quote:


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

quote:


Access and use are not the same.

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

quote:

Does your power company actually generate less power because of the residential generation of power?

quote:

If not,

quote:

then the whole "increased pollution" thing is moot.

quote:

And, you really think that you cutting off from the grid is going to raise rates? Seriously?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Does your power company actually generate less power because of the residential generation of power?

It would stand to reason if electricity is put into the grid from sources not the power plant the power plant would produce less power.

quote:

quote:

If not,

Just how would that be possible?

quote:

quote:

then the whole "increased pollution" thing is moot.

Why do you feel that two power plants would generate less pollution than one?

quote:

quote:

And, you really think that you cutting off from the grid is going to raise rates? Seriously?

If by "you" we are speaking of a few megawatts from me then probably not. If we are discussing the whole output of hundreds of thousands of homeowners then yes there would be an impact.

quote:

Unlike natural gas and nuclear plants, Eastwood and other hydro facilities can ramp up in as little as six minutes.

"Hydro is a very important resource," said Andrew McMillan, Big Creek's manager of dispatch operations. "We're a life boat."

But hydro is vulnerable to the vagaries of mother nature.

"The water level," McMillan said of Big Creek's lakes, "is down 33.7 feet."

That adds another wrinkle to the complexity of a state electricity system that already is facing unprecedented change. State regulators were warned in late July that managing wind and solar power will soon get much more complicated.

The warning came from Steve Berberich, chief executive of the California Independent System Operator Corp., which is responsible for making sure that supply and demand are always perfectly balanced on the transmission system serving about 80% of the state.

At times, solar and wind create excess generation that Berberich's office must figure out how to manage. Just as insufficient electricity causes problems — power reductions and blackouts — too many electrons can damage the power grid and anything connected to it.

"Energy storage, with its unique ability to both consume excess renewable energy, and to quickly inject clean energy back onto the grid to meet ramping and peak demand needs, has the potential to be a cornerstone of the new electric network," Berberich wrote to the California Public Utilities Commission.

But capturing, and later releasing, extra electricity in large amounts at an affordable price requires technology that is still being developed. The fact that pump storage already exists makes it an attractive option when water is plentiful, leading Berberich to alert the utility regulators that his operation will be studying the benefits of deploying pump storage on a large scale.

When too much electricity is being produced, "we just can't turn resources on and off to fix the oversupply," said Steven Greenlee, a spokesman for the California Independent System Operator, which doesn't own the power sources.

The first tool currently available is to find electricity generators to submit bids to reduce their output, Greenlee said. If that doesn't work, then there's an effort to export the electricity elsewhere — often at negative prices, which means power generators pay someone to take their electricity.


In an emergency, the system operator has authority to order any power source to cease production and disconnect from the grid.

"But this is a last resort and not something we want to do," Greenlee said.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Does your power company actually generate less power because of the residential generation of power?


It would stand to reason if electricity is put into the grid from sources not the power plant the power plant would produce less power.



"It would stand to reason" = "I don't know, but I'm going to go ahead and figure it does, so I can keep arguing."

quote:

If the power plants don't reduce their production, they aren't reducing the amount of pollution, thus, there isn't any increased or decreased pollution. Please try to keep up. You don't even need that "big word" book to understand that, do you?

quote:


If you're forcing power companies to export their electricity at negative prices, your "cheap energy" sold to the grid sure as fuck ain't cheap, is it?

quote:

Because of you (and the rest of the people producing power at home), grid operators have to work harder to do their job,

quote:

and it could actually make power producers less efficient, and result in higher energy costs.

quote:

But, you don't want to pay extra for the extra work you're creating.

quote:

Imagine that. From that article, if you really cared about the power companies, the grid, and potentially rising cost of power for customers, you'd go off-grid completely.

quote:

Actually, I read a very interesting article today. Power plant output isn't the easiest thing, necessarily, to ramp up or ramp down. It takes quite a bit of work to keep a grid stable, especially with all the residential inputs (see how your selling power to the grid makes it more work for grid operators?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

If you're forcing power companies to export their electricity at negative prices, your "cheap energy" sold to the grid sure as fuck ain't cheap, is it?

I am not forcing anyone to buy my electricity. The power company approached me.

quote:

Because of you (and the rest of the people producing power at home), grid operators have to work harder to do their job,

That is not what your cited article said.

quote:

quote:

and it could actually make power producers less efficient, and result in higher energy costs.

