diy solar

diy solar

Electric Companies slowly taking back control

Yeah, it's a typo.
A friend of mine has had solar for about 7 or 8 years now. He is on a 1 for 1 plan with the power company. They changed the return rate to 70% for new installs before I got mine. Those who get it now are at 60%. They tried to change us all to 60% but we are locked in at our rates for 7 or 8 years or so. Big stink at PUC meeting. Power Co. backed down. We have to keep tabs of them or they will force thru their agenda.
Another friend in AZ has had solar and wind combined for quite a few years and started out at 65%. They keep trying to change him to lower rate. By the way, that wind generator is loud!
Power Companys will keep trying to screw us if we don't keep them in check.
 
Jeeze if only solar could help that 4pm-9pm timeframe. Maybe this is one solution that Cai should look at vs what was proposed.
That is the model everyone will face, which is why they said digital meters were bad, because they could track you. If you work from home and draw more then what the utilities think you should, they charge you more.
 
Some states have gone to credits, 1 credit for 1kw. In Michigan they have reduced it to 3/4 of a credit per kw.

Whether that is good, bad or indifferent depends on what costs are being recovered from the import tariffs against which a credit is being applied.

Are the Michigan tariffs just made up of energy generation costs only (plus margin), or do they also include recovery of costs for the transmission network (poles & wires), network management and other associated costs of supply unrelated to the generation of the energy itself?

What underlying costs are included in tariffs matters as it means a full or 3/4 credit for taking a homeowner's excess solar PV could be anywhere from undervalued, a fair value or a ridiculous overpayment.

e.g. in Australia most of the energy import tariff is actually recovery of distribution and network costs, about 3/5ths of the import tariff goes to these costs. The cost of the energy itself is only about 1/4-1/3rd of the tariff, with the small the balance being retailer admin costs, margin, and other sundry costs (e.g. carbon costs if applicable).

So in this scenario, if we got 3/4 of a credit for our exports set against each kWh imported, that would be a ridiculously high payment for provision of an uncontrolled energy supply. With such a model a large chunk of the transmission and network cost recovery is lost when a home exports solar PV. That would not be sustainable.

Which is why here the amount paid for exported energy here is closer to the spot wholesale price, which is the value of the energy only, without distribution and network costs. In Australia the feed in tariffs on offer are closer to the average daytime wholesale price over a year. That is pretty fair and represent reasonable value for such energy.
 
A friend of mine has had solar for about 7 or 8 years now. He is on a 1 for 1 plan with the power company. They changed the return rate to 70% for new installs before I got mine. Those who get it now are at 60%. They tried to change us all to 60% but we are locked in at our rates for 7 or 8 years or so. Big stink at PUC meeting. Power Co. backed down. We have to keep tabs of them or they will force thru their agenda.
Another friend in AZ has had solar and wind combined for quite a few years and started out at 65%. They keep trying to change him to lower rate. By the way, that wind generator is loud!
Power Companys will keep trying to screw us if we don't keep them in check.
The problem is that most people don't pay attention, and the power companies know this, so they apply "the boiling frog" metaphor. You put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and increase the heat by one degree every minute, and by the time the frog realizes he's cooking, it's too late to jump. The point is that it's the incremental changes that stack up.
 
Welcome to California. And the USA.

Someone said of our ~ 50% tax burden that the Boston Tea Party was supposedly over a 1% (or was that 1 cent?) tax on tea.
"Have you no muskets? Is your power not dry?"
Of course, Washington had to pay off the cost of the revolutionary war, and found a tax on whiskey to be a convenient funding source.

Cue the next episode ...

 
Of course, Washington had to pay off the cost of the revolutionary war, and found a tax on whiskey to be a convenient funding source.
That worked well for over a hundred years when Prohibition was implemented. Coincidentally that was when the first Income Tax was enacted, presumably to make up for the lost revenues from the whiskey tax.
 
In your view, but when a person sends power up the line, they charge full rate to those that use it.
The problem is that most people don't pay attention, and the power companies know this, so they apply "the boiling frog" metaphor. You put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and increase the heat by one degree every minute, and by the time the frog realizes he's cooking, it's too late to jump. The point is that it's the incremental changes that stack up.
You are absolutely right. People have to actively search for information local stations will not tell you anything about this
 
Whether that is good, bad or indifferent depends on what costs are being recovered from the import tariffs against which a credit is being applied.

