An idle plant is still using significantly less fuel. And you CAN turn 'off' gas turbines. Most 'peaking' plants are gas turbines capable of ramping up from cold to full output in <5 minutes. This is one reason that thermal plants are no longer cost effective and are slowly being retired.
This doesn't necessarily seem all that outlandish to me at first blush - look how many gangs and mob groups got into making liquor during Prohibition because despite the "ban", people still wanted it and were willing to pay for it.
Except this has nothing to do with banning the fuel. This is all about banning the cars that consume it... not the fuel.
I suspect Rush just likes to talk about meth labs. They probably mesh well with other narratives of his. Honestly though, wouldn't illicit drug labs switching into more respectable enterprises be somewhat of a positive? If he was a bit more clever he could have painted some much more thunderdome-esque imagery.
It doesn't work that way.
not entirely true if time of use rates are involved - it is possible that nighttime rates from the utility are cheaper than the daytime sellback (or offset) rate from the solar.
Sure...perhaps not the "same" value if on a TOU plan but the point is that a kWh still has value - regardless of choosing to buy, sell, or store it.
Depends on what you mean by 'value'. Negative pricing is becoming more and more common on the grid largely due to wind. Utilities literally pay to get rid of energy.
Yeah, I'll also offer a back of the envelope reality check too - from actual results.
My estimates were based on the US average. I agree they don't hold North of ~45 degrees but most people don't live that far North. I never claimed it applied to everyone. I said ON AVERAGE. Which by definition would mean ~50% would be less ~50% would be more
Negative pricing is because solar and wind caused the grid to get so f-ed up the utility companies do not know what to do. That is NOT a good thing.
That has been present for decades - what is new in the newer systems is integration with the thermostat. Instead of simply turning off the unit for an hour or more, it enforces a setback on the thermostat - this is a MUCH more controlled system, and will result in a much higher volunteer rate (the current systems are showing lower and lower enrollment, because it doesn't take long during one of the events for temperatures in the home to get up to 90°F (these events are often triggered near peak solar intensity and over 110°F ouside). Setting the thermostat back to 80°F is a far more acceptable scenario than simply shutting it off.
Sounds like we need more electric vehicles with connected chargers, doesn't it.
Precisely
I caught that the first time. On average. Got it. Thanks.
Yes. Boston, New York, Chicago and Detroit are below average. Places like Denver and Atlanta would be Average while San Diego and Albuquerque would be above average. Glad we devoted 2 pages to agree on reality.
Hydro, not solar and wind: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/08/28/is-solar-really-the-reason-for-negative-electricity-prices/
The reason is that there would be no benefit vs a grid-tied system. A grid-tied system can power other electrical loads on cool days when A/C isn't needed or your neighbors house if you're on vacation.
Since you asked, the point is that you make assumptions like the one above that are overly optimistic and/or biased towards furthering an agenda, and without context. You then end up having to backpedal on those assumptions when they don't hold up under scrutiny based on actual data like mine. When caught, you hide behind a technicality like "on average" when the actual, real world results (in large US cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, etc) may be 50% less than the "ON AVERAGE" figure you're leading people to believe.
??? LOL... Please specify exactly which part of my statement was misleading, unrealistic or incorrect. I repeatedly stressed it was the 'US Average' you appear to be alone in taking exception to this. Would you have preferred 3-7 full hours of sun? Would that have met your high standards?
??? LOL... Please specify exactly which part of my statement was misleading, unrealistic or incorrect. I repeatedly stressed it was the 'US Average' you appear to be alone in taking exception to this. Would you have preferred 3-7 full hours of sun? Would that have met your high standards?
No backpedaling or assumptions... the US receives ~4.5 full hours of sun per day on average... that's just a fact.
Here's some real world data from a 11kW system I recently installed... I look forward to your retort that this isn't 'Average'.... LOL
OR better yet... How would YOU explain the viability of solar to the AVERAGE person living in the US.
Instead of arguing with the guy, I figured it would easier just to plug in the numbers into the PVwatts calculator for a 3kW system. Interesting results. Here are the results for Los Angeles:
