Is the power company just biding time?

[ksmithaz1]

In Alberta, Canada 80% of my bill is a connection charge. 20% is usage charges, maybe 30% if I bring in over 1000 kWh. I added another 4000 watts to my south wall to see if I could make it throughout the winter on solar electricity. Nope. Now, 2/3 of my energy does come from my vertical panels, but we can't live on 10 kWh / day average or 20 kWh max generation during this winter solstice period with 10 kw of solar panels. My $170 bill for 300 kWh this month might be better spent on generation. Most of my neighbors have setup off grid, but if I cut off from the grid they take my transformer and charge me $30,000 to get it back. If batteries come to half their current value I would consider disconnecting, but then I would lose some resale value.
View attachment 183405

It costs money to have the grid. Much less expensive per household when they are closer together, and the burden is shared. That $30K probably doesn't fully cover the expense either. Tough decision, based on the picture, you could do a pretty darn big ground mount, and you will need the battery to tide you through the crappy days, and a generator for when all else fails. Looks very doable. Resale kind of depends on whose buying.

 

[Ampster]

there's effectively no cost to the cable company if you use 1MB/mo or 10TB/mo

In my area their are tiers in terms of how many Gb one uses. I have never gone over my 12Gb allocation but my sister did one month and got charged another $20. I imagine that fee is probably all profit based on what you are describing?

 

[Overtaxed]

In my area their are tiers in terms of how many Gb one uses. I have never gone over my 12Gb allocation but my sister did one month and got charged another $20. I imagine that fee is probably all profit based on what you are describing?

19.95 of profit.

At some point, the cable company does have to upgrade equipment to support more throughput, but, honestly, that's going to happen anyway.

The incremental cost to a cable company to move another GB of data for an existing customer is so close to 0 that, any level of rounding is going to give you a zero.

 

[Ampster]

Road users don't have to pay for the roads

We pay for road maintenance with gas taxes or in my case an extra fee for my EV on my registration which is supposedly going toward road maintenance.

 

[Danke]

We as a citizenry need to make sure that the idiots we elect to office levy the taxes sanely, spend the revenues appropriately, and create rules that benefit society as a whole, and not line the pockets of their friends and themselves.

How has that worked out for you?

 

[Skypower]

We've known how to do this for like 50+ years. It's banned because the tech to reuse nuclear fuel is the same tech you need to enrich to weapons grade. But there's no technical hurdle to reuse the fuel, just political will to do so.

I'd love to have fusion, but, thing is, fission is kind of "good enough". Fusion would be better (~10X more power released) but, let's not throw the good out in search of the perfect.

As much as I’d love to see fusion, I don’t see it in any commercial capacity in many generations. It’s one thing to finally get a hit and make power for a fraction of a second but it’s its beyond comprehension to do it continuously. Not to mention that there’s so much infrastructure just to initiate an event that it leaves little area of recoup the energy generated. There’s no resistance to international fusion funding programs because the competitive energy sources aren’t worried (lobbyists). They are worried about thorium reactors/LFTR, a known technology that was buried and resurrected
by a slip up ( they forgot to destroy documents) and the freedom of information act. Who would loose with LFTR? Uranium mining and processing, petroleum and natural gas, oh and politicians loosing lobbying money.
If that technology had been allowed to prosper from the 70’s, today energy would not be a second thought, nor climate change.
It’s always about the money, not society.

 

[Overtaxed]

As much as I’d love to see fusion, I don’t see it in any commercial capacity in many generations.

Part of the problem for fusion, IMHO, is it's solving a problem that we kind of don't need to solve. The problem fission would solve is a lack of fissile material to run a standard (fission) nuclear reactor. There's only so much uranium out there and, as a very heavy element, it's not exactly common. However, we have known sources for plenty of it, and if we are willing to reprocess, it takes very small amounts to produce tremendous amounts of power.

Fusion would be better in that it releases more energy and uses incredibly common (and easy to create) elements as fuel. This would be a "must have" if we were low on fissile material, but, today, we really don't have that problem. Shoot, we probably have 100 years of electric sitting in casks called "nuclear waste" right now; just reprocess it and back into the reactor and we would have much less (perhaps almost none) demand for more uranium.

With 10 homes, it is unlikely that everybody is cooking at the same time or starting their air conditioner at the same time, and as a cloud advances through a neighborhood generation becomes slightly diversified in time.

