Submitted by star_tyger t3_11m4s98 in vermont
dnstommy t1_jbfwwo9 wrote
Its all about the offset. Vermont makes power companies pay a fair credit for the power you make. So if you over produce in the summer, you can use those credits in the winter.
But VT is nothing like Florida when it comes to solar. 1/3 of the year, I make no power at all.
Aperron t1_jbgo5km wrote
Keep in mind what you consider fair is also not really all that fair to other rate payers.
On those sunny days when demand isn’t high on the regional grid, the going bulk rates are extremely low, very small fractions of a cent per kwh but net metering forces the utilities to pass up on that deal and instead buy power back from you at close to retail rates.
Much of the time the going market price for a kwh is far less than they’re paying you, but any time your panels are producing, they can’t reject that power and source the cheapest kwh available.
It’s unfortunate because GMPs rates are more than double those in many parts of the country. If they want to continue lobbying for forced electrification, they should be working on getting rates somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4 what they currently are.
vermont4runner t1_jbguyq6 wrote
There is already little reason to have solar here. Slashing rates will make it a no brainer rejection.
Aperron t1_jbgvoh0 wrote
It’s almost like all that money being put into residential solar, grid scale solar and battery storage might be better spent building more generation capacity that’s dispatchable on demand. I don’t really care if they have to burn the cutest puppies that ever lived by the rail car load for fuel if it’s cheaper than what we’re doing now.
vermont4runner t1_jbgztxk wrote
Agreed. We spend so much on low roi energy sources instead of better utilizing what’s available today.
Dangerous_Mention_15 t1_jbhjc22 wrote
Like tearing down a super clean power plant with an extremely low carbon output and a very low mortality rate per kWH in order to replace it with residential solar?
Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_jbjk6vz wrote
That's what battery storage is; dispatchable on demand.
Aperron t1_jbjlfnb wrote
Which is also incredibly expensive to install, requires eventual replacement of the most expensive component (the battery), and is finite in capacity. It would be cheaper to install a few gas turbine peaker plants around the state in locations where there is natural gas pipeline infrastructure than to install thousands of home batteries to achieve the same peak demand management results.
Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_jbjnv2m wrote
Peakers share many of those same costs.
GMP saved about $1M in each quarter of 2020 by dispatching distributed home batteries.
Aperron t1_jbjpb5y wrote
The cost savings described in that article compare the cost of covering peaks above our contractually agreed capacity from HydroQuebec with Powerwalls versus needing to purchase the difference at the variable market rates from ISONE when they’re at their absolute highest due to demand.
They are not comparing against the cost of covering that shortfall with local GMP owned gas or even fuel oil fired peakers.
Of course, a site focusing on green energy isn’t going to make that type of comparison in a situation where fossil fuels might provide a cheaper solution.
Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_jbjs97x wrote
Large scale battery peakers are already a thing. Even utilities are installing them.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/04/08/battery-energy-storage-eversource-cape-vineyard
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/mi3jqiwt6yfg9nvljqpkkw2
Aperron t1_jbjtho2 wrote
That’s wonderful. A $40+ million dollar installation, being built in response to a state mandate to build battery storage.
The installation can supply power to a small area for between 3 to 10 hours and then becomes entirely useless once discharged.
Remove the political constraints and I bet the ROI on a gas turbine is much better.
Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_jbjyi1u wrote
You're acting like fossil fuels aren't subsidized as well, and also forgetting about the blackouts in TX caused by frozen nat. gas pipelines. I'm sure you would agree those plants were "entirely useless".
I would agree, remove subsidies and political constraints and let the technologies fight it out. However this is a bit of a fantasy world, and if it were to happen I believe nuclear would see a resurgence and take over as the prime mover.
Hopefully this discussion is pointless in 20 years once fusion technology takes off.
Dangerous_Mention_15 t1_jbhj5sf wrote
It's refreshing to see a rare voice of logic in the VT power discussion. It's usually, solar good, everything else bad!
Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_jbjkiz0 wrote
Not all kWhs are created equally. That's what net metering attempts to help correct. A kWh produced where it's used is more "valuable" than a kWh produced at a gas fired plant 200 miles away that has to go through 8 transformers to get to the load.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments