We'll see about getting screwed. It seems to me the most effective way to get households to use a lot more electricity is to encourage them to get electrical/plugin hybrid cars.
https://www.knoxmercury.com/2017/03/15/tvas-resistance-net-m...
And that, in turn, would encourage those customers to just go completely independent from the grid and either find some other flexible use for excess power or shut down excess production.
Pretending that local power is using grid infrastructure does not make it so. People can and will disconnect from the grid to disprove that lie.
I've done a small amount of research because I could not find a smart charge controller with AC inputs and I was considering making one with a Raspberry pi.
I did however find a smart air conditioning split system that uses solar panels directly and gets any extra power from 120v ac plug: https://www.practicalpreppers.com/air-conditioning/ac-dc-air...
It's quite effective because when the sun is shining, that's when indoor cooling is needed the most.
More and more municipalities are making this illegal. To protect their utilities, they require that you tie to the grid and sell all electricity you generate to the grid and then buy it back for more.
By discouraging grid-tie solar, utilities may be shooting themselves in the foot as off-grid becomes more affordable.
You gotta be far in the woods to save money!
If you don't want to eat the premium, don't feed the grid. That is, consume your electricity before it ever hits the meter(s). Presumably the real issue is that typical consumer systems aren't designed to function the way you'd want to avoid the TVA accounting rules.
You are free to buy batteries to do your own shifting. Also remember that wholesale costs typically just account for power generation, while retail costs also account for grid maintenance. An owner with solar is benefiting from grid maintenance, so it makes sense that they contribute.
Now from a societal perspective you may want to subsidize solar. But it certainly isn't "unfair" to buy power at wholesale and sell it at retail.
Presumably this is a hassle because most equipment is designed for net metering where the system is setup to feed all generated capacity to the grid and consume all energy directly from the grid. So without net-metered billing, to avoid paying the retail premium you'd probably need a very expensive system that eliminates the cost effectiveness.
In fairness, AFAIU most utilities despise net metering. From their perspective they're the ones getting screwed, and the TVA billing system more fairly compensates them for infrastructure costs.
In certain parts of USA demand is especially high when the sun is at it's peak and most places on earth see low demand in the middle of the night.
Edit: I got the terminology wrong. I agree that expecting net metering (“free” time-shifting) is not reasonable. And it seems that in addition to the “sell all, buy all” solution it is also possible to sell (or buy) only what remains after (or is required for) local consumption. https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Valley-Renewable-Energy/Dispersed...
What others are saying above is that you could generate 4 kWh during the day and consume it on premises, i.e. with air-conditioning or other day time appliance use, and still have zero consumption from the grid. This is also the point of the powerwall and any other on-premises energy storage.
This is a good thing. No power company should be forced to pay retail for power. It is a regressive tax on those that can least afford it. I don't think it was inappropriate to offer to get the industry off the ground, but it's quickly approaching the time to do away those subsidies - especially those that come directly from other rate-payers.
They already paid the capital costs for generating their own power. You want them to pay again? For the transmission lines and peaking plant that they aren't using?
Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage. When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production. But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail. Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak.
Otherwise, all you are doing is forcing the customer to use bigger batteries to route around your obnoxious local generation policy.
That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now. If you encourage people to use their own redox reaction batteries, you're lowering the efficiency of the entire system, and everyone loses.
There are 3 options:
>Self-Generation The electricity produced serves the facility’s needs first. Any excess electricity is delivered to the power grid without payment. If the facility needs additional electricity, it must be bought from the local power company.
>Self-Generation and Dispersed Power Contract The electricity produced serves the facility’s needs first. TVA purchases any excess electricity that is delivered to the grid. If the facility needs additional electricity, it must be bought from the local power company.
>Dispersed Power Sell-All Contract All of the electricity produced and delivered to the power grid is sold to TVA. The facility buys all of its electricity from the local power company. (Two meters—one for electricity purchased by the customer from the local power company, and one for electricity generated by the customer and sold to TVA—are required.)
So what does TVA do (if anything) to get customers to pick #3, or force them into it?
Also note that net metering is not an option. #2 uses a dual-channel meter to track outgoing power separately from incoming power. Net metering is not necessarily the optimal metering solution, either, but TVA doesn't even offer it.
> Nor should the power company force customers to buy the power that they generated themselves at the utility's price.
No one is forcing customers to do this. I'm not sure where you get that from? If you are using more power than consuming, it does not leave your local premises. Only the excess power you are not using at that point in time is being sent. That's kind of the point of net metering.
> Certainly, when the net usage is negative, the utility should pay only the wholesale cost of that portion of production in excess of local usage.
Which is precisely what they do. Some are forced to pay retail - which was a temporary subsidy both to spur solar development and honestly was adopted largely due to billing convenience if nothing else 20 years ago. Easy to just let a meter spin backwards and bill/pay based on those numbers vs. developing entirely new billing software but everyone knew at the time it was temporary and financially nonsensical.
> When the net usage is positive, the customer should pay the retail price of that portion of usage in excess of local production.
Currently the case.
> But it is nonsensical for the customer to sell the power they generate at wholesale, and immediately buy it back at retail.
This isn't the case anywhere I've heard of, and definitely not the TVA. Even the linked article very clearly describes the situation as net metering as defined everywhere else. Customers are not sending all their generated power out their meter, then putting load on the "grid" on another meter back in. That would indeed be absurd.
