Stop BLM givaway to corporations!!!!
Bill
the people. Private companies have no business on public lands of
the United States. Be it ANWR or utility lines. Why not set up a
nationwide remote net metering law. Where any citizen can set up their
own PV power plant on BLM land and kick off all the utility wannabees.
Cydrome Leader
You're going to trek to the desert and install 50 watts of solar cells and
kicked out the utilities that can actually provide useful amounts of
electricity?
Tell me more about how this works.
MarineBrat
news:5c1e1265-c2dc-43f4...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Government is not people, private companies are people.
Bill
>
> Tell me more about how this works.
The way it works is say 30 million acres are dedicated to solar. Thus
every person in the United States would be given rights to 1/10th of
an acre. Yes utilities are people however, they should ony be
entitled to their fair share or 1/10th an acre. Say you install 4000
square feet on your rights that is enough energy or 480 KW-hrs per
day. Maybe you install this amount over a generation. You should
have the legal right to connect to the grid. Thus, you would be
entitled to use 480 Kw-Hrs of electricity a day and extra and you
would be paid the retail rate for electricity minus the grid
maintenence fee. So you would be paid about $50 a day on top of not
having an electric bill.
The utilities want it the other way they want to control the pv rights
on your land and then have the gall to charge you the market rate.
Cydrome Leader
>
>>
>> Tell me more about how this works.
>
> The way it works is say 30 million acres are dedicated to solar. Thus
where did that number come from? let's say 500 billion acres are for
solar.
> every person in the United States would be given rights to 1/10th of
> an acre. Yes utilities are people however, they should ony be
> entitled to their fair share or 1/10th an acre. Say you install 4000
> square feet on your rights that is enough energy or 480 KW-hrs per
> day. Maybe you install this amount over a generation. You should
> have the legal right to connect to the grid. Thus, you would be
> entitled to use 480 Kw-Hrs of electricity a day and extra and you
> would be paid the retail rate for electricity minus the grid
> maintenence fee. So you would be paid about $50 a day on top of not
> having an electric bill.
>
> The utilities want it the other way they want to control the pv rights
> on your land and then have the gall to charge you the market rate.
what a scam- having to buy electricty at market rates.
Bill
> > The way it works is say 30 million acres are dedicated to solar. Thus
>
> where did that number come from? let's say 500 billion acres are for
> solar.
Because 500 billion acres is over 10 times the amount of land on
earth. 30 million acres is about the size of Iowa.
Whether you like to believe it or not land is scarce in America. If
every person owned 10 acres on earth we would run out of land.
Bill
> what a scam- having to buy electricty at market rates.
The scam is that you can't sell at market rates. You have to net
meter and after 2.5% of households reach net metering limit they will
end it. If you make more than you use, they get your electricity for
free. They expect you to buy it at market rates. However they set
the market rates.
webs...@cox.net
How is that a scam?
Prior to the 2.5% threshold, you sell excess electricity at retail,
which is a pretty good deal for you.
If you generate exactly what you use, you get electricity for $0
(neglecting your non-trivial investment).
The power company gets nothing but a minimal account charge, and for
that they have to maintain lines, generating stations, trucks,
employees, etc.
The sell-back at full retail is an incentive to get people to invest
early.
Once the threshold is reached, as I understand it you sell back at
wholesale rates, not retail. This is simply the power company buying
electricity from you, who are now essentially a power generating
company, at wholesale. They resell at retail, and use the difference
for maintenance and profits.
So, what's your problem?
Mauried
The real problem which isnt being addressed yet is that the Power
Company has to buy your power whether they need it or not.
You on the other hand are not forced to buy the Power Companies power.
In the long term the Power Company will go broke if its forced to buy
power it doesnt need or want.
What other businesses are forced to buy products they dont need or
want simply because some one else has them for sale.
Cydrome Leader
>
>> > The way it works is say 30 million acres are dedicated to solar. ?Thus
>>
>> where did that number come from? let's say 500 billion acres are for
>> solar.
>
> Because 500 billion acres is over 10 times the amount of land on
> earth. 30 million acres is about the size of Iowa.
> Whether you like to believe it or not land is scarce in America. If
> every person owned 10 acres on earth we would run out of land.
