PHeller wrote: The idea of selling power back to the grid will soon be stopped at the federal level...
I really hope you are wrong.
That would be a tremendous step backwards in almost every way I can think.
PHeller wrote: The idea of selling power back to the grid will soon be stopped at the federal level...
I really hope you are wrong.
That would be a tremendous step backwards in almost every way I can think.
wbjones wrote: I don't understand why they would hate buying back power ... they all are constantly complaining about how they don't have anywhere near enough generating capacity and that brown outs are going to be the standard in the future ... buy backs would only help them ... or are they saying that they are seriously over-charging us for the power that they do generate and don't want to pay that much because of buy-backs ?
This one I got. Because they get government grants and guraennteed loans and tax break to build new generation points.
Here is the cycle for most major companies including power. Have a need, real or otherwise. Approach different municipalities to to see who will give biggest incentive to have new facility there. Go to location with largest tax breaks, grants, tax payer backed loans, bonds and lax regulations, (read as area that doesn't enforce laws to protect the public). Use facility till advantage has expired/can't negotiate to continue.
Close facility down and repeat. Don't believe me? Talk to people who work at facilities that have their tax breaks coming to an end and see how much maintenance/expansion they do.
So sad but true.
Big companies are, for the most part, a date that hits the head when the bill comes due to pay.
still don't see it (oh I do see what you're saying) but don't see that as the problem (at least not around here ... the plant has been here for longer that I've lived her (move her in 1955)
changed hands 2/3 times since then, but still here, along with all the whining about how they don't have the capacity ... seems that anything that helps them meet the demand, at the same price they charge us would be something they should keep the greedy mouths shut about
Well... when in doubt, go back to where we started: follow the money.
Most "public" utility companies are "public" in the sense they are publicly owned via share holders. Share holders want the company to make money. You don't make money when you are buying your product back from your customers.
but isn't good will and customer satisfaction one way that you increase your customer base, and in so doing bring in more revenue in the long run ?
warnings about constant brownouts ( if you don't cut your usage ) don't tend to add to the customer satisfaction level ... if there's a way around that that doesn't "hurt" them (treading water is much better than sinking) seems they should be happy ... maybe not thrilled and jumping for joy, but still the complaint dept. won't be overwhelmed with constant complaints ... then again, maybe I just don't understand how to run a successful company 
Ian F wrote: Well... when in doubt, go back to where we started: follow the money. Most "public" utility companies are "public" in the sense they are publicly owned via share holders. Share holders want the company to make money. You don't make money when you are buying your product back from your customers.
I don't agree with that.
The buyback price is significantly lower than the selling price. When they buy product from a small scale producer, they have no manufacturing costs. Then they resell at a higher price. They certainly can make money.
The only time they don't make money is when they buy so much product that their own manufacturing is under-utilized and not running at maximum output.
In reply to wbjones:
Customer satisfaction doesn't have too much to do with running a utility.
Most are pretty much monopolies. It's not like the customers are going to stop buying the product because the service is E36 M3ty.
If everyone was happy, they would not be running at peak efficiency, and they WOULD be loosing money.
SVreX wrote: The only time they don't make money is when they buy so much product that their own manufacturing is under-utilized and not running at maximum output.
So... you disagreed with me by agreeing with me. 
Again, it comes back to that whole "load potential" thing. The generation system must be sized to meet potential demand, regardless of how many folks put solar panels on their roofs. You still need something to generate power during the ~12 hrs a day the sun ain't shining. Or 24 hrs when conditions aren't optimal for solar.
Solar would really work well if there was essentially a loop of panels circling the globe, all connected to a single grid. Power gets sent from where the sun is shining to where it isn't. Unfortunately, we are politically and technologically a long way from something like that happening. Political is obvious... and a big hurdle tech-wise is the difference between good portions of the world running on 50 Hz power vs. 60 Hz. While voltage isn't an issue, converting Hz is not quite as easy on a large scale without significant efficiency losses.
In reply to Ian F:
That's a little different than what you first said!
... and yes, I agree with you, even if it is a little disagreeable.