Are the Michigan tariffs just made up of energy generation costs only (plus margin), or do they also include recovery of costs for the transmission network (poles & wires), network management and other associated costs of supply unrelated to the generation of the energy itself?

What underlying costs are included in tariffs matters as it means a full or 3/4 credit for taking a homeowner's excess solar PV could be anywhere from undervalued, a fair value or a ridiculous overpayment.

e.g. in Australia most of the energy import tariff is actually recovery of distribution and network costs, about 3/5ths of the import tariff goes to these costs. The cost of the energy itself is only about 1/4-1/3rd of the tariff, with the small the balance being retailer admin costs, margin, and other sundry costs (e.g. carbon costs if applicable).

So in this scenario, if we got 3/4 of a credit for our exports set against each kWh imported, that would be a ridiculously high payment for provision of an uncontrolled energy supply. With such a model a large chunk of the transmission and network cost recovery is lost when a home exports solar PV. That would not be sustainable.

Which is why here the amount paid for exported energy here is closer to the spot wholesale price, which is the value of the energy only, without distribution and network costs. In Australia the feed in tariffs on offer are closer to the average daytime wholesale price over a year. That is pretty fair and represent reasonable value for such energy.
um... you do understand these entities make BILLIONS each year right, reiterate, BILLIONS... lol , its not about " fair " its about how much we can make before people start whinging... lol, fairness ...
 
I need to have a system which can supply circa 15-16MWh/year, manage multiple consecutive 100kWh days, be able to cope with up to 20kW instant power draw across three phases, and deal with extended periods of poor weather where solar PV output is sub-optimal. I have 3 buildings to supply.

Good luck getting much change out of A$40-50k to build a reliable maintenance free system in rural NSW which will stand the test of time.


I'm not averse to doing my own thing. But it has to be compliant with the law and that's pretty tricky in Australia with our standards. Anything I do has to not cause an insurance default for instance.

I built my off-grid backup system with 2.2kW of 2nd hand panels, pre-loved rails, a 4kW AIO inverter and 18kWh of used data centre SLA backup batteries, plus a 3kW generator for redundancy in case solar conditions are poor during an extended outage.

Building my own inverter is beyond my scope though. It's enough to power our essential needs during extended grid outages but is not designed for dealing with the high energy demand of full power supply for our property. I was creative with sourcing stuff and it cost about $3k. Forklift batteries are out of the question. Being disabled (amputee) any DIY stuff I do needs to factor in my capacity to transport, move and house stuff by myself.

The Pareto Principle applies with off-grid:
You can often cover ~80% of the power/energy demand with about 20% of the budget.
The next 20% of power/energy demand requires the other 80% of the budget.

As for worse for the environment, what I'm saying is if you are installing a given amount of PV generation capacity in eastern Australian, then in an off-grid scenario a large chunk of that capacity will go unrealised (batteries full, limited loads and so production will be curtailed), whereas if it were grid tied that excess capacity would be exported and able to offset carbon intensive sources of power on the national grid. It's a better environmental use of that PV generation capacity.

Off grid often requires a different type of property set up, alternative energy sources, different building arrangements and construction, changes to appliances, staggering consumption (tricky when you have more than one dwelling to supply), all designed to reduce both peak power and overall energy demand. Converting existing dwellings to suit an off-grid arrangement is not always simple or cheap. Much budget also needs to be devoted to such strategies.
wow, you have over complicated it, i understand that for your situation, it may not be viable... but what " different type of property setup " are you referring to??

you can still use the same cabling, in the same trenches, with the same breakers ( for 240v side of course) ... hell, the biggest challenge is having enough roof space for panels... but to say its unviable mostly is a real head in the sand approach..
 

it can be done, even with " multiple buildings " and " complicated setups" , I've worked with leslie for years, top bloke and very helpful... I only dream of getting close to his setup, getting there, but as " green " as they come...
 
e.g. in Australia most of the energy import tariff is actually recovery of distribution and network costs, about 3/5ths of the import tariff goes to these costs. The cost of the energy itself is only about 1/4-1/3rd of the tariff, with the small the balance being retailer admin costs, margin, and other sundry costs (e.g. carbon costs if applicable).
This is where most of the misunderstanding comes from- 'our energy bills have only a 20% energy component'
Once this sinks in we then ask ourselves - ' If solar is so cheap, 20% that is the energy cost is gradually dropping to zero, then why do electricity bills go inversely in the opposite direction?'
 
it can be done, even with " multiple buildings " and " complicated setups" , I've worked with leslie for years, top bloke and very helpful... I only dream of getting close to his setup, getting there, but as " green " as they come...
If you can get enough people, who are influencers, to do something and get the masses to follow, you can; otherwise, it's DOA because even the best ideas die in darkness. It's the nature of human nature.
 
