RE: Utility Fees

RE: Utility Fees (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/28/2015 7:48:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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. According to the article it is the lack of water not the residential producers. Which is why Edison has invested in the Tesla batteries. To get an idea of the scope of the battery thing consider that the water storage facility represents 5% of that grids power. The battery storage demonstration project amounts to 4% of big canyon. That is a pretty serious demonstration. No, using storage is a way to deal with the intermittent excess power being dumped into the grid. Yes, the drought is causing that system to not be available. The more people generate their own power and dump the excess onto the grid, the more difficult it's going to be to maintain stability of the grid.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/28/2015 7:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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! The answer is obvious. Sell the excess at a loss. Wouldn't you agree it is better sell a few mega watts at a loss than to disconnect from 5% of the grid. What does that do to the unit cost of production?

Real0ne -> RE: Utility Fees (8/28/2015 8:45:33 PM)
[img]http://i.investopedia.com/inv/articles/site/E-SupplyDemand1.gif[/img]

Real0ne -> RE: Utility Fees (8/28/2015 10:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, using storage is a way to deal with the intermittent excess power being dumped into the grid. Yes, the drought is causing that system to not be available. The more people generate their own power and dump the excess onto the grid, the more difficult it's going to be to maintain stability of the grid. well the guy who invented the grid had a better way (synchronous wireless) but wall street destroyed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lvqI24L1VE

epiphiny43 -> RE: Utility Fees (8/29/2015 6:15:05 PM)
Tesla's radiative wireless energy distribution foundered on the reality that any broadcast energy is subject to the inverse square law, even if confined mostly to a single plane, requiring huge numbers of power stations to have one close enough to everyone on the 'grid'. Many stations are powered locally, missing economies of scale for basic generation by old tech or by wires, suffering the same losses as Westinghouse's AC systems or the greater ones of Edison's DC systems. DC systems for small grids (Buildings or even complexes) are returning, with micro generation locally. Wireless recharging is already on the market, room size is coming along, building size may be a limit. Humans living in the current bath of wired energy supply radiative energy seem affected, increasing this has obvious areas for research and caution! All the new technologies are very disruptive to conventional power grid economics and efficiency. Too Bad! The losses of large scale and area AC grids aren't sustainable as energy use grows. Completely independent of the obvious ecological implications of massive planetary pollution from carbon combustion. Unconventional gas extraction (Fracking combined with other technology) has new dangers the industry wants to deny and stop research or regulation on. Local pollution of current Fracking is only starting to be characterized, to the horror of local populations. The common demand of frackers that they only are required to disclose the ingredients of what they inject into aquifers and in spill containment ponds, after they leave a site is astounding. Battery or capacitor energy storage advances and other less mature and obvious technologies, will soon solve most of the problems of intermittent power characteristics of wind, and most promising, solar. NASA, Boeing and Airbus are currently doing early studies on battery powered long distance airliners, hopefully solving the massive upper atmosphere pollution issues of air travel. Conventional thin film silicon crystal solar power continues it's advance, now competitive to oil or gas electrical generation even in urban areas and cheapest available in many remote locations. Several disruptive silicon solar technologies look to be better, a synthetic photosynthesis method (Artificial Leaf) shows very promising early results. Oil (All carbon based energy) and most hydro power have limited lifetimes now, wise investors are looking to future market share and growth, only the Wall Street/HSB flippers looking at quarterly gains and other short term accounting are still boosting old tech energy.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/30/2015 12:58:56 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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. According to the article it is the lack of water not the residential producers. Which is why Edison has invested in the Tesla batteries. To get an idea of the scope of the battery thing consider that the water storage facility represents 5% of that grids power. The battery storage demonstration project amounts to 4% of big canyon. That is a pretty serious demonstration. quote: No, using storage is a way to deal with the intermittent excess power being dumped into the grid. According to the article that you linked us to it is the lack of water and not the domestic producers that are causing the "Big Canyon" project not to operate as designed. quote: Yes, the drought is causing that system to not be available. That is what the article said. quote: The more people generate their own power and dump the excess onto the grid, the more difficult it's going to be to maintain stability of the grid. Tell us what you want them to do. Do you want the domestic producers to stop putting their electricity into the system or do you want the power companies to build more storage?