RE: Utility Fees (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 9:56:06 PM)


quote:

Tesla's idea, while curious does have its drawbacks. I'm not going to explain them here. Its a technical discussion above most minds here.


Indulge me. I taught physics at UNLV for a few years. I will try to keep up.





RottenJohnny -> RE: Utility Fees (8/19/2015 10:42:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

Tesla's idea, while curious does have its drawbacks. I'm not going to explain them here. Its a technical discussion above most minds here.

Indulge me. I taught physics at UNLV for a few years. I will try to keep up.

I'm really looking forward to this reply...provided you actually get one.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/20/2015 6:52:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If you make 100kW during the day, and use 1W from the grid at night, you're still using the grid. You're getting paid for your net generation portion, aren't you?



The issue is that the power company wants to charge domestic producers for using the grid to sell them power. The rub is that the rate payer/domestic producer has already paid their access fee to the grid, why must they pay for it a second time when they input to the grid?



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/20/2015 3:04:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you make 100kW during the day, and use 1W from the grid at night, you're still using the grid. You're getting paid for your net generation portion, aren't you?

The 1w was mine. You are suggesting that I pay them for not selling them my one watt?
The power company is a government monopoly that is guaranteed a fixed profit in exchange for being the only game in town. The cost of the grid has been figured and paid by the rate payers who utilize that public utility. As a vendor to the system, grid maintenance is not my responsibility.


In case you missed it, I did say the 1W was "from the grid." Thus, you, too, are utilizing the grid. And, yes, you are using the grid, as the supplier. Best of luck in court with that argument.

quote:

quote:

Go off-grid completely if you don't want to participate in grid maintenance.

That is the point. The power companies are seeking a new revenue stream. To get that stream they have to convince the PUC that it is justified. Since the grid is already funded how does one do that in the face of vocal opposition. For me the few dollars a year that they would pay me is not going to make any difference in my lifestyle. If it comes to that then I will just unplug them.


The grid isn't funded in perpetuity. That's a silly notion. The grid needs continual upkeep, thus, it needs continual funding.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/20/2015 3:05:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you make 100kW during the day, and use 1W from the grid at night, you're still using the grid. You're getting paid for your net generation portion, aren't you?

The issue is that the power company wants to charge domestic producers for using the grid to sell them power. The rub is that the rate payer/domestic producer has already paid their access fee to the grid, why must they pay for it a second time when they input to the grid?


Access to the grid, and using the grid aren't the same thing.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/20/2015 8:03:00 PM)

quote:


Access to the grid, and using the grid aren't the same thing.


As a rate payer I pay the power generator for the electricity and the use of the grid to get it to my place. Since I have paid for the use of the grid why must I pay to use that same grid to send my electricity back? That would be double charging.



MrRodgers -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 12:16:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:


Access to the grid, and using the grid aren't the same thing.


As a rate payer I pay the power generator for the electricity and the use of the grid to get it to my place. Since I have paid for the use of the grid why must I pay to use that same grid to send my electricity back? That would be double charging.

Yes, and we are all 'double' charged. If I am not mistaken, if you look at your bill you will see a 'basic service fee' which is the fee charged every month for being hooked up to the grid.

I pay NVEnergy and Southwest Gas each a basic service fee (charge) and it is the same every month. In my case, it just so happens to be $9/mo for each.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 8:03:22 AM)

quote:


In case you missed it, I did say the 1W was "from the grid." Thus, you, too, are utilizing the grid. And, yes, you are using the grid, as the supplier. Best of luck in court with that argument.


The 1 watt was my one watt stored on the grid. I pay for the use of the grid. The wires do not care which way the electrons or the holes go. Since I pay for the grid I think the PUC will agree with the rate payer and not the power co.

quote:


The grid isn't funded in perpetuity. That's a silly notion. The grid needs continual upkeep, thus, it needs continual funding.


The grid is funded in perpetuity by the monthly access charge which rate payers pay. These charges are controlled by the PUC.




Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 8:05:16 AM)

quote:


Access to the grid, and using the grid aren't the same thing.


How so? I pay for access by the month and I use it.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 8:11:07 AM)

Right now I just pay the electric as I use propane instead of ng. But...
If I make it to three digits I am moving to Vegas. I will be done with this "John
Shuttleworth" experiment. It has been fun but I am up for some "rockin'chair" and a "tall one".



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 1:37:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:


In case you missed it, I did say the 1W was "from the grid." Thus, you, too, are utilizing the grid. And, yes, you are using the grid, as the supplier. Best of luck in court with that argument.

The 1 watt was my one watt stored on the grid. I pay for the use of the grid. The wires do not care which way the electrons or the holes go. Since I pay for the grid I think the PUC will agree with the rate payer and not the power co.
quote:


The grid isn't funded in perpetuity. That's a silly notion. The grid needs continual upkeep, thus, it needs continual funding.

The grid is funded in perpetuity by the monthly access charge which rate payers pay. These charges are controlled by the PUC.


You are using the grid. You get to pay for it. If you don't like it, go off-grid completely.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 1:39:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

Access to the grid, and using the grid aren't the same thing.

How so? I pay for access by the month and I use it.


If you don't draw anything from the grid, how are you using it?

You are paying to have it there as a backup (aka "access"), in that case.



MercTech -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 3:20:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses. Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.

Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.


Easy answer there...

A> Whereas a combination of solar panels and wind turbines might suffice for domestic loads with severe limits on how many appliances you would be able to use; solar burns more energy to make than they output over their average lifetime. Good for a low demand power source off the grid. Streetlights are about right.

B> Shifting from the Westinghouse model (which is the interstate power grid) back to the Edison model (domestic or community generation of power) would require a gargantuan outlay to change the infrastructure. As that would be a community or domestic change in infrastructure; the cost of doing so would be on the individual or community to fund.

C> While solar combined with wind can power most domestic loads; that is less than 20% of the use of electrical power. Industry needs a much greater power density than domestic loads.

If our infrastructure were blasted out of existence today; it would be more efficient to have domestic power generation by community and only have large generating stations for industrial locations.
We are building on the systems put in place back in the 1930s when engineering solutions to domestic generation rather tan grid transmission was the most efficient way to do things at the time. A lot needs re-engineering and brought up to state of the art. But, no one is going to scrap trillions in infrastructure just because we can.

People can, and do, take themselves off the grid. If you have well above average liquid capital; it isn't hard to do so. But, no one is going to gift you with the money for hardware to do so.



RottenJohnny -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 4:43:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
People can, and do, take themselves off the grid. If you have well above average liquid capital; it isn't hard to do so. But, no one is going to gift you with the money for hardware to do so.

Several years ago I did some research into off-grid power supply systems. Where you live can make a big difference in the kind of equipment you need to purchase, which also makes the price vary quite a bit. And that plays into your payback rate. If you're only using $100 a month in electricity from the grid but a complete off-grid system costs you $15,000 then it's going to be over 12 years before you break even. That also doesn't include any price increases from the power company or the cost of maintaining your own equipment but I think those could probably cancel each other out anyway.

Living in rural Michigan, I had to consider a mixed system. It's neither sunny nor windy consistently enough to be able to rely on just one type of generation. And even then, there are plenty of days when it's neither sunny nor windy. I put together a system that included pretty much everything...solar, wind, battery reserve, and a small backup generator for emergencies. All together the system could make 5 to 7kw consistently regardless of conditions. That's good enough for most houses without having to worry about what happens when your furnace, water heater, and refrigerator are all running at the same time.

All in, the system cost about $25,000 (iirc). My average monthly consumption from the grid is only about $125 so I was looking at a payback period of over 16 years without including the costs of maintenance or the cost of any propane used by the generator.

