Natural gas plants having trouble competing with solar?

[Sunking]

I think zero states offer unlimited free power for a flat monthly fee, and with good reason -- it gives an unhealthy incentive to overconsume.

Who said anything about FREE?

Let me guess Dan. You grew up saying I want less than my parents and those who came before me.

Certainly not me. I came from a poor military family and dirt farmers.

[SunEagle]

Me, too. Keeping the lights on without fossil fuel when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is an interesting problem, and a work in progress.

Engineer is right that, for the moment, net metering works, and lets him get power at night. But once RE penetration gets very high, harder problems come to the fore.

I feel that he is under the impression that because he generates more power during the day from his solar pv it makes him have a zero carbon footprint. If anyone believes that if they generated a lot of power during the day from RE and did not use it but sold (or gave it) to the POCO then what they get back at night must be from that RE generated during the daytime they would be incorrect.

Once RE power is generated and sent somewhere it is consumed by others, stored or wasted. It does not simply come back to the generator at night and can still be classified as RE.

I see that claim by some big companies where they say they use 100% RE to run their business. That is a falsehood unless they shut down when the RE isn't producing. RE electricity can't be compared to someone sending money to the bank and then getting it back. It is physically not the same thing. Power that is generated at one time is not the same as the power generated at a different time.

[DanKegel]

Who said anything about FREE?

I did, in my original question, "But there are choices in rate design. One could give everybody unlimited power for a flat fee. Would that be wise?"

So, if flat fee + zero cents per kWh is unwise, how should one pick how much to charge per kWh? It seems like there is some flexibility there, and the right answer depends on what behavior you want to encourage in users. No?

[sensij]

I feel that he is under the impression that because he generates more power during the day from his solar pv it makes him have a zero carbon footprint. If anyone believes that if they generated a lot of power during the day from RE and did not use it but sold (or gave it) to the POCO then what they get back at night must be from that RE generated during the daytime they would be incorrect.

I don't see anyone suggesting that the energy generated during the day is stored and returned at night. Zero Carbon Footprint can be taken in a couple of different ways. For someone with net metering at a 1:1 exchange rate who is overproducing during the day, the term can be valid... their existence as a customer on the grid causes no more carbon emission than if they didn't exist at all. By overproducing during the day, someone else who would have needed power from the poco's generators is getting it from RE instead (whether they realize it or not). Consuming the equivalent at night sounds like a reasonable definition of "zero" to me. As others have pointed out, it isn't truly scalable, but at the low level of PV adoption that exists today, it seems like a good enough place to start.

[Sunking]

By overproducing during the day, someone else who would have needed power from the poco's generators is getting it from RE instead (whether they realize it or not). Consuming the equivalent at night sounds like a reasonable definition of "zero" to me.

But you are assuming that saves the POCO fuel burn. It does not. They burn the same amount of fuel rather solar is available or not. All it means to the POCO is they make less revenue on billable power. Your goberment allows them to charge a higher rate on everyone else to make up for the revenue loss. That was the deal when they forced Net Metering upon them. States without Net Metering, POCO's do not pay the customer retail for excess, they pay wholesale and keep the rates lower. Does not change their emission output.

[SunEagle]

I don't see anyone suggesting that the energy generated during the day is stored and returned at night. Zero Carbon Footprint can be taken in a couple of different ways. For someone with net metering at a 1:1 exchange rate who is overproducing during the day, the term can be valid... their existence as a customer on the grid causes no more carbon emission than if they didn't exist at all. By overproducing during the day, someone else who would have needed power from the poco's generators is getting it from RE instead (whether they realize it or not). Consuming the equivalent at night sounds like a reasonable definition of "zero" to me. As others have pointed out, it isn't truly scalable, but at the low level of PV adoption that exists today, it seems like a good enough place to start.

I agree that adding solar is a good place to start. Even a Net Zero building is a great place to have. But there are very few places in the US that can claim 100% power from RE. Those might be in Texas or some other area that has a combination of wind, hydro and solar power generation.

But I disagree with you that just because someone generates more power from RE than they use, should not claim they have a zero carbon footprint because that claim totally ignores the times they use power but did not generate any due to the lack of available RE. It is really just Public Relations BS.

If you use power at night you are more than likely using power generated by fossil fuels. Own up to it and stop the BS

[sensij]

But you are assuming that saves the POCO fuel burn. It does not. They burn the same amount of fuel rather solar is available or not. All it means to the POCO is they make less revenue on billable power. Your goberment allows them to charge a higher rate on everyone else to make up for the revenue loss. That was the deal when they forced Net Metering upon them. States without Net Metering, POCO's do not pay the customer retail for excess, they pay wholesale and keep the rates lower. Does not change their emission output.