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (8/31/2015 2:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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. According to the article it is the lack of water not the residential producers. Which is why Edison has invested in the Tesla batteries. To get an idea of the scope of the battery thing consider that the water storage facility represents 5% of that grids power. The battery storage demonstration project amounts to 4% of big canyon. That is a pretty serious demonstration. quote: No, using storage is a way to deal with the intermittent excess power being dumped into the grid. According to the article that you linked us to it is the lack of water and not the domestic producers that are causing the "Big Canyon" project not to operate as designed. quote: Yes, the drought is causing that system to not be available. That is what the article said. quote: The more people generate their own power and dump the excess onto the grid, the more difficult it's going to be to maintain stability of the grid. Tell us what you want them to do. Do you want the domestic producers to stop putting their electricity into the system or do you want the power companies to build more storage? Not my circus. Not my monkeys. Everyone gets to decide for themselves. But, if your generation and power dumping to the grid is going to make it more difficult to maintain grid stability, then, you should be paying some fee to help offset the cost of the increased work. The article was about the hydro station. Of course it's going to point out that the drought is impacting it. But, that doesn't mean that's the only reason grid stability is going to be difficult. You can move the goal posts again if you'd like. You're just being petty over there, and argumentative here. Not worth my time.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (8/31/2015 9:45:55 PM)
quote: Not my circus. Not my monkeys. Everyone gets to decide for themselves. But, if your generation and power dumping to the grid is going to make it more difficult to maintain grid stability, then, you should be paying some fee to help offset the cost of the increased work. The article you cited was quite clear that the issue is lack of water and nothing else. The article I posted re: Tesla batteries speaks directly to the water shortage and the need for a non water option for maintaining grid stability. I did not cause the problem the shortage of water caused the problem. quote: The article was about the hydro station. Of course it's going to point out that the drought is impacting it. But, that doesn't mean that's the only reason grid stability is going to be difficult. That was the complete thrust of the article. That without the water the ability to regulate the grid is compromised. quote: You can move the goal posts again if you'd like. Which goal post have I moved and where have I put them. The discussion is and has been about the utility company seeking to add a charge to my bill for the use of their line which I already pay for. The article you posted says quite clearly that this method of maintaining grid stability is compromised not because of domestic producers input but because of lack of water. The system worked just fine when there was plenty of water. Their failure to plan does not constitute a bill for me. quote: You're just being petty over there, and argumentative here. Being petty as in requiring the proper reading of the punctuation of a sentence? Being argumentative as in showing validation? quote: Not worth my time. That has not been my experience so far.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (9/1/2015 5:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Not my circus. Not my monkeys. Everyone gets to decide for themselves. But, if your generation and power dumping to the grid is going to make it more difficult to maintain grid stability, then, you should be paying some fee to help offset the cost of the increased work. The article you cited was quite clear that the issue is lack of water and nothing else. The article I posted re: Tesla batteries speaks directly to the water shortage and the need for a non water option for maintaining grid stability. I did not cause the problem the shortage of water caused the problem. quote: The article was about the hydro station. Of course it's going to point out that the drought is impacting it. But, that doesn't mean that's the only reason grid stability is going to be difficult. That was the complete thrust of the article. That without the water the ability to regulate the grid is compromised. The article was about the drought's impact on this hydro system. Why would it include a discussion about everything else? Obviously, there is a need for solutions, such as hydro power, batteries, etc., because of the increasing use of residential renewable sources, and excess generation from residential renewable sources. The article seemed to accept (and I do, too (and think it's good)) that residential renewable power generation is going to continue to increase. Whether it's this hydro system, or some battery system, or something else, the more residential inputs you add to the grid, the more difficult it's going to be to maintain stability of said grid. You might not be THE cause, by yourself, but you are a contributing factor. quote: quote: You can move the goal posts again if you'd like. Which goal post have I moved and where have I put them. The discussion is and has been about the utility company seeking to add a charge to my bill for the use of their line which I already pay for. The article you posted says quite clearly that this method of maintaining grid stability is compromised not because of domestic producers input but because of lack of water. The system worked just fine when there was plenty of water. Their failure to plan does not constitute a bill for me. Apparently, you failed to plan on helping to pay for grid maintenance and stability. quote: quote: You're just being petty over there, and argumentative here. Being petty as in requiring the proper reading of the punctuation of a sentence? Being argumentative as in showing validation? You're being petty by wanting the grid to be maintained, but not wanting to pay your fair share. You're being argumentative because, well, that's your nature. quote: quote: Not worth my time. That has not been my experience so far. I'm not surprised you have no understanding of the value I place on my time.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 7:05:48 AM)
