The quiet rise of solar power — and the financial problem that could arise

[dismal]

The state regulates the utility industry. What it can charge, whom it must serve.

The problem with solar is that the largely fixed cost of constructing and maintaining grid is currently amortized across units of power sold. People who maintain a grid connection but don't consume power are exploiting the model. They are free riding.

The common-sensical non-ideological solution to this would be to have a fixed grid charge and a variable power charge that is more in line with the marginal cost of power. If someone want to completely disconnect from the grid they can avoid the grid charge.

I can't think of any valid reason why anyone of any ideology would find this objectionable.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to cling to outdated system that does not serve its purpose in the modern world.

Ignorance and bias, I suppose.

Looking at my electric bill, it appears I'm doing exactly what you describe (as I suspect most people are)

There's a service fee in addition to a usage fee.

Simple fix would be to increase service fees... and as they do more people will migrate to alternatives.

My guess is what they are calling "service fee" is not equivalent to the cost of maintaining the grid. Utility bills are a mish mash of cross subsidies and assorted things that a regulator will or won't approve.

Here's how you can check: depending on where you are wholesale energy might cost 2-4 cents per kwh to generate. In most places the utility will be charging you 12-15 (as much as 20 in some states) cents per kwh. The difference is going to maintaining the grid, billing systems, profit, etc.

 

[Derec]

I am sure some of the Oil and Gas could also be replaced in this way - particularly if oil for vehicles was replaced by nuclear power charging electric cars (mostly at night, smoothing the demand curve and increasing efficiency overall).

Could be achieved with demand-sensitive electricity pricing which power companies are already offering, like for example this plan by Georgia power that is marketed toward electric car users. It's not quite the same as the technologically rather sophisticated real time demand sensitive pricing some have proposed but rather it relies of rough division of high vs. low demand times by time of day, weekday/weekend and season (AC usage during summer months is a huge drain especially in a hot state like Georgia).

Furthermore, electricity only accounted for small proportion of the primary energy used by France.

I don't know the data for France or even EU, but in US electricity generation accounts for 40% of primary energy use which is not exactly "small". It should be an even bigger share in EU/France than in the US as in the US people drive cars with less mpg and also drive more miles which would increase the transport part of the pie chart. Also US trains usually run on diesel whereas they are mostly electrified in Europe.

Oil and gas were still needed for heating and transportation, and a surplus of nuclear electricity generation, required Electricite de France to persuade households and businesses to use electricity for heating.

Electric cars will become an increasingly important consumer of electric energy and they can be charged at night. Furthermore, France is a relatively warm climate country and electric heating using heat pumps (a reversible air conditioner essentially) is not a bad idea actually. Unlike furnaces, heat pumps have efficiency greater than unity in that they can move more heat than the electric energy they use to operate.

So Australia can also sell to France, I don't see a major issue with fuel security here. And too much Carbon-neutral power being generated in France seems like a non-problem - flog it to Germany and let the Germans shut down some of their pollution-spewing coal plants too.

Except that Germans have this irrational fear of nuclear power and are shutting down their remaining nukes prematurely. Tacitly endorsing French nukes by relying on imports from France might be a political problem.

Considering that as the coal plants reach end-of-life, existing coal base load could readily be replaced for nuclear, which has a minuscule fraction of the CO₂ emissions and is far cleaner and safer by every measure, that paper's disregard for it goes beyond disappointing.

Exactly.

Fucking human race doesn't deserve to fucking survive if they are this fucking dumb.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looking at my electric bill, it appears I'm doing exactly what you describe (as I suspect most people are)

There's a service fee in addition to a usage fee.

Simple fix would be to increase service fees... and as they do more people will migrate to alternatives.

My guess is what they are calling "service fee" is not equivalent to the cost of maintaining the grid. Utility bills are a mish mash of cross subsidies and assorted things that a regulator will or won't approve.