This is where most of the misunderstanding comes from- 'our energy bills have only a 20% energy component'
Once this sinks in we then ask ourselves - ' If solar is so cheap, 20% that is the energy cost is gradually dropping to zero, then why do electricity bills go inversely in the opposite direction?'
Salaries and pensions to support infrastructure would be an excellent place to start.
 
um... you do understand these entities make BILLIONS each year right, reiterate, BILLIONS... lol , its not about " fair " its about how much we can make before people start whinging... lol, fairness ...
No, they don't.

I gave you a link already, so I am surprised you are making up numbers and making claims which are just not true.

Read the annual reports for the Distributed Network Service Providers around the Australia. They are not exactly massive profit making machines, rather they are relatively steady income generators for their owners, and they are heavily regulated wrt pricing.

The consolidated corporation Energy Queensland Ltd, which owns both Ergon and Energex (as well as Yurika), reported a net profit after tax of $302 million for the 2020/21 financial year. They paid $202M of that as dividend back to the QLD government.

I can't say what Ergon Energy's contribution to that result that would be, but given the nature of the respective networks, with Ergon covering vast areas of low population density, while Energex covers the far more population dense SE of Qld, then it would not surprise me in the slightest if Ergon was barely breaking even, or losing money.

$302M was not BILLIONS.
 
No, they don't.

I gave you a link already, so I am surprised you are making up numbers and making claims which are just not true.

Read the annual reports for the Distributed Network Service Providers around the Australia. They are not exactly massive profit making machines, rather they are relatively steady income generators for their owners, and they are heavily regulated wrt pricing.

The consolidated corporation Energy Queensland Ltd, which owns both Ergon and Energex (as well as Yurika), reported a net profit after tax of $302 million for the 2020/21 financial year. They paid $202M of that as dividend back to the QLD government.

I can't say what Ergon Energy's contribution to that result that would be, but given the nature of the respective networks, with Ergon covering vast areas of low population density, while Energex covers the far more population dense SE of Qld, then it would not surprise me in the slightest if Ergon was barely breaking even, or losing money.

$302M was not BILLIONS.
ok, please continue to believe that...
 
This is where most of the misunderstanding comes from- 'our energy bills have only a 20% energy component'
Once this sinks in we then ask ourselves - ' If solar is so cheap, 20% that is the energy cost is gradually dropping to zero, then why do electricity bills go inversely in the opposite direction?'
Are they though?

Retail tariffs have been pretty steady, in some places falling, e.g. in SA. My tariffs are pretty much the as they were 5-6 years ago.

The daily service fee is where more price pressure has been occurring, and that's a function of DNSPs getting less income precisely because there is no network or transmission costs applied to exports, only to imports.

As a result of lower cost recovery on the consumption side, they need to increase the cost recovery on that and on the daily service fee side. This disproportionately impacts non-solar homes more, even though all homes (without without solar PV) are still connected to the network and are all pretty much using the same amount of energy in the peak evening period as before.

And it's peak delivery capacity which determines the cost of a network, not the total energy delivered.
 
ok, please continue to believe that...
Well, in the absence of any evidence that the audited financial statements in the annual reports of publicly owned corporations in Australia are falsified, then yes I will continue to believe that.

You've made an extraordinary claim. Such claims need to be backed up with extraordinary evidence. Otherwise it's just made up nonsense.
 
Reading all of these posts is interesting, and it's made me realize some things I hadn't thought about a great deal before. The more I see and hear, the more I think folks had better learn to live without a grid and take care of themselves or maintain a small community. You look at all of these massive power providers, private or government-run, and entropy comes to mind. The larger and more complex things become, the more entropic they are.
 
Back
Top