[Graeme]

I'm starting this thread because of a point made by Plant in this one. I thought that the advantage of having both is that the big utilities could buy power from consumers, store it, and later sell power back to them if/when they run short. There are likely to be other advantages or disadvantages, which you can state here. I'll start by posting an old article published in 2011.

Centralised Vs. Decentralised Solar Power

As the U.S. begins a major push to become the leading player in the global solar revolution, the topic of sprawling solar farms built away from communities vs. small and medium scale solar arrays utilising rooftops and smaller parcels of already developed or degraded land is becoming an increasingly important issue.

As we've reported in the past, small and medium scale solar power has the potential to become the Internet of distributed electricity generation - a network resilient to a single point of failure; whether caused by natural disasters or attack by hostile parties.

But this aspect only scratches the surface - decentralised solar power offers a multitude of other benefits over large scale plants; including avoiding "line loss" associated with remote generation, reduction in infrastructure investment while offering major permanent job creation potential and avoiding damage to wildlife habitats.

Instead of appropriating undisturbed public lands or utilising productive agricultural land for solar power generation on a massive scale, better use can be made of the very much under-utilised sea of rooftops in our towns and cities.

Solar Done Right, a coalition including public land activists, solar power and electrical engineering experts says when all the costs of establishing and maintaining large solar farms are considered; including factoring in transmission infrastructure and inefficiencies; local, distributed solar PV "is comparable in efficiency, faster to bring online, and more cost-effective than remote utility-scale solar plants".

[Graeme]

Here's one criticism of centralized electrical power.

This practice of co-option by the industrial system is in many ways our biggest stumbling block. Sale foresaw how readily some of us would compromise with consumer capitalism, as long as it rebranded itself as “green”. In Human Scale, he notes that even renewable energy, when it takes the form of “power towers, solar ‘farms’, gigantic wind machines”, can become just another element of the destructive industrial paradigm: “All attempts to take a basically decentralised form of energy, centralise it with some large machine, convert it into electricity, transmit it back to decentralised users . . . will inevitably prove as sensible as killing a fly with a cannon.”

And here is one advantage of centralised solar power for systems over 350kW: cost.

[Plantagenet]

Thanks Graeme.

Kirkpatrick Sale is a very interesting character, who covered a lot of political ground in his career. I read some of his early books, but I hadn't been aware of the interesting turn his political views have taken in recent years. While he started out on the left, these days he's become an advocate of small, localized government and he supports individual initiative on solar power, etc.

Of course he would support decentralized power set up by individuals and coops over the huge centralized corporate-state power companies that dominate the US power grid.

Here is a quote from Mr. Sale:

"The virtue of small government is that the mistakes are small as well." --- Kirkpatrick Sale

[KaiserJeep]

The one advantage to small distributed solar PV such as the 2.8kVA on my roof is that peak capacity is added to the grid without requiring any transformer upgrades. As on hot Summer days when I am running my A/C, and the compressor cuts off. One of my neighbors consumes my excess power, he gets charged and I get credit for power generated. Otherwise both of us (or all four of us who share the same transformer) might require an infrastructure upgrade.

Sunny hot climates are ideal for solar PV because you produce peak power from a PV array at the same time you are consuming peak power for A/C.

[Timo]

Both concepts are critical for the forseeable future. As the "alternative" energy production methods become less alternative, we may finally start to get to where we need to be as a planet, and that is making coal and NG the alternative, instead. I realize that coal and other FF energy sources will probably always be with us for a very long time, and that's OK, i suppose, but there's no reason why they shouldn't be considered the alternative when renewables fall short of demand. That transition is simply too costly for any utility infrastructure to undertake without massive customer support. That support should realisticly be a widespread, shared production system. That's the only way to get done what needs to get done in any critical timeframe. The utilities will need to be forced into this position if it's going to happen at all. In the SW US, it appears to be happening, a bit.

I also know this is complete fantasy-land thinking, but wouldn't it be great if your local utility company went the way of Blockbuster Video?

[ROCKMAN]

Timo - "I also know this is complete fantasy-land thinking, but wouldn't it be great if your local utility company went the way of Blockbuster Video?" Hmmm...you mean like the local Texas utility companies that are producing twice as much energy from wind+solar as any other state? Do you mean like those local Texas utility companies that are generating almost 10% of Texas electricity demand...3X as much as the alt derived electricity in CA?

I'm pretty sure Texas will be glad to stick with the structure of the most effective alt energy creating system in the country.

[BobInget]

We need to separate 'solar' into three parts; Wind power is in essence sun generated. WE simply can't have huge wind machines operating in cities. Wind power to be efficient needs long unbroken 'fetch' or high altitude. Reflected solar steam turbine generation and storage* likewise needs acres of open unshaded cloud free environments for optimum effectiveness.
While some existing rooftops are perfect for PV panels, most residential housing takes advantage of street access even view over roof solar access orientation. Kinda hit and miss. Trees and adjacent structures
can also shade PV's for periods of daylight.

