Comments
Imaginary_wizard t1_ja5uvw6 wrote
Half oh nh electric comes from nuclear.
Hardmeat_McLargehuge t1_ja5z2nm wrote
It’s a global issue though. The other half still needs replacing, and nuclear is generally harder to throttle than other generation methods.
GRADIUSIC_CYBER t1_ja61grz wrote
well we only have 1200 MWe of nuclear so fortunately we don't have to throttle it. plus we have to share it with the rest of New England.
plz1 t1_ja62bj8 wrote
And?
2_dam_hi t1_ja48doj wrote
So who will be the first moron to propose some insane fee for owners of solar that destroys the purpose of having it?
Tai9ch t1_ja4eear wrote
In general? That's standard in several western states, most infamously Nevada.
Here in NH? Probably Eversource.
newenglandpolarbear t1_ja4tyo2 wrote
>Eversource
Screw eversource. If they decided to do something like that, I wonder if there is legal precedent in which a case could be made for a lawsuit.
TurretLauncher OP t1_ja4zp6i wrote
State governments control what utilities can charge. Utilities often try to influence state government by paying for lobbyists, making campaign contributions, Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge...
newenglandpolarbear t1_ja68ry8 wrote
True, thank you citizens united.
magellanNH t1_ja9s1cu wrote
...and sometimes not as subtle as a wink and a nudg:
nullcompany t1_ja4hsa8 wrote
most solar is grid-tied, so it'd be easier to just crank up the delivery rate to get that money back ...
ANewMachine615 t1_ja4x6sk wrote
There is a possible free rider problem. Grid maintenance costs don't change much with lower use, and in some ways, more distributed generation offsets lower use of centrally generated power. Grid maintenance is billed on a per KwH, to my understanding. So folks with solar don't pay as much towards grid maintenance as other users. This is one of the ways solar pays for itself, but so long as you're still connected to the grid, it is a problem. Solvable by changing the funding model, of course. Same as the gas tax for highway maintenance will need to change as EVs become a larger share of the market to remain a viable funding model.
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja5lzwm wrote
Many states already charge hundreds or thousands a year of extra money for registrations for EVs
ANewMachine615 t1_ja607va wrote
I wasn't aware of that, but it's a good change. They're less costly in terms of externalities, but they do tend to be heavier on average due to battery weight, and that can wear on roads over time.
Lots of stuff is gonna have to change from taxing the input to taxing the use, I think, if we really do get to change over to a more electrified and dsitributed energy system.
GRADIUSIC_CYBER t1_ja6181s wrote
the heavier weight of an EV is irrelevant, almost all wear and tear on roads is from tractor trailers, buses, and snowplows. A BEV sedan is like 4-5k pounds, vs 3-4k for an equivalent ICE vehicle. VS an 80000 pound tractor trailer.
ANewMachine615 t1_ja64ano wrote
Good to know! They do still have the gas tax problem, but that's fixable.
scottieducati t1_ja7ozq6 wrote
Except when the pavement is already deteriorating.
wenestvedt t1_ja7vp2q wrote
> heavier on average due to battery weight
I find it hard to believe that the small population of electric cars, compared to the enormous population of (enormous) pickup trucks & SUVs -- which are the most commonly sold cars these days, by a large margin -- are disproportionally affecting the roads.
And especially not in NH.
ANewMachine615 t1_ja827xj wrote
Not now, no, but they will eventually. And one of the most successful electric vehicles out there in terms of selling out its production for years to come is the F-150 Lightning, which is both electric and a larger chassis. But an average Tesla sedan is about the same weight as a standard F-150.
But as another comment here pointed out, most of the wear and tear still comes from heavy loads, 18 wheelers, etc.
Edit: my overall point was that you can't expand these things endlessly with our current funding model for upkeep of the networks they rely on (power or roads). For me, the fix is changing how we fund those networks rather than simply blaming the new tech abstractly. Heck I'd be down for a large gas tax increase + a registration fee for EVs that offset each other, so gas still pays for more of the maintenance as a method of discouraging further use of ICE cars.
wenestvedt t1_ja88u79 wrote
> gas still pays for more of the maintenance as a method of discouraging further use of ICE cars.
Well, as long as something works to reduce gas use, I am in.
I wish that we had better public transit, but a lot of America is just too spread out for that. I have spent time living in the UK and Europe, and it's so awesome to be able to walk places or hop on a regional train...but that's not practical in northern NH or Minnesota's Iron Range!
SkiingAway t1_ja518wm wrote
You have days, or even weeks where solar in the northeast is basically producing no power, so you still have to maintain a similar amount of non-solar generation as you have now. Batteries are a good bridge for the time-shift problem (peak demand, is often well before/after solar's peak output for the day), but it's unlikely we're going to build absurd quantities of batteries to handle a week of low output when a major storm moves through.