There's plenty of land in America for the population we have.
What if every person owned 10 cars, would we run out of cars?
Eeyore
Bill wrote:
> Seems everyone realizes solar works now.
At VAST expense.
So ?
Graham
webs...@cox.net
wrote:
The energy we use now is also vastly expensive. It's just that it
doesn't show up in the energy bills.
Much of what we use is subsidized. The damage from pollution isn't
factored in. Land reclamation isn't always paid by the companies that
mine the resources. Tax benefits are common for oil, gas, coal, etc.
Solar energy can't compete unless it too receives subsidies.
webs...@cox.net
I don't see the problem. The power companies are going to produce or
buy all the power that can be consumed. The only question is the
source. Electrical energy on the grid can't be stored--it is
generated as it is used. Solar can be an excellent source in the
southwest, since it will be best available when it is best used--in
the head of the day when the AC is running!
There is no shortage of a market for power. Occasionally there is a
shortage of power. If we have solar, we burn a bit less coal, gas, or
atoms.
Mauried
Power Companies produce power at a wholesale price which they then
sell to retailers or retail the power themselves.
The retail price includes the cost of the distribution system and its
maintenance.
If the Power company has to buy power from home users at the retail
rate, they can only resell it at the retail rate which means they make
no profit, but they still have to pay for the cost and maintenance of
the power distribution system.
Eventually, the power company will go broke because its unable to sell
any of its own power, but it still has to maintain the distribution
system.
3/4 of the price of retail power is the cost of distribution, not the
cost of generation.
The economic viability of a coal or gas or nuclear power plant
requires that it make power all the time.
T. Keating
Incorrect.. Energy co profit would average somewhere between 10 and
20%.
Average grid loss is around 10%.
~ 3-5% at night, ~20% during peak daytime hours(A/C)..
Much of those I^2R losses would be offset by point of use power
generation.
Less than 1% loss from PV producer to consumer on same transformer,
and improves efficiency of remaining local grid loads.
(I.E. reduced current flowing thru transformer & grid, improves eff
and reduces wear & tear.).
Thus Energy co can sell those recovered kWh's to somebody else for
a profit and reduce it's maint costs. .
webs...@cox.net
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:45:50 GMT, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:
Furthermore, in most cases I am aware of, the power company buys back
at retail only enough power to zero the meter for the month. Any
additional power is purchased by the company at some wholesale value.
This is for household situations; commercial or other situations will
vary and I don't pretend to be keeping up with all that.
These incentives are provided to bootstrap the solar or alternative
generation strategies until, we hope, they can begin to survive on
their own. As fossil fuels grow enormously in cost, this may happen
sooner than we were ready.
They also marginally drive up the cost of electrical power. To the
extent that this higher cost encourages conservation, I support it.
daestrom
Your argument is bogus. There is no 'recovered kWh's. Since all the
metering is done at the consumer location, the power company may see a
reduction in losses, but it doesn't see any revenue at all in Maurid's
example. Yet maintenance costs remain.
With local consumer generation supplying their neighbor, the transformer may
be completely unloaded at times and have zero losses. But with one meter
turning backward the exact amount that the neighbor's meter turns forward,
there is no net revenue for the utility to pay for maintaining the
equipment.
Yet the transformer and grid supply line is used during cloudy days and
night just as much as before. The cost of equipment and maintenance is
amortized in the rate base and is charged based on 'normal' usage. The cost
does *not* drop significantly with local consumer generation so the utility
would be forced to go to the PSC and adjust the amortization schedule. This
in effect means that non-generators would pay a higher rate to subsidize the
maintenance costs to keep local consumer generation connected to the grid.
The net-metering laws have caps for very real reasons (and no it isn't
because 'the big bad utility' wants to keep the 'little guy' down). Many of
the costs of operating a utility are budgeted and amortized over the
expected *metered* usage. Storm cleanup, equipment updates and routine
repair are a few things that you are *not* charged for on a case-by-case
basis because the utility just bundles it into the per kWh rate.
Drastically reduce the billable kWh's (say, more than the 2.5% cap) and the
utility will be forced to apply these costs to the smaller remaining
billable kWh.
