tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740971876602952565.post2259114625278122383..comments2024-03-19T22:49:42.491-07:00Comments on Nuke Power Talk: The Grid and Solar Power:Gail Marcushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03389387408479728702noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740971876602952565.post-69735058763471767892014-10-09T22:24:07.474-07:002014-10-09T22:24:07.474-07:00The issue of matching supply to demand is a big on...The issue of matching supply to demand is a big one for unreliables ("renewables" other than hydro, geothermal and biomass). PV especially needs market discipline. If customers want to be paid for putting energy on the grid, they should first be billed as a commercial customer (peak monthly demand plus energy consumption). Then they should be compensated for energy according to its value at the local market rate, which varies by time of day.<br /><br />That's a huge difference from net metering practice. One nearby utility bills residential customers 13.4¢/kWh for electricity consumed, with no peak limit (other than their fuses). But large commercial customers pay for peak electric consumption at $12.55/kW(peak) per month, plus 4.3¢/kWh.<br /><br />Dropping the grid-infeed tariff from 13.4¢ to 4.3¢ eliminates the economic case for residential PV, even with all the federal and state subsidies. But the actual market rates vary quite a bit from the average. If grid-tied users got the market rate (perhaps with a couple of cents per kWh added, to incorporate maybe $20/ton of CO2 abatement) they would re-orient their panels to match generation to peak demand rather than peak sun.<br /><br />This would help a great deal, but turning PV generators into market participants also changes the market for new entrants. If PV generators drove down the price of mid-afternoon juice into the 2¢ region, <i>people would stop installing new PV because they couldn't make money with it</i>. And that is exactly what ought to happen.<br /><br />There are a few other tweaks that really need to be added, such as limits on downward ramp rates for non-dispatchable generators before they have to pay for spinning reserve. This would create a market in batteries and flywheel storage, helping to smooth out the "duck belly" curve that looms as the next blackout-threatening issue in sun-heavy areas. It would also make the "renewable" sector absorb some of its externalities, finally enforcing some discipline and making them a reliability asset.Engineer-Poethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06420685176098522332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740971876602952565.post-70303475265418844722014-10-09T15:30:03.457-07:002014-10-09T15:30:03.457-07:00To make the incentive even greater for California ...To make the incentive even greater for California home owners, a few years ago the solar tax credit application was changed to include a calculation of actual output based on shading and panel orientation. Apparently, some homeowners had used the solar incentive as primarily a tax dodge, installing systems that had a reduced output because of the way their house was constructed.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948081496409475665noreply@blogger.com