58 MPG by 2032

[bnold]

Just wait until it gets cold.

Factory battery is over 3 years old now, coldest I’ve started probably ~30* in Moab, UT on a cool morning without issue.

Don’t think I need to be able to start any colder than that. That is a 30-90*F sport in my book.

KTM 500 XCF-W, not a tiny motor either from a dirt bike perspective.

Good battery choice for application and use. I don’t need it to start and get me out of a snow drift.

 

[Grumpycat]

This is the exact reason I'm not interested in grid tie any more. Utilities are sticking it to people who are just trying to save money. And they're buying your energy at 1.5c/kwh, then what, reselling it to another customer at 15c/kwh? That number varies widely, we were 11c/kwh 3 months ago, now we're 17c/kwh, more than 50% increase out of the blue. I understand them not wanting to pay for transmission, only generation. However around here, generation is the bulk of energy cost, while transmission is considerably lower.

Went looking just now. TVA's Fuel Cost Adjustment is $0.0408/kWh in July 2023. Month before it was $0.0280. So if I had PV grid-tie I would be expecting $0.055/kWh. Am paying $0.103320/kWh as of June 3, 2023. So if I would get half then it isn't so bad. Better than throwing it away. But the question is whether it will recover the added cost of a TVA Approved "designer"?

 

[Grumpycat]

I heard that PGE is pushing a new thing where they can borrow your EV's power combined with a new regulation(not yet passed) that would require all EV's have 2 way plugs. That way during times of high demand they could sap your EV's power, then refuel it later. Of course the price they give you for your ev's power would be lower than the price they resell you the power to recharge your ev. Also it would put an additional cycles on your EV battery. The concept of my EV being a backup battery for my personal use, but not for the grid at large.

Ain't Never Gonna Happen.

Very few EVs have bidirectional charge ports. No Teslas. The premium model of Ford F-150 Lightning does, but not the base model. Is touted as an emergency home power backup.

There may be a voluntary program one day, but as you point out the wear on the battery means the utility will have to pay the owner a premium above the going rate for power to cover the wear.

 

[Eagle1]

California Wants To Make Bidirectional Charging Mandatory For New Electric Vehicles

 

[WinterDeere]

This is the exact reason I'm not interested in grid tie any more. Utilities are sticking it to people who are just trying to save money. And they're buying your energy at 1.5c/kwh, then what, reselling it to another customer at 15c/kwh? That number varies widely, we were 11c/kwh 3 months ago, now we're 17c/kwh, more than 50% increase out of the blue. I understand them not wanting to pay for transmission, only generation. However around here, generation is the bulk of energy cost, while transmission is considerably lower.

Are you sure of your numbers? At least here, billing for transmission is on parity with generation, and has been for years. Many claim transmission costs are actually higher than generation, although I’m sure that varies with region. Are you sure your billing reflects the true cost of these two components?

 

[fatjay]

Are you sure of your numbers? At least here, billing for transmission is on parity with generation, and has been for years. Many claim transmission costs are actually higher than generation, although I’m sure that varies with region. Are you sure your billing reflects the true cost of these two components?

I can't speak for everywhere, but at least here, generation is 9.4c/kwh while transmission is 7.3c/kwh. Regardless of the transmission vs generation, they're giving you 1.5c/kwh on your exports. Lets say you export to your neighbor, will they be paying only transmission costs plus what they pay you in generation, or will they charge the full amount of transmission and generation, effectively having an 80%+ markup on what they pay to you vs what they charge the next guy. That's a gamestop business model. And then when you need power, they also want you to pay full rate, regardless of what they paid you for your power.

 

[ultrarunner]

I heard that PGE is pushing a new thing where they can borrow your EV's power combined with a new regulation(not yet passed) that would require all EV's have 2 way plugs. That way during times of high demand they could sap your EV's power, then refuel it later. Of course the price they give you for your ev's power would be lower than the price they resell you the power to recharge your ev. Also it would put an additional cycles on your EV battery. The concept of my EV being a backup battery for my personal use, but not for the grid at large.

Don’t know how far along but it’s on the table…

May just run a cable from the rent house too mine with a sun meter and same for water?

 

[WinterDeere]

I can't speak for everywhere, but at least here, generation is 9.4c/kwh while transmission is 7.3c/kwh. Regardless of the transmission vs generation, they're giving you 1.5c/kwh on your exports. Lets say you export to your neighbor, will they be paying only transmission costs plus what they pay you in generation, or will they charge the full amount of transmission and generation, effectively having an 80%+ markup on what they pay to you vs what they charge the next guy. That's a gamestop business model. And then when you need power, they also want you to pay full rate, regardless of what they paid you for your power.