Here's how you can check: depending on where you are wholesale energy might cost 2-4 cents per kwh to generate. In most places the utility will be charging you 12-15 (as much as 20 in some states) cents per kwh. The difference is going to maintaining the grid, billing systems, profit, etc.

My electric bill is about 60% energy, 40% other fees. The bill pretty much says I'm paying for upkeep, both of the grid and my line connection (different fees). My gas bill is likewise, though the transmission upkeep fee is fixed. So at least one state already does this.

 

[dismal]

My guess is what they are calling "service fee" is not equivalent to the cost of maintaining the grid. Utility bills are a mish mash of cross subsidies and assorted things that a regulator will or won't approve.

Here's how you can check: depending on where you are wholesale energy might cost 2-4 cents per kwh to generate. In most places the utility will be charging you 12-15 (as much as 20 in some states) cents per kwh. The difference is going to maintaining the grid, billing systems, profit, etc.

My electric bill is about 60% energy, 40% other fees. The bill pretty much says I'm paying for upkeep, both of the grid and my line connection (different fees). My gas bill is likewise, though the transmission upkeep fee is fixed. So at least one state already does this.

What are they charging you for energy per kwh?

I found an old bill of mine that looks like this:

Base charges: $9.95
Energy (861 kwh @ 13.2252 cents/kwh): $113.87
Sales tax $1.24
Gross receipts reimbursement: $2.47
PUC Assessment: $0.21
Advanced metering charge: $2.19
Underground facilities surcharge: $0.13
Sales tax $0.02
Gross receipts reimbursement $0.04
Balance $130.12

It might seem from this that all those fees are paying for the grid etc, but they are mostly just regulatory tack-ons of various types.

The cost of wholesale energy in this period likely cost no more than 3 or 4 cents per kwh. 9 or 10 cents of that energy charge is paying for the grid, billing infrastructure, profit, etc.

When you put solar panels on your roof you save 13 cents per kwh on your bill, but the utility really only avoids the 3 or 4 cent wholesale energy cost if you maintain a grid connection, billing account etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My electric bill is about 60% energy, 40% other fees. The bill pretty much says I'm paying for upkeep, both of the grid and my line connection (different fees). My gas bill is likewise, though the transmission upkeep fee is fixed. So at least one state already does this.

What are they charging you for energy per kwh?

I found an old bill of mine that looks like this:

Base charges: $9.95
Energy (861 kwh @ 13.2252 cents/kwh): $113.87
Sales tax $1.24
Gross receipts reimbursement: $2.47
PUC Assessment: $0.21
Advanced metering charge: $2.19
Underground facilities surcharge: $0.13
Sales tax $0.02
Gross receipts reimbursement $0.04
Balance $130.12

It might seem from this that all those fees are paying for the grid etc, but they are mostly just regulatory tack-ons of various types.

The cost of wholesale energy in this period likely cost no more than 3 or 4 cents per kwh. 9 or 10 cents of that energy charge is paying for the grid, billing infrastructure, profit, etc.

Like I said, about 40% of my bill goes to First Energy. The rest goes to the "energy supplier". Your example isn't like that at all. So clearly we have two different regulatory setups.

 

[dismal]

What are they charging you for energy per kwh?

I found an old bill of mine that looks like this:

Base charges: $9.95
Energy (861 kwh @ 13.2252 cents/kwh): $113.87
Sales tax $1.24
Gross receipts reimbursement: $2.47
PUC Assessment: $0.21
Advanced metering charge: $2.19
Underground facilities surcharge: $0.13
Sales tax $0.02
Gross receipts reimbursement $0.04
Balance $130.12

It might seem from this that all those fees are paying for the grid etc, but they are mostly just regulatory tack-ons of various types.

The cost of wholesale energy in this period likely cost no more than 3 or 4 cents per kwh. 9 or 10 cents of that energy charge is paying for the grid, billing infrastructure, profit, etc.

