SolarCity (SCTY)

[callmesam]

Yep, this is interesting. Consumption goes down, so rates have to go up. See what you get for conserving energy. The cost of fuel is only around 3.5 c/kWh so ratepayers get slight temporary relief from declining fuel prices. Beyond that you have a butt load of fixed assets to maintain. Thus, if ratepayers consume less, rates must increase to cover all the fixed cost.

Now in that context, you can see why rooftop solar is so problematic. It simply reduces consumption. The utility would like to add a special interconnection fee for customers who self-generate. The reason is simple, they've got fixed costs to cover.

So should we cheer them for investing in solar? No, it just adds more fixed cost. Even if fuel consumption and prices drop more as a result of utility solar, it is all those fixed costs that drive up the power bill.

When utility move to a service model instead of a fixed asset rental model, then ratepayers will benefit from truly variable cost pricing. For example, netting 1.2c/kWh for redistributing residential solar power does not add any fixed costs to the system and allows the utility to prune its fixed cost over time. So it can become a lighter weight system over time. But adding utility solar or any other generation facility adds fixed costs that remaining ratepayers will bear for the next 30 years.

Also note that the rate hIke is 15.8% for residential customers, but 14.4% for all ratepayers. Thus, the residential sector is bearing more of the weight of this system than the industrial and possibly commercial sectors. I strongly suspect that there is cost shifting from industry to families.

On the positive side, this rate increase should help SolarCity with their marketing efforts. Even an escalator on a PPA does not look so bad when the utility has demonstrated it will raise rates on whoever is left on the grid.

What happens when residential ratepayers learn that they cannot lower their power bill simply by reducing consumption? The more you conserve, the more you pay.

What about the argument that you publish commercial rates based upon demand and then pay the market at those prices.

Homeowners become power producers through their aggregator. In this case, it's Solar City.

Or John Smith can build his own solar "field" and become a micro entrepreneur.

Seems to be working in Germany.

Haven't heard a good counter argument other than "utility death spiral".

 

[blakegallagher]

The reason 100% of energy isn't coming from utility scale solar is that you can't change the entire US power capacity overnight, I believe something like 30% of new capacity added in 2014 was solar and 20% wind so the shift is definately happening now that renewable is becoming the cheapest solution. Perhaps the shift should be be even faster but lets give things a year or 2 before we get out the pitchforks, solar has exploded from nearly nothing a few years back.

"2. The transmission is free"

I feel like I'm losing my mind here, for the last time: Transmission is not free, not as long as you are connected to the grid and uses it as a backup, and space just doesn't matter much, utility is half the cost, that is the fact.

Yes you could survivie with just batteries and solar, but that is much more expensive than the utility rate today. Batteries and solar is bringing the cost of electricity down but that is so for utilities too (the effect is just beginning). And being part of a grid is just more efficient than being cut off so there you have it, utility scale solar + batteries + the grid is where we should be headed.

"Utility has the same tailwind as residential, if not more"

No. Residential solar can sell to the utility at retail price with net metering. Utility scale sells at wholesale price, which is less than half retail.

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that is irrelevant because utility scale solar is cheaper.

@dalalsid

"Hahahaha. Reality on which planet? Can you provide one example where utility scale solar caused even one residential customers price to drop even 10%? I can provide you with the example of my utility which charges extra for "green power""

You do realize that it's impossible to change 100% of the capacity to solar overnight right? Solar is only 1 or 2% of capacity today, you won't feel the difference immediately. Also not sure if you misunderstood me but I was referring to utility scale solar being half the cost of residential. If the whole of US was powered by residential solar today then you would be paying 10c/kwh more than now.

Cheaper for who? I can't believe even in this example you cannot see the truth. D
The utility rate is outrageous homeowners can put in batteries + solar for cheaper than I can buy power from the utility. Utility solar for a residential home owner would be out of the question it would cost millions of dollars and produce way too much power.

Please explain to me how utility solar is cheaper in Hawaii for a homeowner.

