This has nothing to do with the power companies, all of this is maintained and controlled by the balancing authority in the area. The balancing authorities are separate from the power companies.
For these areas served by these private companies, the balancing authority is California ISO (Independent System Operator).
The Wall Street Journal is stating today a concern that many of us have shared for years namely, that the state's ultra-aggressive renewables mandates will destabilize the grid. In an article titled "California Girds for Electricity Woes," it cites experts who testified at a recent meeting between utilities and California regulators.
One utility executive from Pacific Gas & Electric was quoted as warning: "We see the issue hitting as soon as 2013, 2014, 2015." Although California has plenty of generation (some say a surplus) it doesn't have the right mix. "Many of the solar and wind sources added in recent years of actually made the system more fragile, because they provide power intermittently," said California Energy commission chairman Robert Weisenmiller. He says the state will exceed its renewables targets and "end up closer to 40%."
The Journal says electric utilities are calling for immediate action to prevent rolling blackouts. State officials hope to have a plan in place by July. - By Jesse Berst
The key is having stable standby power. Any power source that experiences an outage can cause major disruption of the grid. For every power source that is brought online other sources must be backed down or taken offline to prevent overfrequency or over voltage conditions. The over voltage conditions can result in power surges and damage to the grid.
California power grid is a disaster in the making.
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman...oon-have-grid-problems-5557.html#.Ufk4_InNmSo
Texas already experienced issues with wind generators not supplying as much power due to high temperatures in the summer.
Texas Wind Energy Fails, Again
I stand by my statement.
California power grid is a disaster in the making.
http://www.smartgridnews.com/artman...oon-have-grid-problems-5557.html#.Ufk4_InNmSo
Texas already experienced issues with wind generators not supplying as much power due to high temperatures in the summer.
Texas Wind Energy Fails, Again
I stand by my statement.
The key is having stable standby power. Any power source that experiences an outage can cause major disruption of the grid. For every power source that is brought online other sources must be backed down or taken offline to prevent overfrequency or over voltage conditions. The over voltage conditions can result in power surges and damage to the grid.
Power plants that use steam turbines and gas turbine can operate with spinning reserves (ie operated at 75% capacity*) that can make up for any sources that fail. Now when these units are shutdown due to excessive power sources on the grid they can no longer make up the difference when a power source failure occurs and this can result in a power grid collapse in a given area (brown and black outs)
* These units can't make efficient power (specially gas turbines) at lower loading so it cost more to run them than they can make from the power they produce. This is why they will be taken offline when there's too much available power.
That's how it is here too, at least in my state.
Also, the power company must pay you a premium for the excess power you generate. I.e., they must buy it from you at a higher charge than they sell it for. That may be their real complaint.
Fern
Not enough. What percentage of people actually own the place they live at?
How much solar panel would it take to recharge a car considering it has to power the rest of the house as well?
What about charging on the go? There will be electric charging stations everywhere, and they can't wait for clouds to go away.
Maybe I just missed it. What's your point? That we shouldn't be investing in alternative energy sources?
I am in the solar industry and I have never heard of a fear of over voltage, not saying that it doesn't exist but the issue that is always talked about , especially by the power companies, is that they can't reduce their baseline load even though new generation has came online.
Source please? I have not heard of a single instance in which it was actually profitable for a residential home to produce more power in a years time than they use. Your only going to make a surplus of power a few hours a day which quite literally makes your meter run backwards (first thing everyone does when they "flip the switch" on their solar is to turn everything off and go watch the meter spin backwards), the rest of the time you are not creating a surplus and your meter spins normally. For people who are not billed by time of use, which is the cost of electricity varies by the time of the day to attempt to get people to use less during the highest demand, it simply reduces the number of KW/H you are billed for. I'm assuming you live in a place that does have some sort of time of use billing but a solar plant is going to produce almost all of its electricity in the typical peak usage hours so its only fair that consumers be credited what they would have paid when the power was generated. About the only thing I can think of is perhaps your state assumed that since solar will always produce its power during peak usage that wind power, which can produce power in off peak hours, got a free ride. If so that should be easy enough to change and would be completely fair.
Good post because it helps point out a common misperception about residential (or commercial) solar.
This is important: YOU DO NOT USE THE ELECTRICAL POWER YOU GENERATE.
I learned this very quickly when I contacted solar installers about putting solar panels on the roof of my commercial building. Initially, I kept asking them to calculate how many panels I would need to meet my building's power requirements. They finally got me to understand that is not how it works.
Here's how it does work:
The electrical power you use comes in through the normal transmission lines and is metered the exact same was as a building without solar panels.
Your solar panels have the electrical output pass through a meter and on through their own power lines.
You pay 'x' cents for ALL power your use.
You get paid 'x+' for ALL power you generate.
In my state (NC) the legislature mandates the (high) price the power co. must pay you for what you generate.
(Note: it works the same way for residential.)
Fern
One of the reasons it's not worth one's while to try to net-produce power at their house and make a monthly profit is that a standard electric bill consists of Electricity + Delivery charge. In my particular case delivery charge is more than the price of power. Let's say the first is $.05, the second $.06, total of $.11 kWh.
If I was going to buy 10 kWh for $1.10, but now I produce 10 kWh instead, I pay nothing, and make nothing. Every kWh I make saves me $.11. However, if I exceed 10, and I'm now selling electricity back, I do not recoup delivery, I only recoup cost of power, which was $.05, and thus anything beyond my actual needs I only make at around half the cost of power.