Or they will be forced 'unbundle' the service and charge you each time a
tree branch needs trimming on your block (or some other maintenance that is
currently done without separate billing). That would be an adminstrative
nightmare. Not to mention all the new complaints about, "I'm not paying
that, the tree didn't 'really' need trimming that badly."
daestrom
P.S. Come to think of it, since my development has buried service and is
subject to much less storm related damage, I might see a reduction in costs
if they 'unbundled' maintenance costs.
T. Keating
No.. During the peak of the day.. the Energy Co had to generate 1.2
kWh for every 1 kWh sold. Not so for the locally bought and sold
kWh.
>
>With local consumer generation supplying their neighbor, the transformer may
>be completely unloaded at times and have zero losses. But with one meter
>turning backward the exact amount that the neighbor's meter turns forward,
>there is no net revenue for the utility to pay for maintaining the
>equipment.
Again there is the extra 0.2 kWh the utility didn't have to generate
to produce the same 1kWH delivered revenue to the paying customer.
Meanwhile the PV owner will consume energy during nighttime & cloudy
days when grid and I^2R losses are minimal. One can never count the
energy that would have been consumed by the PV owner as lost revenue.
>Yet the transformer and grid supply line is used during cloudy days and
>night just as much as before. The cost of equipment and maintenance is
>amortized in the rate base and is charged based on 'normal' usage.
With local generation the "normal" usage is reduced..
Thus the equipment lasts longer.
snip.. the rest..
T. Keating
Agreed..
My utility just adopted a more reasonable annual net metering tariff,
with surplus paid at wholesale rates at end of year.
That said, my utility (FPL) currently uses a two tier ed residential
rate tariff.
First 1000kWh/month is priced at 9.35 cents per kWh (pretax)
Above 1000kWh/month is priced at 11.38 cents per kWh (pretax).
So the Energy co.. pays me for net PV production at the cheaper below
1000kWh.month rate, while charging my energy hog neighbors a much
higher rate (3/4th's of the time). A built in 16 to 17 percent
profit margin. Tack on reduction in energy delivery losses and we're
talking about a 30 to 40% profit margin. (Wayy more than PUC would
ever allow in a non-renewable scenario. )
Tacking on annual wholesale net metering tariff just adds to Energy
co gravy train. .
>These incentives are provided to bootstrap the solar or alternative
>generation strategies until, we hope, they can begin to survive on
>their own. As fossil fuels grow enormously in cost, this may happen
>sooner than we were ready.
>
>They also marginally drive up the cost of electrical power. To the
>extent that this higher cost encourages conservation, I support it.
same here.
daestrom
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:01:06 -0400, "daestrom"
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> T. Keating wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:45:50 GMT, mau...@tpg.com.au (Mauried)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Incorrect.. Energy co profit would average somewhere between 10 and
>>> 20%.
>>>
>>> Average grid loss is around 10%.
>>> ~ 3-5% at night, ~20% during peak daytime hours(A/C)..
>>>
>>> Much of those I^2R losses would be offset by point of use power
>>> generation.
>>>
>>> Less than 1% loss from PV producer to consumer on same transformer,
>>> and improves efficiency of remaining local grid loads.
>>>
>>> (I.E. reduced current flowing thru transformer & grid, improves eff
>>> and reduces wear & tear.).
>>>
>>> Thus Energy co can sell those recovered kWh's to somebody else for
>>> a profit and reduce it's maint costs. .
>>
>> Your argument is bogus. There is no 'recovered kWh's. Since all the
>> metering is done at the consumer location, the power company may see
>> a reduction in losses, but it doesn't see any revenue at all in
>> Maurid's example. Yet maintenance costs remain.
>
> No.. During the peak of the day.. the Energy Co had to generate 1.2
> kWh for every 1 kWh sold. Not so for the locally bought and sold
> kWh.
So, before they billed for 1 kWh and had to pay for 1.2 kWh of energy
produced along with the maintenance of equipment (and make a modest profit).
For locally bought and sold they bill for 0 kWh (actually, they bill
customer 'A' for 1 kWh that they use, but they must pay customer 'B' for 1
kWh that they produced, net zero). They don't have to pay for generating
any kWh (0.0 used), but they still have to pay for maintenance of equipment.
