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.
I agree with the other posters who have said that storage technology will be the game changer whether it comes from Tesla or another company. APS knows this which is why they are trying to make solar as financially unattractive as possible. But, in my opinion, it is just a question of time.
Very well put...and I agree. When all of this is realized, the power wars (so to speak) will begin. There will be a huge "haves and have nots" scenarios. The cost of the solar panels will likely do another about face and start to climb upward, as demand to join the "haves" surges.
The market economy tends to fix that problem as consumer demand encourages more companies to enter the market. So prices will probably climb initially but then stabilize and trend downwards as supply increases.
The other factor - which we are already seeing - is that solar panel efficiency will continue to improve. We are already seeing efficiency better than 20%. That means fewer panels needed to produce a given amount of electricity.
I love it when 'disruptive technologies' begin to shake big corporations out of their complacency.
As an interested potential buyer but very untrusting of Solar City's predatory leases, can I ask who you bought from, what it cost and what your summer bills from APS were?
Sent you a PM. Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near Solar City.
Tesla needs power companies, not the other way around!
I think they only need to be part of generating high capacity/cheap energy storage solutions. Paired with high efficiency/cheap solar panels, in such a scenario, power companies are not needed and the average consumer can be energy independent electricity wise and decisions like this one by APS on how much to pay/not pay for solar generated power becomes a non-issue.
Though I can see some gov entity cozying up with power companies $ requiring consumers to have a grid energy connection to their house because.....insert all the lame excuses...safety, because we care for you, etc. whatever nonsense excuses one can think of. All part of the new reality of "Free" markets.
Has this anything to do with the mediation between APS and the solar companies or is this separate? I remember both sides agreed to mediation to avoid the ballot measures for November's election. I don't know if this is it or something separate?
So you buy into the APS argument that they've NEVER shown any evidence to prove? Some marketing wonk came up with this winning argument though I've never seen evidence to back up their claims. Have you?
Let me ask you this, why should people who make something (in this case electricity) at their own expense be FORCED to give it to a company (and pay the highest tier charge just to give it to them) who then resell it at a profit?
To all the people who agree with APS let me lay this scenario out there.
You have solar that generates 110% + of your power but you have no storage so at times when you aren't producing you are drawing power and paying retail plus taxes/fees for it. Now then, at current credits you've generated enough power to sell back which pretty much covers what you've had to purchase from APS. Now remember that APS doesn't pay you the taxes or various fees they charge YOU so they're ahead there and they don't pay you the highest tier retail charge (from 12pm to 7pm) for the power even though that's when they're getting the power from your panels so again, they're ahead there. They ARE making money off the deal, just not enough to suit them and they see it getting worse long term unless they nip it in the bud now.
This is power they don't have to generate (generation YOU pay to maintain) so the only wear and tear you are responsible for is the wires from you to them which are paid for via fees and the offset from what they paid you to get the power and what they sell it to the public for.
One other thing to note, APS did NOT pay for some/much of the infrastructure. Every subdivision or building built pays for the infrastructure from transformers to lines. What APS may have paid for is the high tension lines from the substations to the area though not the whole cost of installation as some of that is laid off on developers needing the power.
What's ticked off APS is some of the public have become competitors in the power generation business and it's costing them profits THEY feel entitled to. They can't have that since at some point they'll not have the monopoly they've got now.
I'd imagine they'll be a huge campaign starting to put the brakes on any residential storage systems as that will really put a dent in their profit stream. Expect commercials showing batteries exploding and dire warnings of impending doom to your children from those evil storage devices coming to a TV near you!
We saw this kind of "anti-marketing" courtesy of the oil companies when hybrid cars (partially subsidized by the public) started up and we're seeing it from tobacco companies with Eciggs now.
The infrastructure has to be maintained you think that is free? You know what it cost to maintain power plants. I know because I see it everyday at work yes I'm an employee but I don't agree with all their politics I don't think APS should be involved in any lobbying because they are a monopoly and I'm forced to be a customer I can't choose what electric utility I want. I also don't agree with solar companies lining their pockets with money on the taxpayer back. I'm not representing my employer in anyway here I'm only drawing on what I see as cost to operate from the a view you don't have or most people here don't have. I can tell you maintaining a statewide grid is enormous cost all has to be done safely without employee injury. People want solar with 100% backup power from a system which was engineered to be paid by usage not connection. I think solar users should be just charged a flat fee for connecting and that's it build a system which doesn't make extra power but makes the correct amount of power. These oversized systems are a way the installer gets to make money because he can use tax credits to get paid, and the customer is counting on net metering to offset his oversized system investment. Like I said I'm not representing my employer in anyway this is all my own personal views.
