I am deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States

I would like to thank the group for this topic. The first election I worked for, 8th grade civics class, was in 1971. The last one I worked on before I could vote was when Mr. Carter went to Washington. I have and will continue to vote and will as noted, not bitch.

California is a great model of how politics works in a de-facto one party state. I was born here, graduated high school in 1977, graduated from college in 1982, have been married for 30 years, have two kids that went through our public education system, graduated from college and both are working.

Our 10 year old is going to private school, 4th grade, and does AYSO sports with kids that attend our three local public elementary schools. He is in a combo 3/4 class that has 16 kids. I willing wright the check.

Our system is unique. My Dad's last job in the Navy had us living in Argentina starting in 1979, I understand why the Pope is a lighting rod for the oppressed. But our time in South America, three years, showed me that "mandating" a style of government that is "fair" does not work. We are give a system that allows those that participate a window to make changes. Then four years later we get to do it again.

If you find your self compelled to "want" others to do as you believe you might be of a party and should work with them to that end. Just please do not hinder those that willing spend their money on what they see more important than you think they "should".

Just got caught up on this thread (12 pages without a lock, even after mentioning global warming! Well done!).

SVreX's medium-scale power generation idea is a good one for now, but I think in a decade or so, small-scale power generation could match it in $/kW, or at least get close enough that the control that it affords to the individual is worth the price difference.

I don't think power buyback will be made illegal by government, but I think it will be made impractical by business - in fact we're already almost at that point. Power companies want to set up a pricing scheme where they decide the value of the electricity you sell to them, and then they decide that it's worth pennies on the dollar compared to the energy they sell to you. This is already the reality in many places including in Arizona and by me. So if you sell back your power, you're practically giving it away for free.

As such, people will set up power storage systems, probably based on used EV batteries similar to the Tesla Powerwall, so that they store and reuse their own energy as much as possible instead of giving it away to the power company. People will switch to inverter systems that use their on-site power and then supplement it with grid power, and will only "flare off" energy by "selling" it back to the grid if there's an unusable surplus. Today most people are using inverters that sell off all the energy they produce at their homes to offset their electricity costs - which would've worked fine when electricity was worth the same no matter which way it was going, but plays directly into the hands of the new "your electrons are worth far less than mine" system.

Luckily my boss' home solar setup mostly paid itself off before that bit him in the ass. He has a friend who has a big solar setup and has gone completely off-grid, using a big battery bank, and a resistor bank for when the panels produce electricity he can't use or store.

As a sailor who has looked into solar as my boat's only source of power generation, I am quite amazed at what can be done with only 12 or 24 volts these days. There is -no- reason you cannot run a house on 24 volts with only needing 120 for the larger appliances. Efficiency has come a long way in a short amount of time thanks to LEDs.

The good news is: just as the internet broke the stranglehold the music industry had on entertainment, and also is breaking the cable companies, it will not be long until the virtual monopoly the electric companies have over us is also broken

GameboyRMH wrote: SVreX's medium-scale power generation idea is a good one for now, but I think in a decade or so, small-scale power generation could match it in $/kW, or at least get close enough that the control that it affords to the individual is worth the price difference. I don't think power buyback will be made illegal by government, but I think it will be made impractical by business - in fact we're already almost at that point. Power companies want to set up a pricing scheme where they decide the value of the electricity you sell to them, and then they decide that it's worth pennies on the dollar compared to the energy they sell to you. As such, people will set up power storage systems, probably based on used EV batteries similar to the Tesla Powerwall, so that they store and reuse their own energy as much as possible instead of giving it away to the power company. People will switch to inverter systems that use their on-site power and then supplement it with grid power, and will only "flare off" energy by "selling" it back to the grid if there's an unusable surplus. Today most people are using inverters that sell off all the energy they produce at their homes to offset their electricity costs - which would've worked fine when electricity was worth the same no matter which way it was going, but plays directly into the hands of the new "your electrons are worth far less than mine" system.

I like your thinking, but I don't think the math works.

The average residential solar system now costs about $40K (total installed cost). An off-grid system is more like $60K.

The average US household consumes about 11,700 kWh of electricity. The average household electric bill is about $120. (Wow! Not mine, that's for darned sure!)

Assuming ZERO other fees, maintenance costs, etc, a $60K system would take 10 years to pay back at 2% financing (approximately equal monthly payments).

Americans won't take on $60K in debt for no advantage in their monthly costs. Even if the price cuts in half, they still won't do it.

The model that works is still medium scale. Investors can buy the systems (perhaps as a Coop), and lease back the usage to the residents. That would mean zero outlay to the homeowner initially, with a monthly cost savings (whatever the lease amount is less than their current monthly costs). Investors would gain the capital investment tax advantages, plus about 10 years of residual income. It's a win/win.

But if investors are going to consider this, they will gravitate toward solar farms, not rooftop systems. It is easier to maintain, and avoids the legal issues related to deeds, codes, etc.