Want to explain how they do that?
>
>>
>> With local consumer generation supplying their neighbor, the
>> transformer may be completely unloaded at times and have zero
>> losses. But with one meter turning backward the exact amount that
>> the neighbor's meter turns forward, there is no net revenue for the
>> utility to pay for maintaining the equipment.
>
> Again there is the extra 0.2 kWh the utility didn't have to generate
> to produce the same 1kWH delivered revenue to the paying customer.
>
> Meanwhile the PV owner will consume energy during nighttime & cloudy
> days when grid and I^2R losses are minimal. One can never count the
> energy that would have been consumed by the PV owner as lost revenue.
So during the night, the utility has two 'normal' customers and revenue.
But during the day they have effectively zero billable kWh (all revenue
collected from customer 'A' gets credited to customer B's account).
Total billable kWh have dropped and maintenance costs haven't. Don't you
see this as a problem?? The amortized costs of maintenance must now be
distributed over fewer billable kWh so they must raise the rate. The
non-producers are subsidizing the maintenance costs to the local producer
that never pays a utility bill.
>
>> Yet the transformer and grid supply line is used during cloudy days
>> and night just as much as before. The cost of equipment and
>> maintenance is amortized in the rate base and is charged based on
>> 'normal' usage.
>
> With local generation the "normal" usage is reduced..
> Thus the equipment lasts longer.
Not enough of a difference to matter. Trees still grow the same amount
under the lines, poles still need replacing just as often. About the only
thing that 'lasts longer' would be some equipment that is running near rated
capacity now.
daestrom
T. Keating
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
Incorrest assumption.. .
Assumes B provides all of A's demand...
An unlikely outcome..
If A needed extra daytime energy from Grid.. Energy co would need to
produce 1.2x kWh. But if B produce 1.0 kWh, then Energy Co would
have not needed to produce that extra 1.2 kWh, and energy losses
occuring in the transformer & grid would be slightly lower for all of
Energy Co's customers. I.E. Energy Co more efficient with lighter
net demand.
>Total billable kWh have dropped and maintenance costs haven't. Don't you
>see this as a problem?? The amortized costs of maintenance must now be
>distributed over fewer billable kWh so they must raise the rate
No..
Peakers while not that expensive to build, are very costly operate
(higher Maint per kWh, fuelcost, and lower efficiency). Peaking
periods are likely to result in a net LOSS for the Energy co anyway.
(Given average pricing for semi fixed rate billing.)
I.E. Energy Co is likely to have a higher profit @ night & mornings,
and loose money, or just breakeven @ daytime peak.)
Any extra point of use, daytime peaking capacity is always going to
help the Energy co bottom line big time.
>. The
>non-producers are subsidizing the maintenance costs to the local producer
>that never pays a utility bill.
As pointed out in another subthread..
That said, my utility (FPL) currently uses a two tiered residential
rate tariff.
First 1000kWh/month is priced at 9.35 cents per kWh (pretax)
Above 1000kWh/month is priced at 11.38 cents per kWh (pretax).
So the FPL, pays me for net PV production at the cheaper less than
1000kWh/month rate, while charging my energy hog neighbors a much
higher(ober 1000kWh/month) rate (3/4th's of the time). Resulting in
a extra 16 to 17 percent profit margin. Tack on reduction in energy
delivery losses and we're talking about a 30 to 40% profit margin.
(Which is wayy more than PUC would ever allow in a non-renewable
scenario. )
Tacking on annual wholesale net metering tariff just adds to Energy
co's gravy train. (even higher profit margin.)
snip..
daestrom
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:49:46 -0400, "daestrom"
> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> T. Keating wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:01:06 -0400, "daestrom"
>>> <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> So during the night, the utility has two 'normal' customers and
>> revenue. But during the day they have effectively zero billable kWh
>> (all revenue collected from customer 'A' gets credited to customer
>> B's account).
>
> Incorrest assumption.. .
> Assumes B provides all of A's demand...
> An unlikely outcome..