 

[Perfectlogic]

Cheaper for who? I can't believe even in this example you cannot see the truth. D
The utility rate is outrageous homeowners can put in batteries + solar for cheaper than I can buy power from the utility. Utility solar for a residential home owner would be out of the question it would cost millions of dollars and produce way too much power.

Please explain to me how utility solar is cheaper in Hawaii for a homeowner.

I'm done with this discussion, I have explained it 10 times already, I feel like I'm debating a christian fundamentalist. Utility scale solar is much, much cheaper than residential, only way the expensive solution can compete is on an uneven playingfield, it's that simple.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I'm done with this discussion, I have explained it 10 times already, I feel like I'm debating a christian fundamentalist. Utility scale solar is much, much cheaper than residential, only way the expensive solution can compete is on an uneven playingfield, it's that simple.

I would argue that it's not inherently much cheaper, it's just considerably cheaper in the US right now because we're not nearly to scale yet on the residential install side.

 

[blakegallagher]

I'm done with this discussion, I have explained it 10 times already, I feel like I'm debating a christian fundamentalist. Utility scale solar is much, much cheaper than residential, only way the expensive solution can compete is on an uneven playingfield, it's that simple.

It's not cheaper in Hawaii

Just to be clear in case you missed it it is currently cheaper in Hawaii to go completely off grid using solar and batteries. I believe what you're calling uneven playing field is net metering which is obviously not involved when you're completely off grid.

 

[Lessmog]

Perhaps also due to externalities not bearing their actual cost? Kind of like petroleum, nat gas and coal, if the comparison is allowed. Or toxic waste, incidental by-catch in fishery, etc. Not to mention sub-par securities of yore. The big ones always float to the top, too big to fail so they bail.

 

[Perfectlogic]

It's not cheaper in Hawaii

Just to be clear in case you missed it it is currently cheaper in Hawaii to go completely off grid using solar and batteries. I believe what you're calling uneven playing field is net metering which is obviously not involved when you're completely off grid.

If true then the utility is burning oil for fuel or something weird. If the utility handles the business in a very suboptimal way then sure residential solar + batteries can be cheaper. But going against utility solar + batteries + grid connection residential can't win with the current cost difference. SCTY gets paid 15c/kwh or something like that with an escalator, utility scale solar is getting PPAs without escalator for 4-5c/kwh recently.
Is $50/MWh Solar for Real? Falling Project Prices and Rising Capacity Factors Drive Utility-Scale PV Toward Economic Competitiveness | Electricity Markets and Policy

@mule

I don't think scale will let residential get close to utility scale, also remember that resi can't use stuff like tracking.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

I don't think scale will let residential get close to utility scale, also remember that resi can't use stuff like tracking.

Fair enough, but tracking has a significant cost as well. When all this gets really moving in 2-3 years we should see pro residential installs at $1.90 and utility at $1.40. I consider that 35% gap to be relatively equal considering the higher ongoing cost of maint and transmission for utility solar.

You are 100% correct though and really should not be engaging in this silly argument. Clearly utility solar would be cheaper(even in Hawaii) as of right now, the costs are less than half of residential installs. It's as simple as that.

 

[blakegallagher]

Fair enough, but tracking has a significant cost as well. When all this gets really moving in 2-3 years we should see pro residential installs at $1.90 and utility at $1.40. I consider that 35% gap to be relatively equal considering the higher ongoing cost of maint and transmission for utility solar.

You are 100% correct though and really should not be engaging in this silly argument. Clearly utility solar would be cheaper(even in Hawaii) as of right now, the costs are less than half of residential installs. It's as simple as that.

And yet it's not. At least not for a homeowner. The cost of utility solar to the utilities is irrelevant if your cost at the home is more than it would be with solar+batteries.

Perfect logic what you're really arguing is that utility solar plus Batteries Plus transmission will win out against residential solar Plus batteries with very little transmission cost needed.

I think you're very wrong. Me calling it a fact won't actually make it one now and the reality is we will have to wait and see how it all plays out.

