Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Power United States Technology

Companies Are Using California Homes As Batteries To Power the Grid (qz.com) 208

"Companies like Tesla and SunRun are starting to bid on utility contracts that would allow them to string together dozens or hundreds of systems that act as an enormous reserve to balance the flow of electricity on the grid," reports Quartz. "Doing so would accelerate the grid's transformation from 20th century hub-and-spoke architecture to a transmission network moving electricity among thousands or millions of customers who generate and store their own power." From the report: In theory, networked home-solar-and-battery systems, acting in coordination over a single geographical area, could replace things like natural gas "peaker" plants need to help support the grid on a moment's notice. But it's an open question whether it makes financial sense. Kamath says renewable mandates could keep home solar-storage solutions for the grid going for a while, but the idea will have to prove itself on the market, perhaps by aggregating large areas, if it wants to seriously compete with existing energy assets.

SunRun told investors in 2017 that its pilot programs suggest it could competitively generate $2,000 worth of services by managing electricity flow back to the grid. The company has recently dropped its combative stance with utilities dragging their feet on accepting home solar. Instead, it's pursuing cooperation with the utilities now, in hopes of selling them home-based power. That would allow it grab a chunk of the billions being spent on modernizing the grid. "We don't want to be in a position of building two competing infrastructures," SunRun's Jurich said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Companies Are Using California Homes As Batteries To Power the Grid

Comments Filter:
  • by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Saturday May 26, 2018 @02:34AM (#56677396)

    A big part of me is afraid this will simply game the market rather than add predictability to pricing, although that is arguably is inevitable. I would much prefer a rate sheet that is easier to understand the implications of use in order to better allow proactive demand-side management. Too many things are grossly inefficient with reactive load management.

    But, I don’t know an easy solution to the current ramp-rate profile without batteries and punitive rate structures.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

      Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but the underlying reality is that's just more middlemen taking a cut - usually with a % going back to said politicians. Best you can do is run it as a monopoly in which case you don't get those stupid peak charges and you can do sane long term capacity planning. Admitted that does assume a well run monopoly but it can work.

      • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Saturday May 26, 2018 @03:48AM (#56677500)

        The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

        Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but the underlying reality is that's just more middlemen taking a cut - usually with a % going back to said politicians. Best you can do is run it as a monopoly in which case you don't get those stupid peak charges and you can do sane long term capacity planning. Admitted that does assume a well run monopoly but it can work.

        It is a monopoly unless and until the consumer makes his/her own electricity and stores it in his/her own battery wall. At that point you get a very competitive industry where many providers of solar panel packages, wind generators and battery walls compete to sell their products wherever they can market it which is pretty much anywhere that has a road network.

        • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Saturday May 26, 2018 @05:43AM (#56677694)

          Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive. You need to have sufficient generation capacity for the winter when daylight hours are short, which means you are greatly over-capacity in summer. You could set up a system for selling this excess, but then you are back to the need for a distribution network - which remains as much a natural monopoly as before. Plus generating is simply cheaper in bulk, when you have economy of scale. Which do you think is cheaper: Sixty thousand little 100W rooftop wind turbines, or one 6MW monster of a commercial-scale turbine?

          • Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive.

            Try having the power company run a mile of utility poles or underground service to send grid power to your home if you don't live in a development or beside existing service

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              When we reach a point where disconnecting from the grid becomes feasible things will get interesting. Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

              • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Saturday May 26, 2018 @07:54AM (#56677958)

                When we reach a point where disconnecting from the grid becomes feasible things will get interesting. Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

                That is the plan in parts of Europe and that is what some people in Puerto Rico would like to do. That is also why the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner, Republican heavyweights and representatives of the fossil fuel industry are hard at work drawing up plans for Puerto Rico to become a 'fossil fuel energy hub' for the entire Caribbean. What are you willing to bet that aid payments to rebuild Puerto Rico's energy infrastructure will be conditional on them being spent on fossil fuel power plants backed up by anti renewables legislation and the forced privatisation of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority? I particularly love this quote by Rob Bishop, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee: "Energy to Puerto Rico ... is going to have to be imported. Natural gas would be a brilliant way to do that.”. In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours. This bozo takes one look at that and concludes the only viable way of generating energy in a country that close to the equator which get that much sun is to import natural gas.

                • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                  In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours

                  That's nice. But you still need to account for the other 35%, and cloudy days, etc. Batteries are expensive. Solar is expensive. Handling peak demand is expensive. Despite all the subsidies to solar, fossil fuels are still the most efficient and reliable methods for energy.

                  • by mspohr ( 589790 )

                    Solar is cheaper than NG, coal, nuclear. Solar with battery can easily compete with any fossil fuel.
                    Here is a good comparison that shows its cheaper. This is from two years ago. Solar is much cheaper now.
                    https://cleantechnica.com/2016... [cleantechnica.com]

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      Solar is cheaper than NG, coal, nuclear.

                      From your link: "On the renewable front, costs to overcome intermittency of renewable energy sources (basically, presuming a very high penetration of renewables on the grid) are also not included."

                      Yeah, that pesky peak demand and times when solar/wind just isn't there because the weather isn't cooperating.

                      Solar with battery can easily compete with any fossil fuel.

                      No, batteries are THE problem. They're very expensive.

                    • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
                      Expensive is relative. A recent Tesla install of batteries, not even involving renewable, was used to smooth out demand, and the $55mil of batteries has saved $35mil in fuel in 6 months. Even fossil fuel power plants can benefit from batteries.
                    • Yeah, that pesky peak demand and times when solar/wind just isn't there because the weather isn't cooperating.

                      The GP talked about Puerto Rico. You might be interested to look on a map where that is.

                      And then you might be bright enough to realize how less sense your statement makes.

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      The GP talked about Puerto Rico. You might be interested to look on a map where that is.

                      Wow, you're pretty dumb. What would Puerto Rico's location on a map tell me about cloud cover for any particular day?

                  • In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours

                    That's nice. But you still need to account for the other 35%, and cloudy days, etc. Batteries are expensive. Solar is expensive. Handling peak demand is expensive. Despite all the subsidies to solar, fossil fuels are still the most efficient and reliable methods for energy.

                    The 65% is high levels of sunlight, a large portion of the other 35% is partially cloudy skies. Solar panels do not stop generating energy just because there is no direct sunlight, plus, if you combine solar, wind, batteries and design the grid properly you can compensate for localised gaps in generation. At worst Puerto Rio could reduce it's reliance on NG by as much as 60-70%. Also, renewables are now as cheap as NG and in a place as sunny as Puerto Rico probably cheaper since solar panels are extremely e

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      The 65% is high levels of sunlight, a large portion of the other 35% is partially cloudy skies. Solar panels do not stop generating energy just because there is no direct sunlight

                      Huh, so I guess there's no significant nighttime in Puerto Rico. Interesting.

                      plus, if you combine solar, wind, batteries and design the grid properly you can compensate for localised gaps in generation

                      Yeah, so we keep on hearing. When the renewable market proves its efficiency and capability, it will happen without all the incessant claims.

                  • In Puerto Rico it's sunny about 65% of daylight hours

                    That's nice. But you still need to account for the other 35%, and cloudy days, etc. Batteries are expensive. Solar is expensive. Handling peak demand is expensive. Despite all the subsidies to solar, fossil fuels are still the most efficient and reliable methods for energy.

                    So tell me, if these batteries are simply too expensive, talk to us about the cost of transferring natgas to an island - is that free? If another hurricane tears into P Rico again, and another Republican is president, is the NatGas going to continue after it is gone? You might look into where Solar and wind are these days.

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      So tell me, if these batteries are simply too expensive, talk to us about the cost of transferring natgas to an island - is that free?

