some residents houses and they run most of everything off that from solar/wind turbine. Only thing they run off grid is high demand appliances. House is water cool from thermal ground and well water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2018, 08:11 PM
 
2,178 posts, read 911,990 times
Reputation: 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
That 20 cents is flat rate that does not separate the cost of the power and distribution presumably?

There is a cost involved with that "storage", the grid is not free and neither are the power plants. Most people don't realize this because they are paying flat fee all costs included, here in PA you can purchase power from different sources. The cost of the power itself and the distribution fees are itemized. As far as the power plants go a large part of what you pay for the power itself is the capital costs of the plants. When your friend and others are generating a lot of power they are idling plants. The cost per kWh necessarily rises. They are 100% dependent on that plant with grid tied system so surely they should pay for the costs involved with that as well.

If the power company can buy power wholesale for 5 cents and they have 15 cents per kWh in costs and profit it's perfectly sensible they would charge him like that.


They may require you to be hooked to the grid, similarly they may require water hookup but that has legitimate reasons for sanitation. I'm not so sure there is legitimate reason to require power hookup. This would be separate than requiring net metering of solar array, I'm not aware of anywhere that requires net metering and if that is the case I would disagree with that.

According to your post, the power plant operates better when 100% at best and per KW is cheaper. This is what we call demand. So were putting alot of demand on the power plant, so to offset this demand, we install solar. How is it getting more expensive to the plant when their is no demand. Doesnt the rules of supply and demand kick in here? Demand more power, thus increase in $$. Am i missing something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2018, 04:13 AM
 
36,706 posts, read 37,489,691 times
Reputation: 14587
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
According to your post, the power plant operates better when 100% at best and per KW is cheaper. This is what we call demand. So were putting alot of demand on the power plant, so to offset this demand, we install solar.

You can stack coal to the moon next to a coal plant, you can't stack sun next to a solar panel. The availability of wind and solar generation is dependent on the whims of mother nature. The amount of capacity available on the US grid is based on what they expect peak demand will be during very hot or cold events plus a buffer. Since you cannot rely on solar or wind during these events you need to build just as many power plants that are coal, gas, nuclear or hydro regardless of how much solar or wind generation you have. When wind and solar is generating a lot of power you lower the output from conventional generation increasing the cost to operate them.

Bear in mind these plants aren't like car where the expectation is you will get 200K miles out of it, it's more like car that will last 60 years no matter how may miles you put on it.

This is the Achilles heal of solar and wind and always will be. For arguments sake lets suppose the cost per kWh generated from solar and coal were exactly the same amount. Let's also suppose you have a coal plant generating X amount of power and you install solar panels that can produce X to replace it. On an ideal day and location for perhaps 8 hours you can meet the demands that coal plant was meeting. You still have 16 hours left in the day, your capacity requirements are now 3*X and you need the means to store 2*X. If it's cloudy the next day? Your solar capacity requirements are now up to 6*X and you need to be able to store 5*X. If you have ****ty weather for the next week?


As you can see the cost to replace the coal plant(or gas and nuclear) balloons out of control and even if you had 100*X capacity and the means to store it you are still rolling the dice that Mother Nature will cooperate.

Last edited by thecoalman; 06-09-2018 at 04:25 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 12:54 AM
 
2,178 posts, read 911,990 times
Reputation: 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You can stack coal to the moon next to a coal plant, you can't stack sun next to a solar panel. The availability of wind and solar generation is dependent on the whims of mother nature. The amount of capacity available on the US grid is based on what they expect peak demand will be during very hot or cold events plus a buffer. Since you cannot rely on solar or wind during these events you need to build just as many power plants that are coal, gas, nuclear or hydro regardless of how much solar or wind generation you have. When wind and solar is generating a lot of power you lower the output from conventional generation increasing the cost to operate them.

Bear in mind these plants aren't like car where the expectation is you will get 200K miles out of it, it's more like car that will last 60 years no matter how may miles you put on it.

This is the Achilles heal of solar and wind and always will be. For arguments sake lets suppose the cost per kWh generated from solar and coal were exactly the same amount. Let's also suppose you have a coal plant generating X amount of power and you install solar panels that can produce X to replace it. On an ideal day and location for perhaps 8 hours you can meet the demands that coal plant was meeting. You still have 16 hours left in the day, your capacity requirements are now 3*X and you need the means to store 2*X. If it's cloudy the next day? Your solar capacity requirements are now up to 6*X and you need to be able to store 5*X. If you have ****ty weather for the next week?


As you can see the cost to replace the coal plant(or gas and nuclear) balloons out of control and even if you had 100*X capacity and the means to store it you are still rolling the dice that Mother Nature will cooperate.
Im still confuse on why it cost more produce energy when their is no demand for the energy to create. Only thing that i see is less of a load on the system and $$ in the coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 01:26 AM
 
36,706 posts, read 37,489,691 times
Reputation: 14587
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
Im still confuse on why it cost more produce energy when their is no demand for the energy to create. Only thing that i see is less of a load on the system and $$ in the coffers.

When you are calculating what it cost to produce power you need to include everything, among them:


  • Capital investment to build it.
  • How much power was produced.
  • For how long.
  • Fuel costs if any
  • Maintenance Costs
There is a capital investment in the plant. The cost of that is spread over the power it generates. If the power plant cost $1000 to build and generates 100,000 kWh over it's lifetime it cost 1 cent per kWh due just to the capital investment. If you are not running it at capacity and total generation is lowered to 50,000 kWh it's now 2 cents per kWh due to the capital investment.



Since solar is reliant on these dependable power plants that capital investment can never be removed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2018, 01:35 PM
 
2,178 posts, read 911,990 times
Reputation: 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
When you are calculating what it cost to produce power you need to include everything, among them:


  • Capital investment to build it.
  • How much power was produced.
  • For how long.
  • Fuel costs if any
  • Maintenance Costs
There is a capital investment in the plant. The cost of that is spread over the power it generates. If the power plant cost $1000 to build and generates 100,000 kWh over it's lifetime it cost 1 cent per kWh due just to the capital investment. If you are not running it at capacity and total generation is lowered to 50,000 kWh it's now 2 cents per kWh due to the capital investment.



Since solar is reliant on these dependable power plants that capital investment can never be removed.
So simple solution is lower the capital investment, but we will lose infrastructure correct? Its like alternative solutions to power will affect these big power companies bottom dollar no matter what gets replaced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 06:13 AM
 
36,706 posts, read 37,489,691 times
Reputation: 14587
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitpausebutton2 View Post
So simple solution is lower the capital investment,

You cannot lower the capital investment in the traditional plants because when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing those conventional plants are required to meet demand. I'm not so sure why this is so difficult to understand. When it's 0 degrees out in the Northeast or 100+ degrees in the Southwest power demand is at it's highest and you can't just roll the dice and hope the sun is shining.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top