I'm guessing someone like Robert Boston could weigh in on some of the grid upgrades required by utility that would not be required on rooftop Solar.

And although someone else mentioned up thread there is a value to having a very distributed grid. It makes it much more resilient.

 

[jhm]

What about the argument that you publish commercial rates based upon demand and then pay the market at those prices.

Homeowners become power producers through their aggregator. In this case, it's Solar City.

Or John Smith can build his own solar "field" and become a micro entrepreneur.

Seems to be working in Germany.

Haven't heard a good counter argument other than "utility death spiral".

Sure, I think the only solution for utilities apart from death spiral is to move to a market price for all generation. So utilities, independent power producers, industrial companires, commercial companies and residents all produce what every power they would like and sell it at whatever price a buyer is willing to pay for it. This is the virtual net metering model I've been talking about. Once a buyer and seller agree to a price, the utility transfers the power and collects a small transaction fee, depending on how far apart buyer and seller are in the network. Thus, the utility is providing transactional service. There is no need to balance the load, because market price simply increase when there is a shortage or fall when their is excess. In this transactional market model, there is still room for aggregators of supply or demand to serve as intermediaries to minimize trading and transacting costs and perhaps to provide financial hedges against market volatility. The beauty of this model is that it is a a relatively free market wherein economic efficiencies can arise to drive down all costs.

From a free market view point, the problem with net metering is that in order to preserve a legal monopoly the government is setting the price for feed in tariffs rather than allowing a free market to trade and find its own prices. A market price mechanism would actually allow the price to change from moment to moment. So we know that any arbitrary scheme to fix feed on tariff is not the market price.

So a basic virtual net metering market could work like this. The local utility publishes any feed in tariff is likes which it can change anytime it likes. Through aggregators, buyers post whatever price they would like to buy fed in power at or may enter into longer term agreements. The PUC sets transfer rate plan, say 1 c/kWh for transfers within the substation, 2 c/kWh anywhere else within the utility's service area, 3 c/kWh anywhere beyond plus any other transfer fees that may apply within another utility's service area. (Of course, this can be made much more complex, but this is enough to get the idea.) So suppose the utility is offering 5 c/kWh, but through aggregators I have neighbors willing to buy at 7 c/kWh plus transaction fee. So I sell for 7 and my neighbor buys for 7 and pays the utility 1 since we are in the same substation. The aggregators manage this trading in real time. So the utility gets to benefit in two ways: it gets to collect reasonable rent on the use of its distribution assets, and it gets full freedom to set any price it likes on feed in tariffs, even negative prices. The advantage of being able to set feed in tariffs in real time is that it harnesses distributed solar, batteries and any other devices to balance the load. If it needs peak power it sets a high feed in tariff to avoid having to source more expensive power elsewhere. If it has too much power it can set the feed in tariff low or even negative. A negative feed in tariff would actually be a penalty for non-curtailment if the system is overloaded, say wholesale spot prices are negative, or an inducement for accepting load to charge EVs, home batteries, or any other dispatchable load.

So the problem with any fixed feed in tariff is that it does not afford the utility the flexibility to balance loads through an efficient market mechanism. This is in part why utilities cannot really find any net metering fixed rate that they would like to agree to. We can have all sorts of childish arguments about what is fair and what's not fair, but in economic terms the value of fed in power changes from moment to moment. When the utility has to pay $600/MWh on the wholesale spot market, you can bet they would very much benefit from being able to obtain a lot of rooftop and home battery power at that time, but fixed net metering denies them access to such a market. So it has nothing to do with what is fair. It is about giving all participants economic freedom to trade power at prices of their choosing. Fortunately we live in the internet age, where it is feasible to allow computers and human agents to do real time trading in micromarkets on our behalf. This was not available generations ago when utility laws creating monopolies were created. Perhaps for that generation it was the the most efficient way to bring energy to ratepayers, but these structures have outlived their usefulness. Real time micromarkets, virtual net metering, virtual microgrids, etc. can help us achieve economic efficiencies never before conceived possible. And in such markets, utilities can provide very valuable services and play a very important role. So their long-term value will be determined by the value they add to power markets, not from the competition that they exclude from the market.