This makes sense, however, the counterpoint that I'd make; it's not peak loads that are the primary solar/battery problem. It's overall consumption that drives the size of the battery, if my neighbor and I both consume 100KWh, he from 8PM to 12AM and me from 12AM to 8AM, going it alone or together, we still need to get 200KW of battery. Where with traditional generation, the situation is opposite, the power company only needs to size for 100KW; their constraint is transmission/transformers, not storage.

That said, your post makes a lot of sense and there's almost certainly some scale gain if you share a battery (and panels) across multiple people. I'm just not sure it's worth the hassle to do it locally, the big economy of scale would be sharing between areas that have a lot of sun right now and those that do not, which typically would require more than a microgrid.

My $170 bill for 300 kWh this month might be better spent on generation.

Over 50c/KWh! Phew. I understand why (per your explanation) but man, that does start to make a big battery bank and a diesel generator start to look reasonable! Running a generator for a day per month could fill in the gap; even gas, you'd probably consume <30 gallons of fuel for a full day of runtime at 100% capacity (charging your batteries back up).

 

[50ShadesOfDirt]

If off-grid, then there are no issues with all the grid madness. Leave the grid insanity for the grid providers, big business (grid consumers), and anyone else not looking to join into the disruptive power of off-grid solutions (the masses who can't/won't figure out how to cut all or some of the cords).

If on-grid, leave the connection in place, as it's an already-paid-for power source. Put in a parallel system (off-grid, running in parallel to on-grid). Could be just an inverter/charger+battery-bank+generator (no panels needed); work out the details for your specific home. Any power used in the parallel system is money saved from being used in the on-grid system.

Finally, you have an off-grid system, no matter where you are in the world, out in the country (eating berries ... really?) or in a dense neighborhood of a big city. Grid goes down, no problem, as you have a parallel off-grid system.

 

[JimP]

Thorium is an excellent nuclear fission fuel, much safer and it is one of the more common elements and easily and widely available to us.

The US Dept of Energy chose to enable/encourage uranium fission for power generation _because_ it produced dangerous isotopes useful for building nuclear weapons.

There are very good thorium reactor designs that fail safely (can’t melt down) and the resulting waste is less amount, less long lived, and has much less dangerous isotopes like plutonium.

 

[AntronX]

My $170 bill for 300 kWh this month might be better spent on generation.

Farm diesel would cost you $0.41/kWh electrical with free waste heat as a bonus.

 

[AntronX]

@amendt I see you have gas service. You could replace the grid completely with gasoline generator fueled on nat gas.

 

[amendt]

@amendt I see you have gas service. You could replace the grid completely with gasoline generator fueled on nat gas.

In Canada our leader JT is trying desperately to get us off carbon. $70 / tonne is our current carbon price. $150 by 2028. For 10 GJ of gas I pay $50 just as one tax

 

[AntronX]

$70 / tonne is our current carbon price. $150 by 2028. For 10 GJ of gas I pay $50 just as one tax

That's 1.8 cents/kWh(t) at $70/T and 3.86c/kWh(t) at $150. Still not too terrible considering diesel will have its own carbon tax at $170/T by 2030 or 4.47c/kWh(t). If you capture waste heat from gas generator then electricity is "free". How much to you pay total for 10GJ ?

 

[ksmithaz1]

How has that worked out for you?

Sadly not as well as I would like. People being people, they always bring their own interests with them. Part of the problem is the education system not teaching children to be good citizens.

 

[ksmithaz1]

In Canada our leader JT is trying desperately to get us off carbon. $70 / tonne is our current carbon price. $150 by 2028. For 10 GJ of gas I pay $50 just as one tax

Trying to get YOU to do this. He couldn't care less. These fools fly around in private jets, live in, and buy huge old properties with horrid insulation and oil boilers, drive around in huge gas guzzling full size SUV's with large entourages, and then they look you in the eye and tell you you need to cut your carbon footprint or you are evil. And people for some reason genuflect and slurp it up. I'm 'greener' than every single one of these id10t's based on their standards, which they don't even attempt to try and follow because they are the anointed, and us little sheeple should listen and obey. You voted him in, he's your problem.

 

[Danke]

You voted him in, he's your problem.

If voting made a difference, it would be illegal.