Well, I'd expect to not get full retail rate selling power back to the grid, after all I get the convenience of using them as my unlimited battery. But I will agree that 1.5 cents going and 9.4 cents coming does feel like a mighty wide disparity. Here in PA, we've always gotten the same rate both ways, although I know that's changing.

Have you done a cost analysis of just buying and arranging your own local storage? Where's the break-even on that?

 

[ultrarunner]

1.5 going and 40 coming really brings it into prospective…

 

[fatjay]

Well, I'd expect to not get full retail rate selling power back to the grid, after all I get the convenience of using them as my unlimited battery. But I will agree that 1.5 cents going and 9.4 cents coming does feel like a mighty wide disparity. Here in PA, we've always gotten the same rate both ways, although I know that's changing.

Have you done a cost analysis of just buying and arranging your own local storage? Where's the break-even on that?

I've been aggressively researching for about a year now. I have an electrical engineering background so i'm at least basically familiar. I'm building my own system, but I want to make it scalable. Solar is simple, but the software in the inverters has been a bit tricky considering it's not very well documented. People just have the systems installed and don't know much about it.

My electric bill is high. Was high, then i cut back on usage by getting more efficient equipment, dropping my usage by about 1/3rd. Then electric went up by 50% in a month. I picked up some panels and an aio inverter to fiddle around with things, got my deep freeze off the grid. Was going to do grid tie, but then I was looking at the fee's to tie in, then the rates that they bought back, and thought that was insane.

So I switched focus to off grid, and that became super expensive, even DIY, mostly because the massive battery investment. So I was focusing on reducing usage and increasing efficiency all while buying solar panels when I found them cheap. I've been building a racking system to mount them when I figured out a hybrid system. It basically provides the best of both worlds. It's off grid, but if you have a period of poor light/overcast/storms/etc you can set it to tie into grid power to charge the batteries and provide electricity when needed.

As of right now, I'm at 24x240w panels and I'm going to be adding another 20x250w, the hybrid inverter i'm looking at is 13kw and takes 15kw of pv, and the battery i'm looking at is a 30kwh lifepo4. The system is just barely meeting my requirements. All in it'll cost me about 15k, the batteries being 9k, inverter at 3k, and panels around 2k, plus odds and ends at 1k. Payoff time is about 4 years at most if everything goes as planned.

 

[WinterDeere]

1.5 going and 40 coming really brings it into prospective…

Where'd you get 1.5 vs. 40? I was seeing 1.5 vs. 17, after inclusion of transmission fees.

In reality, it's basically the utility paying 8.8 c/kwh on his juice, but subtracting their transmission fee (7.3 cents), as the customer is using their grid to transmit this power. Since they resell the product at 9.4 c/kwh, their "mark-up" on the generation is only 7%.

I don't look at it as the utility being evil or greedy, but just another example of why residential-scale solar really just doesn't work for most households, economically speaking. Utility-scale solar can work, but only thanks to economy of scale. Companies who talk about ROI on the PV systems they are selling nearly always ignore the factor of inflation (presently 6%!) in their calculations. A 2030 dollar doesn’t have the same value as a 2023 dollar, and perhaps a few outliers like fatjay aside, most system owners are endlessly chasing inflation in trying to earn back their initial investment.

 

[Torvy]

Initially, the power companies were getting completely hosed by these deals. It was yet another way to make people believe that solar generation is cost effective. Essentially, hide the costs by making everyone else absorb them. Let's play this out...imagine 100% buy-in by consumers and everyone has their own solar for daytime and relies on a now defunct power company for storage/backup. Oops. Those companies are paying for new lines and the maintenance and salaries for the linemen and support staff. They pay for the trucks and other equipment. Why in the name of all that is holy would anyone expect to get full retail for a few KwH of generation?

The only reason PGE needs that power is that their hands have been tied in terms of producing power more effectively.

 

[ultrarunner]

Where'd you get 1.5 vs. 40? I was seeing 1.5 vs. 17, after inclusion of transmission fees.

In reality, it's basically the utility paying 8.8 c/kwh on his juice, but subtracting their transmission fee (7.3 cents), as the customer is using their grid to transmit this power. Since they resell the product at 9.4 c/kwh, their "mark-up" on the generation is only 7%.

I don't look at it as the utility being evil or greedy, but just another example of why residential-scale solar really just doesn't work for most households, economically speaking. Utility-scale solar can work, but only thanks to economy of scale. Companies who talk about ROI on the PV systems they are selling nearly always ignore the factor of inflation (presently 6%!) in their calculations. A 2030 dollar doesn’t have the same value as a 2023 dollar, and perhaps a few outliers like fatjay aside, most system owners are endlessly chasing inflation in trying to earn back their initial investment.

Just going on the proposed rate structure for my part of California…

Those connecting now do not have nears as good a deal as the early adopters.