                      Shipping is cheaper than you think.

                      If another hurricane tears into P Rico again, and another Republican is president, is the NatGas going to continue after it is gone? You might look into where Solar and wind are these days.

                      This statement is a non-sequitur. Basically, the entire electric grid of Puerto Rico was wiped out. Do you think solar+wind+batteries would have fared better? And what does a Republican president have to do with anything?

                  • Solar without batteries is cheaper than any fossil or nuclear power since a decade. Including batteries it is minimum 3 years now that solar is cheaper.

                    You must be living under a rock.

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      Solar without batteries is cheaper than any fossil or nuclear power since a decade.

                      Bullshit.

                      Including batteries it is minimum 3 years now that solar is cheaper.

                      Bullshit.

              • When we reach a point where disconnecting from the grid becomes feasible things will get interesting. Neighbors interconnecting, building micro grids with a single connection to the national one, and only wanting to pay one service fee for the whole group.

                I don't know if there is any similar thing in GB, but there is a template here. In Mountainous PA, small villages pool money and build micro cable TV systems. The antenna system is on a local hill or mountaintop, and a few amplifiers get the signal to the valley, then distributed to the houses. I've seen some, and the quality ranges from very professional to amusing. But they can do it, and so can micropower grids.

          • Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive. You need to have sufficient generation capacity for the winter when daylight hours are short, which means you are greatly over-capacity in summer.

            Peak usage is in the summer because cooling is electrical while heating is predominantly fossil-fueled. In many areas, the production and usage line up much better than what you describe.

            • Your peak usage maybe. Where I live, domestic air conditioning is a rare thing.

              • Your peak usage maybe. Where I live, domestic air conditioning is a rare thing.

                We're talking about California (which isn't where I live).

          • It is a monopoly unless and until the consumer makes his/her own electricity and stores it in his/her own battery wall. At that point you get a very competitive industry where many providers of solar panel packages, wind generators and battery walls compete to sell their products wherever they can market it which is pretty much anywhere that has a road network.

            Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive.

            What on earth does that response have to do with the comment to which you replied, which clearly said absolutely nothing about off-grid solar?

            Which do you think is cheaper: Sixty thousand little 100W rooftop wind turbines, or one 6MW monster of a commercial-scale turbine?

            Okay, let me just unpack just what a nonsensical example this is. First, and most importantly, we are talking about solar here and not wind. Your attempt to reframe the debate to be about wind when it is not is a cheap tactic. We are talking about solar. Second, with the recent proliferation of affordable grid-tie microinverters, the only cost disadvantage of resident

          • by Agripa ( 139780 )

            Perhaps one day. Right now, fully off-grid solar is very expensive.

            It is also illegal in most jurisdictions where a grid connection is required unless you want your house condemned whether you need it or not.

      • The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly.

        No. Distribution is a natural monopoly. Generation is not. There is no reason that the same company should do both, and in many jurisdictions they do not.

        • Well, depends a bit how you define monopoly.
          In germany it is not. First of all we have 4 main control zones, operated by different grid operation companies. Then we have minimum half a dozen transport grid operators. And then most communities have their local grid by a local grid operator.
          And all those grids are required to accept transport or feed in for a reasonable fee by any market player. The maximum amount of the transport/feed-in fee is set by an government agency.

      • The problem is that power generation and distribution is a natural monopoly. There's only one set of wires going to the consumer.

        I have half a dozen wires going to my home, plus several conduits. Several of those carry Internet. The only reason there aren't more options for other utilities is because of government-mandated monopolies, not natural monopolies.

        On top of that, power generation and distribution aren't one thing, they can be separated.