So your traditional generation will not run anywhere near as much in the past, but still has to be maintained and ready to operate. While some portion of maintenance costs are related to how often it runs ("this thing needs replacement every XXX hours of operation"), some portion are just for keeping the thing ready to run even if it's only used once a year.
The same also applies to the grid itself - when that solar isn't outputting for days, your house will draw the same power as if you didn't have solar, so the grid has to remain built out and ready to provide the same capacity to everyone as before.
How you allocate these costs fairly gets thorny.
For fairness, you'll probably see a somewhat higher share of your bills priced at a flat rate in the long run rather than per kWH/by usage.
Total bills paid by the population should be lower, but bills for a current solar owner might be somewhat higher.
I don't think this will kill the value proposition of home solar (especially with further cost declines/tech improvements), but it'll be a little less favorable in that sense.
wmass t1_ja55t56 wrote
Photoelectric cells do produce power even on cloudy days, just not as much.
SkiingAway t1_ja66imy wrote
If you have shitty enough weather, that output amounts to virtually nothing. Especially in the shortest days of winter where you're stacking the short days, low sun angle, and potential of snowfall literally covering the panels temporarily/further interfering with sunlight reaching them.
Scroll to the bottom for a cold spell w/uncooperative weather and the solar outputs estimated:
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/solar-power-in-new-england-locations-and-impact
gweased_pig t1_ja5sfro wrote
Cali already did
aredubya t1_ja5tgb7 wrote
Morons have already started such proposals, in the Moron State of Florida. Indeed, the GOP-dominated legislature passed a bill that would have reduced "net metering" to save the state power monopoly from having to pay as much (or at all) for home solar power fed back to the grid. DeSantis vetoed it last April, but only after a groundswell of conservative voters rebelling. https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/05/10/panhandles-anger-over-fpl-may-have-helped-spur-desantis-veto-of-anti-solar-bill/
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja5lt51 wrote
Democrats will try to tax the e energy residential customers produce and don't use to make up for lost revenue from them not buying electricity like a good consumer.
ShortUSA t1_ja7m0l8 wrote
In which states is this happening?
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja7mc73 wrote
CA, CO, GA, ID, IL, IN, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NC, OR, SC, TN, UT, VI, WA, WI.
T Range from 50 to 200 a year.
ShortUSA t1_ja7ou2m wrote
Many of those states are Republican. So is this really an R vs D thing? Seems not.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_ja485ni wrote
For some people in the right situation, solar is the only way to go. It does require a significant investment, and a long time to recover that cost.
Racer_Bait t1_ja4t76w wrote
I’ve been hearing 5-7 years up here in NH (assuming you’re not blocked by trees or something)
GRADIUSIC_CYBER t1_ja61j7a wrote
bad news: there's a shit ton of trees in NH.
UnfairAd7220 t1_ja4c17d wrote
At these prices, the payback is shrunk.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_ja4idty wrote
I did mine myself and it was cheap
Jay_Derkin t1_ja4mgtv wrote
Oh shit aren’t you that guy who got roasted for making some cringe gatekeeping solar post and then deleted it? Your name seems vaguely familiar for some reason.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_ja4okko wrote
Yes, I realized that post put some people off, but it was not my intent to offend.
wenestvedt t1_ja7vvjd wrote
Let a brother learn from his mistakes. :7)
LeftTurnAtAlbuqurque t1_ja5545e wrote
How approachable is it as a diy project? How did you source the components? I'm currently looking into a solar setup, and it's expensive enough and I am handy enough that saving some this way is tempting.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_ja5blba wrote
Well if you are handy and generally comfortable with doing electrical work it's actually pretty simple. The hardest part is actually getting the solar panels mounted, everybody situation is different if they go on your roof that's where it gets complicated. The other issue is if you're going to be tying it in to your electrical service. That gets more complicated. Doing a battery backup or off-grid setup is very easy, the equipment has gotten a lot cheaper in the last few years.
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja5m60r wrote
Its pretty easy but some towns won't let you fo your own electrical. :(
gweased_pig t1_ja5t6e0 wrote
State law trumps town, and state says homeowners can do their own electric work. I went to the building inspector with my plans, and he said no way. I read the state law and came back armed with that. Oh yeah, you just have to sign this form, then you are good. Funny, the inspection was nothing. Yep solar panels, looks good see ya. I was hoping for more actually.
ConcentrateNice7752 t1_ja5vn7c wrote
I'll have to look in to that more. I only got half the posts for the mount in before this recent snow so I'll have to wait a bit to finish and think more about the electrical side of things.