The presence or absence of any one residential customer would not affect the fuel burn, whether PV is installed or not. That does not mean we all get to call ourselves Zero Carbon Footprint.

I totally agree that net metering is neither sustainable nor scalable. As a tool to increase RE adoption, it has succeeded, but better approaches are needed in the long run.

[sensij]

But I disagree with you that just because someone generates more power from RE than they use, should not claim they have a zero carbon footprint because that claim totally ignores the times they use power but did not generate any due to the lack of available RE. It is really just Public Relations BS.

If you use power at night you are more than likely using power generated by fossil fuels. Own up to it and stop the BS

So Zero Carbon only applies to one's own personal use, and not to the reductions in their neighbor's consumption that their overproduction allows? Your definition is hyper-narrow, and not really conventional. If one can offset someone else's consumption, and then consume some at night, the net is still zero. Would you be happier if folks fitting that description described themselves as "Net Zero Carbon Footprint", instead of just Zero? Certainly, the standard to earn that title goes beyond household electricity and transportation... there are more ways fossil fuels are consumed that would need to be counted.

FWIW, Zero Carbon is not the same as 100% RE. Conflating to two to make an argument isn't really fair.

[Sunking]

The presence or absence of any one residential customer would not affect the fuel burn, whether PV is installed or not. That does not mean we all get to call ourselves Zero Carbon Footprint.

I totally agree that net metering is neither sustainable nor scalable. As a tool to increase RE adoption, it has succeeded, but better approaches are needed in the long run.

We are on the same page. I was just pointing out the fact Solar does not reduce emissions.

[DanKegel]

We are on the same page. I was just pointing out the fact Solar does not reduce emissions.

I don't think you're quite on the same page. If 10% of load is served by solar during the daytime, the daytime fuel burn may well be reduced.

[SunEagle]

So Zero Carbon only applies to one's own personal use, and not to the reductions in their neighbor's consumption that their overproduction allows? Your definition is hyper-narrow, and not really conventional. If one can offset someone else's consumption, and then consume some at night, the net is still zero. Would you be happier if folks fitting that description described themselves as "Net Zero Carbon Footprint", instead of just Zero? Certainly, the standard to earn that title goes beyond household electricity and transportation... there are more ways fossil fuels are consumed that would need to be counted.

FWIW, Zero Carbon is not the same as 100% RE. Conflating to two to make an argument isn't really fair.

Generating more power then you consume is Net Zero. Off setting someone else's consumption during the day so you can consume power at night may be considered Net Zero but IMO not Zero Carbon footprint.

Now if you only used the power from the sun during the day time and shut all electrical items off at night then you could probably claim to having a very small or Zero carbon footprint.

I really don't feel my definition is narrow. IMO is it a truthful answer of the physics of electrical power generation and usage. .

You are assuming that all of the power generated by solar is being used by someone somewhere on the grid. That is not true because a lot of electricity is wasted and really does not run or power anything.

[SunEagle]

I don't think you're quite on the same page. If 10% of load is served by solar during the daytime, the daytime fuel burn may well be reduced.

Yes it will be reduced but not by 10%. Some fossil fuel is used to keep the generating plant at a warm idle. That is very inefficient and still produces CO2.

[sensij]

You are assuming that all of the power generated by solar is being used by someone somewhere on the grid. That is not true because a lot of electricity is wasted and really does not run or power anything.

This may be true in a large scale, but are you suggesting that any excess my system produces is not consumed by my next door neighbor (who does not have PV, but loves A/C)? Are the electrons somehow skipping his house to vanish in some wasteland?

[DanKegel]

Yes it will be reduced but not by 10%. Some fossil fuel is used to keep the generating plant at a warm idle. That is very inefficient and still produces CO2.

I'll take a partial reduction over no reduction. Engineers can work on reducing that wastage later.

[SunEagle]

This may be true in a large scale, but are you suggesting that any excess my system produces is not consumed by my next door neighbor (who does not have PV, but loves A/C)? Are the electrons somehow skipping his house to vanish in some wasteland?

The flow of electricity is always toward the least resistance. You excess power is probably consumed close to your home by your neighbor but as it passes from your grid connection transformer to someone else's it goes through another transformer which creates losses. There are additional losses along the way the can reduce the available power actually being use to run something. The bigger the system (grid) the more losses which can add up significantly depending on the quality of the grid in the area.