 

[Foghat]

If true then the utility is burning oil for fuel or something weird. If the utility handles the business in a very suboptimal way then sure residential solar + batteries can be cheaper. But going against utility solar + batteries + grid connection residential can't win with the current cost difference. SCTY gets paid 15c/kwh or something like that with an escalator, utility scale solar is getting PPAs without escalator for 4-5c/kwh recently.
Is $50/MWh Solar for Real? Falling Project Prices and Rising Capacity Factors Drive Utility-Scale PV Toward Economic Competitiveness | Electricity Markets and Policy

@mule

I don't think scale will let residential get close to utility scale, also remember that resi can't use stuff like tracking.

Net Metering Review: Value of Solar Energy Higher Than Retail Electric Rates | Cost of Solar - Learn the Benefits of Solar Energy


“The solar studies reviewed in this report confirm that huge amounts of solar have already been developed without paying the full value that solar brings. Not only does that mean that solar customers have likely been subsidizing non-solar customers and the utility, but that over the long term, continued development of solar promises downward pressure on electric rates for all.” – Karl Rábago, Executive Director of the Pace Energy and Climate Center."

Here's the report supporting net metering as more valuable than national average retail rate:

http://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_shiningrewards_print.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Jhm,

thank you for your thoughtful analysis and ideas. I appreciate you sharing and hope to build on from what you've given us here in this thread.

 

[Foghat]

How is Power Stepped Down? | Southern California Edison (SCE)


California lost over 14.2 TWh of electricity through transmission and distribution in 2013. At about .20c/kWh retail, that's $2.85bln in financial loses to T&D loses alone. What is the impact on losses from DG brings with already "delivered" energy to retail customers?

 

[jhm]

I'm done with this discussion, I have explained it 10 times already, I feel like I'm debating a christian fundamentalist. Utility scale solar is much, much cheaper than residential, only way the expensive solution can compete is on an uneven playingfield, it's that simple.

Hey, we don't need name calling around here. That is very disrespectful to people here who are intelligently engaging your questions.

The simplest argument I can give you is this. The cheapest utility solar is about 4c/kWh and the cheapest fossil fuel generated power is combined cycle natural gas at 6 c/kWh. So the most that utility solar can save any ratepayer is about 2 c/kWh. Cheapest utility wind is about 2.5c/kWh and has been quite low for many years as someone from Denmark would know, but this 3.5 c/kWh cost advantage over natural gas has yet to reduce residential rates within the US.

This is not any sort of fundamentalist appeal to a higher authority. These are just basic facts that your simplistic assertion cannot explain. Specifically, you need to explain why in this country even as wind has fallen to 2.5 c/kWh and has been widely deployed, retail rates continue to rise by about 2.5% or more year after year. If wind cannot do it at 40% below solar, what gives you so much faith that utility solar will make one speck of difference for ratepayers? You need to address facts.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

It is about giving all participants economic freedom to trade power at prices of their choosing. Fortunately we live in the internet age, where it is feasible to allow computers and human agents to do real time trading in micromarkets on our behalf. This was not available generations ago when utility laws creating monopolies were created. Perhaps for that generation it was the the most efficient way to bring energy to ratepayers, but these structures have outlived their usefulness. Real time micromarkets, virtual net metering, virtual microgrids, etc. can help us achieve economic efficiencies never before conceived possible. And in such markets, utilities can provide very valuable services and play a very important role. So their long-term value will be determined by the value they add to power markets, not from the competition that they exclude from the market.

That's all well and good if you were designing a fresh system from the ground up, but what about all the legacy producers that are specifically designed for an analog world? How could anything with a fuel and combustion and steam possibly be profitable in this model?

I understand that's what we're looking for, but could the global economy survive if the G20 declared this "the plan" tomorrow? Hermann Sheer got himself assassinated just for pushing the German FiT legislation, you'd better watch yourself.

 

[jhm]

Does anybody have information on what utility solar actually goes for in Hawaii? It's one thing to get a $39/MWh solar PPA for a plant on cheap desert land. I've never been to Hawaii, but my impression is that it does not have an abundance of cheap, flat, unused land.

If land is expensive, then your cheapest solar will be atop flat roof commercial buildings. SolarCity has actually done alot with Zep bracketing to drive down the cost and improve the yield of flat roof installations.

So if anyone can find data on solar costs specifically in Hawaii, that could really help our discussion.

Another little fact about the grid in Hawaii is that each island has an isolated grid. There are no transmission lines that connect any of the islands. While this is technically possible, it has not been deemed economically advantageous. The potential for rate arbitrage between islands is not worth the cost of transmission lines.

 

[jhm]

That's all well and good if you were designing a fresh system from the ground up, but what about all the legacy producers that are specifically designed for an analog world? How could anything with a fuel and combustion and steam possibly be profitable in this model?

I understand that's what we're looking for, but could the global economy survive if the G20 declared this "the plan" tomorrow? Hermann Sheer got himself assassinated just for pushing the German FiT legislation, you'd better watch yourself.

That's right alot of the lagacy system is obsolete and increasingly unprofitable. This is the risk that investors make when building out this infrastructure. This is specifically why the coal industry is going bankrupt.

I recognize that the transition is hard, but what all players need to do is look at the long run potential of moving to a market based electricity market and evaluate how much their specifics assets would be worth at market value. Any asset that you would expect to lose value as the market opens to competition should be very closely scrutinized. One should seriously consider divesting those assets. Next you should try to understand what assets you have or could get that would increase in value if the market opened up. Consider investing more heavily in those. So for example, I think utilities should start selling off there gas peakers now to anyone who is willing to take that bet, and invest the proceeds in batteries and developing aggregation programs. So over the next few years, you might pay a little more in standby capacity contracts and wholesale power, but as you build up your battery fleet and aggregation relationships you carve off the most expensive peak rates and keep driving those peaks down until the folks you sold your peaking plants to go out of business. It may seem cruel, but if you don't find some investor to shed this risk to, you will wind up putting the loss onto your customers and driving yourself out of business. So it is the best thing for your customers and your shareholders to divest early. In my opinion, the utilities are sitting on massively over valued assets.

They should not wait until banks and the bond markets figure this out. But once the financial markets understand how serious the situation is utilities will lose value in a hurry. So shareholders need to be very wary. They most basic test to see if utility is over valued is if it cannot offer a competitive residential rate. What is a comptitive rate? It is certainly less than a SolarCity PPA in your service area. This is why I have so little respect for any utility that is trying to block rooftop solar. If you've got SolarCity in your service area signing up customers at several cents below your rate, you are not competive, and your cost structure is probably bloated. If your cost structure is bloated and full of obsolescence, I do not want to invest in you because this could all end quite badly.

The most basic test is, if you had to lower your rates could you? I suspect most US utilities fail this test. Just look at their profit margin. PG&E, which I generally have respect for, has a profit margin of 8%. If they had to lower their residential rates by 1c/kWh, they might not be profitable. If they had to lower it 2c/kWh they would go bankrupt. Now compare that to SolarCity. If they had to cut their rates by 1c/kWh, they would slow their growth in that market. 2c/kWh, they would exit that market and grow elsewhere. They have a distinct advantage by not being bound geographically. What about the PPAs. Their net retained value is around $2/W with a cost of $3/W. So if on an existing PPA they had to lower there rate by as much as 40% to retain the customer, they would still breakeven on that customer long run, and the longer they retain the customer the more the front end is paid off. So their capacity to cut rates grows with each passing year. But it's very unlikely that they would ever need to cut PPA rates, because they are a very cost competitive company in the first place. Sure, other solar installers can match and mildly beat their prices, but this is competing on new installations. It's just not worth paying off a lease early just so you can re-install solar with someone else. Nobody replaces a well functioning system just because a deal on a new one comes along. And as far as competition with utilities go, they will have to go bankrupt and restructure before they can even touch SolarCity's rates, and even if that were to happen SolarCity could cut rate much further still. So SolarCity passes this test while most utilities would fail. Another thing that is significant here is that if the electricity market became more open to competion, my expectation is that the value of SolarCity would increase. For example, if aggregated services, community solar or the like started to take off, this would unlock much larger addressable markets for SolarCity and they've got the talent and entrepreneurial spirit to give it a good go. So as a SolarCity investor I have no fear of the market place becoming more competitive.

