Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).
It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Profit
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Will increase the demand for domestic battery storage systems, which are a good thing in the long run.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Will increase the demand for domestic battery storage systems, which are a good thing in the long run.
If supply keeps up, the price of batteries will drop.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Will increase the demand for domestic battery storage systems, which are a good thing in the long run.
OK, but it will reduce the demand for commercial storage systems, which are a much better thing in the long run.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Will increase the demand for domestic battery storage systems, which are a good thing in the long run.
OK, but it will reduce the demand for commercial storage systems, which are a much better thing in the long run.
What makes you say that?
Decentralised storage reduces the need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to accommodate the “EV revolution”, gives the consumer more of an understanding and control over their usage, and will smooth out the demand.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:Will increase the demand for domestic battery storage systems, which are a good thing in the long run.
OK, but it will reduce the demand for commercial storage systems, which are a much better thing in the long run.
What makes you say that?
Decentralised storage reduces the need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to accommodate the “EV revolution”, gives the consumer more of an understanding and control over their usage, and will smooth out the demand.
Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but it will reduce the demand for commercial storage systems, which are a much better thing in the long run.
What makes you say that?
Decentralised storage reduces the need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to accommodate the “EV revolution”, gives the consumer more of an understanding and control over their usage, and will smooth out the demand.
Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.
Perhaps power supply should be a non profit enterprise and peoples requirements put first (within reason of them being responsible users)
Once money comes into the providers will find ways to screw over customers and anyone else they can
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:What makes you say that?
Decentralised storage reduces the need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to accommodate the “EV revolution”, gives the consumer more of an understanding and control over their usage, and will smooth out the demand.
Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.Perhaps power supply should be a non profit enterprise and peoples requirements put first (within reason of them being responsible users)
Once money comes into the providers will find ways to screw over customers and anyone else they can
Tamb said:
Cymek said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.Perhaps power supply should be a non profit enterprise and peoples requirements put first (within reason of them being responsible users)
Once money comes into the providers will find ways to screw over customers and anyone else they can
Like power generation and supply was once State owned.
Better run perhaps
Cymek said:
Tamb said:
Cymek said:Perhaps power supply should be a non profit enterprise and peoples requirements put first (within reason of them being responsible users)
Once money comes into the providers will find ways to screw over customers and anyone else they can
Like power generation and supply was once State owned.Better run perhaps
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but it will reduce the demand for commercial storage systems, which are a much better thing in the long run.
What makes you say that?
Decentralised storage reduces the need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to accommodate the “EV revolution”, gives the consumer more of an understanding and control over their usage, and will smooth out the demand.
Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.
It benefits all users by the reduction of infrastructure costs. When everyone has electric cars and wants to charge them at night, who is going to pay for the larger transformers? With domestic battery systems, each user can supply their own power during times of peak demand. Add to that “smart” meters that allow the users to buy/sell power will allow you to sell it to or buy it from your neighbours without using the bulk of the generation infrastructure.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:What makes you say that?
Decentralised storage reduces the need to upgrade the distribution infrastructure to accommodate the “EV revolution”, gives the consumer more of an understanding and control over their usage, and will smooth out the demand.
Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.It benefits all users by the reduction of infrastructure costs. When everyone has electric cars and wants to charge them at night, who is going to pay for the larger transformers? With domestic battery systems, each user can supply their own power during times of peak demand. Add to that “smart” meters that allow the users to buy/sell power will allow you to sell it to or buy it from your neighbours without using the bulk of the generation infrastructure.
No, it increases infrastructure cost.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Because installation of storage by individuals is much more expensive, and only benefits those people who choose to do it. If the incentive is a charge on
electricity supplied in off peak periods most people will go for the cheaper option of installing an automatic timer to switch off in off peak periods.It benefits all users by the reduction of infrastructure costs. When everyone has electric cars and wants to charge them at night, who is going to pay for the larger transformers? With domestic battery systems, each user can supply their own power during times of peak demand. Add to that “smart” meters that allow the users to buy/sell power will allow you to sell it to or buy it from your neighbours without using the bulk of the generation infrastructure.
No, it increases infrastructure cost.
Please elaborate.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:It benefits all users by the reduction of infrastructure costs. When everyone has electric cars and wants to charge them at night, who is going to pay for the larger transformers? With domestic battery systems, each user can supply their own power during times of peak demand. Add to that “smart” meters that allow the users to buy/sell power will allow you to sell it to or buy it from your neighbours without using the bulk of the generation infrastructure.
No, it increases infrastructure cost.
Please elaborate.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:It benefits all users by the reduction of infrastructure costs. When everyone has electric cars and wants to charge them at night, who is going to pay for the larger transformers? With domestic battery systems, each user can supply their own power during times of peak demand. Add to that “smart” meters that allow the users to buy/sell power will allow you to sell it to or buy it from your neighbours without using the bulk of the generation infrastructure.
No, it increases infrastructure cost.
Please elaborate.