Tell us what you want them to do. Do you want the domestic producers to stop putting their electricity into the system or do you want the power companies to build more storage? quote: Not my circus. Not my monkeys. If that were true why are you in this discussion?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 9:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez Tell us what you want them to do. Do you want the domestic producers to stop putting their electricity into the system or do you want the power companies to build more storage? quote: Not my circus. Not my monkeys. If that were true why are you in this discussion? It doesn't matter what I want them to do. I don't have the authority (nor do I want it) to decide what residential power generators do, nor what the power companies do. You want to generate your own power. I've given you props before for that. I'm assuming you chose to do so, rather than being forced into it. I wish I was in a position where I could do more of my power generation. I will get there, eventually. You also want the power company to maintain the grid infrastructure and maintain the grid's stability. You don't want to pay your fair share for that, though.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 10:20:14 AM)
quote: I'm not surprised you have no understanding of the value I place on my time. All one needs to do is just count up your post and the amount of time it takes to compose and post them. Obviously you have as much time as you wish.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 10:32:02 AM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez Tell us what you want them to do. Do you want the domestic producers to stop putting their electricity into the system or do you want the power companies to build more storage? quote: Not my circus. Not my monkeys. If that were true why are you in this discussion? quote: It doesn't matter what I want them to do. I don't have the authority (nor do I want it) to decide what residential power generators do, nor what the power companies do. You have sugested that I pay them double. Once for sending power to me and again when I send power to them. You base this on your concept of "fairness" which I have shown to be eronious. quote: You want to generate your own power. I've given you props before for that. I'm assuming you chose to do so, rather than being forced into it. I wish I was in a position where I could do more of my power generation. I will get there, eventually. This is a company town up until recently the mine supplied our electricity for free. Now that we have Nevada power there is a subsidy to cover it. My solar set up is just a hobby because I am interested in it. quote: You also want the power company to maintain the grid infrastructure and maintain the grid's stability. You don't want to pay your fair share for that, though. As I have mentioned previously grid stability is not my problem it is the power company's problem as Edison described in the article you posted. The big canyon project was started long before domestic producers existed. The Big Canyon project was designed to maintain grid stabillity before domestic producers existed in any significant quantity. This means that there is grid instability without domestic producers. They would have had this stability problem if there were no domestic producers. Now that there are significant domestic producers that production must also be accomodated. That Edison failed to recognize the issue in time to amelorate it's effects is not my problem it is their problem. You have failed to address the issue of selling small quantities of electricity at a loss as opposed to not accepting any domestic production. What would you have the power companies do? Take a small loss and keep a large gain or eleminate the small loss by taking the large loss?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 12:27:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez Tell us what you want them to do. Do you want the domestic producers to stop putting their electricity into the system or do you want the power companies to build more storage? Not my circus. Not my monkeys. If that were true why are you in this discussion? quote: It doesn't matter what I want them to do. I don't have the authority (nor do I want it) to decide what residential power generators do, nor what the power companies do. You have sugested that I pay them double. Once for sending power to me and again when I send power to them. You base this on your concept of "fairness" which I have shown to be eronious. Actually, what I said is that you pay them for usage of the grid. You are using the grid when you push power onto it, and when you pull power from it. The limited amount of power you're drawing from the grid reduces your rate-based grid maintenance fees, but there are also costs to whoever is keeping the grid stable that aren't just a one-way street. The more people draw from the grid, the more those grid stabilizers have to plan and work. The more people add to the grid, the same happens. You only want to have any financial responsibility for one direction, when you are placing demands on grid stability in both directions. quote: quote: You also want the power company to maintain the grid infrastructure and maintain the grid's stability. You don't want to pay your fair share for that, though. As I have mentioned previously grid stability is not my problem it is the power company's problem as Edison described in the article you posted. The big canyon project was started long before domestic producers existed. The Big Canyon project was designed to maintain grid stabillity before domestic producers existed in any significant quantity. This means that there is grid instability without domestic producers. They would have had this stability problem if there were no domestic producers. Now that there are significant domestic producers that production must also be accomodated. That Edison failed to recognize the issue in time to amelorate it's effects is not my problem it is their problem. You have failed to address the issue of selling small quantities of electricity at a loss as opposed to not accepting any domestic production. What would you have the power companies do? Take a small loss and keep a large gain or eleminate the small loss by taking the large loss? Once again, that is not my call to make. You're arguing for Edison to increase it's ability to store energy (which we agree would be a good course of action), but you're also arguing for those who only draw from the grid to pay the costs for that extra storage. You're supporting the idea that the people (who you call "domestic producers") who are the main reason there is a need for more storage capability not bear any responsibility for paying for the increased storage capability.