In reply to frenchyd :
I don't know Texas law. Only 20 states help with renewables. Is Texas one of them? I do know that at this point Texas has more renewables than any other state.
Given that your businessmen are smart careful people who see the profit potential in renewables.
Is it true that prices vary up to 50 times between peak and off peak use? Apparently that is why Tesla built a factory in Texas.
You don't know Minnesota either, but that hasn't stopped you yet. There is a very important guideline to investing. Don't invest in something that you don't understand just because you see others doing it. There is definitely profit potential for renewables, but it lives within clearly defined parameters. It goes wrong when people such as yourself ignore that and insist that if it's good for some, it's good for all.
This is pure conjecture on my part and may not be factual. Texas may want corporations to own the renewables rather than individuals . The way they bill Electricity is the reason for my belief. Since customers are required to pay market price rather than a fixed cost.
I don't even know how to respond to this. Other than reaching a concussion when you don't even understand the question will give you an interesting answer.
The gain for the Minnesota is to not have to send our money out of state to pay for fuel. Or the cost to build bigger and bigger power plants to meet the ever increasing need for electricity.
Where do you think the solar panels come from? Are you saying that it's a calculated move to send a large amount of dollars out of Minnesota up front rather than slowly over the next couple decades?
Every business has a replace equipment budget. Since power companies are publicly held and regulated the state knows those numbers. Minnesota is using that budget to pay up front costs for solar and wind. Then the utility company are paid back through the electricity generated. ( your excess goes to your neighbors)
While this may be true, that doesn't mean that it is the best use of those energy dollars. In some circumstances, yes. But as a blanket statement, no. The more solar installed, the more costly it becomes. That is why a balanced approach is better than a mandate.
Peak demand is during daylight. At night demand goes down. By saving the cost of building new power plants to meet that demand it is profitable for the power companies as well.
Nope, peak solar output and peak electricity usage do not match up. It would be so much easier if that were the case. This isn't a day/night thing, it's a moment by moment thing. You can't just average day and night. Peak production is late morning to early afternoon, peak usage is late afternoon to early evening. Since these don't match, other energy production methods are needed to balance the grid, or batteries are needed. This is why a huge portion of California drastically changed their net metering rules this spring.
Don't forget that according to Minnesota the power company can sell the electricity you generate at todays rates while only paying you last years rates. If todays rates are 11 cents per KWH and last years was 10 cents per KWH . The power company makes 1 cent per KWH At no cost to them. Yes we are using their lines to transmit that power but the lines would be there anyway. If your electric bill is $100/ month so $10 bucks of that bill is free to the company Multiply that times the number of homes a utility company serves and we are talking a serious amount of pure profit.
I think you have this really, really wrong. There are two ways power companies buy back solar. One is net metering, where they give you credit for what you produce at the same rate at which they charge, until it balances at zero. If you produce beyond that, you get a microscopic rate for your overproduction- it would never pay for the solar needed to generate the overage. The other is contracting with the owner of the solar system to become a utility provider. This is very rare, very involved, and not something offered to residential solar. And to my knowledge they pay them the wholesale price for the excess energy they produce, nothing close to the price they charge. Why would they pay more for electricity produced by solar than by a conventional power plant? That would drive up energy costs greatly.
Have I put you to sleep yet?
The great thing about this approach is once a significant percentage of homes and business have the power grid becomes very flexible without the power loss of transmission over long distance.
Again, overly simplistic. You would need expensive batteries to make this more feasible.
Are you still with me? Ford has made a big deal out of using the F150 lightening to power the home if the power goes out. Up to 2-3 days typically. Actually every EV can be used this way it just requires the right system.
You sure fall for marketing. That was largely a marketing gimmick. Neat idea at first thought, but if my power is out for any length of time, I sure don't want my vehicle drained too. And if I could afford an $80k truck, pretty sure I could swing a backup generator too. While it is possible to integrate control of charging EV's to balance the grid with the peaks and valleys of solar production, I wouldn't want my car to be used as a battery for the grid. Both because I don't want the grid discharging my car, and because I'd rather not shorten it's battery's life while it just sits there cycling in my driveway.