        Politicians try to dress that up and provide competition but t

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Saturday May 26, 2018 @07:52AM (#56677950) Journal
      What could go wrong.
      Buy solar for the roof.
      Its free solar all day.
      Have city inspect the solar and the grid power company accept extra power.
      Buy a big battery.
      Have the battery inspected, approved and connected.
      Buy energy at consumer prices.
      Get a set low rate to sell solar back to the grid. Solar power not used is a credit for coupons, discounts, a very low set price?
      Sell "extra" battery power back at what the "free" market will pay.
      After all the big spending and not been paid much for the extra power every year the user will be in profit when?
      Pay back that solar and the big battery.
      The big battery last how many years of power in and out?
      • by Raenex ( 947668 )

        After all the big spending and not been paid much for the extra power every year the user will be in profit when?

        Yeah, exactly. The batteries are the killer. Dave Jones of EEVBlog gave a recent update [youtube.com] on 5 years of solar panels down in Sydney, Australia. The panels are doing okay, and will pay for themselves in a few more years. Installing a battery would take decades, and that's assuming they kept their operating efficiency, which is dubious.

        • by mspohr ( 589790 )

          Tesla's big battery in Australia will pay for itself in less than a year by outcompeting fossil fuel power plants to provide grid power (from wind).
          https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
          https://futurism.com/teslas-au... [futurism.com]

          • by Raenex ( 947668 )

            Sorry, but Tesla and Musk is known for hype. We need a skeptical look at costs and capabilities before you can extract that solar/wind + batteries is now the solution going forward and fossil is obsolete. Tesla can't even deliver properly on their cars yet.

      • by mspohr ( 589790 )

        What could go wrong.

        Buy solar for the roof.

        Its free solar all day.

        Have city inspect the solar and the grid power company accept extra power.

        Buy a big battery.

        Have the battery inspected, approved and connected.

        Buy energy at consumer prices.
        Why would you do this? You have solar and can also buy power at low nighttime rates to charge your battery

        Get a set low rate to sell solar back to the grid. Solar power not used is a credit for coupons, discounts, a very low set price?

        Sell "extra" battery power back at what the "free" market will pay.
        Charge at cheap night rates
        Sell power at peak rates,
        Profit!

        After all the big spending and not been paid much for the extra power every year the user will be in profit when?
        If you can't make money on this you're doing it wrong.

        Pay back that solar and the big battery.

        The big battery last how many years of power in and out?

        • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Re "Why would you do this? You have solar and can also buy power at low nighttime rates to charge your battery"
          The battery power and solar may not cover all the energy needs 24/7 and have enough to export...
          Re 'Charge at cheap night rates Sell power at peak rates"
          Not every power company is going to allow that creative use of their grid network and ensure such payments to every battery approved home.
          Re "If you can't make money on this you're doing it wrong."
          No power company will allow a grid payment s
          • That's exactly what Tesla's big battery in Australia does.
            Power is cheap at night and expensive during the day. It's called arbitrage.

            • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
              Power prices go up to pay for trendy new battery power?
              Prices stay up to replace the next new battery as the battery has a set usage span.
              Pay for the first battery. Pay for the next battery.
              Thats not a way to grow jobs and ensure energy prices stay low.
        • Sell "extra" battery power back at what the "free" market will pay.
          Charge at cheap night rates
          Sell power at peak rates,
          Profit!

          That would be extremely dumb

          If you have a battery and solar power, you team up with others having a similar set up. That is called a virtual power plant. That is actually what the article/summary is about: balancing power

          Usually a 5 man company is enough to handle such a virtual power plant :D Germany has nearly a hundred of them.

          So, what is the trick? You get payed for loading your batteries!! If the grid has surplus power not only the price goes down for "ordinary customers", but you, as part of a virtual

  • Economics of scale. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26, 2018 @05:30AM (#56677666)

    They would have to compensate the home owners for the wear-and-tear on their batteries. And if you can make it work financially with small systems then you can do it cheaper per kwh on a large scale in a consolidated facility. Just do that.
    Anything you can do, your utility can do cheaper.

    • That only works if your sole concern is kW/kWh. When you add reliability and contingency planning into the mix, decentralization can provide huge value.