 

[Overtaxed]

Trying to get YOU to do this. He couldn't care less. These fools fly around in private jets, live in, and buy huge old properties with horrid insulation and oil boilers, drive around in huge gas guzzling full size SUV's with large entourages, and then they look you in the eye and tell you you need to cut your carbon footprint

Honestly, you just summed up why I don't have solar panels today. I really don't want to be associated with the "greens". I like technology, and I really like saving money, so I can "deal with it" to a certain degree, but hearing people lecture me who's carbon footprint is 1,000X's of times higher than mine that I "need to do X" has the effect of making me not want to do X just out of principal.

Davos is one of my favorites, the dozens or hundreds of private jets flying in for a few days of finger wagging at the rest of the world when, quite literally, just one of those private flights uses more energy in an afternoon than a family in a 3rd world will use in a decade.

Modern version of "Let them eat cake". The level of hypocrisy is just mind boggling; and it's not at all isolated to one party, I just want nothing to do with either of them.

 

[fromport]

And as more and more people buy EV's, fewer people are paying those gas taxes to maintain the roads causing budget issues all over.

Since 2020 in California:
a one-time upfront registration fee of $100 will be charged for 2020 model year plug-in vehicles in California.
That will be followed by an annual registration fee of up to $175 based on the vehicle’s value.

The fee is a result of Senate Bill 1, which passed in 2017. The bill also boosts California gas taxes by 3.2 cents to about 50.5 cents a gallon, raising approximately $7 billion a year to pay for maintenance and repairs. California EV fees are expected to generate $52 billion over 10 years, earmarked for infrastructure repairs.
Source:

California starts charging EV registration fees up to $175 in July

An EV worth $5,000 will pay a $25 fee. The amount climbs up to $175 per year for a plug-in electric vehicle worth $60,000 and higher.

electrek.co

I pay at least 50% more per year DMW renewal for my Chevy Bolt EV GVWR 4620 Lbs than my 1/2 ton ICE truck with GVWR 7000 Lbs.

 

[740GLE]

Honestly, you just summed up why I don't have solar panels today. I really don't want to be associated with the "greens". I like technology, and I really like saving money, so I can "deal with it" to a certain degree, but hearing people lecture me who's carbon footprint is 1,000X's of times higher than mine that I "need to do X" has the effect of making me not want to do X just out of principal.

Davos is one of my favorites, the dozens or hundreds of private jets flying in for a few days of finger wagging at the rest of the world when, quite literally, just one of those private flights uses more energy in an afternoon than a family in a 3rd world will use in a decade.

Modern version of "Let them eat cake". The level of hypocrisy is just mind boggling; and it's not at all isolated to one party, I just want nothing to do with either of them.

Davos is for financial world markets and banks.

Which banks seem to love the ESG fad these days. Of note majority of all upper management of publicly traded utilities have financial back grounds, not engineering or technical.

So I guess it’s all the same, lol

 

[B-Mod]

Honestly, you just summed up why I don't have solar panels today. I really don't want to be associated with the "greens". I like technology, and I really like saving money, so I can "deal with it" to a certain degree, but hearing people lecture me who's carbon footprint is 1,000X's of times higher than mine that I "need to do X" has the effect of making me not want to do X just out of principal.

Davos is one of my favorites, the dozens or hundreds of private jets flying in for a few days of finger wagging at the rest of the world when, quite literally, just one of those private flights uses more energy in an afternoon than a family in a 3rd world will use in a decade.

Modern version of "Let them eat cake". The level of hypocrisy is just mind boggling; and it's not at all isolated to one party, I just want nothing to do with either of them.

I have 57kw of solar, and 3 Tesla's and I am not even the least bit a "green". I did it all for tech, hobby, save money, and pure speed, lol.

 

[Overtaxed]

I have 57kw of solar, and 3 Tesla's and I am not even the least bit a "green". I did it all for tech, hobby, save money, and pure speed, lol.

LOL, I totally get that. I've done so many "better, but unnecessary" things in my life, I've kind of lost count. Shoot, last project, gearing up for solar on the house was to do a full Victron/solar/lithium setup on my RV. Really enjoyed the project and it's working out well, however... We never boondock. Ever. We do occasionally park at a friend's house (where we don't have 50A service) and Powerassist will be nice to have. But, we're well into the "hobby" rather than "need".

That said, if I can't figure out some way to save $$ with solar, I don't think I'm going to do it. I'm fine with a long ROI/payback, but there has to be some light at the end of the tunnel!

 

[ksmithaz1]

I have 57kw of solar, and 3 Tesla's and I am not even the least bit a "green". I did it all for tech, hobby, save money, and pure speed, lol.