Like I said, about 40% of my bill goes to First Energy. The rest goes to the "energy supplier". Your example isn't like that at all. So clearly we have two different regulatory setups.

It's all regulated at the state level, so yes.

But my point is that what they call an "energy charge" is not necessarily just the cost of the energy.

Can you figure out what the energy charge is per kwh on the bill?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Like I said, about 40% of my bill goes to First Energy. The rest goes to the "energy supplier". Your example isn't like that at all. So clearly we have two different regulatory setups.

It's all regulated at the state level, so yes.

But my point is that what they call an "energy charge" is not necessarily just the cost of the energy.

Can you figure out what the energy charge is per kwh on the bill?

7.84 cents per kWh.

$57 went to Ohio Edison, $68 to the "energy supplier". The 7.84 cents is used to calculate the $68.

 

[dismal]

It's all regulated at the state level, so yes.

But my point is that what they call an "energy charge" is not necessarily just the cost of the energy.

Can you figure out what the energy charge is per kwh on the bill?

7.84 cents per kWh.

$57 went to Ohio Edison, $68 to the "energy supplier". The 7.84 cents is used to calculate the $68.

Most of Ohio is PJM and PJM seems to run about 4-5 cents wholesale most of the time with a few spikes. I suspect there's something more in there than the wholesale cost of energy, but it's hard to tell.

http://www.appienergy.com/news-and-resources/current-news/031114-market-snapshot.asp

OTOH, I suspect that Ohio Edison is your grid provider and most of the grid costs are in that part of your bill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

7.84 cents per kWh.

$57 went to Ohio Edison, $68 to the "energy supplier". The 7.84 cents is used to calculate the $68.

Most of Ohio is PJM and PJM seems to run about 4-5 cents wholesale most of the time with a few spikes. I suspect there's something more in there than the wholesale cost of energy, but it's hard to tell.

http://www.appienergy.com/news-and-resources/current-news/031114-market-snapshot.asp

OTOH, I suspect that Ohio Edison is your grid provider and most of the grid costs are in that part of your bill.

But Ohio Edison isn't getting the energy money. That is going to a subsidiary who is saving me "beaucoup" bucks because of the "wonders" of deregulation.

 

[dismal]

Most of Ohio is PJM and PJM seems to run about 4-5 cents wholesale most of the time with a few spikes. I suspect there's something more in there than the wholesale cost of energy, but it's hard to tell.

http://www.appienergy.com/news-and-resources/current-news/031114-market-snapshot.asp

OTOH, I suspect that Ohio Edison is your grid provider and most of the grid costs are in that part of your bill.

But Ohio Edison isn't getting the energy money. That is going to a subsidiary who is saving me "beaucoup" bucks because of the "wonders" of deregulation.

Right, most deregulatory structures separated the wires and the wholesale businesses. It's that way in Texas too but the bills don't show it that way. The issue highlighted in the thread may not be an issue under your set-up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And gas is a *LOT* more expensive than coal.

I didn't say replace coal plants with gas. By all means replace them with nukes, but you do not need to generate all the electricity with them (as in your scenario I was replying to) to see huge carbon savings. So even if all the existing gas plants remain online, simply getting rid of coal would reduce 74% of CO₂ emissions from electricity production in the US.

You were comparing them with gas.

I do agree about replacing them with nukes. That would make a *BIG* cut in our CO2 emissions without causing other issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Renewables are still finding their place in people's thinking, I suspect. As per Loren's examples, most renewables are high throttle, which means think of them as peak generation, but they're also low (or zero) fuel cost, which means people think of them as base load generation. I think that domestic solar is an excellent way of smoothing peak generation - let people control their own generation/consumption costs, and they'll be more efficient about it. For example, my in-laws are very proud of their new solar panels, and do all their high-consumption activities during the day, when the panels will cover the power used. As a result they draw far far less from the grid than they used to, but more importantly they very rarely have a heavy draw on the grid at all.

The model of having a big base load and trying to smooth all consumption into that is the old model, and I think it's due for an overall.

