New CA Trend - Residential Grid-Tied Batteries

California is again on the LEADING EDGE of Renewable Innovation. Most think of batteries as Off-Grid solutions, but CA is encouraging On-Grid batteries, and astute customers are taking advantage.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/07...a-solar-customers-to-include-battery-storage/

More than half of California solar customers to include battery storage

In October 2023, about 20% of California solar shoppers opted to include a battery energy storage system in their installation. In April 2024, that number has climbed to over 50%.

The change to battery-included systems is largely due to the transition to Net Energy Metering 3.0, a regulatory structure that decreased the amount paid to customers for sending solar production directly to the grid. Due to an hourly mismatch of peak solar production and peak electricity demand, regulators shifted compensation rates to place an emphasis on storing and dispatching solar-generated electricity when it is needed the most.

 

Hard at work promoting your Chinese investments, I see.

 

I had to check an atlas. California is not China.

 

Where is all that solar gear made?

 

What many people do not understand is that battery storage is more expensive than the equipment to generate the power.

Solar panels installed on a home has a cost of around $2.75 per Watt.

Lithium ion batteries for storing that energy has a cost of about $0.85 per Watt-hour (that's one Watt for one hour).

What that means is to store 3 hours of energy collected from those solar panels has the same cost as the solar panels themselves.

The difference gets much greater when we are talking about commercial solar generation.

 

Most batteries used in the USA are Tesla, and made in America. Solar panels manufacturers vary. Maybe the US should pass a Solar Panel act, similar to the Chips and Science act, which was successful, to try to get solar panel manufacturing more prevalent in the US. You could write your Congressman.

 

Agreed, but if the Utility allows the user to sell the electricity at a much higher rate, during peak hours, that cost could be recovered quickly. Some Utilities charge over twice as much for peak hour usage. Cost avoidance is also an issue. People with smaller systems can save all their renewable to the batteries during high sun times, while purchasing Utility power; and then sell the stored power during peak load times.

 

I was just saying if a household was trying to go 100% solar power and be completely energy independent.
That is a lot more expensive than just being able to get all your power from solar the majority of the time.

I wish everyone who supports the government forcing solar on society were themselves forced to have to install solar on their own homes, and survive off the grid. It would force them to have to calculate how much going 100% solar actually costs.

Might seem like less of a good idea to many of these progressives when they find themselves personally having to pay for it. (And dealing with any of the consequences, like if they try to go the cheap route there might be times they find they do not have enough power)

 

If you read the CA Netmetering 3.0, homeowners can stay with Netmetering 2.0, and keep their existing rate structures without batteries.

Is somebody being forced to install solar?

 

The consumers are being forced to pay for solar, which means higher prices.

But a lot of people don't want to take the trouble of looking behind the curtain to see what's going on, why prices have been getting more expensive.

 

Nuclear is the most expensive power on the planet. Residential solar, which is the kind we are talking about, actually helps to keep rates down. First, let me explain voltage loss, which results in about 20% inefficiency for the average Utility. When I produce excess solar, that power goes on the grid. My neighbor uses that excess power, with NO voltage loss. Secondly, solar is a peak load producer. The state of CA did a study where solar was shown to shift peak load from 4-6 pm to 6-8 pm. In so doing, the peak was lowered.

 

A discussion about whether nuclear or solar power is more expensive would probably be controversial and belong in a different thread.

I personally believe that a little bit of solar could be helpful and economical. But I'm just skeptical about the push to go "100% renewable" with no other back-up sources.

And if it is indeed so economical, there should be no reason for government to be subsidizing it.

Typically in the mind of greenies they have their sights set on "100% renewable". And they are even willing to spend the money to build a solar plant and the batteries to store that power, even if paying for that battery storage means they won't have enough money to build a solar plant somewhere else.
It's because they are stupid and emotional, and never bother to do actual calculations to see where the resources would be best allocated.

 

I was considering doing a whole-house battery as a back up just on traditional grid power, but then came them lithium battery fires and I was "Thanks but no thanks". Just bought a dual fuel generator instead that I can run off gas or propane.

 

Natural gas is the least expensive method of producing electricity. Obviously it relies on outside fuel input.

You really need to take a hard look at the costs of Nuclear power. Federal, State, Local, and Utility money are all involved. The Feds and the State of California just put up another 2.2 Billion to keep the Diablo Canyon Nuke plant open in California. This is the last Nuke plant in California. They have a number of decommissioned plants that still cost taxpayers money, as radioactive waste is still stored there. In Earthquake-prone California!

The best backup for renewables, if one discounts batteries, which are coming down in price, is Natural gas and hydroelectric.

The state of Iowa produces 70% of it’s electricity from wind power, using Natural Gas as a backup, with a wind-first philosophy.

 

You can use Sodium Ion, which have no fire risk. Lithium-Iron-Phosphate also will not ignite. Nickel-Cobalt-Manganese (a Lithium battery) got the bad rap. Largely undeserved, and mostly following accidents. Many more fires caused by gasoline in vehicles.

 

Also, careful with that propane. A house in this area just burned to the ground from a propane fire, and all the inhabitants were killed.

 

China produces over 70% of solar panels.

 

I won't use propane unless I am truly desperate. Not a fan of it. It just came that way being able to run off either

 

About the time I was looking at them a local house burned down from an exploding laptop battery. They reportedly had a hard time putting the fire out which resulted in the total loss of the house. Maybe in a decade when the technology is a little more perfected.

 

Why do utilities charge more at certain times of thd day? That did not happen before.

 

And you claim to understand science??? I recall learning about the Taum Sauk reservoir in Missouri in the 1980s. It was a high altitude “peaker” reservoir. Pump uphill at night, and release during peak load to supply turbines.

 

You didn’t answer the question.

 

That’s because you followed it with an untrue comment, which I pointed out.

 

Wrong. Another F grade. I pointed out the changes.

 

My statement was that utilities did not charge different rates for different times of the day. That is true. Did Missouri charge different rates?