Only during 'peak' production. Not that unlikely at all. Assume B's system
is sized to zero out B's monthly bill. For that to be the case, it's
production during sunny hours *must* be more than B's consumption during
those same hours. And is quite possibly double that amount (i.e. equal to
B's and A's consumption during sunny hours).
>
> If A needed extra daytime energy from Grid.. Energy co would need to
> produce 1.2x kWh. But if B produce 1.0 kWh, then Energy Co would
> have not needed to produce that extra 1.2 kWh, and energy losses
> occuring in the transformer & grid would be slightly lower for all of
> Energy Co's customers. I.E. Energy Co more efficient with lighter
> net demand.
And for every kWh that B produces, the Energy Co losses all the revenue that
said kWh would have created. Total billable kWh is lower, maintenance costs
must be amortized over fewer billable kWh.
>
>> Total billable kWh have dropped and maintenance costs haven't.
>> Don't you see this as a problem?? The amortized costs of
>> maintenance must now be distributed over fewer billable kWh so they
>> must raise the rate
>
> No..
>
> Peakers while not that expensive to build, are very costly operate
> (higher Maint per kWh, fuelcost, and lower efficiency). Peaking
> periods are likely to result in a net LOSS for the Energy co anyway.
> (Given average pricing for semi fixed rate billing.)
>
> I.E. Energy Co is likely to have a higher profit @ night & mornings,
> and loose money, or just breakeven @ daytime peak.)
>
Energy Co does *not* 'breakeven @ daytime peak'. Not even close. Look at
wholesale rates for electric during a 'daytime peak'. On a hot day rates
can run above $120/MW-hr (or much higher depending on the spot market).
That is more than the *retail* revenue they can get for that energy. While
some consumers pay TOU, the residential setup we've been talking about
typically doesn't.
Energy Co can only afford to provide expensive power during peaks because it
has a higher profit on 'off-peak' power. But the average for the entire
month is what the PUC looks at.
> Any extra point of use, daytime peaking capacity is always going to
> help the Energy co bottom line big time.
>
Shave all the peaks off for the energy company and their short term profits
will rise. Until the fuel-adjustment charges kick-in and start going
negative because the rate-base fuel estimate ends up higher than the actual
fuel costs with no peakers running.
Such a 'windfall' wouldn't even last one billing cycle.
Yet the total billable kWh is going down and the maintenance costs are not.
The fuel costs are lower (thanks to no peakers), but that ends up being
returned in fuel-adjustments.
>
>> . The
>> non-producers are subsidizing the maintenance costs to the local
>> producer that never pays a utility bill.
>
> As pointed out in another subthread..
As pointed out by *me* in this thread!
>
> That said, my utility (FPL) currently uses a two tiered residential
> rate tariff.
>
> First 1000kWh/month is priced at 9.35 cents per kWh (pretax)
> Above 1000kWh/month is priced at 11.38 cents per kWh (pretax).
>
> So the FPL, pays me for net PV production at the cheaper less than
> 1000kWh/month rate, while charging my energy hog neighbors a much
> higher(ober 1000kWh/month) rate (3/4th's of the time). Resulting in
> a extra 16 to 17 percent profit margin.
> Tack on reduction in energy
> delivery losses and we're talking about a 30 to 40% profit margin.
> (Which is wayy more than PUC would ever allow in a non-renewable
> scenario. )
If such operations are allowed on a truly wide scale, as soon as the total
fuel costs for the month end up being much lower since the electric co isn't
running peakers, the fuel-adjustment charge gives the 'profit' back to the
rate-payers. Despite your opinion, the PUC and utility aren't idiots about
this. The utility recognized a long time ago that variations in fuel costs
would put them at risk, so the PUC lets them work with an average fuel
charge and fuel adjustments. But the formulas work both ways and a
particularly 'easy' month (low total fuel costs) means it gets adjusted the
other way. A long term trend and the 'allowable average fuel charge' is
reduced.
Bottom line is, the utility makes a fixed rate of return on total revenues.
Reduce the total revenues and the fixed rate remains the same but the
absolute value of profits are reduced.
There are good reasons why the *utility* doesn't want more than a few
percent net-metering. And it certainly isn't because net-metering a lot of
customers makes *more* money for the utility.
daestrom
P.S. And what about the fact that PV peak production does *not* coincide
with peak electric usage in many areas??
