Is Solar Right for me in NC

[Ampster]

..........

As a thought experiment, suppose it were possible to time shift power usage so that draw from the POCO only occurred at times when super off peak rates were in force (say, midnight to 5 A.M.) and at a rate of $0.05/kWh while regular hour rates were, say, $0.25/kWh. What would that do to the ROI or payback on a PV system ?

It would all depend on when those regular hour rates were in effect and the type of NEM agreement which was available and of course the cost of a solar installation. Ten years ago I had a four to one kWh differential and favorable NEM time period, but that is history.

[J.P.M.]

It would all depend on when those regular hour rates were in effect and the type of NEM agreement which was available and of course the cost of a solar installation.

No schitt. What a blinding flash of the obvious.

My point was that if a justification of getting PV was to offset EV charging AND a large rate reduction for super off peak use is available, say from midnight to 5 A.M., the economics of charging an EV at super off peak rates might not justify a PV system for the purpose of EV charging.

I don't know if Chrisski has super off peak rates or not, but for lots of CA users anyway, at least for now, if significant super off peak usage is possible or doable, but to the extent super off peak rates are lower than regular, or off peak rates, the extent to which EV charging or significant time shifting of other loads is possible or accomplished under super off peak rates, doing so can potentially have a significant impact on the average cost of a kWh of electricity and that lower average cost (and so probably lower bill will affect the cost effectiveness of a PV system to the extent the average cost of a kWh of electricity is lowered.

[chrisski]

Thought I’d posted this already.

I will probably go grid tied solar this year. With an energy bill of $225 per month a yearly average, it will take a while for this system to pay off. It’s not so much the current rates that worry me, it’s rate increases I see coming based off:

1) As more and more get electric cars, I expect rates to go up. A family of two driving the US average of 15k miles per year on a car could double their electric bill if both vehicles are EVs. That and the bigger EVs like the Tesla truck will soon be out.
2) In my state, Arizona, we are closing down some of the coal producing power plants, and replacing them with newer solar, which will not produce at night. Also, with how much my state is growing population wise, the POCOs aren’t keeping up with demands.
3) I’ve received emails saying save energy to avoid brown outs for example by setting my Air Conditioning to 80.
4) As more and more go solar, some of the older areas are not built for much two way power from houses and the POCO may want a new transformer put in at your expense if a limit is met in your area, so another reason not to wait.

None of those are real scientific measurements, and I could be wrong about any increases.

[Ampster]

...What a blinding flash of the obvious.
...

Yes it is obvious to some people. While my post was in response to your question, my intended audience was other readers who may not be as knowledgeable. I tried to explain the obvious answer in simple short sentences.My goal is to help other readers see a situation from a simple perspective. I prefer that to single sentence paragraphs in which most readers would get lost after the second comma.

[Ampster]

Thought I’d posted this already.

I will probably go grid tied solar this year. With an energy bill of $225 per month a yearly average, it will take a while for this system to pay off. It’s not so much the current rates that worry me, it’s rate increases I see coming based off:

1) As more and more get electric cars, I expect rates to go up. .....
2) In my state, Arizona, we are closing down some of the coal producing power plants, and replacing them with newer solar, which will not produce at night. Also, with how much my state is growing population wise, the POCOs aren’t keeping up with demands.

3) I’ve received emails saying save energy to avoid brown outs...

Those factors could very well cause an increase especially if capacity decreases.

4) As more and more go solar, some of the older areas are not built for much two way power from houses and the POCO may want a new transformer put in at your expense if a limit is met in your area, so another reason not to wait.
......

To elaborate on that point It is likely the infrastructure upgrades are going to be the biggest component of those increases. Despite what our POCOs would like us to believe the transformers in our neighborhoods are already bidirectional. The real issue is the control systems are not designed for bidirectional flow. Therefore they do not have the command and control systems to switch power and reduce voltage as distributed generation comes online and causes voltage increases.

[bcroe]

Sure with increasing population, our universal energy electricity will require
upgrades. It has already been demonstrated that the best building practices
and the best appliances can really help. But the other problem is matching
up the generation to the consumption over the day, and renewables are only
making that worse. Unfortunately the peaker solutions are fossil fueled.
Bruce Roe

[J.P.M.]

Sure with increasing population, our universal energy electricity will require
upgrades. It has already been demonstrated that the best building practices
and the best appliances can really help. But the other problem is matching
up the generation to the consumption over the day, and renewables are only
making that worse. Unfortunately the peaker solutions are fossil fueled.
Bruce Roe

Another part of the solution is finding viable ways to store energy generated by alternate means, on both small and large scales and everything in between.