      • Assuming you live in California, how often do you lose power in your home - and for how long - such that this kind of promised backup (for $1300 to $1800) is a desirable feature? Remember, the consumer is paying $1300 up-front, or $1800 over time, and giving up a space inside the garage or other area of the home, for the pleasure of a backup system. Not for lower costs of power.
        • Now imagine the Star Trek fans. They need a battery backup and a secondary backup.

          Why, you ask?

          GILORA: Starfleet code requires a second backup?
          O'BRIEN: In case the first backup fails.
          GILORA: What are the chances that both a primary system and its backup would fail at the same time?
          O'BRIEN: It's very unlikely, but in a crunch I wouldn't like to be caught without a second backup.

    • Centralization is bad. For example, there's still billions of photos [petapixel.com] on the Web that are still broken.

    • On the other hand, they only have to pay the home owners their marginal rate while in their own facility they pay the fully-allocated cost. The relative merits depend on what their utilization is like. The summary specifically mentions 'replace things like natural gas "peaker" plants need to help support the grid on a moment's notice"'so we already know the utility is looking to address the short-term variable portion of demand so a dedicated facility will have low utilization.

    • Anything you can do, your utility can do cheaper.
      No he can't.

      And to do what you propose, a few hundred or a thousand solar+battery owners simply form a virtual power plant. For balancing power.

  • by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Saturday May 26, 2018 @07:55AM (#56677962)

    But it's an open question whether it makes financial sense.

    You always need to ask who it makes financial sense for. It certainly makes financial sense for Tesla and the politicians they lobby.

  • This sounds like trying out outsource the cost of reliable power delivery to a subset of consumers. If you spend a lot of money to add batteries to a grid-tied solar system and you use those batteries to help balance the grid, you (the consumer) are paying to help the power company balance the grid. If it is just you (all of your neighbors don't also have battery systems), you end up paying more for the public power system then your neighbors do.

    Most solar systems are grid-tied and don't have batteries. G
    • by Agripa ( 139780 )

      I suppose if the power companies offered significant discounts or other incentives to people who agreed to join their private batteries to the public grid it would be all good, but the cynical side of me thinks that it's an attempt to get a subset of customers to help pay for grid reliability that everyone should be paying for.

      If the power companies do not extract rents which should have gone to the customer, then they are doing it wrong. Investments in lobbying usually pay off by an order of magnitude more than any other investment.

    • 3) Provide reserve grid power for grid balancing - what the article is talking about. Of these things the first two are things that it makes sense for a consumer to invest in - they provide a benefit to the consumer for their investment. The last thing is a cost to the consumer that is really benefiting the consumer's neighbors and power company.

      That is complete nonsense.

      1) and 2) are super dumb!
      You go for 3) obviously! That is how you really make money.

      The problems with "idiots" like you is: you never ever

      • by Nkwe ( 604125 )

        Guess what a Solar + Battery installation is? It is a type 2) balancing power plant. You get payed for charging the battery and you get payed for discharging it.

        If you get paid for storing and returning power to the grid AND that payment generates a profit even after accounting for the cost of battery installation, sure it's a good thing (I even said so much in my last paragraph). My point was that if you personally pay for this (the batteries) you are subsidizing the cost of a stable power grid (and subsequently if your neighbors are not also doing this, your aggregate cost for a stable energy source is higher than your neighbors.)

        If you try to beat that by buying yourself during low prices and selling yourself during peak times: good luck! (You can only sell to the local grid you are attached, too ... so you basically will never have a chance to make a profit if you handle all yourself)

        I said purchase and store cheap p

        • My point was that if you personally pay for this (the batteries) you are subsidizing the cost of a stable power grid (and subsequently if your neighbors are not also doing this, your aggregate cost for a stable energy source is higher than your neighbors.)
          No you are not. The grid operator is. You and the grid operator go into a win - win position, your neighbours have nothing to do with that.

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Working...