SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
At least 1 million homes in the USA have solar systems on their rooftops and their use — together with local batteries — is increasing, enabling homeowners the ability to collect energy and store it for later usage on-site. This enables homeowners to cut their dependence on the electrical grid — and their bills. This could be economically painful for utilities. A new McKinsey study predicts two outcomes 1) electrical grid cut off completely 2) primarily local energy collection with the electrical grid as a backup.
The cost of collecting solar energy and storing it on-site makes the incentive too small even for residents of sunny Arizona to cut the electrical grid off. But partial defection from the grid with 80-90% of the demand supplied on-site makes economic sense in 2020 and total defection makes sense around 2028
The prediction by McKinsey is that the electrical grid will be repurposed as an enormous, sophisticated backup. One, where utilities only add energy at those times when the on-site systems aren't collecting enough energy.
My comment: So far good enough. But then why not simple connect to neighbors directly for electrical power transfer and cutting the utilities out of the loop even for electrical fallback needs? A electrical power mesh grid might need some interesting mathematical modeling though.
(As a side note, maybe this will soon make UPS for home use obsolete?)
(Score: 2) by lx on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:10PM (17 children)
A home solar system can fail as well as any utility.
I'm not sure whether off grid living is such a good idea anyway. Nearly all progress humanity has made has been by banding together. Insulating yourself from the world seems like a step backwards.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:18PM (6 children)
What is it with you Statist people?
Decentralization doesn't imply isolation. Almost every decision that is made every single day is made in a decentralized fashion through the interactions between individuals; that interaction is what makes society, not some top-down, centralized, command-and-control governance structure.
Centralization is about efficiency, not "working together"; when people go "off-grid" (literally, here), they are working together to change the world for the better: To reduce the incentives for fossil fuels, to reduce the number of single-point failures, to figure out how to live in more remote locations, etc. People are working together.
(Score: 3, Touché) by lx on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:28PM (5 children)
I guess my thinking is coloured by not living in a failed state and by not putting labels on people who disagree with me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:30PM
The rest of your comment is irrelevant; it forms a non sequitur.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @10:15PM (1 child)
Your thinking is coloured by your lack of basic language comprehension skills. Lessening your dependencies on a centralized system does not necessarily mean isolating yourself from other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @12:00AM
Just leave me alone, and GET OFF MY SOLAR PANELS, you statist, corporatist, communitarian, you!
All together now: "We are all individuals!" [cite: "Liff of Brian" Monty Python, 1979]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday July 02 2017, @08:32PM (1 child)
Your thinking is flawed. You are thinking of Ted Kazinsky and his manifesto shack in the middle of Montana. While that is the usual image of the phrase "off grid", here we're talking about simply disconnecting from the electric power grid. That doesn't mean living in a failed state. If it did, all of those people off the water grid who thus use private wells (like me), would be living a life of anarchy. All of those people who living off the telephone line grid (like me -- I just use a cell phone) would experience life like it exists in a war torn third world country if your analogy worked. Or what about the people who have abandoned the cable TV grid as I have -- anarchists and malcontents all? How can people even socialize if they aren't on the sewer grid (have a septic tank like I do)?
Where you went wrong was in how you perceived the phrase "going off grid" -- here it doesn't mean moving to a remote island, growing and hunting all your own food, and shooting at helicopters. It just means generating your own electricity while living in your community.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03 2017, @12:44AM
Anarchy does not imply a lack of order.
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:39PM (2 children)
Please feel free to band together with your neighbors, then, if you think that's the best idea. No argument from me on that one.
Just don't tell me that I must join your band because you and your neighbors have determined that it's the best idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @12:03AM
Nice little farm you got there, libertaritard! Be a shame if something were to happen to it. Irrigation cooperative meets on the 14th of this month. Might be a good idea to be there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @01:39AM
The mesh already exist. It is.the power grid. In my area, it is a power co-op. We all belong too. It is wear I buy and sell power. They handle the inter-connects and spot power generation and buys when local is not enough.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday July 02 2017, @12:34AM (3 children)
IMO, the largest obstacle to the idea of having solar on everyone's roof is lack of economy of scale. Each solar installation is tiny, but has its own site, wiring, inverters, connections to the grid, batteries, switches... It's like owning a house vs. renting an apartment - the house owner spends a good deal of time with many contractors who, very inefficiently, deal with small issues that the apartment building owner has a plumber or a handyman on staff for.