[Ampster]

....... Unfortunately the peaker solutions are fossil fueled.
Bruce Roe

And the peakers are not efficient and create more pollution than the combined cycle plants. At least in California batteries are more economical than peakers. In that case economics has been the driver to make peakers obsolete.

[J.P.M.]

And the peakers are not efficient and create more pollution than the combined cycle plants. At least in California batteries are more economical than peakers. In that case economics has been the driver to make peakers obsolete.

What reliable, unbiased data do you have that backs up your statement that batteries are more cost effective than peakers ?

[Ampster]

What reliable, unbiased data do you have that backs up your statement that batteries are more cost effective than peakers ?

We have had this conversation in the past and it is nothing more than my opinion. I not seen anything that contradicts that opinion. I did research the number of Peaker plants that were approved in the past five years and found only one.During the past several years there have been several large battery installations. As I mentioned previously, my opinion is consistent with a number of observations about the cost of siting, permitting and operating peaker plants compared to battery sites. A simple google search would support that assumption.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cali...hrome&ie=UTF-8
I do not know if that is the case in the rest of the country. I am also not including combined cycle plants as peakers but they do offer faster ramp up than the older plants that they are replacing in California. Since that market is deregulated it is the flow of investment capital that is one indicator of the trend.

[SunEagle]

We have had this conversation in the past and it is nothing more than my opinion. I not seen anything that contradicts that opinion. I did research the number of Peaker plants that were approved in the past five years and found only one.During the past several years there have been several large battery installations. As I mentioned previously, my opinion is consistent with a number of observations about the cost of siting, permitting and operating peaker plants compared to battery sites. A simple google search would support that assumption.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cali...hrome&ie=UTF-8
I do not know if that is the case in the rest of the country. I am also not including combined cycle plants as peakers but they do offer faster ramp up than the older plants that they are replacing in California. Since that market is deregulated it is the flow of investment capital that is one indicator of the trend.

I really think you are hoping that the batteries will keep the lights on. That may not happen without peakers in place. Oh and the customers of CA POCO's will end up paying for those batteries with increased rates.

Just my opinion which may be different then most.

[Ampster]

I really think you are hoping that the batteries will keep the lights on. That may not happen without peakers in place. Oh and the customers of CA POCO's will end up paying for those batteries with increased rates.
......

My hopes are another issue. I was just referring to the flow of capital into battery deployments. That capital investment appears to be going into batteries and not peakers. . This seems to be a trend in other states as well.

If operating costs for batteries are less than peakers, why do you think rates will increase? .

[SunEagle]

My hopes are another issue. I was just referring to the flow of capital into battery deployments. That capital investment appears to be going into batteries and not peakers. . This seems to be a trend in other states as well.

If operating costs for batteries are less than peakers, why do you think rates will increase? .

I think rates will increase because the POCO's will not foot the entire bill for those batteries. They will pass on some of the cost to their customers by pleading to the PUC that they are not making any money due to high operating costs.

I see that there has been some push back concerning the $8 / kw solar install fee proposed by the POCO's but that is just a bump in the road for them. Expect future changes to cover costs that can't be argued away with loss of solar jobs.

[Ampster]

I think rates will increase because the POCO's will not foot the entire bill for those batteries. They will pass on some of the cost to their customers by pleading to the PUC that they are not making any money due to high operating costs.

In deregulated markets like California, Texas and others, the POCOs do not buy those batteries, They buy the energy from the companies that invest in those batteries. My point was that operating costs for batteries are less that peakers and therefore the cost per kWh is less.

This is a good topic for a general discussion about trends in the industry and issues caused by the growth of intermittent renewables, Perhaps one of the moderators wants to break it out beginning with the post from bcroe ,
Following up on the trends I just read that FPL has a 900 MWh battery under construction so you may have something to worry about.

[SunEagle]

In deregulated markets like California, Texas and others, the POCOs do not buy those batteries, They buy the energy from the companies that invest in those batteries. My point was that operating costs for batteries are less that peakers and therefore the cost per kWh is less.

This is a good topic for a general discussion about trends in the industry and issues caused by the growth of intermittent renewables, Perhaps one of the moderators wants to break it out beginning with the post from bcroe ,
Following up on the trends I just read that FPL has a 900 MWh battery under construction so you may have something to worry about.

I think the FPL customers already have been told about a rate increase. Luckily I am not one of their customers and my rate is still about $0.08/kWh.