The cited article did not say that. but it did say this:
'The entire energy industry is racing to unlock the mysteries of affordable energy storage. Billionaire Elon Musk is investing heavily in developing better batteries. Others are looking at unusual approaches, including using solar energy to produce hydrogen gas, which can be saved for when its needed. Some hope to rely on the kind of hydro pump storage provided by Eastwood.'

quote:

quote:

But, you don't want to pay extra for the extra work you're creating.

Why should I? They are getting electricity from me that they do not have to manufacture themselves. That would be their cost of doing business.

quote:

quote:

Imagine that. From that article, if you really cared about the power companies, the grid, and potentially rising cost of power for customers, you'd go off-grid completely.

From the article the issue is clearly the power companies lack of storage capacity.

quote:

Which part about it getting more complicated means easier, or just as easy?

quote:


p.s. The reason they need more storage capacity is because of you.

quote:

Ramping up and down isn't as efficient as maintaining consistent production.

quote:

If you're selling excess power at a loss, it will make the cost of power more expensive to your customers.

quote:

If you're producing less power because you've ramped down to compensate for the inputs of residential solar/wind generation, you're still paying the same number of people, so your costs/unit are higher. What happens to rates when costs of production rise?

quote:


The ones doing the extra work are the ones that have to maintain grid stability.

quote:

Their job isn't easier when their production decreases since they are still having to maintain the stability of the grid. The difficulty is from residential producers whose inputs to the system aren't consistent and/or reliable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

p.s. The reason they need more storage capacity is because of you.

The article you linked pointed out that this project was completed before solar power was even an issue. The purpose of the storage was to keep the output of the power plant constant, not to deal with domestic producers who did not exist at the time this project was conceived and built. The problem with the water storage is the lack of water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Ramping up and down isn't as efficient as maintaining consistent production.

That is why the power companies are buying and building storage.

quote:

If you're selling excess power at a loss, it will make the cost of power more expensive to your customers.

Perhaps you might first calculate what fraction of a single digit percentage the "short sale" was of the total amount produced. We need to also consider that the power company is a govt. monopoly and an as such their charges are controlled.

quote:

If you're producing less power because you've ramped down to compensate for the inputs of residential solar/wind generation, you're still paying the same number of people, so your costs/unit are higher. What happens to rates when costs of production rise?

The cost of production do not rise because the power company does not have to produce the power that the domestic producers put into the grid. The reason that the power company in your cite is having issues is the lack of water for storage. Thus their purchase of the largest battery in N. America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

The ones doing the extra work are the ones that have to maintain grid stability.

Are they doing extra work or different work?

quote:

Their job isn't easier when their production decreases since they are still having to maintain the stability of the grid. The difficulty is from residential producers whose inputs to the system aren't consistent and/or reliable.

That is not what the article said. It said the issue was the lack of storage. If one has adequate storage there is no ramping up and down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, does Congress have the authority to do so? I'm not sure about that part.

Who do you think created all the laws those energy companies have to follow in the first place?
Go look it up if you don't believe me....
Start with the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, in the US Constitution and go forward 220+ years of legal text.

I'm not convinced, Joether. I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this, except that you'll probably agree we won't come to an agreement. lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.

As long as you are completely separate from the grid, you shouldn't bear responsibility of maintaining the grid.

From the stand point of the company, not the government. The two entities are separate in this manner of law. The government, to which you gain benefits from (directly and otherwise), buys energy from those companies. Therefore, your taxes go to help pay for the government's usage of that energy from the company. You might be off the grid, but your STILL be protected by the police, fire, hospitals, and such. Your kids go to the schools, parks, and playgrounds. You drive on the roads under those street lamps. All of these using energy provide by the local power company.
I'll give you credit, were credit is due. You tried to assume that if you were off the grid, you wouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Nice try! Didn't work, but nice try all the same.....

You're such an idiot. If a person is off the grid, he should not have to pay anything to the utility companies. That doesn't include taxes. How fucking stupid can you get? Wait. Don't answer that question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
This is the bullshit you always do, Joether. This discussion is about fees customers pay to a utility company. Those that use less because they generate their own power are assessed a fee (by the utility) for their share of the cost of maintaining the grid. This discussion is not about taxes. How you make the leap that my belief that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay the utility a fee for grid maintenance also means that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay taxes to government is beyond me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I guess I just can't stop enough neural activity to be that idiotic.

quote:

However, the more residential producers putting their power back onto the grid makes it more difficult for grid operators to maintain stability of the grid.

quote:

The entire point of the article was that their current storage option was no longer viable because of the drought. Considering there is only storage or ramping down production, and storage isn't a viable option at the moment, what's left?

Come on. I know you can get the correct answer!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, does Congress have the authority to do so? I'm not sure about that part.