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 12:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: I'm not surprised you have no understanding of the value I place on my time. All one needs to do is just count up your post and the amount of time it takes to compose and post them. Obviously you have as much time as you wish. Yup. I do get to decide how I spend my time. I'm surprised you felt the need to point that out. I'm willing to bet just about everyone else assumed that was the case.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 2:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, what I said is that you pay them for usage of the grid. You are using the grid when you push power onto it, and when you pull power from it. I have stated so numerous times. quote: The limited amount of power you're drawing from the grid reduces your rate-based grid maintenance fees, I have pointed out that the maintenance fees are not rate based they are a discrete fee called an access fee (that you pay whether or not you use any electricity at all) which the power companies have petitioned the PUC to double for domestic producers. quote: but there are also costs to whoever is keeping the grid stable that aren't just a one-way street. The grid was never a one way street. The difference is that before the power company had a limited number of suppliers and now the numbers have increased . The amount of power they buy from either domestic sources or other utitlities is what is used to stabilize the grid. The Big Canyon project is how they dealt with fluctuations in the system. Remember that Big Canyon represents 5% of the grid. Fluctuations are in the fractions of 1% thus giving Big Canyon the ability to smooth out huge flulcuations. quote: The more people draw from the grid, the more those grid stabilizers have to plan and work. The more people add to the grid, the same happens. You only want to have any financial responsibility for one direction, when you are placing demands on grid stability in both directions. OK I have some time I would like you to explane that to me. I want you to explane how the wire that the electron/hole passes through knows which way it is going. Grid stabalization is computer controled and the only issue is the lack of water to make it work. It has nothing to do with how much power is being fed into the grid because the excess can be sold. Yes at a loss but the only alternative would be to quit accepting power from domestic producers...that would seem" penny wise and pound foolish" quote: quote: You also want the power company to maintain the grid infrastructure and maintain the grid's stability. You don't want to pay your fair share for that, though. As I have mentioned previously grid stability is not my problem it is the power company's problem as Edison described in the article you posted. The big canyon project was started long before domestic producers existed. The Big Canyon project was designed to maintain grid stabillity before domestic producers existed in any significant quantity. This means that there is grid instability without domestic producers. They would have had this stability problem if there were no domestic producers. Now that there are significant domestic producers that production must also be accomodated. That Edison failed to recognize the issue in time to amelorate it's effects is not my problem it is their problem. You have failed to address the issue of selling small quantities of electricity at a loss as opposed to not accepting any domestic production. What would you have the power companies do? Take a small loss and keep a large gain or eleminate the small loss by taking the large loss? quote: Once again, that is not my call to make. Yet you do feel it is your call to tell me that I should pay up or disconnect. Why is it fine for you to have an opinion about me without having an opinion about the topic of this discussion? quote: You're arguing for Edison to increase it's ability to store energy (which we agree would be a good course of action), It is not just simply a good course of action it is their job. They are a government monopoly.They have a charter to privide abc and xyz. quote: but you're also arguing for those who only draw from the grid to pay the costs for that extra storage. As I have pointed out numerous times it is an access fee that everyone who is connected to the grid pays whether they use electricity or not. We discussed this. When you pointed out that the power company does send power to me. quote: You're supporting the idea that the people (who you call "domestic producers") who are the main reason there is a need for more storage capability not bear any responsibility for paying for the increased storage capability. The people referd to as domestic producers are not any part of the reason that there is a need for more storage capacity. The article you cited says specifically the problem is the lack of water. If there were water there would be no issues with grid stability.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 2:20:26 PM)