So could the G20 survive this plan? Actually I think they would thrive under this plan. Tying up capital in uncompetitive assets is by definition malinvestment, to follow the Austrian school. This malinvestment is a drag on the economies of the G20. Opening to innovation and competition will unlock a much lower cost of powering these economies. So business Costa decline,worker productivity increases, consumers have more discretionary income. All this implies that these economies can grow at a faster pace with less dependency on fossil fuels. The key thing for governments to watch out for is that the legacy losses to be born by investors, not ratepayers. Investors are compensated for putting their capital at risk, and it is their duty to bear the losses not pushing it off to the public. So regulating bodies need to be very critical of utilities that raise their rates in the face of competition as they are most surely putting their economic losses onto ratepayers. But the beauty of this "plan" is that ratepayers get to participate in competing against incumbents with bloated cost structures, and this is precisely what assures losses will be born by investors, not captive ratepayers.

 

[Perfectlogic]

Hey, we don't need name calling around here. That is very disrespectful to people here who are intelligently engaging your questions.

The simplest argument I can give you is this. The cheapest utility solar is about 4c/kWh and the cheapest fossil fuel generated power is combined cycle natural gas at 6 c/kWh. So the most that utility solar can save any ratepayer is about 2 c/kWh. Cheapest utility wind is about 2.5c/kWh and has been quite low for many years as someone from Denmark would know, but this 3.5 c/kWh cost advantage over natural gas has yet to reduce residential rates within the US.

This is not any sort of fundamentalist appeal to a higher authority. These are just basic facts that your simplistic assertion cannot explain. Specifically, you need to explain why in this country even as wind has fallen to 2.5 c/kWh and has been widely deployed, retail rates continue to rise by about 2.5% or more year after year. If wind cannot do it at 40% below solar, what gives you so much faith that utility solar will make one speck of difference for ratepayers? You need to address facts.

I don't know why rates are still going up, I don't know the exact cost structure of US utilities, but you need to keep in mind that means of cheap electricity is still new. Wind is cheap yes, but not 2.5c/kwh everywhere, it has been embraced where it is effective though. A large part of the electrical bill is probably balancing the grid (peaker plants hiking the average cost), try installing a diesel generator in your backyard and use that when the sun doesn't shine and take a look at your total power expenses. Batteries have just now come down to $250/kwh and there is a waiting list, this is much cheaper than peaker plants as I know you are aware of so when this change happens, rates will come down, sunk cost in peaker plants will still haunt the rate for a while but this isn't really the utilities fault, they had no alternative when they were built. And then the shift to sub 5c/kwh renewables will over the next 20 years push cost down a few cents too. I have done nothing but adress facts, it just falls on deaf ears.