Who do you think created all the laws those energy companies have to follow in the first place?
Go look it up if you don't believe me....
Start with the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, in the US Constitution and go forward 220+ years of legal text.

I'm not convinced, Joether. I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this, except that you'll probably agree we won't come to an agreement. lol

The ONLY logical way you could not be in agreement to what I stated, the following has to be true:
1 ) You do not believe the US Constitution exists
2 ) That Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, within the US Constitution does not exists
3 ) Laws at all levels of government have not be created for over 220+ years of the nation's existence
Basically you would have to be suffering from a mental illness or be a complete idiot. Your not an idiot, nor do I think your suffering from a mental illness (I would have to observe you in real time to determine that for sure).

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Tesla accomplishes what Congress can not: skip the energy companies and their bullshit lobbying all together! The company creates a solar company that charges their li-ion batteries. When your battery is expired you go to Tesla, pay an exchange fee, giving your used battery to them for a new one. Its much like getting a gas tank for the grill from the local convenience store.

As long as you are completely separate from the grid, you shouldn't bear responsibility of maintaining the grid.

From the stand point of the company, not the government. The two entities are separate in this manner of law. The government, to which you gain benefits from (directly and otherwise), buys energy from those companies. Therefore, your taxes go to help pay for the government's usage of that energy from the company. You might be off the grid, but your STILL be protected by the police, fire, hospitals, and such. Your kids go to the schools, parks, and playgrounds. You drive on the roads under those street lamps. All of these using energy provide by the local power company.
I'll give you credit, were credit is due. You tried to assume that if you were off the grid, you wouldn't have to pay taxes either.
Nice try! Didn't work, but nice try all the same.....

You're such an idiot. If a person is off the grid, he should not have to pay anything to the utility companies. That doesn't include taxes. How fucking stupid can you get? Wait. Don't answer that question.

I'm going to state it....SLOWER....so you can keep up with the discussion. You have to pay...TAXES....to the government, whom is using power from the electric companies. I agreed with your idea in the very first line:
"From the stand point of the company, not the government."
If you had been following the logic, you would have clearly understood this concept. In fact the very next sentence I wrote:
"[color=#0000FFIf a person is off the grid, he should not have to pay anything to the utility companies."
How do you possible arrive at your train of thought given these two sentences? Either you didn't notice them, or in your fury to attack me, you let the back half of your brain handle stuff the front half usually takes care of. The back half handles emotion while the front handles reasoning, thoughts, etc (in care you were wondering).

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
This is the bullshit you always do, Joether. This discussion is about fees customers pay to a utility company. Those that use less because they generate their own power are assessed a fee (by the utility) for their share of the cost of maintaining the grid. This discussion is not about taxes. How you make the leap that my belief that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay the utility a fee for grid maintenance also means that someone that isn't connected to the grid shouldn't have to pay taxes to government is beyond me.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, government doesn't use power to keep the lights on in their buildings. It must....magically.....remain lit by a 'Continuous Light' spells from the 'Dungeons & Dragons' 5th edition, right?
How often have conservatives and libertarians argued that 'fees' are really 'taxes'? Go ahead, and try to bullshit to me, that you and others have not tried this thought process? Because if 'fees' are the same as 'taxes', THEREFOR, 'Utility Fees' are the same as 'Utility Taxes'. The reason those companies charge their fees, is because they are allowed to do so. The government allows it. If you do not like it; then take it up with your local Representative to your state. Promote your ideas to other citizens. Motivate them to help you in this task. That's how the system is suppose to work!
If your off the grid, and can prove such in a court of law; then your not paying fees to the company. In fact, if you can prove the date to which you left the grid; the court could force the company to pay back to you the amount charged. Why are you arguing this to me?
However the moment you have to use grid power (for whatever reason), places you back under any/all charging fees. Even if it was just for a minute, you could be charged a $300 bill (companies...LOVE...to rake on charges....). The way to keep such absurd things from happening to the common citizen is through regulation to the power companies. Regulations, I might add, that you are against (i.e. limited government). So you want things both ways. To not be charged, and no laws on the books. Sorry, ain't going to happen that way. Not because I'm for/against the idea. That every time its been tried, the companies do the same shit that motivated past citizens to create the regulations in the first place.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I guess I just can't stop enough neural activity to be that idiotic.

OR...
More likely that you just misunderstood everything I stated. Believing it to be 'A' when it was 'B' concepts being discussed. Now, either you did this on purpose, in which case your intellectually dishonest. Or you misunderstood. In which case you should have taken a second look and considered circumstances closer. I'm willing to say the second part is more likely the case than the first. Agree?