Except rarely is not never. Solar cuts average power use, it does almost nothing to peak power use. Thus it has almost no effect on the amount of infrastructure the power company needs, it only cuts fuel costs. Since the infrastructure is more expensive than the fuel...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you put solar panels on your roof you save 13 cents per kwh on your bill, but the utility really only avoids the 3 or 4 cent wholesale energy cost if you maintain a grid connection, billing account etc.

They don't even save that because that wholesale power cost is partly the fuel, partly the generators.

 

[SimpleDon]

I never know how much non-engineers know about these things. I wasn't implying that you had said anything that was wrong. As I said in my edit the response was actually meant for ksen, not you.

I have only toured some pumped storage facilities in Tennessee and Colorado. In the future I will completely defer to you on the subject.

Damn straight!

But seriously, I've only been involved with infrastructure at one of them, not the energy side of them.

What if we compromise? Mix nuclear power and hydropump sites? Have a pool of uranium goo atop a mountain and then let that flow down and get injected into the river... and use the energy from that?

That is what we need, innovative thinking! A way to sell the obvious, best solution to the problem of carbon free electrical generation, the other "N" word, to the technology skeptics. But I don't think that using the word "uranium" is going to do it, try to use the term "dense mineral" or even just "heavy rocks."

 

[Rhea]

Google pumped storage.

I didn't realize at first read that you were recommending research.
I first read this as a technology - use the solar power to run the google! Use the google to store the energy! LOL

It's not as funny the real way.

 

[ImGod]

Duck Curve

The more it looks like a duck the more problems with a less flexible system built around larger base load style units.

The type of grid makes a difference too. Zonal versus Nodal versus old style Utility (our state is still public power with larger utilities and several small city and county utilities operating independently). Nodal and cross zone congestion issues can play a lot of havoc on power pricing throughout the day, as well as, spot fluctuations in supply and demand.

And some stuff that's probably too complicated to effectively discuss here.

But if power generators are trying to add a tax to solar panels that aren't connected to the grid or don't backfeed on to it, they're just being dicks about a changing market. If people expect their meters to run backwards they should sell the electricity they generate at wholesale prices and allow the utility to charge retail. That's the easiest fix.

Restraining Nuke Units and adding renewables has been lucrative for IPP combined cylce plants with generating flexibility in certain markets.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Damn straight!

But seriously, I've only been involved with infrastructure at one of them, not the energy side of them.

What if we compromise? Mix nuclear power and hydropump sites? Have a pool of uranium goo atop a mountain and then let that flow down and get injected into the river... and use the energy from that?

That is what we need, innovative thinking! A way to sell the obvious, best solution to the problem of carbon free electrical generation, the other "N" word, to the technology skeptics. But I don't think that using the word "uranium" is going to do it, try to use the term "dense mineral" or even just "heavy rocks."

Warm rock power.

 

[Togo]

Renewables are still finding their place in people's thinking, I suspect. As per Loren's examples, most renewables are high throttle, which means think of them as peak generation, but they're also low (or zero) fuel cost, which means people think of them as base load generation. I think that domestic solar is an excellent way of smoothing peak generation - let people control their own generation/consumption costs, and they'll be more efficient about it. For example, my in-laws are very proud of their new solar panels, and do all their high-consumption activities during the day, when the panels will cover the power used. As a result they draw far far less from the grid than they used to, but more importantly they very rarely have a heavy draw on the grid at all.

The model of having a big base load and trying to smooth all consumption into that is the old model, and I think it's due for an overall.

Except rarely is not never. Solar cuts average power use, it does almost nothing to peak power use.

On the contrary, it cuts peak power use quite sharply. It doesn't eliminate all peaks and troughs, but it does do a lot to smooth them out, reducing the amount of infrastructure the power company needs.

