Here's the problem with net metering as I see it: Today, the simplistic net metering rules which were enacted basically require the utility company to take energy from you, "store it" somehow, and then return it to you at no cost to you. So the utility company is stuck with footing the bill for maintaining the line to you and all the infrastructure needed to fulfill your needs when the sun isn't down. This just doesn't seem fare, and yes, it drives the cost up for all of the 'solar have-nots'.
On the other hand, some of the stuff the utility companies are trying to get away with is also highway robbery. Buying at wholesale rates from customers and selling it back to them at retail seems unfair. Charging "capacity fees" seems bad as well. The really irritating thing is the utilities who are starting to charge a 'solar used on the premises' charge which basically means if you are using solar to reduce your grid energy consumption and not selling excess back to the grid, they'll still charge you for being tied to the grid based on how much capacity you have. The quicker that the energy companies figure out that they are not only energy providers, but that they should be energy storage companies as well the better. That way, you could have a 'buy energy from the energy company' rate, and a 'store energy for me rate'. And none of this crap they're trying to pull right now. If you don't want to have the utility company store it for you at whatever rate they're charging, then you go buy a powerwall and then only buy energy from the utility company when you need a bit here or there (subject to a meter minimum or similar). On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Robert Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > What really sucks about this deal is that they claim that they do this so > rich people who can afford solar are still contributing to the cost of > maintaining the grid instead of transferring that burden to poor people. > Cry me a fkn river... They kind of neglect that they are making up more > than 20% line loss from solar plants distributing source power closer to > the loads. This is a YUGE savings off losses that they don't get > compensated for and goes straight into their pockets. Fuel savings, build > savings, wear and tear savings... They are a bunch of thieves looking in > our pockets for their next golden parachute.. > > On 02/07/2017 08:55 AM, Harold Bledsoe wrote: > >> Apologies to Eric for hijacking his thread... >> >> It does suck and the logic is flawed. Do they charge more for folks >> that switched to LED bulbs? No. Do they charge more for folks that >> have smaller houses, better insulation, or choose not to run the AC >> sometimes? No. >> >> If I had more free time I'd stand up for the principle but at the >> moment, islanding will just have to do. :-) I suppose I could try to >> summon the reddit but I do still need electricity for now. >> >> -Hal >> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM Chuck McCown <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I have 10 kW so it would be an extra $70... that sucks. >> Yeah, I would be buying batts and inverters too. >> >> *From:* Harold Bledsoe >> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:24 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Particularly good recent battery deals? >> When we first did it, we had to pay a $5/mo "administrative" fee for >> having net metering. Effective Jan 1, they charge an additional >> $7/kw of installed capacity to offset the lower power usage. >> >> I think this new charge literally effects only 1 of their >> customers. I believe their fear is that things like Tesla powerwall >> will take off and they won't be able to afford their current >> lifestyle. ;-) >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:32 AM Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I pay 8.50/month. Flat rate. >> So you are getting a demand charge added? >> >> *From:* Harold Bledsoe >> *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2017 5:37 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Particularly good recent battery deals? >> >> Agreed! >> >> I'm going to pull the trigger and try the forklift batteries. >> Supposedly they will last 3-5x longer than regular deep cycle >> golf cart batteries. I'll let you guys know in 10-15 years. >> >> My motivation is that my home grid tied system saves too much >> power so the power company added a net meter fee of $7/kw/mo to >> make up the difference. >> >> Alrighty then, guess I'll take half my house off grid. :-) >> >> Hal >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM Eric Kuhnke >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Anything rated in CCA (cold cranking amps) is not suitable >> for cyclic solar/wind power applications. If the >> manufacturer hasn't clearly specified Ah capacity in a table >> at 5, 10, 20 hour rates it's not designed for repeated >> discharge. >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:01 AM, Harold Bledsoe >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Beware of deep cycle marine batteries. These typically >> are not true deep cycle batteries. At 50% depth of >> discharge, you can expect around 300 cycles (or 1 year >> if doing it daily). A true deep cycle battery will do >> about 3x that number. >> >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 9:00 PM Keefe John >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Exide has a 105 AH battery for $81 >> >> http://www.menards.com/main/el >> ectrical/batteries-battery-chargers/automotive-lead-acid-bat >> teries/exide-regng-27-12-month-nautilus-marine-deep-cycle- >> battery/p-1444430136307-c-9100.htm?tid=-3310133469912273928 >> >> >> On February 5, 2017 4:55:55 PM CST, Eric Kuhnke >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Found this, sunelec.com <http://sunelec.com> >> >> (big solar equipment dealer for off grid) is >> selling the 106Ah version of these for $185 a >> piece plus pallet shipping: >> >> http://www.outbackpower.com/do >> wnloads/documents/Store_the_Energy/energycell_re_top_termina >> l/energycellREtopterminal_specsheet.pdf >> >> Outback, as far as I know, doesn't actually have >> a battery factory. But they are a fairly large >> company so they are relabeling somebody else's >> deep cycle off grid design AGM battery. In terms >> of $/Wh stored the only thing that beats it is >> the 6V 225Ah wet cell batteries from Trojan. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Harold Bledsoe >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I can across an interesting tip / option - >> >> Have you considered going with forklift >> batteries? They are flooded lead acid >> however I'm reading that they can last 3x >> longer than golf cart batteries in PV >> applications. >> >> http://gbindustrialbattery.com >> /Forklift_Battery_Sizes_and_Specifications_Zone15.html >> >> I guess the weight is a downside. Just make >> sure the whole family eats their Wheaties on >> moving day. :-) >> >> Hal >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 7:11 PM Eric Kuhnke >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Looking for a bunch of 12V 100Ah AGM top >> terminal batteries for off grid PV. >> Wondering if anyone has recently got a >> particularly good deal for something >> like the Trojan T31 or similar. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Harold Bledsoe >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please >> excuse my brevity. >> >> -- >> >> Harold Bledsoe >> >> -- >> >> Harold Bledsoe >> >> -- *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.* Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian> <http://facebook.com/packetflux> <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