@Foghat

Next time you quote such reports it is a good idea to at least look it over quickly yourself. I have already adressed that claim in one of my older post, and it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[winfield100]

@Perfect Logic. You seem to have a penchant for only utility level, centralized solar. I would point out a very few problems.
Utility Solar from centralized plants is the same model as Utility electricity from centralized plants Not very robust versus PV and batteries is a decentralized distributed generation mesh style grid

A (very) few examples from the US grid failures
Dec 8-12 2008 Ice storms in the US, 1 million homes
Feb 26[SUP]th[/SUP] 2008Miami to Tampa (whole state)
Sept 8 2008 Hurricane Ike, Galveston area, 2 million homes lost power up to 2 weeks
Dec 12[SUP]th[/SUP] 2008 Ice storm in NE US, 1.5 million homes up to 2 weeks
Dec 26[SUP]th[/SUP] 2008 entire Island of Oahu went dark, 12 hours (HECO)
Jan 27, 2009, Kentucy/Indiana Ice storm, some lost power until Feb 15[SUP]th[/SUP] (3 weeks)
Feb 5/6 and Feb9/10 2010 blizzards NE US/Baltimore Wasington corridor over 200,000 lost power for days
March 14[SUP]th[/SUP], 2010, windstorm, Connecticut, NY , NJ, Long island, up to 6 days outages
July 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 76,000 lost power windstorms, Michigan
July 25[SUP]th[/SUP], 250,000 Wash DC area, windstorms
Feb 2[SUP]nd[/SUP],2011, Texas, rotating blackouts, 2,000,000 affected
April 27[SUP]th[/SUP], 2011, Storm of 300 tornadoes, Alabama to Virginia, multiple outages
July 11, Derecho (windstorm) Chicage, 850,000 lose power
August 27/28 Hurricane Irene 5,000,000+ lose power
Sept 8/9 Southern Calif/Arizona. 5 million
Late October, Snowstorm, East Coast US, 2 million outages
June 29[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012, Thunderstorms and Derecho, Iowa to Mid Atlantic, 3.8 million lose power
Oct 29/30 2012, Hurricane Sandy, over 8 million without power
Feb8/9 2013 Snowstorm/Nor’Easter US. 650,000 lose power (plus 2 feet snow)

Also, NorthEast blackout of 2003 (August 14/15) about 55 million people, that could have been averted by 500 megawatts of PV added to the 10,500 coming in on the trunk lines so the line wouldn’t sag, and hit a tree and snap ($8-11 billion in losses, cost at time of 500Megawatts distributed PV, $5 billion)
Sept 19, 2003, Hurricane Isabel, 4.3 million lose power
Aug 31, 2005 Katrina, around 2.6 million lose power

This leaves out Europe (Nov 4, 2006, cascading failures, about 15 million households lose power)
This leaves out the sabatoge done in Brazil, Jan 2005, sept 2007, accidents by tree planting crews (Vietnam, May 22, 2013

Please explain exactly how centralized generation, using solar or natural gas or coal or anything is more robust than a decentralized distributed generation grid. All I see from you are reasons utilities give for continued control. I have had my roof top PV array since 1999, which is small, but functions[

"you want coal, we own the mines, you want oil and gas, we own the wells, you want nuclear energy, we own the uranium, you want solar power, we own the ahhh, decentralized solar power isnt feasible, only centralized"

 

[dalalsid]

A large part of the electrical bill is probably balancing the grid (peaker plants hiking the average cost), try installing a diesel generator in your backyard and use that when the sun doesn't shine and take a look at your total power expenses.

Another service distributed generation can provide. SolarCity wants to get into this exact business. Use distributed batteries to provide peaker plant services for a much lower cost than a peaker plant, battery or otherwise since the infrastructure would already exist from customers having batteries for their own backup needs. Solarcity has been selling peak shaving batteries to businesses for some time now. You constantly negate every advantage of distributed generation. Everything is not about cost. It is also about level of service. You constantly keep harping about things being cheaper at the utility scale while constantly underplaying the potential of DG, which is soon to be competitive with the grid everywhere and already competitive in many locations. Why do you think the las vegas casinos want to get off the grid?? because they want to pay more for power? There will come a time when DG is cheaper than transmission alone even at a small scale. The utilities need to branch into DG themselves for long term survival. By your own admission wholesale power is 6c/kWh and getting cheaper with renewables, the rest is transmission, peaking, grid maintenance etc. How many years before solar + batteries goes under 10c/kWh?? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? Based on the answer to that question, utilities need to prepare for a shift in business from primary power source to backup power source.