Of course prices have probably changed some since then but in my opinion, if anyone really wants to save money and feel secure that they'll always have electricity, I would recommend they do everything possible to reduce consumption and just buy a small backup generator for those times when the grid is down. It's going to be a long time before the power companies become irrelevant, if ever.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 9:54:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If you don't draw anything from the grid, how are you using it?


I do not understand your question. I have said that I have a solar system that is connected to the grid. During the day it puts power into the grid. When I use power it comes from the grid. I pay an access fee plus a fee for the electricity I use. They subtract that from what they owe me for the electricity I put into the grid. Now they want to add an additional fee for me sending electricity to the grid. I have stated clearly that I use the grid. I have also stated clearly that they currently charge me for that use. The rub is that they want to put an additional charge because the electricity goes both ways. As you say if I do not like it I can unhook and with Tesla's batteries now available for home use that is an easy and inexpensive thing to do. The downside is that if the power company prevails in it's request for this fee many will unhook and then the power company will loose it's low cost source of electricity and have to make capital investments in new power plants.






MrRodgers -> RE: Utility Fees (8/21/2015 11:53:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Here as well as other places in the country we have to pay fees for our solar panels that we use on our houses. Instead of this why don't we just encourage people to use solar panels and get rid of power companies. Then Obama would be happy, our air would be cleaner, and there would be a building boom installing these.

Of course, the number of batteries and chargers and regulators required would go up, making that business grow. I am sure the Chinese would appreciate all the business. They could even send their people over to install them for us.


Easy answer there...


B> Shifting from the Westinghouse model (which is the interstate power grid) back to the Edison model (domestic or community generation of power) would require a gargantuan outlay to change the infrastructure. As that would be a community or domestic change in infrastructure; the cost of doing so would be on the individual or community to fund.


If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that to switch from the Westinghouse model (AC) for wide dist. and heavy demand market to the Edison (GE) model (DC) for local dist. and lower demand market, it would be gargantuan undertaking and you are quite correct but wholly unnecessary and inefficient.

What should have been done and still can be done but now requires an almost equally Herculean task because of design necessities, would be to have AC to the house and DC inside the house. (structure) Thus lowering the costs for both and increasing efficiency of both. But.....




DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/22/2015 5:16:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you don't draw anything from the grid, how are you using it?

I do not understand your question. I have said that I have a solar system that is connected to the grid. During the day it puts power into the grid. When I use power it comes from the grid. I pay an access fee plus a fee for the electricity I use. They subtract that from what they owe me for the electricity I put into the grid. Now they want to add an additional fee for me sending electricity to the grid. I have stated clearly that I use the grid. I have also stated clearly that they currently charge me for that use. The rub is that they want to put an additional charge because the electricity goes both ways. As you say if I do not like it I can unhook and with Tesla's batteries now available for home use that is an easy and inexpensive thing to do. The downside is that if the power company prevails in it's request for this fee many will unhook and then the power company will loose it's low cost source of electricity and have to make capital investments in new power plants.


I'm surprised you don't understand clearly stated questions.

If you sell your excess power to the grid, you are using the grid. You are not "buying your own power back" if you draw power from the grid. You no longer own that power (you sold it to the power company, did you not?). You are buying the power from the grid.

Paying for access to the grid allows you to be connected, to draw power when you need it (and to sell it).

Does your power company pay you for both generation and distribution? In my area (which may or may not operate under the same rules as yours), if you sell your excess to the grid, you are paid only for the generation, but not the distribution portion. So, if I sell 8kW to the grid during the day, and use 8kW from the grid at night, it's not a net even exchange. There would still be charges for the distribution of that 8kW you used. The generation portion would net out, but not the distribution portion.

You don't want to pay for grid maintenance. We all get it. So, wtf does it matter to you if the rest of the grid loses out on the "cheap" source of power you're selling?



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/23/2015 2:48:57 PM)

quote:


If you sell your excess power to the grid, you are using the grid. You are not "buying your own power back" if you draw power from the grid. You no longer own that power (you sold it to the power company, did you not?). You are buying the power from the grid.