GraniteGeekNH t1_ja7ia1g wrote
There is a group in Hilsborough County called HAREI - H. County Renewable Energy something - that helps people do this, including more than 80 barn-raising-style solar installs over the years. They're on Facebook mostly.
scottieducati t1_ja7p31k wrote
ROI is as little as 5-7 years for many these days it seems.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_ja7w2bc wrote
Definitely if you do it yourself. If you have to hire a professional to do it, they use top tier equipment at full markup, and you pay a lot in job hours. Still can be worth it, but contracting the work out is at least double the cost vs. DIY. Some places don't allow DIY, however.
scottieducati t1_ja7ybn2 wrote
In MA they have some incentives as well, ROI even with an established company is still well within reasonable timeframe based on the quotes we received. We’ll see about in-use performance tho.
Ok_Low_1287 t1_ja9416v wrote
I am currently powering 100% of my electrical needs off solar except in the winter during snow/stormy periods. I have a large enough lot to have a big array, and that is a limiting factor for many folks, they just don't have a lot/roof big enough or open enough. The electrical companies are starting to use their political weight to make it harder for people to implement solar.
newenglandpolarbear t1_ja4tqlt wrote
Less demand = lower prices. Sounds good to me!
Private_Part t1_ja5twwo wrote
Not necessarily. Power plants don't spin up and down instantly. Less demand, if it is short, can simply mean more wasted output with the solar generators selling back to the grid resulting in your rates being higher.
grandzooby t1_ja64cvk wrote
Especially as large-scale renewable sources continue to grow, the need for short-term storage will only grow as well. That will help with short-term generator capacity in two ways. First they may not have to spin up as often. And second, the storage can capture some of the wasted output.
graemeknows t1_ja5p1lk wrote
Great!
CrotchetAndVomit t1_ja4ro8j wrote
Good?
KrissaKray t1_ja80o1a wrote
You're welcome. Happy to help lol
redeggplant01 t1_ja4nkuf wrote
> “That means on some days, when the weather conditions are right”
As opposed to 24/7 when it come to traditional energy sources … LOL!!!
dcs1289 t1_ja5b8en wrote
So you're one of those fools who believes that the lights turn off when the sun goes down huh? Never heard of batteries before?
mmirate t1_ja5frjk wrote
Modern high-capacity batteries require lithium and various other rare minerals which themselves require lots of energy to mine, and are difficult to recycle. Making lots more of them, is not going to be good for the environment.
dcs1289 t1_ja5gmjc wrote
Lots of R&D in the battery tech sector ongoing; what you say is true currently but absolutely will not be the case forever.
And if we're talking about environmental impact, Li mining vs. fossil fuels is a very silly argument considering the ongoing climate change trends. Best to keep our planet habitable in the short term and worry about lithium reserves and recycling down the road. Just one more can to kick.
Hardmeat_McLargehuge t1_ja62nig wrote
Yeah naysaying developing tech is just stupid, especially when there’s a ton of grid scale work battery/energy storage tech development being done. No idea why you even think lithium is needed for that either. Really just shows your ignorance on the topic.
Tattozoo t1_ja42q4d wrote
Is that why electric bills have skyrocketed?
largeb789 t1_ja444ro wrote
That's due to the cost of natural gas and oil going up in response to the war in Ukraine. Electricity from natural gas is up to 45%, and the huge spike in natural gas prices over the last year is responsible for most of the price increase.
Solar is likely keeping the price down since the utilities need to bring the more expensive oil fired plants less often on really hot summer days.
reddittheguy t1_ja48llu wrote
It's been interesting watching people try to spin the price increase as a green energy problem all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that New England generates so much electricity off Natural gas and that the price increase coincided with the atrocity in Ukraine which has directly impacted Natural gas prices.
Dramatic_Mechanic815 t1_ja4kgex wrote
Natural gas prices are massively off peaks from 2022. We’re at 2020/2021 lows now. Bigger issue at play here than commodity prices, such as how expensive it is to transport natural gas here to New England. Yet, politicians signed off on allowing natural gas plants without infrastructure to affordably transport it because NIMBYers are killing this state. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdW.htm
Happy_Confection90 t1_ja5msx9 wrote
And, so far as I've heard, still no serious efforts towards revamping the Jones Act which costs New England a fortune in natural gas transportation costs.
ShortUSA t1_ja7n99n wrote
NE NG has been much more adversely impacted by NIMBY efforts that have successfully prevented more pipelines. You don't get NG from PA, etc to NE on ships.
TurretLauncher OP t1_ja5ppbc wrote
Why the Jones Act is still needed
By Sen. Roger Wicker, Sen. Maria Cantwell, Rep. Peter DeFazio and Rep. Sam Graves
The Jones Act requires that all vessels carrying goods between two U.S. points be American-built, -owned, -crewed and -flagged. This policy provides stability to the U.S. maritime industry and helps to sustain 650,000 American jobs, resulting in $150 billion in economic benefits each year. Most importantly, the Jones Act advances our national security by helping maintain a vibrant domestic shipbuilding industry and maritime workforce. Our shipbuilders supply the military with warships, and U.S. mariners play a key role in transporting military personnel and equipment overseas in times of crisis.
