As an Arizona Public Service customer, I already pay more for being attached to the grid than using the grid. It's about a 60/40 split between fees/taxes/etc and generation/transmission. Once my 10kW-dc/27kWh solar+batteries install is done, I should never need to draw from the grid, just supply to the grid and my bill should go negative. I can't actually go off-grid since it is not allowed so I'll have to pay ~$20/month just for privilege of connecting to the grid. That means about the first quarter MWh sent to the grid will be used to pay for that grid connection fee. One of the easier solutions is to install utility-level battery storage in the substations to absorb that peak rooftop solar before it's sent further up the line. Then drain it when demand peaks in the evening.
I don’t think most power companies are against solar. I think what they are against is intermittent generation that wreaks havoc with the grid overall and they are against non-generating customers subsidizing generating customers. Most baseload power plants are designed to run steadily at high outputs with peaks and valleys made up by smaller peaking generators that can more readily be throttled or even shut down if necessary. When you have too much solar output say on a very sunny day, but not a hot say so that electrical load isn’t high for AC and such, it may be that even with all of the peaking plants shut down there is still too much generation. This requires adjustments to large baseload plants like nuclear plants and this is both troublesome and costly. This raises costs for all users who are then subsidizing those intermittent generators. I personally think the solution is to require generators to not be intermittent. This requires that generators have batteries to smooth their output over time and avoid the large peaks. However, the reality is that in the northern parts of the country, this essentially makes small scale solar no longer economically feasible. Solar in the northern half of the country is seldom economically viable without the subsidies that solar users have enjoyed since day 1. That is the fundamental problem. When you distort the free market with subsidies, bad things almost always happen.
I don’t think batteries should be subsidized (incentivized as you state). The rates should be set rationally to avoid cross subsidization of solar users by those not suing solar and to avoid peak generation issues and then each generator can make a rational decision about installing solar and batteries based on the economics and other factors of interest to them.
Updating the grid doesn’t address the issue. The issue is intermittent generation with no viable (as in economically feasible) storage technology. The issue is storage technology, not the grid.
Having a utility control my inverter is totally unacceptable. Totally disagree with both of you. That is why taking our future solar off-grid is the best answer.
👉 We’d love to hear your thoughts on these growing tensions. What do you think the solution is? Leave a comment to let us know.
As an Arizona Public Service customer, I already pay more for being attached to the grid than using the grid. It's about a 60/40 split between fees/taxes/etc and generation/transmission. Once my 10kW-dc/27kWh solar+batteries install is done, I should never need to draw from the grid, just supply to the grid and my bill should go negative. I can't actually go off-grid since it is not allowed so I'll have to pay ~$20/month just for privilege of connecting to the grid. That means about the first quarter MWh sent to the grid will be used to pay for that grid connection fee.
One of the easier solutions is to install utility-level battery storage in the substations to absorb that peak rooftop solar before it's sent further up the line. Then drain it when demand peaks in the evening.
I don’t think most power companies are against solar. I think what they are against is intermittent generation that wreaks havoc with the grid overall and they are against non-generating customers subsidizing generating customers.
Most baseload power plants are designed to run steadily at high outputs with peaks and valleys made up by smaller peaking generators that can more readily be throttled or even shut down if necessary. When you have too much solar output say on a very sunny day, but not a hot say so that electrical load isn’t high for AC and such, it may be that even with all of the peaking plants shut down there is still too much generation. This requires adjustments to large baseload plants like nuclear plants and this is both troublesome and costly. This raises costs for all users who are then subsidizing those intermittent generators.
I personally think the solution is to require generators to not be intermittent. This requires that generators have batteries to smooth their output over time and avoid the large peaks. However, the reality is that in the northern parts of the country, this essentially makes small scale solar no longer economically feasible. Solar in the northern half of the country is seldom economically viable without the subsidies that solar users have enjoyed since day 1. That is the fundamental problem. When you distort the free market with subsidies, bad things almost always happen.
I don’t think batteries should be subsidized (incentivized as you state). The rates should be set rationally to avoid cross subsidization of solar users by those not suing solar and to avoid peak generation issues and then each generator can make a rational decision about installing solar and batteries based on the economics and other factors of interest to them.
Updating the grid doesn’t address the issue. The issue is intermittent generation with no viable (as in economically feasible) storage technology. The issue is storage technology, not the grid.
So, we subsidize dirty energy but not green energy? Really?
Having a utility control my inverter is totally unacceptable. Totally disagree with both of you. That is why taking our future solar off-grid is the best answer.