Didn't I just say this?

" I have said that I have a solar system that is connected to the grid. During the day it puts power into the grid. When I use power it comes from the grid. I pay an access fee plus a fee for the electricity I use. They subtract that from what they owe me for the electricity I put into the grid."

You seem to want to find something to argue about that is not part of the issue. If I put money in the bank I am not selling the bank my money I am depositing it. When I draw the money out I probably wont get my original dollars bills back but is my money.
The only issue here is the power company trying to double charge me. They currently charge me for access/use. They are seeking approval from the PUC to charge an additional fee for sending power from my system. Why you keep inserting these none issues is puzzling.

quote:

You don't want to pay for grid maintenance. We all get it.


I do not know about "we all" but clearly you do not understand what I have said several times.
Once more:
I am paying for access/use of the grid. I have no problem doing that. I am opposed to paying for that access/use double, once inbound and once outbound.



quote:

So, wtf does it matter to you if the rest of the grid loses out on the "cheap" source of power you're selling?


I mentioned that in the section you posted and commented on.

"The downside is that if the power company prevails in it's request for this fee many will unhook and then the power company will loose it's low cost source of electricity and have to make capital investments in new power plants."

This would of course have the effect of raising rates and the increased pollution that is associated with any power plant. Many call this concept a social conscience.



Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/23/2015 2:52:44 PM)

quote:

Does your power company pay you for both generation and distribution? In my area (which may or may not operate under the same rules as yours), if you sell your excess to the grid, you are paid only for the generation, but not the distribution portion. So, if I sell 8kW to the grid during the day, and use 8kW from the grid at night, it's not a net even exchange. There would still be charges for the distribution of that 8kW you used. The generation portion would net out, but not the distribution portion.


They only pay (wholesale) for the power that they get from me while they charge me (retail) for what I get from them.
I cannot imagine why a power company would share their distribution revenues with a supplier.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/23/2015 6:19:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
quote:

If you sell your excess power to the grid, you are using the grid. You are not "buying your own power back" if you draw power from the grid. You no longer own that power (you sold it to the power company, did you not?). You are buying the power from the grid.

Didn't I just say this?
" I have said that I have a solar system that is connected to the grid. During the day it puts power into the grid. When I use power it comes from the grid. I pay an access fee plus a fee for the electricity I use. They subtract that from what they owe me for the electricity I put into the grid."
You seem to want to find something to argue about that is not part of the issue. If I put money in the bank I am not selling the bank my money I am depositing it. When I draw the money out I probably wont get my original dollars bills back but is my money.
The only issue here is the power company trying to double charge me. They currently charge me for access/use. They are seeking approval from the PUC to charge an additional fee for sending power from my system. Why you keep inserting these none issues is puzzling.


You pay an access fee. It is not the same as a user fee. Ask them and post it here.

quote:

quote:

You don't want to pay for grid maintenance. We all get it.

I do not know about "we all" but clearly you do not understand what I have said several times.
Once more:
I am paying for access/use of the grid. I have no problem doing that. I am opposed to paying for that access/use double, once inbound and once outbound.


Access and use are not the same.

Your power company pays you for generation of power. You have not paid to use the grid to offload that power. Access and use are not the same. You are not double charged.

quote:

quote:

So, wtf does it matter to you if the rest of the grid loses out on the "cheap" source of power you're selling?

I mentioned that in the section you posted and commented on.
"The downside is that if the power company prevails in it's request for this fee many will unhook and then the power company will loose it's low cost source of electricity and have to make capital investments in new power plants."
This would of course have the effect of raising rates and the increased pollution that is associated with any power plant. Many call this concept a social conscience.


Does your power company actually generate less power because of the residential generation of power? If not, then the whole "increased pollution" thing is moot. And, you really think that you cutting off from the grid is going to raise rates? Seriously?

LMAO!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02