AND, an investment group will have the negotiating power to protect the need to sell back to the grid. Homeowners will NEVER have that.

Medium scale still wins.

FYI - The right to refuse to buy power back from customers is on the agenda in Louisiana and a few states have already approved it.

Follow the money, they don't generate they don't make as much profit.

as far as I'm concerned, if they can't keep up with demand, then they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the buy back ... just my 2¢ though

wbjones wrote: as far as I'm concerned, if they can't keep up with demand, then they shouldn't be allowed to refuse the buy back ... just my 2¢ though

I absolutely agree, but it is done state by state

Remember, yell down the street, not always at DC.

of course ... DC really doesn't have much to do with local utilities ... there may or may not be so federal guidelines, but still, these are sorta private companies (monopolies) and as such are more locally/state level "controlled" than federally controlled

but like I was saying, many of them complain that they can't keep up with demand, and that rolling brownouts are the SOP... especially during the summer ... in that case, no way they should be able to refuse the buy back ... again just my 2¢

Solar is only safe for the grid up to a certain percentage of the total generation, mostly due to the ramp rates when it comes on and off line but also due to the lack of frequency control and to a lesser extent voltage control. The western interconnect is already getting close to the point where at dawn and dusk when the solar comes on or off there isn't enough other generation available, online, and fast enough to compensate for the swing.

Right now there's no good grid-level power storage solution, so you have to match the amount of power being generated at every moment to the amount being consumed at that moment. The shock absorber for the system is the inertia of the big generators and it's ability to make up for instantaneous changes in load until the system can react. Solar, like wind, has no inertia for the grid to use and as it displaces conventional generation the amount available for the grid at any moment gets reduced. The result is going to be bigger than acceptable frequency swings as the system tries to keep up, particularly since you can only push the big generators around just so fast without breaking something.

Grid connected solar can't be a long term solution at our current levels of grid reliability. Same thing for wind. As a percentage of the whole both work, but we need base load units to represent a certain percentage of the mix and as we peak out the wind and solar the utility companies can't use more because it only hurts the system.

Off grid solar is great, or hooked up to some batteries and enough control circuitry that your local distribution provider can remotely attach and remove individual generation from the grid would allow us to make the percentage slightly larger for the system. Then the issue is more the inevitable lawsuit when two neighbors build identical arrays and one gets a larger buy back because the other had his turned on to the grid later in the morning or taken off line sooner in the afternoon.

good info ... how does this work with power companies that utilize wind/solar as part of their actual generation and dispersement of consumer electricity ?

are they in better shape to receive buy back from customers ?

In reply to wbjones:

It would probably be worse.

The municipal systems that utilize solar would have identical ramp rates to the individual solar producers who are trying to contribute to the system. When one comes online, they all come online.

oldopelguy wrote: Solar is only safe for the grid up to a certain percentage of the total generation, mostly due to the ramp rates when it comes on and off line but also due to the lack of frequency control and to a lesser extent voltage control. The western interconnect is already getting close to the point where at dawn and dusk when the solar comes on or off there isn't enough other generation available, online, and fast enough to compensate for the swing. Right now there's no good grid-level power storage solution, so you have to match the amount of power being generated at every moment to the amount being consumed at that moment. The shock absorber for the system is the inertia of the big generators and it's ability to make up for instantaneous changes in load until the system can react. Solar, like wind, has no inertia for the grid to use and as it displaces conventional generation the amount available for the grid at any moment gets reduced. The result is going to be bigger than acceptable frequency swings as the system tries to keep up, particularly since you can only push the big generators around just so fast without breaking something. Grid connected solar can't be a long term solution at our current levels of grid reliability. Same thing for wind. As a percentage of the whole both work, but we need base load units to represent a certain percentage of the mix and as we peak out the wind and solar the utility companies can't use more because it only hurts the system. Off grid solar is great, or hooked up to some batteries and enough control circuitry that your local distribution provider can remotely attach and remove individual generation from the grid would allow us to make the percentage slightly larger for the system. Then the issue is more the inevitable lawsuit when two neighbors build identical arrays and one gets a larger buy back because the other had his turned on to the grid later in the morning or taken off line sooner in the afternoon.

That's a good post.

So, help me understand...

If there were "medium" sized systems (which you would most certainly consider micro systems, but you know what I mean) which were PRIMARILY designed to be self-contained providing power for their own members, what would the impact be on the grid overall?

They would need backup systems, storage capacity, and might be sources other than solar (biomass, etc). They could be easier to regulate (because they have management systems/ personnel). Basically, micro utility companies.

Isn't it possible these would be more capable of providing excess capacity to the grid WHEN IT IS NEEDED, instead of contributing to the ramp up load problems?

Seems to me they would be less dependent on maintaining the balance of the grid overall, and more in the business of creating the additional capacity for peak usage times. Couldn't the net result of this be that larger utility companies could dial down their baseline capacity needs (thus saving them capital costs)?