Installing x kWh of battery storage in individual homes, each with it’s own access and connection problems, and each with an individual contract, must be much more expensive than installing the same quantity of storage, using whatever is the optimum storage mechanism for any given location, with a much smaller number of contracts, each of which will be entered into after an efficient bidding process.
Tamb said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:No, it increases infrastructure cost.
Please elaborate.
Just noticed. It would have been punnier if the heading was Negative charge of electricity.
:)
Didn’t even think of that.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Reminds me of carbon credits, where a person gets paid not to maintain their property.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:No, it increases infrastructure cost.
Please elaborate.
Installing x kWh of battery storage in individual homes, each with it’s own access and connection problems, and each with an individual contract, must be much more expensive than installing the same quantity of storage, using whatever is the optimum storage mechanism for any given location, with a much smaller number of contracts, each of which will be entered into after an efficient bidding process.
So you’re talking administrative costs? Just change that contract from fixed price to variable price. Demand/price increases and you have your car already charged? Sell when it gets to 30c/kWh. Would rather charge your car? Then sell when it gets to 50c/kWh. Need to charge your car? Don’t sell.
So your local neighbourhood can look after itself without drawing much from outside.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
Reminds me of carbon credits, where a person gets paid not to maintain their property.
Carbon credits are totally different.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:Please elaborate.
Installing x kWh of battery storage in individual homes, each with it’s own access and connection problems, and each with an individual contract, must be much more expensive than installing the same quantity of storage, using whatever is the optimum storage mechanism for any given location, with a much smaller number of contracts, each of which will be entered into after an efficient bidding process.
So you’re talking administrative costs? Just change that contract from fixed price to variable price. Demand/price increases and you have your car already charged? Sell when it gets to 30c/kWh. Would rather charge your car? Then sell when it gets to 50c/kWh. Need to charge your car? Don’t sell.
So your local neighbourhood can look after itself without drawing much from outside.
No, administration costs are only a small part of it. The main saving is in installing the most efficient infrastructure to suit the needs of each community, rather than doing it on a house by house basis, and then only those who can afford the up-front costs.
It’s just like it is much more efficient to have centralised generation, rather than each house having their own generator.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Installing x kWh of battery storage in individual homes, each with it’s own access and connection problems, and each with an individual contract, must be much more expensive than installing the same quantity of storage, using whatever is the optimum storage mechanism for any given location, with a much smaller number of contracts, each of which will be entered into after an efficient bidding process.
So you’re talking administrative costs? Just change that contract from fixed price to variable price. Demand/price increases and you have your car already charged? Sell when it gets to 30c/kWh. Would rather charge your car? Then sell when it gets to 50c/kWh. Need to charge your car? Don’t sell.
So your local neighbourhood can look after itself without drawing much from outside.
No, administration costs are only a small part of it. The main saving is in installing the most efficient infrastructure to suit the needs of each community, rather than doing it on a house by house basis, and then only those who can afford the up-front costs.
It’s just like it is much more efficient to have centralised generation, rather than each house having their own generator.
What do you thing household solar is?
I have already stated the main reasons why I think household batteries is a better system overall. Sure, you lose the reactive power absorption that centralised storage gives, but there is no reason why you can’t have a smaller/cheaper “SA Tesla Battery” style system to take care of that.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:So you’re talking administrative costs? Just change that contract from fixed price to variable price. Demand/price increases and you have your car already charged? Sell when it gets to 30c/kWh. Would rather charge your car? Then sell when it gets to 50c/kWh. Need to charge your car? Don’t sell.
So your local neighbourhood can look after itself without drawing much from outside.
No, administration costs are only a small part of it. The main saving is in installing the most efficient infrastructure to suit the needs of each community, rather than doing it on a house by house basis, and then only those who can afford the up-front costs.
It’s just like it is much more efficient to have centralised generation, rather than each house having their own generator.
What do you thing household solar is?
I have already stated the main reasons why I think household batteries is a better system overall. Sure, you lose the reactive power absorption that centralised storage gives, but there is no reason why you can’t have a smaller/cheaper “SA Tesla Battery” style system to take care of that.
I am not claiming decentralised domestic storage is more efficient value for dollar wise, just that it is far more practical.
Has AEMO been talking to Mr Been?
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:So you’re talking administrative costs? Just change that contract from fixed price to variable price. Demand/price increases and you have your car already charged? Sell when it gets to 30c/kWh. Would rather charge your car? Then sell when it gets to 50c/kWh. Need to charge your car? Don’t sell.
So your local neighbourhood can look after itself without drawing much from outside.
No, administration costs are only a small part of it. The main saving is in installing the most efficient infrastructure to suit the needs of each community, rather than doing it on a house by house basis, and then only those who can afford the up-front costs.
It’s just like it is much more efficient to have centralised generation, rather than each house having their own generator.
What do you thing household solar is?
I have already stated the main reasons why I think household batteries is a better system overall. Sure, you lose the reactive power absorption that centralised storage gives, but there is no reason why you can’t have a smaller/cheaper “SA Tesla Battery” style system to take care of that.