'First Solar' and others are building **hybrid solar plants quite near but not inside point of use.
Certainly in America's South and SouthWest these quickly built, (go up faster, cheaper then storage units)
are practical solutions to growing urban populations power needs.

* Reflected solar steam powered turbines store energy using melted salt pools that can be tapped nights and cloudy days for heat. Obviously, all these systems depend on EXISTING grid structures.
** Hybrid: natural gas back-up.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-
I also know this is complete fantasy-land thinking, but wouldn't it be great if your local utility company went the way of Blockbuster Video?

There are many places where the local power company owns no power plants and produces no power. All they do is buy wholesale power from the grid, distribute it to the retail customers, and bill them. The receipts pay for the grid infrastructure maintenance and the wholesale power purchases.

Then there are independent power producers such as CALPINE who own power plants and sell power wholesale, but don't have any retail customers.

The traditional power company does both - generates power and sells it retail - and all three types of companies do grid maintenance and grid operations.

The power grid itself isn't going away soon, barring a revolutionary new distributed power source.

Similarly, if talking about gas suppliers, there are bulk producers, retail suppliers, and companies that do both. The operations of a hydrocarbon pipeline of any type are crucial and critical.

The message being, the infrastructure can no more be free than the power. I have another 14 years of monthly lease payments on those solar PV panels on my roof - which are operated and controlled by my local PG&E power company, for the safety of their employees, via a cellular modem installed in my power inverter. Better they do so than me.

[Peak_Yeast]

The arguments listed by Graeme is rather complete.

But here is a few thoughts (they have probably been mentioned somewhere before - if so please bear over with me).

For decentralized solar panels:
1. People get a better economy (long term) which gives space for more consumption in other areas.
2. Those with the investment get to be heralds of renewable power
3. Those with solar panels are more aware of their electricity consumption - which probably will reduce it
4. The government would not have to support the transition to renewable power - people would do it on their own - IF they are allowed to buy back their own production at same price as it was "sold" to the net earlier. That is - Without a lot of disgusting taxation on top.
5. The wealth distribution might get a little better when most housing has their own solar panels.


Against:
1. The government feel that they are cheated of some taxes - and will taxate the production of electricity from the solar panels - even if you use it on the spot. This has more or less happened in Denmark. Actually the privately produced solar energy here in Denmark gets taxed TWICE. First the producer pay for the "load on the line" - the neighbourgh which uses the produced electricity also pays for "load on the line" on the very same "electrons". As well as a host of argle-bargle named taxes&pseudo-taxes on top.
2. A few immensely powerful energy-producers are sure to launch an effort to destroy the competitiveness of local produced electricity. Which was what happened here.
3. The investments might have been more efficiently spent at windmills - but then it probably wont be lower middleclass that invests anymore.
4. You might target yourself for thivery or robbery as you seem wealthy or at least well-off by mounting them.

[KaiserJeep]

If they are going to tax the sunlight that falls on my roof, then they should allow me to claim a solar depletion allowance.

[Timo]

Timo - "I also know this is complete fantasy-land thinking, but wouldn't it be great if your local utility company went the way of Blockbuster Video?" Hmmm...you mean like the local Texas utility companies that are producing twice as much energy from wind+solar as any other state? Do you mean like those local Texas utility companies that are generating almost 10% of Texas electricity demand...3X as much as the alt derived electricity in CA?

I'm pretty sure Texas will be glad to stick with the structure of the most effective alt energy creating system in the country.

Touche. The only caveat would be that if the customers of those utilities you referenced could produce near the same amount of power at their residence or business, then yes. i'll stick with my fantasy-land thinking. Obviously, not all utility companies are created equal. Some are better than others. I'm glad there are some out there that are functioning responsibly.

[ROCKMAN]

Timo - I suspect that's the real distinction between solar and wind: scaling. I can see where solar would have an advantage over wind on an individual level. And the govt should do what it can to make that integration as efficient as possible. Which brings us back to the resistance seen by some utilities. For good or bad many utilities were designed to operate as monopolies. Otherwise they wouldn't have been put in place. But now individual solar is potentially changing those rules so conflicts are to be expected. Consider how e- deregulation worked in Texas: my local utility owns the power lines running to my house but I can buy e- from another provider and my utility has to deliver it. But my utility has to be compensated for having its distribution system used. It’s great that someone can sell deliver their excess solar e- into the grid. But what are they going to pay those companies that connect them to other users? Those companies paid for the distribution system as well as the now collecting system. Should each home owner run e- lines to someone’s house? Obviously not. But they can’t send their e- to anyone else without the very expensive distribution system. It would be like me having a small cracking unit and forcing Shell to let me use their tanks and pumps at their gas station to sell my products. So Shell should do this for free?

