There are numerous things which at utility-scale become more feasible when storing energy. Flow batteries are a good example. Another is storage of energy via various methods of potential energy such as pumping water to a reservoir. Or cracking hydrogen from water and then burning it when you need it. Or dozens of other options.
I don't feel that every one of us maintaining our own storage system is necessarily the most green idea. Generally as a homeowner I'll end up buying a solution which may last 5 years and then I have to replace it. Utilities can afford to buy 20 or 30 year lifetime storage plants. When the conversation becomes 'how do we reform the grid so it is now a sharing and storage system' then we can start talking about useful things with the grid - and how to pay for it. The problem is that the concept of what the grid is is not in line with what it needs to be come. The other thing you need to realize is that the cost of maintaining the grid is the same whether you use it or not. The line to my house costs the energy company the exact same money to maintain it whether I pull no energy or a lot of energy. The sizing of the line is based on peaks, not consumption. Just like sizing a wireless network - you have to plan for worst case and your costs for the transmission lines are set based on that worst case load. The problem is that the billing for the transmission lines has always been set based on usage, not peak load. Solar is changing the ratio of demand to usage and in many cases making it worse. I know of at least a few homeowners who have moved their home heating to 100% electric - increasing their demand on the grid during winter, and offsetting that 100% with solar during the summer months. The system needs to be sized for the winter loads - and the costs associated with it are incurred accordingly. So those homeowners have increased the cost of the transmission system by their winter demand, yet are not paying anything at all to the utility company. (In the cases I know of the net metering law permits 100% offset of the energy charges). On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Robert <i...@avantwireless.com> wrote: > They cannot "Store Energy" except by the process of not producing it. i.e. > turning the consumption down of fuel, or water or whatever is turning the > turbines. That does NOT cost them anything except the lost profit of > selling it to you. The infrastructure is paid for at construction. Ask > most developers or someone who doesn't have power already plumbed to a > location. Maintenance, yes it calculated into the price per KW, and yes > there is also fixed fees that you pay as part of that. Reducing your > consumption should reduce your part of the Maintenance till you get to the > fixed fee. But adding another fee because you reduce your consumption is > crazy. > > > On 2/7/17 4:59 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: > >> Here's the problem with net metering as I see it: >> >> Today, the simplistic net metering rules which were enacted basically >> require the utility company to take energy from you, "store it" somehow, >> and then return it to you at no cost to you. So the utility company is >> stuck with footing the bill for maintaining the line to you and all the >> infrastructure needed to fulfill your needs when the sun isn't down. >> This just doesn't seem fare, and yes, it drives the cost up for all of >> the 'solar have-nots'. >> >> On the other hand, some of the stuff the utility companies are trying to >> get away with is also highway robbery. Buying at wholesale rates from >> customers and selling it back to them at retail seems unfair. Charging >> "capacity fees" seems bad as well. The really irritating thing is the >> utilities who are starting to charge a 'solar used on the premises' >> charge which basically means if you are using solar to reduce your grid >> energy consumption and not selling excess back to the grid, they'll >> still charge you for being tied to the grid based on how much capacity >> you have. >> >> The quicker that the energy companies figure out that they are not only >> energy providers, but that they should be energy storage companies as >> well the better. That way, you could have a 'buy energy from the >> energy company' rate, and a 'store energy for me rate'. And none of >> this crap they're trying to pull right now. If you don't want to have >> the utility company store it for you at whatever rate they're charging, >> then you go buy a powerwall and then only buy energy from the utility >> company when you need a bit here or there (subject to a meter minimum or >> similar). >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Robert Andrews <i...@avantwireless.com >> <mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote: >> >> What really sucks about this deal is that they claim that they do >> this so rich people who can afford solar are still contributing to >> the cost of maintaining the grid instead of transferring that burden >> to poor people. Cry me a fkn river... They kind of neglect that >> they are making up more than 20% line loss from solar plants >> distributing source power closer to the loads. This is a YUGE >> savings off losses that they don't get compensated for and goes >> straight into their pockets. Fuel savings, build savings, wear and >> tear savings... They are a bunch of thieves looking in our pockets >> for their next golden parachute.. >> >> On 02/07/2017 08:55 AM, Harold Bledsoe wrote: >> >> Apologies to Eric for hijacking his thread... >> >> It does suck and the logic is flawed. Do they charge more for >> folks >> that switched to LED bulbs? No. Do they charge more for folks >> that >> have smaller houses, better insulation, or choose not to run the >> AC >> sometimes? No. >> >> If I had more free time I'd stand up for the principle but at the >> moment, islanding will just have to do. :-) I suppose I could >> try to >> summon the