Personal solar installations are fine for rural sites, where they supply most of the power, the rest coming from a generator. But solar in built-up areas is just too wasteful, I think, both in initial costs and maintenance. Furthermore, the current 25 years of ROI is too long a period - nearly all houses will be sold within this time, with no guarantees that existence of the solar system helps with the sale price. Investment into solar here already has no financial background, unless you have specific needs in mind, like going into more favorable tier of cost of energy. Sending the extra energy to the grid will net you virtually nothing, as the utility buys the energy for very low prices and resells for much higher. If anyone earns money on personal solar installs, it's the utility - their profits are coming in every minute, they don't have to wait for years.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Sunday July 02 2017, @03:23AM (2 children)
AU has a high level of household solar, and is continuing installation.
The average daily electric power usage in AU is about 20 KWh per household. Solar installations are generally 3, 4 or 5 KW (max power). With average levels of cloud, sun angle, etc, you get the equivalent of 4 to 6 hours of max power per day. That means that the only thing stopping complete off-grid solutions is the cost of storage.
And it is a high cost.
-Tesla is currently advertising the "Powerwall" 7KWh lithium battery at about $8000 = $1100 per KWh. (don't forget to read the fine print on that ten year guarantee either)
-Deep cycle lead-acid is about $200 per KWh, but you need three times the used capacity to get a decent life out of them, so call it $600, and you still get less than six years.
-Nickel iron is expensive, difficult to find, and requires regular maintenance.
The difference between a stored Kwh and one sold to the grid during daylight and bought back at night is about 15 cents.
So each KWh of storage you have can save you about $50 per year. This is not enough to make the batteries economical in most places
If you can go completely off grid, you can save the connection fee too, but mine for example is only $120 a year. Not enough to tip the scale.
Cheaper batteries will change things, and once they start, I could see a vicious cycle with mass production lowering the cost, more people storing power locally, the power company raising the connection fee to compensate for lost revenue, making it more economical to go off grid, cycle round again.
I expect that at the point were this starts happening, there will be intense lobbying for laws requiring housholds to maintain their grid connection (and pay for it) even if they have the capacity to go completely off-grid.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday July 03 2017, @06:21PM (1 child)
Right now, the utilities have all the market power. That is, they can (mostly) set the price of electricity that they buy and sell from individual solar producers. (Or, the price is set elsewhere, with government and industry representatives in the room.)
At the point where mass defections from the grid are possible, the individual solar producers will have gained much more market power. I imagine the pressure for laws maintaining the grid will be countered by pressure from people who don't need it. I guess the trick for utilities will be to implement those laws before the other side gets organized.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday July 04 2017, @01:36PM
In Victoria, AU. they have much more than market power. For instance, the way the laws are written here, legally they can invoice you for power you generate and use yourself. (I think they have to pay you wholesale, but then can charge you retail prices).
They don't, for marketing and logistical reasons but I could see that changing when battery storage really starts hurting them, I think there might also be a bit of a pushback against that (/understatement).
Either way, there is a shitfight coming. Get your popcorn. :)
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 02 2017, @01:17AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday July 02 2017, @09:37AM
I have another issue with this post. So let's suppose a million people decide to live off grid. So what? First, they decided that living off grid was a better idea, despite your concern. Allowing people to make decisions you don't like, but is legal is a cost of democracy. You do want that, right?
Second, maybe we should look at why the banding together is supposedly not working in this case? Here, if that many people are deciding to live off grid, it's probably because the "banding together" has failed substantially and being on grid is considerably more expensive than being off grid. At that point, whoever is responsible for grids and banding together should be working hard on fixing that system or ending it altogether, not on trying to keep people on a failed system.
(Score: 1) by Goghit on Monday July 03 2017, @05:49AM
OTOH, it would be nice to be insulated from the rent-seeking bastards either trying or succeeding to privatize Canada's hydroelectric systems. Sounds like it sucked to be in Ontario this winter. (Well, more than normal, at least.)