> Immediate use should not be metered in either direction, and time-shifted use should account for peak vs. off-peak.
Completely agreed.
> That "grid battery" is actually the natural gas fuel supply at the peaking plant that does not need to be used to supplement the baseline plant. Fuel that stays in the tank instead of being burned is the best "battery" we have right now.
Yes and no. You might be surprised solar load does not match up nearly as well with peak power demand as is reported. This of course is a fine point to debate, and generally is in your favor.
My main point is that power companies being forced to operate a free battery for rich solar customers is immoral when think of who is subsidizing that free battery. Rooftop solar may be about the least valuable form of power to a power company as they can do nothing to schedule production, and the rest of the rate-payers shouldn't be forced to pay retail rates to the rich few who prefer to save $15k on a local battery pack so they don't need the grid battery at night.
I don't think we should force folks to require battery packs, but I also know that the financial incentives are currently lined up to have us end up with a bunch of rich folks paying nothing for power with solar systems, and a bunch of poor renters paying for 100% of the capex on things like the nuclear baseload plants so the solar folks get power at night.
"Thus, any grid-tied solar system within the TVA region must have dual metering, one to measure power coming off the grid, another to measure power going to the grid. The arrangement with TVA is likewise “buy all, sell all” in that you have no choice but to sell all the power you generate to TVA, then you buy back whatever you actually consume."
That is exactly what TVA does.
That is what "buy all, sell all" means.
http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/01/24/indiana-energy-bill-...
I do agree that is problematic and silly.
That is exactly what the linked article claims is happening to TVA customers: "Thus, any grid-tied solar system within the TVA region must have dual metering, one to measure power coming off the grid, another to measure power going to the grid. The arrangement with TVA is likewise “buy all, sell all” in that you have no choice but to sell all the power you generate to TVA, then you buy back whatever you actually consume."
One person selling back some unspecified amount of solar with questionable reliability, without the utility company having any say when the power is provided, isn't exactly a very useful thing for a utility company, so it's surprising they even pay the same wholesale rate.
Why not get a basic battery system and use that to power some loads in your house, instead of buying power from the utility company for those loads?
If I hypothetically spend a couple hundred bucks on a solar panel, 12v lead acid battery, and basic 12VDC -> 120VAC inverter, put those items on a wagon, and drag it across my yard to use power tools where an extension cord won't reach is the power company going to arrest/fine me? Is it only illegal once I use the batteries/inverter under my own roof?
But nobody wants that. Really, i don't think many people care about selling the power back either. But they've made it already, why waste it? What people want is i'll make the first 5 kwh, and i want to buy any extra from the grid. And i don't want a big switch system for each light in my house. Which seems very normal and sane.
Oh, that's exactly what I want, and have been researching for myself. I'm taking it even further and planning on being able to switch individual circuits between battery and grid.
If that idea is dumb somehow I'd love to know more resources about why. From my perspective it's a better solution than grid tie, but I value resiliency and reliability as well as pure cost alone. If I still lived in a city where the power literally never went out for years at a time, then having a local backup would not be really attractive.
And considering the regulations, it seems like the system I'm considering would also be able to basically satisfy the desire for "i'll make the first 5khw". Select a circuit that draws at least 5 kwh/day, run it off batteries until the battery bank voltage drops below a threshold, and then switch over to the grid.
Hah. Existential quantifiers are hard.
I’m not an electrician, and that’s who you should talk with.
However, it’s way easier to just trip a breaker when the power goes out. The whole neighborhood is drawing from your battery, breaker flips and you are done.
A single meter tie is simple. You use what you generate. Any extra makes the meter run backwards. You draw more, you pay for it. The infrastructure probably can’t handle whole neighborhoods doing this.
IMHO, they should charge a flat monthly fee for the option to connect.
p.s. Even if buy-all-sell-all doesn't make sense, requiring your electrical setup to meet grid standards does make sense. It's be surprisingly easy to cause a blackout, or to kill yourself, by messing it up.
They will send you a check if you produce more than you consume. I’m not sure if you had to pay for the meter but they would install one.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...
I saw him present with the head of a power company in Iowa. As they said, one might think this was bad news for the power company and that they would fight it -- more power equals more revenue. However, some of that power is very expensive power with low margins -- quick but costly production to meet demand peaks.
With deployment of high efficiency devices, those peaks declined. Other means of shifting consumption, such as "cooling rooms" that run at night, building ice or other thermal sinks to drive cooling during the daytime, also helped.
The utility had lower absolute demand, but flatter demand for which they could better plan and produce, at lower production cost. So, the efficiency push ended up being a plus for the utility. They were busy distributing then-new compact fluorescent bulbs and the like, as part of public outreach.
We don't face the exact same scenario, now. But, institutions can either get with the program, or get left behind.
(Or, they can try to "capture" and monopolize the system. Such as the Koch brothers with their "clean coal" and all; not wanting to lose their sunk costs and anticipated earnings.)
One thing I don't support, is the existing entities that have dragged their feet also using their assets and momentum to take over the... "next generation" energy system. I'd rather limit the perpetuation of their mindset and behavior. Some conservatism, especially in large, essentially public and critical endeavors, is good. Distorting same to meet personal goals, is not.
Some energy sources will be low directing certain times of the day, and others will be high, causing it to mostly average out.
And for the stuff that doesn't average out, there is peaker plants.
Things could be further made better using varying electric pricing, such that when energy is plentiful it is cheap, and when it is scarce it is expensive.