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.
At most you should get lowest wholesale cost for excess power and it should be capped at no more than 5% to 10% percent of what you produce. Just to add this is open to huge amounts of abuse otherwise.
OK, I might could see paying the 'wholesale' cost, just as they would pay to any other generator, but why should it be capped? I see no good reasons why there should be a cap.
In fact, ultimately, if all 'customers' eventually began generating and if the technology were to become good enough that *everyone* routinely generated surplus, would that not be the best possible situation for the general public?
The infrastructure (transmission lines, and potentially, excess storage capability) could revert back to being a public utility instead of being private. That would be the best possible scenario for the public.
In my opinion, the power generation and transmission should never have been allowed to be privatized. I firmly believe that the public was done a disservice by allowing this to happen.
I'm generally in favor of 'limited government', but this sort of thing is the exact thing that should be a government function, on a basis that covers costs but no 'profit' aside from a regulated surplus to cover maintenance and upgrades. In this scenario, there would be many small generators feeding the grid and massive power failures causing blackouts over wide areas would become a thing of the past. Power outages would be generally localized, and relatively inconsequential as most consumers would also have localized storage to carry them. The transmission and distribution systems would function much as the internet was designed to do, carrying power around the [localized] outage. Repairs to the system would be substantially less critical and could be carried out on a less 'stressful' basis.
In addition, with such widely distributed generation capability, the power grid as a whole would be less susceptible to attack, whether by enemy foreign nationals or homegrown terrorists.
OK, I might could see paying the 'wholesale' cost, just as they would pay to any other generator, but why should it be capped?
5 percent is generous, 10 percent is overly generous. Anything beyond that is no longer accommodations for the nuances of your sytem but business. If you want to be in the business of producing and selling power have a blast but you're on your own.
Quote:
In fact, ultimately, if all 'customers' eventually began generating and if the technology were to become good enough that *everyone* routinely generated surplus, would that not be the best possible situation for the general public?
No it would not, the cost of building and maintaining a bunch of small plants is much more than one large one.
Quote:
In this scenario, there would be many small generators feeding the grid and massive power failures causing blackouts over wide areas would become a thing of the past.
This is pipe dream. Because of their intermittent nature solar and wind cannot replace fossil, nuclear and hydro generation. Just to add I'm not really interested in putting the responsibility of power generation into the hands of many people that can't balance a checkbook.
OK, I might could see paying the 'wholesale' cost, just as they would pay to any other generator, but why should it be capped? I see no good reasons why there should be a cap.
In fact, ultimately, if all 'customers' eventually began generating and if the technology were to become good enough that *everyone* routinely generated surplus, would that not be the best possible situation for the general public?
The infrastructure (transmission lines, and potentially, excess storage capability) could revert back to being a public utility instead of being private. That would be the best possible scenario for the public.
In my opinion, the power generation and transmission should never have been allowed to be privatized. I firmly believe that the public was done a disservice by allowing this to happen.
I'm generally in favor of 'limited government', but this sort of thing is the exact thing that should be a government function, on a basis that covers costs but no 'profit' aside from a regulated surplus to cover maintenance and upgrades. In this scenario, there would be many small generators feeding the grid and massive power failures causing blackouts over wide areas would become a thing of the past. Power outages would be generally localized, and relatively inconsequential as most consumers would also have localized storage to carry them. The transmission and distribution systems would function much as the internet was designed to do, carrying power around the [localized] outage. Repairs to the system would be substantially less critical and could be carried out on a less 'stressful' basis.
In addition, with such widely distributed generation capability, the power grid as a whole would be less susceptible to attack, whether by enemy foreign nationals or homegrown terrorists.
Are you isolated from the grid? If so the you removed load from the grid. If you are grid tied then you may periodically inject energy into the grid. Now you might think your little system doesn't impact grid stability but imagine 10,000 little systems starting and stopping willy-nilly while tied to the grid or removing the load those little systems represents from the grid totally. Either of these actions causes imbalance on the system which adversely impacts system operations.
I am 'grid-tied' and yet my system IS NOT capable of putting power onto the grid.
You are referring to net-metering systems, not grid-ted systems.
Net-metering systems are grid-tied. Though not all grid-tied systems are net-metering systems. Even skippers can understand that.
Quote:
... You're a bubble head, you should understand trying to isolate a system with unknown energy inputs. Could you imagine trying to do lock out tag out on that?
How far off-topic do you really want to take this?
My point, which either you missed or I did not make clear enough, is that the power company does not actually 'pay' you for the electricity at all. They have this BS 'credit' system instead.
That's just a detail though, in general we have no argument- the consumer generating power gets the sh[or]t end of the stick. You pay to install the equipment, you pay to deliver it to them, and if you consistently make more than you use, the power company waves their middle finger and says "Thanks for the free juice, sucker."
Exactly.
You pay more for a higher priced system, and you 'get' nada.
If you can draw the conclusion the battery storage option is the most cost effective then this discussion becomes moot because it's bye-bye utility company.
The problem here is on top of all the taxpayer subsidies these people are now expecting the ratepayer to subsidize their solar installations. If you are going to use the grid, pay for the service.
I have never said that solar-power was cheaper than grid power.
I have seen where solar-power with battery-bank can be cheaper than net-metering.
What has been the primary importance to us has been reliability. I can provide power far more reliable than the PoCo can.
I do not honestly care about the subsidies. I would be fine with all subsidies going away. Whenever subsidies enter a picture it muddies what is happening.
Solar power systems can depreciate. The IRS sets a 7-year depreciation for solar power systems. If you depreciate, over 7-years you can depreciate all of the expense of solar-power. That has far more effect on ROI than all of this other smoke and mirrors.
I do not think that rate-payers should be taxed extra to pay for net-metering. Rate-payer fees and taxes DO NOT pay for solar power, they only pay for the more expensive net-metering systems.
I wasn't trying to imply you did, my comment was in reference to the net-metered vs battery costs.
If you buy a system that includes: UL-approved, pre-wired, tested and certified E-panel with charge-controller, inverter, input breakers, output breakers and 3 surge protectors. Along with a pallet of photovoltaic panels, 2 tonnes of batteries, and hire an electrician to install your system. It is fairly easy to spend less money than it will cost you to buy a net-metering system of the same kW rating [yet without any battery-bank].
OP is very poorly phrased, and is misleading at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother
... how in the sunny states of Florida and Nevada the megamonopoly utility companies have lobbied the public utility boards so successfully that these states either don't allow home solar panels or have made installing/using them so expensive that people can't afford them.
Maybe you want to rephrase that?
These states certainly allow home solar panels, it is entirely legal for a building owner to put panels on their home and use the power they produce. The restrictions are on net-metering and certain types of leasing programs, like the highly promoted SolarCity offering. Characterizing this as "states .. don't allow home solar panels" is FUD.
How can they legally ban someone catching rain on his own property? I've never heard of such a thing. That's scary.
I have run across that some HOAs don't allow that (apparently they find the barrels too unattractive?). Some HOAs don't allow compost bins in back yards, either.
You might want to talk to someone who lives in Maryland. Quite illegal there. Maybe other states too, but I only know of Maryland.
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.
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.
OP is very poorly phrased, and is misleading at best.