I seriously want panels on my house, but it seems that in general the incentives get better over time, as does efficiency, and right now it's a wash (although not long ago it was a net cost, and people did it because they just really liked solar for one reason or another).
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the grid must have spinning reserves (steam or gas turbine generator sets) to make up for any power deficiencies or failures/losses. Alternative energy sources can't make up for power demands quickly enough to prevent brown/black outs.
Good post because it helps point out a common misperception about residential (or commercial) solar.
This is important: YOU DO NOT USE THE ELECTRICAL POWER YOU GENERATE.
The electrical power you use comes in through the normal transmission lines and is metered the exact same was as a building without solar panels.
Your solar panels have the electrical output pass through a meter and on through their own power lines.
You pay 'x' cents for ALL power your use.
You get paid 'x+' for ALL power you generate.
In my state (NC) the legislature mandates the (high) price the power co. must pay you for what you generate.
(Note: it works the same way for residential.)
Fern
Sounds like wiring the house to have a separate electrical infrastructure for solar power - leaving solar off the main grid, would be a good idea for stability.
That, or, if you're worried about less consumption, the electric company would utilize the excess solar for free. Not pay for it. To help maintain the grid. Call it a tax. In fact, if it's given to them they might invest / help kick start further solar development.
Um you definitely use the power that you produce if you are demanding it at the time it is produced. Electricity takes the path of less resistance.
-snip-
*Distribution Planning Engineer for large power utility*
-snip-
Also found your local laws and its not quite as cut and dry as you say it is. Here is a link: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NC94F&re=0&ee=0
That's for Progress Energy. They're not my power company.
If I have time I'll search for the relevant info. I was considering installing the panels 2 or 3 years ago (IIRC). The point being that Dec 31 of that year was a deadline to be eligible for some programs/benefits not available for panels installed and operational after that date. I.e., the deal that was being offered may not be on websites any longer.
Also, as to all this "path of least resistance" stuff - I feel confident in my recollection of what the firms described to me, and we went over it numerous times (I'm a CPA - we're skeptical and doubting people by profession nature). Yes, they could have dumbed it down for me, which would be entirely reasonable (and welcomed) given my lack of familiarity. However, consider that I'm speaking of a commercial building, not a residence. (I discounted the residential application back then because it lacks benefits available to business).
My building is rather large. (I hope you can understand what I'm trying to describe here because I'm not well versed on this stuff.) IIRC my building draws power off of a high voltage line; 1000's of volts and we have our own transformer that breaks it down to 110 (or whatever) for our use. This was done by the original building owners: Belk's (the retailer). It is supposed to be more efficient and therefor less expensive this way.
I guess my point is why couldn't my solar installation have been (separately) metered and fed back into the high voltage or other lines, of which there are many since the power lines for my downtown all run next to my building?
Fern
That's for Progress Energy. They're not my power company.
If I have time I'll search for the relevant info. I was considering installing the panels 2 or 3 years ago (IIRC). The point being that Dec 31 of that year was a deadline to be eligible for some programs/benefits not available for panels installed and operational after that date. I.e., the deal that was being offered may not be on websites any longer.
Also, as to all this "path of least resistance" stuff - I feel confident in my recollection of what the firms described to me, and we went over it numerous times (I'm a CPA - we're skeptical and doubting people by profession nature). Yes, they could have dumbed it down for me, which would be entirely reasonable (and welcomed) given my lack of familiarity. However, consider that I'm speaking of a commercial building, not a residence. (I discounted the residential application back then because it lacks benefits available to business).
My building is rather large. (I hope you can understand what I'm trying to describe here because I'm not well versed on this stuff.) IIRC my building draws power off of a high voltage line; 1000's of volts and we have our own transformer that breaks it down to 110 (or whatever) for our use. This was done by the original building owners: Belk's (the retailer). It is supposed to be more efficient and therefor less expensive this way.
I guess my point is why couldn't my solar installation have been (separately) metered and fed back into the high voltage or other lines, of which there are many since the power lines for my downtown all run next to my building?
Fern
Oh your building is primary voltage metered... (which is the determining factor here not commercial vs residential since most commercial is still metered on the lower voltage side) so they may have been explaining it correctly for your special case not all...also it may or may not be more efficient power wise to have this setup it depends on how you have the system setup, but the local power company only has responsibility to the high voltage line until the Metering point in this case so it saves them on some of the maintenance costs which they pass a portion onto you in a way of cheaper rates.
That isn't exactly true, and I will explain why in a moment, but it is a good way to sort of explain it to people who are really confused on the subject. Sounds like the installers gave you the lazy explanation.
Electricity always takes the route of least resistance which is usually to your own loads and the inverters are designed to send the generated power "either way". Someone smarter than me will have to give the final say on if its even possible to isolate the power to go strictly back to the grid instead of the power being able to go in either direction but I can think of a way to do it.
Also found your local laws and its not quite as cut and dry as you say it is. Here is a link: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=NC94F&re=0&ee=0
but the bottom line is the power company pays a one time incentive of $500 per KW (AC) installed and will give you $4.50 every month per KW (AC) installed and you still enjoy the reduced power bill. So they aren't actually paying you more for your power than you pay them they are giving you a set monthly rebate for the total rated system. In exchange the power company gets to keep all of the SRECS that your system creates. I haven't kept up on SRECs because they aren't very relevant to what I do but I heard talk a while back about them potentially being quite valuable.