The infrastructure has to be maintained you think that is free? You know what it cost to maintain power plants. I know because I see it everyday at work yes I'm an employee but I don't agree with all their politics I don't think APS should be involved in any lobbying because they are a monopoly and I'm forced to be a customer I can't choose what electric utility I want. I also don't agree with solar companies lining their pockets with money on the taxpayer back. I'm not representing my employer in anyway here I'm only drawing on what I see as cost to operate from the a view you don't have or most people here don't have. I can tell you maintaining a statewide grid is enormous cost all has to be done safely without employee injury. People want solar with 100% backup power from a system which was engineered to be paid by usage not connection. I think solar users should be just charged a flat fee for connecting and that's it build a system which doesn't make extra power but makes the correct amount of power. These oversized systems are a way the installer gets to make money because he can use tax credits to get paid, and the customer is counting on net metering to offset his oversized system investment. Like I said I'm not representing my employer in anyway this is all my own personal views.
Disclaimer: I'm a chemical engineer and have limited knowledge of the electrical side. What seems to be clear is that you cannot easily up or down regulate power plants. So if during a given day solar accounts for let's say 10% of power consumption around noon (the solar peak) and then at 5pm it's about 2% then the utility still has to run the power plant at all times up to serve the 98% demand peak. It burns natgas for nothing for hours. Also when there's three days of rain like this week and solar production falls by 75%+ the utility has to get that deficit from where ever they can and that will be very expensive. As California is also drenched in rain they have the same problem -> very expensive.
I would love to be a power producer right now that only serves the temporary demand overhang caused by solar and wind shortfalls: every afternoon 3-7 (particularly in the summer), rainy or wind-less days etc. You can ask very good prices, pretty much whatever you want, the utilities will have to take any price.
Disclaimer: I'm a chemical engineer and have limited knowledge of the electrical side. What seems to be clear is that you cannot easily up or down regulate power plants. So if during a given day solar accounts for let's say 10% of power consumption around noon (the solar peak) and then at 5pm it's about 2% then the utility still has to run the power plant at all times up to serve the 98% demand peak. It burns natgas for nothing for hours. Also when there's three days of rain like this week and solar production falls by 75%+ the utility has to get that deficit from where ever they can and that will be very expensive. As California is also drenched in rain they have the same problem -> very expensive.
I would love to be a power producer right now that only serves the temporary demand overhang caused by solar and wind shortfalls: every afternoon 3-7 (particularly in the summer), rainy or wind-less days etc. You can ask very good prices, pretty much whatever you want, the utilities will have to take any price.
Solar is now getting so cheap that the utility will use it all the time it is available. So it actually makes no difference whether roof top solar is in effect or not. The utility needs to deal with effectively all or almost all of its energy coming from solar. That is not impossible it simply needs enough fast response capability to deal with the change over and enough base back up that it can run with no solar.
This is utility class solar...not roof top. So the roof top need merely be integrated with the utilities own solar. No big deal.
The real problem is to establish pricing that makes all this rational. And that is what is going to cause all the problems. Up front the utility simple offers only the lowest wholesale price they get. And that basically shuts down roof top solar as they cannot compete with utility class solar. But that encourages the indkustry to solve the batteru/storage problem. If they succeed they get to turn it around and threaten the very existence of the utilities. Given a cost effective solar with storage the utilities will swiftly be forced to double or triple their pricing to the remaining customers...and that may well put them out of business.
Disclaimer: I'm a chemical engineer and have limited knowledge of the electrical side. What seems to be clear is that you cannot easily up or down regulate power plants. So if during a given day solar accounts for let's say 10% of power consumption around noon (the solar peak) and then at 5pm it's about 2% then the utility still has to run the power plant at all times up to serve the 98% demand peak. It burns natgas for nothing for hours. Also when there's three days of rain like this week and solar production falls by 75%+ the utility has to get that deficit from where ever they can and that will be very expensive. As California is also drenched in rain they have the same problem -> very expensive.
I would love to be a power producer right now that only serves the temporary demand overhang caused by solar and wind shortfalls: every afternoon 3-7 (particularly in the summer), rainy or wind-less days etc. You can ask very good prices, pretty much whatever you want, the utilities will have to take any price.
Actually they do not use natural gas when plants are offline as far as I know they do need electricity to operate, and the most costly part to pay people to be there maintain it. The problem is more with Coal plants those are not easily turned up or down so they usually just run them 100% all the time and add natural gas as needed along with nuke. Rooftop solar retail businesses took advantage of a system which was based on usage but they want the utility to be there for them 100% of the time. In the winter time when rooftop is making extra net metered power the cool days APS doesn't need all that power so we end up with too much which we paid the customer for then when it gets dark all the expensive generation has to come back online. What's the fix for this solar needs to pay to be connected what it cost to take care of them at night/summer days and APS buys their power when needed meaning as needed meters will be turned on and power pulled back into the system. It's no different then when APS buys power from other utilities in the summer when there isn't enough generation. The entire business model of APS is changing and will evolve into something that is way different then it used to be. One day battery, and solar maybe cheap enough to disconnect the grid I would be okay with that I think power lines are ugly and risk to aircraft. Who knows when that day will come.
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.