In Gainesville the buyback is at a higher rate.
that's nice and all that ... but I really don't see the good coming of that ... it really would make the power company NOT want to help the home owner with excess power ... if the buy back was at a lower rate, there shouldn't be much in the way of angst on the part of the power company ... they would be happy (at least should be) ease the strain on their equipment, and still sell power that they get for more than it costs them ... everyone happy .... if buy back at a higher rate than they sell ... not good
In reply to wbjones:
Sort of.
Gainesville is a unique scenario. IIRC, the power plant is municipally owned, and woefully under-sized for the needs. So, their problem is not a profits problem, but an inadequate supply. So, they tried to give incentives for personal generation.
In reply to SVreX:
Gainesville is also very interested in doing things the elected officials think are "good". A biomass plant that didn't pass the vote got built anyway, subsidized low rate loans for solar panels, higher rate buyback than purchase, firing the highly touted manager of the local utilities because he objected to the elected officials plans, etc... But hey-we got voted "good" in some way shape or form by people who judge those things and elected officials from other cities come visit us because we are so environmentally conscious.
Back to the topic of the thread tangent-The idea of world wide solar panels hooked to one feed is neat and impossible, but it seems like the US could somewhat implement it within its own borders. It seems like a string of panels all along I10 could do wonders.
SVreX wrote: In reply to wbjones: Sort of. Gainesville is a unique scenario. IIRC, the power plant is municipally owned, and woefully under-sized for the needs. So, their problem is not a profits problem, but an inadequate supply. So, they tried to give incentives for personal generation.
that makes more sense ... so there really shouldn't be any complaining ... by anyone ... the customer (both) get what they want/need ... the home owner, a RTOI , and the power company a source of power, to make up for what they can't produce on their own ... win win
Man has this thread changed direction.
On the subject of electrical generation at home, and utility buy backs, isn't Elon Musk's other, (non automotive), Tesla project home based storage batteries for solar panels?
It seems to me that if this works out, many people in the sun belt could go nearly off the grid. I can see why the utility companies would be upset. I'd do it just to spite those b*#&%r@s.
My mom's farm is not in the sun belt, but it is on a windy ridge, I really want to put up a pair of mini wind turbines when the newest version of storage batteries is ready for prime time. Berkeley the power company. Berkeley thier lobbiests and cronies in the government too.
to get things back on topic.. Cruz is now leading Trump for the nomination. This is going to get ugly
Neither of whom believe in global warming.
mad_machine wrote: to get things back on topic.. Cruz is now leading Trump for the nomination. This is going to get ugly
I haven't paid any attention to what any of them are saying yet. It's way to early in the process for me to get all stressed out about it. I got kinda burned out after the last two big election cycles. Maybe one day I'll start to pay attention, but then again, maybe not. Either way I'm glad one group of people can have civil discourse about the problems facing this nation.
In reply to Nick (LUCAS) Comstock:
I can summarize. Trump says whatever he thinks and goes on and on that he is the only candidate not being controlled by billionaires (other than himself I guess, but he leaves that out.) Cruz does not think and only says what someone tells/pays him to say. He seems to have no concept of thought at all. Basically, the powers that be recently gave up on Jeb Bush and are now backing Ted Cruz. They do not want Trump because he cannot be controlled. They are all scary (all meaning all the main candidates from either party) to me, and they are all terrible choices to be President.
yes to what Nick says ... this thread has surprised me ....
thank you guys ... when this thread started I was pretty worried ... I'm so pleasantly surprised .... thank y'all 
Holy Rusted Metal Batman!!!! 11 pages on politics and we didn't lock the thread.
Go us!!!
this ... well done guys ... now we have a model we can build from/refer to 
wbjones wrote: I don't understand why they would hate buying back power ... they all are constantly complaining about how they don't have anywhere near enough generating capacity and that brown outs are going to be the standard in the future ... buy backs would only help them ... or are they saying that they are seriously over-charging us for the power that they do generate and don't want to pay that much because of buy-backs ?
More the less it sounds like they are pissed off from the investment standpoint of infrastructure that doesn't pay for itself.
You'll need to log in to post.