quote: Yup. I do get to decide how I spend my time. I'm surprised you felt the need to point that out. I'm willing to bet just about everyone else assumed that was the case. It would make sense that everyone can see how much time you spend here so your claim of lack of time to continue in a thread that you have posted to extensively seems less than genuine. If you are tired of the discussion I can appreciate that. If you are too proud to admit that you have been unable to prove your case I can appreciate that also. In any case let us be honest with one another.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 3:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, what I said is that you pay them for usage of the grid. You are using the grid when you push power onto it, and when you pull power from it. I have stated so numerous times. You aren't paying them for using the grid when you push power onto the grid. quote: quote: The limited amount of power you're drawing from the grid reduces your rate-based grid maintenance fees, I have pointed out that the maintenance fees are not rate based they are a discrete fee called an access fee (that you pay whether or not you use any electricity at all) which the power companies have petitioned the PUC to double for domestic producers. No you didn't. You claimed that your access fee pays for grid maintenance. Not simply accepting your word, your claim means nothing without proof. quote: quote: but there are also costs to whoever is keeping the grid stable that aren't just a one-way street. The grid was never a one way street. The difference is that before the power company had a limited number of suppliers and now the numbers have increased . The amount of power they buy from either domestic sources or other utitlities is what is used to stabilize the grid. The Big Canyon project is how they dealt with fluctuations in the system. Remember that Big Canyon represents 5% of the grid. Fluctuations are in the fractions of 1% thus giving Big Canyon the ability to smooth out huge flulcuations. quote: The more people draw from the grid, the more those grid stabilizers have to plan and work. The more people add to the grid, the same happens. You only want to have any financial responsibility for one direction, when you are placing demands on grid stability in both directions. OK I have some time I would like you to explane that to me. I want you to explane how the wire that the electron/hole passes through knows which way it is going. Grid stabalization is computer controled and the only issue is the lack of water to make it work. It has nothing to do with how much power is being fed into the grid because the excess can be sold. Yes at a loss but the only alternative would be to quit accepting power from domestic producers...that would seem" penny wise and pound foolish" It's computer controlled? Really? So, no one has to make a decision to ramp up/down to maintain stability? Really? quote: quote: quote: You also want the power company to maintain the grid infrastructure and maintain the grid's stability. You don't want to pay your fair share for that, though. As I have mentioned previously grid stability is not my problem it is the power company's problem as Edison described in the article you posted. The big canyon project was started long before domestic producers existed. The Big Canyon project was designed to maintain grid stabillity before domestic producers existed in any significant quantity. This means that there is grid instability without domestic producers. They would have had this stability problem if there were no domestic producers. Now that there are significant domestic producers that production must also be accomodated. That Edison failed to recognize the issue in time to amelorate it's effects is not my problem it is their problem. You have failed to address the issue of selling small quantities of electricity at a loss as opposed to not accepting any domestic production. What would you have the power companies do? Take a small loss and keep a large gain or eleminate the small loss by taking the large loss? quote: Once again, that is not my call to make. Yet you do feel it is your call to tell me that I should pay up or disconnect. Why is it fine for you to have an opinion about me without having an opinion about the topic of this discussion? I pointed out your options. I pointed out that you just don't want to pay for grid stability on the power you provide. quote: quote: You're arguing for Edison to increase it's ability to store energy (which we agree would be a good course of action), It is not just simply a good course of action it is their job. They are a government monopoly.They have a charter to privide abc and xyz. And, how do they pay for providing abc and/or xyz? That's what we're discussing here. quote: quote: You're supporting the idea that the people (who you call "domestic producers") who are the main reason there is a need for more storage capability not bear any responsibility for paying for the increased storage capability. The people referd to as domestic producers are not any part of the reason that there is a need for more storage capacity. The article you cited says specifically the problem is the lack of water. If there were water there would be no issues with grid stability. LMMFAO!!!! The article was about storage capacity needs. While the current drought is limiting that one storage location, it doesn't let domestic suppliers off the hook for their responsibilities. Had Edison not build that hydro plant and only either sold excess at a loss, or ramped up/down, you'd have had stability, but you'd probably still be bitching about them wanting domestic suppliers to pay for the instability they add.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 3:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Yup. I do get to decide how I spend my time. I'm surprised you felt the need to point that out. I'm willing to bet just about everyone else assumed that was the case. It would make sense that everyone can see how much time you spend here so your claim of lack of time to continue in a thread that you have posted to extensively seems less than genuine. If you are tired of the discussion I can appreciate that. If you are too proud to admit that you have been unable to prove your case I can appreciate that also. In any case let us be honest with one another. Where did I ever claim I had a lack of time?

Thegunnysez -> RE: Utility Fees (9/2/2015 3:12:50 PM)
quote: You aren't paying them for using the grid when you push power onto the grid. I most certainly am. I am doing it as we speak. Why you fail to notice the number of times I have mentioned that I pay an access fee every month for the grid. It is not rate based as you have tried to claim. They have applied for PUC authorization to charge me double. It has not been approved.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02