I think that domestic rooftop solar is a non-optimal way of supplying solar energy. It’s popular with politicians because its a good way of hiding costs. It does however use land that is available at no additional cost, where as for batteries that’s a much less significant cost.
You have stated the main reasons why you think household batteries is a better system overall, and I have stated why I disagree.
Incentivises home power storage, I suppose
dv said:
Incentivises home power storage, I suppose
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad, but I am unsure what negative prices will do (apart from making people unplug their panels from the grid) to fix that.
dv said:
Incentivises home power storage, I suppose
But it more strongly incentivises the much cheaper option of switching off during low demand times.
It also disincentivises people who don’t have solar from getting it.
Dark Orange said:
dv said:
Incentivises home power storage, I suppose
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad, but I am unsure what negative prices will do (apart from making people unplug their panels from the grid) to fix that.
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad with the current infrastructure.
That needs to be fixed, but this charge would disincentivise the power companies from doing that.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
dv said:
Incentivises home power storage, I suppose
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad, but I am unsure what negative prices will do (apart from making people unplug their panels from the grid) to fix that.
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad with the current infrastructure.
That needs to be fixed, but this charge would disincentivise the power companies from doing that.
Bad – regardless of infrastructure. The only real solution would be for the power companies to build big batteries an order of magnitude larger than the SA one which all consumers will pay for, or encourage those with solar generation capabilities to install batteries.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
dv said:
Incentivises home power storage, I suppose
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad, but I am unsure what negative prices will do (apart from making people unplug their panels from the grid) to fix that.
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad with the current infrastructure.
That needs to be fixed, but this charge would disincentivise the power companies from doing that.
The specific contracts that state governments make with power and distribution companies kind of distorts the economics, tending to favour decisions that, viewed from a neutral external perspective, seem stupid.
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad, but I am unsure what negative prices will do (apart from making people unplug their panels from the grid) to fix that.
Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad with the current infrastructure.
That needs to be fixed, but this charge would disincentivise the power companies from doing that.
Bad – regardless of infrastructure. The only real solution would be for the power companies to build big batteries an order of magnitude larger than the SA one which all consumers will pay for, or encourage those with solar generation capabilities to install batteries.
All consumers paying for it is a good thing.
The charge doesn’t encourage people to install batteries; it encourages to reduce the energy supplied to the grid.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Dark Orange said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Too much unreliable power being injected into an otherwise stable system = bad with the current infrastructure.
That needs to be fixed, but this charge would disincentivise the power companies from doing that.
Bad – regardless of infrastructure. The only real solution would be for the power companies to build big batteries an order of magnitude larger than the SA one which all consumers will pay for, or encourage those with solar generation capabilities to install batteries.
All consumers paying for it is a good thing.
The charge doesn’t encourage people to install batteries; it encourages to reduce the energy supplied to the grid.
Yes, dissuading consumers from feeding into the grid at peak production times is the aim of the charges. However, those currently sitting on the fence when it comes to getting a storage system will likely get one, (instead of unplugging their panels) which will reduce the energy supplied.
reading some about the 4777 standards, seems a good read on the subject
https://www.gses.com.au/as-nzs-4777-2-2020-grid-connected-inverter-updates-what-you-need-to-know/
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of ways to generate electricity cheaper, I see that energy supply companies want to pay negative dollars for buying electricity from domestic solar (in times of low demand).It looks like a complete rip-off to me, and will do nothing to get the required energy storage infrastructure installed.
Is there any good justification for this proposal?
This is one that I’ve banged on about a few times over the years. The supply companies are really put over a barrel on this one. The current infrastructure was designed and manufactured to be a one way system. From a large coal or gas plant we begin to distribute at 275 or 132 kV and then down to 66 kV at a major switching yard and then 22 kV for suburban distribution where pole mounted or pad mount transformers are used to step down to the 240/415 that households use. Each step of the way the designer was taking into account the available faults levels, both RMS & peak, and the amount of power actually needed at each point of the grid with some estimates of household and industry usage etc etc.
So all this lovely design has been carried out and the lines and transformers and sub-stations all built and all of a sudden they are thrown a curve ball. That lovely one way design concept will no longer be what we’re going to be operating on. There’s a chance that every house is going to be trying to throw 5 kW of power back into the grid. All of a sudden all of your well thought out fault calculations are thrown out the window. The issue being that all the infrastructure that you purchased and installed was done so based on those calculations, so some of the components within the system may no longer be fit for purpose. Yes it can all be upgraded but that’s not something that can be done instantaneously. Lots and lots of work involved and therefore a transition period needs to be in place. Of course if everybody did have batteries then that is also a gamechanger as the batteries can take up the excess power produced by the solar array and store all that lovely energy for use later on. There are other really neat things that can be done with a battery/inverter setup that can make the grid far more robust and I suspect standards and legislation will eventually catch up and see improvements made in things like FCAS (Frequency Control Ancillary Services ) implemented in these systems as standard.
I don’t think the supply companies should be charging for putting into the grid but I certainly do think they should be able to have control of the inverters and be able to turn them off during periods when they can become a hazard to the grid.