 

[SimpleDon]

I have now seven solar panels on my backyard roof and plans for four more. That will be over 7 kW of panels. But I have no storage batteries specifically for the solar panels. The DC current from the panels is converted by a surprisingly efficient set of invertors into the 120 VAC current that is used in the house. Any load in the house that is on at the time will consume it. If there isn't enough loads to consume the solar power it goes onto the grid running my meter backwards. At night I consume power from the grid.

My panels are pointed to about 145° or about 35° to the east from due South. This gives them a morning to early afternoon bias, when here in the South you would prefer a peak generation in the mid to late afternoon. I want to put four panels on the roof of my garage that is aimed to the southwest and pitched well enough for afternoon, summer sun. But Mrs. Simple doesn't want the panels on the roof where they can be seen a little from the street above our side entry garage. But only a little bit. From the side. (I am practicing my arguments to her here.)

Did you ever put in a proper switch?

Yes, I also have a small natural gas generator as stand by power. It has a throw over switch that provides power to my room and a few other loads in the kitchen, refrigerator, lighting which is mainly LED bulbs, etc. The power from the solar panels goes into the small power panel that distributes power to these emergency loads. It shares the switch to the generator then.

To complete my belt and suspenders over the top, power system I have a 0-12-24 VDC distribution powered normally by two 12 volt DC, 30 amp power supplies with I would estimate at about 70 amp hours of batteries, mainly old wheelchair sealed lead acid batteries, floating on the DC power, ready to power the DC loads in case everything else fails. All of the medical equipment is 24 volt DC.

And yes, it is obvious that this old, retired, electrical engineer has way too much time on his hands. You should see the home automation system that I am working on now.

 

[SimpleDon]

There are many comments here that are basically justifying the status quo, including discriminatory legal structures!

And there are fascinating storage possibilities - pumping water up hill as at Dinorwic, charging car batteries, and various salts.

If you need to change a business model it is very good idea to prepare for it, not avoid it!

You think we haven't considered such things?

Pumping water uphill? That's called pumped hydro storage. It requires suitable terrain features and an adequate supply of water. (Hint: The places with the most sun tend to lack in the water department.) You'll lose a quarter of your power this way and note that this hydro power--with it's slow throttle. It's also quite capital intensive.

Charging car batteries? The cost per kwh is about $8.50. (Note: Article from 2011) That's 70 (edit: I originally fucked up the math and said 40) times what I'm paying for power from the grid. Why do you think off-grid houses are so obsessive about minimizing the draw from the batteries?

Salts? I'm not aware of anything that does much better than the lowly car battery.

You also missed:

Flywheel: High capital costs, high efficiency. The problem is the power doesn't last very well--the flywheel spins down in a matter of hours.

Superconducting ring: High capital costs, high efficiency. The problem is that you have to keep the whole thing extremely cold--the cooling costs are too high. Also, should it ever warm up too much all the stored energy is liberated nearly instantly. The same thing will happen should you overcharge it. I don't believe it's possible to avoid the destruction of the storage loop in this situation.


The closest thing I've seen to a good storage mechanism is solar thermal. Reflectors are used to heat a large mass of liquid which is used to run a conventional generator. This is still at the research stage and suffers an inherent problem of low efficiency.

And so far we haven't even mentioned the increased electrical transmission and distribution capacity that these things would require to transmit the power around the country, from where the sun is shining in the west to the peak loads in the east for example.

The thermal solar plants that are coming on line now are melting salts to store the high temperature, high thermally efficient heat to be able to generate for a few hours of peak load that occurs after the peak sun. But it is not enough to carry through to the next day, much less through days of low sun.

And once again, even if we had cheap, 100% efficient storage, solar and wind would require two to three times the installed capacity of current base generating capacity to generate the power that is stored during the 6 to 8 hours that the sun is shining or who knows how much for wind. The T. Bones Pickens' wind farms in West Texas generate a lot of power in the spring and fall, but in summer when it is really needed, not so much. As anyone who lives in Texas can tell you. The winds die down in the summer.