reddit but I do still need electricity for now. >> >> -Hal >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com >> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> >> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>>> wrote: >> >> I have 10 kW so it would be an extra $70... that sucks. >> Yeah, I would be buying batts and inverters too. >> >> *From:* Harold Bledsoe >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:24 AM >> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Particularly good recent battery deals? >> When we first did it, we had to pay a $5/mo "administrative" >> fee for >> having net metering. Effective Jan 1, they charge an >> additional >> $7/kw of installed capacity to offset the lower power usage. >> >> I think this new charge literally effects only 1 of their >> customers. I believe their fear is that things like Tesla >> powerwall >> will take off and they won't be able to afford their current >> lifestyle. ;-) >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:32 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com >> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote: >> >> I pay 8.50/month. Flat rate. >> So you are getting a demand charge added? >> >> *From:* Harold Bledsoe >> *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2017 5:37 PM >> *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Particularly good recent battery >> deals? >> >> Agreed! >> >> I'm going to pull the trigger and try the forklift >> batteries. >> Supposedly they will last 3-5x longer than regular deep >> cycle >> golf cart batteries. I'll let you guys know in 10-15 >> years. >> >> My motivation is that my home grid tied system saves too >> much >> power so the power company added a net meter fee of >> $7/kw/mo to >> make up the difference. >> >> Alrighty then, guess I'll take half my house off grid. :-) >> >> Hal >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM Eric Kuhnke >> <eric.kuh...@gmail.com <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> Anything rated in CCA (cold cranking amps) is not >> suitable >> for cyclic solar/wind power applications. If the >> manufacturer hasn't clearly specified Ah capacity in >> a table >> at 5, 10, 20 hour rates it's not designed for repeated >> discharge. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Harold Bledsoe >> <hbledso...@gmail.com <mailto:hbledso...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> Beware of deep cycle marine batteries. These >> typically >> are not true deep cycle batteries. At 50% depth of >> discharge, you can expect around 300 cycles (or >> 1 year >> if doing it daily). A true deep cycle battery >> will do >> about 3x that number. >> >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:00 PM Keefe John >> <keefe...@ethoplex.com >> <mailto:keefe...@ethoplex.com>> wrote: >> >> Exide has a 105 AH battery for $81 >> >> >> http://www.menards.com/main/electrical/batteries-battery-cha >> rgers/automotive-lead-acid-batteries/exide-regng-27-12-month >> -nautilus-marine-deep-cycle-battery/p-1444430136307-c- >> 9100.htm?tid=-3310133469912273928 >> <http://www.menards.com/main/electrical/batteries-battery-ch >> argers/automotive-lead-acid-batteries/exide-regng-27-12-mont >> h-nautilus-marine-deep-cycle-battery/p-1444430136307-c- >> 9100.htm?tid=-3310133469912273928> >> >> >> On February 5, 2017 4:55:55 PM CST, Eric >> Kuhnke >> <eric.kuh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Found this, sunelec.com >> <http://sunelec.com> <http://sunelec.com> >> >> (big solar equipment dealer for off grid) >> is >> selling the 106Ah version of these for >> $185 a >> piece plus pallet shipping: >> >> >> http://www.outbackpower.com/downloads/documents/Store_the_En >> ergy/energycell_re_top_terminal/energycellREtopterminal_specsheet.pdf >> <http://www.outbackpower.com/downloads/documents/Store_the_E >> nergy/energycell_re_top_terminal/energycellREtopterminal_specsheet.pdf> >> >> Outback, as far as I know, doesn't >> actually have >> a battery factory. But they are a fairly >> large >> company so they are relabeling somebody >> else's >> deep cycle off grid design AGM battery. >> In terms >> of $/Wh stored the only thing that beats >> it is >> the 6V 225Ah wet cell batteries from >> Trojan. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Harold >> Bledsoe >> <hbledso...@gmail.com >> <mailto:hbledso...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> I can across an interesting tip / >> option - >> >> Have you considered going with >> forklift >> batteries? They are flooded lead acid >> however I'm reading that they can >> last 3x >> longer than golf cart batteries in PV >> applications. >> >> >> http://gbindustrialbattery.com/Forklift_Battery_Sizes_and_ >> Specifications_Zone15.html >> <http://gbindustrialbattery.com/Forklift_Battery_Sizes_and_ >> Specifications_Zone15.html> >> >> I guess the weight is a downside. >> Just make >> sure the whole family eats their >> Wheaties on >> moving day. :-) >> >> Hal >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:11 PM Eric >> Kuhnke >> <eric.kuh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Looking for a bunch of 12V 100Ah >> AGM top >> terminal batteries for off grid >> PV. >> Wondering if anyone has recently >> got a >> particularly good deal for >> something >> like the Trojan T31 or similar. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Harold Bledsoe >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. >> Please >> excuse my brevity. >> >> -- >> >> Harold Bledsoe >> >> -- >> >> Harold Bledsoe >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./ >> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 >> forre...@imach.com >> <mailto:forre...@imach.com> | http://www.packetflux.com >> <http://www.packetflux.com/> >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> >> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux> >> >> >> -- *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