 

[ultrarunner]

Initially, the power companies were getting completely hosed by these deals. It was yet another way to make people believe that solar generation is cost effective. Essentially, hide the costs by making everyone else absorb them. Let's play this out...imagine 100% buy-in by consumers and everyone has their own solar for daytime and relies on a now defunct power company for storage/backup. Oops. Those companies are paying for new lines and the maintenance and salaries for the linemen and support staff. They pay for the trucks and other equipment. Why in the name of all that is holy would anyone expect to get full retail for a few KwH of generation?

The only reason PGE needs that power is that their hands have been tied in terms of producing power more effectively.

Maybe hosed but sure promoted their solar efforts at every opportunity.

Proud of partnering with home solar for a green future and reducing CO2, etc.

 

[Torvy]

Maybe hosed but sure promoted their solar efforts at every opportunity.

Proud of partnering with home solar for a green future and reducing CO2, etc.

Did you ever have the fortune, or misfortune, to work with a marketing department? They make their living making lemonade out of lemons...probably more accurate to say putting lipstick on a pig. I've seen many of them spin design flaws into "features ".

 

[Grumpycat]

Where'd you get 1.5 vs. 40? I was seeing 1.5 vs. 17, after inclusion of transmission fees.

I'm not going to search this thread to find where 1.5¢/kWh was first mentioned, but I know I mentioned the TVA Audited Cost Of Incremental Generation is 1.5¢. I didn't mention Alabama Power is 2.5¢.

TVA also applies a "fuel cost surcharge" but doesn't itemize on the consumer's bill, which is handled by "TVA Partners", aka Local Utilities.

The Federal law mandates paying a minimum of the Audited Cost Of Incremental Generation for grid-tie power. This is what the generating utility pays to make one more kWh than they were a moment ago. The fuel cost surcharge would also be a cost of generation, so the actual TVA payment for PV power is more than 1.5¢.

My whole point in this is how Federal law does not mandate "net metering" which is commonly used in Progressive states. Meter runs forward and backwards, same price either way. They might use 2 meters just to know how much you generated. In particular I know of a place near Pittsburg where this is the rule. It lets one use the utility as a free battery. As I have written before, this is not fair to the utility.

Alabama Power is permitted by the PSC to charge a connect fee so great as to be very near what one could recoup by providing PV power to the grid. At one time not long ago there were only 50 PV systems on Alabama Power. There are essentially no solar systems in Birmingham Alabama.

 

[fatjay]

My whole point in this is how Federal law does not mandate "net metering" which is commonly used in Progressive states. Meter runs forward and backwards, same price either way. They might use 2 meters just to know how much you generated. In particular I know of a place near Pittsburg where this is the rule. It lets one use the utility as a free battery. As I have written before, this is not fair to the utility.

I don't disagree with you on the free battery idea. I think it's reasonable to not recoup transmission. If I pay 10c in generation and 10c in transmission, and I sell back to the power company, I can understand not getting the transmission back, but I would want something close to the generation. Considering they're just selling my power to the next guy for 10c. They're profiting off my investment in generation

 

[WinterDeere]

I don't disagree with you on the free battery idea. I think it's reasonable to not recoup transmission. If I pay 10c in generation and 10c in transmission, and I sell back to the power company, I can understand not getting the transmission back, but I would want something close to the generation. Considering they're just selling my power to the next guy for 10c. They're profiting off my investment in generation

I guess it could be argued both ways, with some legitimacy on both sides.

Group A will argue that you're putting power back onto the grid, thus transmitting over their lines, and you should pay transmission fee both directions. In that case, the 10 c/kwh earned by your generation would be completely undone by 10 c/kwh paid in transmission. Valid point, in the sense that the utility must still pay to maintain lines and transformers running to your house, even if you're net positive on power generation.

Group B will argue that all transmission is being paid by the customers receiving the power you've generated. While I'm not sure that would completely cover the costs, they do have a point, in that those generating power and putting it onto the grid are otherwise receiving nearly nothing for the power they're generating.

Like with everything, reality probably lies somewhere in the middle, between these two opposites.

 

[Grumpycat]

I don't disagree with you on the free battery idea. I think it's reasonable to not recoup transmission. If I pay 10c in generation and 10c in transmission, and I sell back to the power company, I can understand not getting the transmission back, but I would want something close to the generation. Considering they're just selling my power to the next guy for 10c. They're profiting off my investment in generation

So you think the tractor dealer should sell your trade for what they paid you?

There is profit built into their 10¢, but to sell your power at 10¢ they get nothing but the bother of billing and shrinkage (loss in the power lines).

 

[ultrarunner]

Still odd the Utility sends out thank you messages when consumption drops and pushes rebates for a multitude of energy saving appliances and measures.


If my business is selling electricity why would I spend money and provide incentives to customers for buying less of what I have to offer?