icarus wrote: »
I'll be the contrarian here. Even with a basic meter charge of say $25-50/month, look at the value that 24/7/365 access to energy is. Middle of the night, turn on he light, pump water, make toast, run the furnace. Yea, I can do all that with my off grid system, only that ain't cheap eatery. When you consider the infrastructure they hve to maintain especially for scattered rural and ex urban areas, it really is a bargain.
DaveB wrote: »
They need to find more innovative ways of making money!
ChrisOlson wrote: »
For off-grid power, using generator support for peak loads is a lot more cost effective than adding more RE sources, batteries and controllers. ...
NorthGuy wrote: »
When you live off-grid, you generate electricity in the day time (off-peak), store it in batteries, then use in the night time (peak-hours). Batteries and associated equipment are expensive and need to be changed from time to time. So, you pay dearly for the shifting.....
Photowhit wrote: »
Not getting you, 'NorthGuy' I think peak energy use for electric companies is noon to 6pm, I don't have time just now to look it up. Perhaps someone who has peak and off peak rates can confirm this. Solar is mostly generater during peak hours though.
NorthGuy wrote: »
When you live off-grid, you generate electricity in the day time (off-peak), store it in batteries, then use in the night time (peak-hours). Batteries and associated equipment are expensive and need to be changed from time to time. So, you pay dearly for the shifting.
When you are grid-tied, you simply unload all your off-peak energy to the electric company, and then get it back during the peak-hours. They store your energy for free, or, at least, for the fraction of the cost of batteries. However, this is a very valuable service. The question is who's paying for that.
Let's suppose all the customers switched to grif-tie solar. The electric company would get a lot of energy during off-peak. They cannot do anything useful with it, so they would have to sell it. During the peak hours they would have to buy it back and supply it to customers. But, during peak hours the electricity costs 3 to 5 times more. So, by doing this energy trading the company would be losing money all the time until the government would bail them out and the taxpayers would be paying the bill for energy shifting.
Let's now suppose that only half of the customers switched to solar. The electric company wouldn't need to buy energy off-peak because it still has plenty, possibly even too much. All the electricity would have to be bough during peak hours. As a result, the cost of energy, which used to be some sort of average of off-peak and peak prices, would be now pure peak rate. If the electric company kept the margin the same, the non-solar customers would have to pay this higher rate, thus indirectly subsidising energy shifting for solar customers. That definitely is a burden.
If electric company would charge solar customers an energy shifting fee, which is similar to what off-grid people pay for batteries, there would be no burden on the rest of customers.