 

[Perfectlogic]

@Perfect Logic. You seem to have a penchant for only utility level, centralized solar. I would point out a very few problems.
Utility Solar from centralized plants is the same model as Utility electricity from centralized plants Not very robust versus PV and batteries is a decentralized distributed generation mesh style grid

A (very) few examples from the US grid failures
Dec 8-12 2008 Ice storms in the US, 1 million homes
Feb 26[SUP]th[/SUP] 2008Miami to Tampa (whole state)
Sept 8 2008 Hurricane Ike, Galveston area, 2 million homes lost power up to 2 weeks
Dec 12[SUP]th[/SUP] 2008 Ice storm in NE US, 1.5 million homes up to 2 weeks
Dec 26[SUP]th[/SUP] 2008 entire Island of Oahu went dark, 12 hours (HECO)
Jan 27, 2009, Kentucy/Indiana Ice storm, some lost power until Feb 15[SUP]th[/SUP] (3 weeks)
Feb 5/6 and Feb9/10 2010 blizzards NE US/Baltimore Wasington corridor over 200,000 lost power for days
March 14[SUP]th[/SUP], 2010, windstorm, Connecticut, NY , NJ, Long island, up to 6 days outages
July 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 76,000 lost power windstorms, Michigan
July 25[SUP]th[/SUP], 250,000 Wash DC area, windstorms
Feb 2[SUP]nd[/SUP],2011, Texas, rotating blackouts, 2,000,000 affected
April 27[SUP]th[/SUP], 2011, Storm of 300 tornadoes, Alabama to Virginia, multiple outages
July 11, Derecho (windstorm) Chicage, 850,000 lose power
August 27/28 Hurricane Irene 5,000,000+ lose power
Sept 8/9 Southern Calif/Arizona. 5 million
Late October, Snowstorm, East Coast US, 2 million outages
June 29[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012, Thunderstorms and Derecho, Iowa to Mid Atlantic, 3.8 million lose power
Oct 29/30 2012, Hurricane Sandy, over 8 million without power
Feb8/9 2013 Snowstorm/Nor’Easter US. 650,000 lose power (plus 2 feet snow)

Also, NorthEast blackout of 2003 (August 14/15) about 55 million people, that could have been averted by 500 megawatts of PV added to the 10,500 coming in on the trunk lines so the line wouldn’t sag, and hit a tree and snap ($8-11 billion in losses, cost at time of 500Megawatts distributed PV, $5 billion)
Sept 19, 2003, Hurricane Isabel, 4.3 million lose power
Aug 31, 2005 Katrina, around 2.6 million lose power

This leaves out Europe (Nov 4, 2006, cascading failures, about 15 million households lose power)
This leaves out the sabatoge done in Brazil, Jan 2005, sept 2007, accidents by tree planting crews (Vietnam, May 22, 2013

Please explain exactly how centralized generation, using solar or natural gas or coal or anything is more robust than a decentralized distributed generation grid. All I see from you are reasons utilities give for continued control. I have had my roof top PV array since 1999, which is small, but functions[

"you want coal, we own the mines, you want oil and gas, we own the wells, you want nuclear energy, we own the uranium, you want solar power, we own the ahhh, decentralized solar power isnt feasible, only centralized"

If people want rooftop solar or batteries as insurance against outtages, or for whatever other reason then thats their choice. As long as they pay their fair share of grid infrastructure (unless they want to go completely off grid) and they get paid a fair amount for power sold back to the utility which is around wholesale.

@dalalsid

You are repeating yourself, I have already explaned why you are wrong 10 times.

"Why do you think the las vegas casinos want to get off the grid?? because they want to pay more for power?"

This isn't even relevant to the discussion about whether residential solar is subsidized too much or not, as I can assure you they won't be generating power from 8kw residential solar arrays. Sure they will probably be able to save some money using utility scale solar and a cheaper load balancing system. But Las Vegas has much larger economy of scale than a single household.