You say the solution is obvious, but that is far from the case. If the power companies charged everyone a flat fee for their share of the grid maintenance and repayment of capital, I guarantee you that the bills of the apartment dwellers would go way up. The power company makes money on each kWH you use and they expect the bigger, more expensive homes will use more power and pay a larger share of the grid costs. The problem is that if solar panels are added, it reduces the kWHs used in the big home. How could they legally justify raising the base price just for the larger home owners? They can't. But, the present profit by kWH used billing does just that - unless solar panels are present.
Interestingly, where I live, I calculated today that I could go off grid entirely with about a 4 year payback cycle. I would use a diesel generator as a CHP. The water cooling of the engine would heat my house, allowing me to use almost all of the energy available from each gallon of diesel fuel. If I compare the fuel cost of such a system compared to my far-from-optimum electric+propane energy supply, I would save 45% in fuel cost compared to present bills and would apply that 45% to pay back the capital cost over about 4 years. When you add solar in with this, it is a lot of system to get correct, but the payback would be about the same with less fuel burning. The power companies are definitely on shaky ground, and they know it. The solar power wars are probably going to result in some new state laws. On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Wed, 4 May 2016 17:46:33 -0600: > Hi, > > The solution is obvious. The power companies should charge a usage price > for the > connection to the grid that reflects the actual costs of maintaining the > hardware, including the poles and wires, then on top of that they should > charge > for the power delivered. > That way, everyone pays their fair share, and the power company will > continue to > function as long as people stay connected. > > >Well, that is the crux. If the power infrastructure is going to charge > the > >consumer the same whether he uses grid power or not but still has the grid > >connection, what is the user's incentive to invest in alternative energy? > >Actually, they are creating a situation where users will disconnect from > >the grid entirely. Then, the electric company will not get any money from > >that user. Their present policies are heading toward forcing the > >development of off-grid solutions and because of that, these off-grid > >solutions will become better and better alternatives. CHP is going to > >thrive on LENR, and it doesn't need LENR to begin. A solar assisted house > >with a diesel generator to provide both supplemental electricity and the > >heat needed in the house (for cooler climes) is probably already on the > >threshold of competing with grid power for the same application. > > > >This has happened to the wireline telephone company - people have gone > >completely wireless and eliminated the wireline service altogether. It is > >also happening to the cable companies as more and more people are starting > >to get their entertainment from the internet. The power company is in the > >beginnings of a death spiral and it is not going to be pretty, > particularly > >for the consumers that cannot afford to migrate to new energy > technologies. > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