Mauried
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
The bottom line is that there are 2 components required for the
selling of electrcity.
1/ You have to have some electricity to sell.
2/You have to provide some method of transporting the electricity to
the buyer.
If you dont provide the 2nd , and use the infrastructure of someone
else, then you have to pay for your use of that infrastructure.
Current net metering regimes , ignore the 2nd component and just
assume the grid is there and you can use it for free to sell your
power, but someone has to wear the costs of maintaining that
infrastructure.
If you take Net metering to its absolute conclusion where everyone is
feeding into the grid, the power company would have no customers to
sell power too, but would still have the costs of maintaing the grid
to meet.
It just doesnt work.
T. Keating
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
False Assumptions..
1. That Energy Co makes all it's own power and doesn't purchase it
from afar or indepentant producers.
2. That fuel costs don't dominate during the peak hours.
3. That maintenance costs aren't tied to energy generation.
4. That maintenance costs aren't tied to grid loading.
5. That utility won't use the discounted energy production
supplied by PV to reduce future capital costs.
6. That utility won't retire it's most expensive/least efficient
generating capacity early (to save costs and improve profit margin).
>
>>
>>> Total billable kWh have dropped and maintenance costs haven't.
>>> Don't you see this as a problem?? The amortized costs of
>>> maintenance must now be distributed over fewer billable kWh so they
>>> must raise the rate
>>
>> No..
>>
>> Peakers while not that expensive to build, are very costly operate
>> (higher Maint per kWh, fuelcost, and lower efficiency). Peaking
>> periods are likely to result in a net LOSS for the Energy co anyway.
>> (Given average pricing for semi fixed rate billing.)
>>
>> I.E. Energy Co is likely to have a higher profit @ night & mornings,
>> and loose money, or just breakeven @ daytime peak.)
>>
>
>Energy Co does *not* 'breakeven @ daytime peak'. Not even close. Look at
>wholesale rates for electric during a 'daytime peak'. On a hot day rates
>can run above $120/MW-hr (or much higher depending on the spot market).
>That is more than the *retail* revenue they can get for that energy. While
>some consumers pay TOU, the residential setup we've been talking about
>typically doesn't.
SO your claiming that it looses money during peak hours..
Even better.. since it's receiving sellable energy from B at a
significant discount without the wear and tear of actually generating
and delivering it to Customer A. .
>Energy Co can only afford to provide expensive power during peaks because it
>has a higher profit on 'off-peak' power. But the average for the entire
>month is what the PUC looks at.
You got that backwards.. It's loosing money during peak hours since
it's overall efficiency decreases by a I^2R function..
>
>> Any extra point of use, daytime peaking capacity is always going to
>> help the Energy co bottom line big time.
>>
>
>Shave all the peaks off for the energy company and their short term profits
>will rise. Until the fuel-adjustment charges kick-in and start going
>negative because the rate-base fuel estimate ends up higher than the actual
>fuel costs with no peakers running.
See .. false assumptions.
>
>Such a 'windfall' wouldn't even last one billing cycle.
>
>Yet the total billable kWh is going down and the maintenance costs are not.
>The fuel costs are lower (thanks to no peakers), but that ends up being
>returned in fuel-adjustments.
Attempting to claim any of B's PV energy production as lost billable
hours is fallacy. They could of gone off-grid instead of letting the
Energy Co make 30 to 40% profit margin on the excess energy
production.
Yup and costs(or payments) would decrease for both Customer A and B..
However in a world were Peak Oil and future carbon taxes ... I suspect
fuel costs are going to soar to unheard of levels.
>
>Bottom line is, the utility makes a fixed rate of return on total revenues.
>Reduce the total revenues and the fixed rate remains the same but the
>absolute value of profits are reduced.
Again customer B's load would have disappeared anyway..
So you could never book that as revenue.. under ANY scheme..
>There are good reasons why the *utility* doesn't want more than a few
>percent net-metering. And it certainly isn't because net-metering a lot of
>customers makes *more* money for the utility.
It's just a matter of time before PUC's around the country take are
hard look at the economics I've presented and mandate even better
terms for PV grid tie systems. (Like Germany)..