To imagine life without this law, consider the risks we would face if foreign-owned companies were allowed to conduct our domestic trade during this pandemic. Foreign companies would be able to influence the flow of domestic goods and resources that are keeping our economy afloat. Thousands of now-secure American jobs throughout our shipbuilding and maritime workforces would be threatened, and foreign governments could gain even more undue leverage over our economy.
The Jones Act is also an important asset to our military. U.S.-crewed vessels around the world expand our military’s horizon by serving as the eyes and ears of our nation, and U.S. mariners, shipyards and commercial vessels play a vital role in keeping our military well-supplied. Losing these assets and having to rely on foreign competitors to move our military would hurt our ability to project power during a time of war or national emergency.
These national security concerns are why the Jones Act continues to enjoy broad support in Congress. Indeed, military leaders have consistently described the Jones Act as crucial to national security. As the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over maritime matters, we are committed to preserving the Jones Act.
procrastinatorsuprem t1_ja4cvyz wrote
Unitil and other energy producers are also making record profits.
largeb789 t1_ja7rpr5 wrote
Yes, they got the rate increases pushed through at the peak energy costs and now that gas prices are down those rates are locked in.
cwalton505 t1_ja48vnw wrote
Oil fired plants are basically non existent. Gas turbines with a HRSG sure, but not oil plants.
realbusabusa t1_ja4bujc wrote
Essentially the same thing though
cwalton505 t1_ja4hwgb wrote
Kind of. But not really. The differentiation is important when making statements
largeb789 t1_ja7r7es wrote
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/ lists oil at 2%, and coal at .3%
Selfless- t1_ja4fa78 wrote
New England generated as much as 24% of its electricity in our fuel oil plants last year.
cwalton505 t1_ja4hqc8 wrote
Love to see that source.
Seabrook nuke plant at 1250 MWhr is by FAR the largest producer in Northern New England. I know of 0 generators running off oil in Maine or NH. I don't think you understand the inefficiency of oil fired plants. I went to school for power engineering and have 15 years experience in the field.
And here's mass, our biggest ISONE supplying state
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Massachusetts
note the 0.4% petroleum
SkiingAway t1_ja4ye6j wrote
(Not the previous poster.)
When we are short on Natural Gas we switch over to oil-fired generation. New England does not have the pipeline capacity to meet demand in major cold snaps.
Traditionally, this has been partially met with LNG imports into Boston (and to a lesser extent, New Brunswick). These are less available and while never cheap, are drastically more expensive now.
Last winter and this winter we have had brief periods where the grid is running on 25-40% oil.
This is not the same as saying that total yearly generation is that much oil, we're talking hours or days, so it's a small % of overall generation....although a slightly larger share of costs, since it's a very expensive power source.
realbusabusa t1_ja53o80 wrote
And significantly more carbon, all for lack of pipeline capacity. It is absurd.
cwalton505 t1_ja58ooh wrote
Yeah and take a look at the previous posters % claim. And I'd still be surprised if we had GTEs powering 25% oil at any single instance
SkiingAway t1_ja657uz wrote
I mean, that's very easy to prove correct, since it's happened recently.
We hit 40% oil-fired generation on Christmas Eve this year, and prices spiked to over $2,000/MWh around that time.
Bloomberg article (archive link since paywall): https://archive.is/LnFvP
You could also just go straight to the source: https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/. "Resource Mix Graph" and then pick 12/24/22 and look at it. At peak, we were generating 6.5GW from oil that day.
realbusabusa t1_ja4l68q wrote
It was 2% last year. After 2018 near disaster of a winter, ISO got serious about fuel reserves. Now we have multiple dual fuel plants that can switch from natgas to fuel oil during extreme cold when natgas gets priority to heating demand.
It really should be 0% oil and 0% coal at this point but multiple reasons why we're not there yet.
mattinnh t1_ja49dgz wrote
The companies that produce electricity misjudged what the cost to produce the electricity was going to be. The reason the price has risen so dramatically is because they need to make up lost profits.
katspresso t1_ja4yjx2 wrote
Eversource reported making nearly $200 million more last year than in 2021, their own report says they had a great year. https://www.eversource.com/content/docs/default-source/investors/eversource-earnings-2022-02-13-23.pdf?sfvrsn=e51f43ae_1
newenglandpolarbear t1_ja4u8k8 wrote
No, they skyrocketed because of corporate greed. Less demand SHOULD mean lower costs.
plz1 t1_ja41aus wrote
Excellent, making a measurable dent in carbon emitting generation.