One of the few guys that competes with Tim.

 

[ksmithaz1]

LOL, I totally get that. I've done so many "better, but unnecessary" things in my life, I've kind of lost count. Shoot, last project, gearing up for solar on the house was to do a full Victron/solar/lithium setup on my RV. Really enjoyed the project and it's working out well, however... We never boondock. Ever. We do occasionally park at a friend's house (where we don't have 50A service) and Powerassist will be nice to have. But, we're well into the "hobby" rather than "need".

That said, if I can't figure out some way to save $$ with solar, I don't think I'm going to do it. I'm fine with a long ROI/payback, but there has to be some light at the end of the tunnel!

I think the id10t's are going to force the isssue and drive the cost of energy up, but for me it's about becoming independent of the power company when they decide to raise rates. True payback is probably closer to 15 years if rates stay stable. I do think the costs of the gear will continue to drop. I bet overall the costs will stabilize around 1/2 what we are paying, and we will likely see some storage breakthru's that make it much easier to really go off the grid.

 

[SeaGal]

That said, if I can't figure out some way to save $$ with solar, I don't think I'm going to do it. I'm fine with a long ROI/payback, but there has to be some light at the end of the tunnel!

I have said it before and I will say it again, Solar is making less and less economic sense unless you go 100% off grid.

As I mentioned earlier, here in UK I am realistically expecting a sub 4 year ROI for grid-tied savings, even without export payments. Obviously it is different "over there", but can someone educate me as to why? Is it because your grid-supplied energy is so cheap in the first place?

In the UK, if we didn't have solar / solar+batteries, we'd be paying the equivalent of about 0.45$ per kWh for 17 hours a day and 0.27$ per kWh from midnight to 7am. Some suppliers offer less at night, down to about 0.07$ per kWh, but only for about 4 hours. Plus a fixed "standing charge" of about 0.57$ / day, irrespective of use - to pay for the infrastructure of getting electricity to your home. Then some suppliers will offer 0.19$ per kWh exported.

So with a reasonable house usage of around 8 Mwh / annum (i.e. no air-con / no heat pumps / no EV), there's a financial gain of about $2000 - $2500 per annum (depending on size of system / own usage etc.) even allowing for some charging up of batteries at cheap rate for the cloudy short winter days. Hence over 4 years, a ROI of $7000 - $10000 which would be a typical DIY install cost of say 16 panels and 15kWh battery.

 

[Overtaxed]

As I mentioned earlier, here in UK I am realistically expecting a sub 4 year ROI for grid-tied savings, even without export payments. Obviously it is different "over there", but can someone educate me as to why? Is it because your grid-supplied energy is so cheap in the first place?

In the UK, if we didn't have solar / solar+batteries, we'd be paying the equivalent of about 0.45$ per kWh for 17 hours a day and 0.27$ per kWh from midnight to 7am. Some suppliers offer less at night, down to about 0.07$ per kWh, but only for about 4 hours. Plus a fixed "standing charge" of about 0.57$ / day, irrespective of use - to pay for the infrastructure of getting electricity to your home. Then some suppliers will offer 0.19$ per kWh exported.

So with a reasonable house usage of around 8 Mwh / annum (i.e. no air-con / no heat pumps / no EV), there's a financial gain of about $2000 - $2500 per annum (depending on size of system / own usage etc.) even allowing for some charging up of batteries at cheap rate for the cloudy short winter days. Hence over 4 years, a ROI of $7000 - $10000 which would be a typical DIY install cost of say 16 panels and 15kWh battery.

My current rate plan is 11c/kwh, no TOU charges, 11c, all day, every day. Almost exactly 1/4th of what you are paying for most of the day, hence the ROI being either "long" or non-existent.

In my case, without TOU rates on my current plan (which, sadly, if I grid tie, I'd have to give up; the only option for grid tie is a TOU plan) and a reasonable cost per KWh, it's a lot harder to get it to pencil out.

My power comes from a nuclear plant down the road from me; my utility has very little/no interest in my generated capacity, they can make their own electric at roughly 0/Kwh, the marginal cost to create another KWH from a nuclear facility is almost 0. So I can't fault them for the plans they have in place, just trying to determine if there's a way for me to do solar that makes any sense at all. Right now I'm thinking perhaps a hybrid system with some batteries, at least then I'd get the whole house UPS aspect, that would be pretty nice!