Lastly, I take it that you also object to the various load shedding,
energy saving measures sponsered by the Energy Co's because they
reduces Energy co's profit??
T. Keating
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
False Assumptions..
1. That Energy Co makes all it's own power and doesn't purchase it
from afar or from indepentant producers.
2. That fuel costs dosen't dominate during the peak hours.
3. That maintenance costs aren't tied to energy generation.
4. That maintenance costs aren't tied to grid loading.
5. That utility won't use the discounted energy production
supplied by PV to reduce future capital costs.
6. That utility won't retire it's most expensive/least efficient
generating capacity early (to save costs and improve profit margin).
>
>>
>>> Total billable kWh have dropped and maintenance costs haven't.
>>> Don't you see this as a problem?? The amortized costs of
>>> maintenance must now be distributed over fewer billable kWh so they
>>> must raise the rate
>>
>> No..
>>
>> Peakers while not that expensive to build, are very costly operate
>> (higher Maint per kWh, fuelcost, and lower efficiency). Peaking
>> periods are likely to result in a net LOSS for the Energy co anyway.
>> (Given average pricing for semi fixed rate billing.)
>>
>> I.E. Energy Co is likely to have a higher profit @ night & mornings,
>> and loose money, or just breakeven @ daytime peak.)
>>
>
>Energy Co does *not* 'breakeven @ daytime peak'. Not even close. Look at
>wholesale rates for electric during a 'daytime peak'. On a hot day rates
>can run above $120/MW-hr (or much higher depending on the spot market).
>That is more than the *retail* revenue they can get for that energy. While
>some consumers pay TOU, the residential setup we've been talking about
>typically doesn't.
SO your claiming that it looses money during peak hours..
Even better.. since it's receiving sellable energy from B at a
significant discount without the wear and tear of actually generating
and delivering it to Customer A. .
>Energy Co can only afford to provide expensive power during peaks because it
>has a higher profit on 'off-peak' power. But the average for the entire
>month is what the PUC looks at.
You got that backwards.. It's loosing money during peak hours since
it's overall efficiency decreases by a I^2R function..
>
>> Any extra point of use, daytime peaking capacity is always going to
>> help the Energy co bottom line big time.
>>
>
>Shave all the peaks off for the energy company and their short term profits
>will rise. Until the fuel-adjustment charges kick-in and start going
>negative because the rate-base fuel estimate ends up higher than the actual
>fuel costs with no peakers running.
See .. false assumptions.
>
>Such a 'windfall' wouldn't even last one billing cycle.
>
>Yet the total billable kWh is going down and the maintenance costs are not.
>The fuel costs are lower (thanks to no peakers), but that ends up being
>returned in fuel-adjustments.
Attempting to claim any of B's PV energy production as lost billable
hours is fallacy. They could of gone off-grid instead of letting the
Energy Co make 30 to 40% profit margin on the excess energy
production.
>
>>
Yup and costs(or payments) would decrease for both Customer A and B..
However in a world were Peak Oil and future carbon taxes ... I suspect
fuel costs are going to soar to unheard of levels.
>
>Bottom line is, the utility makes a fixed rate of return on total revenues.
>Reduce the total revenues and the fixed rate remains the same but the
>absolute value of profits are reduced.
Again customer B's load would have disappeared anyway..
So you could never book that as revenue.. under ANY scheme..
>There are good reasons why the *utility* doesn't want more than a few
>percent net-metering. And it certainly isn't because net-metering a lot of
>customers makes *more* money for the utility.
It's just a matter of time before PUC's around the country take are
webs...@cox.net
There are too many variables for my poor head to contemplate at one
time.
However, two things are pretty clear:
1. If we got to the point where there was so much solar feeding the
grid that the company couldn't make any money to stay in operation,
then the whole scheme would be modified. That's obvious.
2. Considering that so far only a minimal number of people are doing
this (and so far I don't see a big herd of people clamoring for solar
panels, unfortunately), and that lots of people think they aren't as
good looking as a sea of wavy roof tiles and therefore never would put
them up, I don't foresee that Item #1 above is in any danger of
happening in the foreseeable future.