The problem many utilities have (as well as their customers) us that they were promised a specific return on their investment. Otherwise they could not have built out their system. So now take X number of folks out of the system who are supplying their own e-. Great for them but the utility still gets it guaranteed return so the remaining customers have their rates increased. Same problem when folks conserve by other means: consumption drops but the revenue to the utility has to remain within the guaranteed guidelines.

IMHO there no reason an equitable arrangement can't be made. But each side will try to max their position. And this is the roll the govt can fulfill. The question is how well will they handle the task?

[Timo]

Rockman, you are absolutely correct in summarizing the "monopoly" paradigm with today's utility companies, which brings me to a far-outside-the-box idea. This is almost a suggestion. My municipal government publicly owns all of the sewer and water mains throughout my city. Water and sewer are "public" utilities, provided for by government agencies. My electric and gas utility company is private, but is heavily regulated by our state's corporation commission. Now, as far as the infrastructure goes for providing electricity and natural gas to the public, might it make sense to have those distribution systems publicly owned, as well? Governments of all shapes and sizes would have to compensate the private utilities through the nose to purchase those lines, but it seems to me that if on-site power generation is ever going to become a predominate reality for the average electric consumer, this idea might hasten its realization. The status quo has too many barriers and disincentives built in for the private consumer to make any headway against the utility conglomerates. Obviously, though, the production methods would be both centralized and decentralized. Those would remain private.

[GHung]

As long as they leave us, the modest unwashed-off-grid, alone. All of the hyper-complexity involved with central control of things is going away, eventually to sink under its own weight and excess claims. This is all that really matters. The rest is just a rearranging of the deck chairs.

You either believe in the continuation of growth and complexity, or you don't.

[Keith_McClary]

Consider how e- deregulation worked in Texas: my local utility owns the power lines running to my house but I can buy e- from another provider and my utility has to deliver it. But my utility has to be compensated for having its distribution system used. It’s great that someone can sell deliver their excess solar e- into the grid. But what are they going to pay those companies that connect them to other users? Those companies paid for the distribution system as well as the now collecting system. Should each home owner run e- lines to someone’s house? Obviously not. But they can’t send their e- to anyone else without the very expensive distribution system.

This will become a more serious issue as the % of solar homes increases. If the % is low they can deal with fluctuations in demand by turning their power generation up and down. If it approaches 100% then the utility may at times be a net recipient of power, so it is acting as a storage battery for customers. How do they deal with that? Regardless of whether the utility is public or private owned, someone will have to pay for this.

[Graeme]

Thanks to all contributors here. It's very healthy to see such a wide array of solutions. I know there is a lot more in cyberspace. I tried to find other references on this subject and found this comparison. I was surprised to see that California is already planning to introduce both (not sure when this was written 2010?).

To meet the 33 percent renewable energy goal, California will need a mix of centralized, large-scale projects as well as localized renewable energy generation, such as from solar panels on large buildings or along highways. In his campaign platform for achieving a broader renewable energy portfolio, Governor Brown called for 8,000 new megawatts of renewable energy from large-scale facilities and 12,000 megawatts of localized generation, out of the approximately 20,000 megawatts needed to meet the 33 percent RPS. This logically extends the policies of Governor Brown’s predecessor Gov. Schwarzenegger, who began the process with the ‘Million Solar Rooftop’ policy and legislation

Apparently, utilities do feel under threat by distributed solar but there are possible solutions to this.

Want to Sustain Utilities? Decouple Profits from Revenues, Assign Costs Where they Belong and Enable Customers to Make Smarter Energy Choices

The tally of utilities and governments around the world imposing or boosting fixed charges for grid-supplied electricity is rising to make up for the decline in traditional, rate-based revenue. In the U.S. this has been due primarily to ever-improving energy efficiency and the end of year-to-year increases in electricity usage. Now, the demand curve looks to stay flat or even head south due to distributed generation, particularly rooftop solar.

Think about it. Effectively penalize customers by slapping them with a charge that has little, if anything, to do with how much of a product they use. If regulators, energy utilities and policy experts today were designing rules for the first time, would anyone want to reward increased energy consumption that puts a heavier burden on, and grows the risks to, civil society and national economies? I think we can all agree the answer would be no.

The overarching issue here is not new. Debates have raged for decades over how to enable utilities to earn money from energy efficiency programs. A growing number of states, led by California, have made significant strides and there are many lessons to share. I’m on a constant outlook for fresh ideas that deal with the realities of how energy utilities are regulated and the reliance on the status quo by consumer advocates and much of the industry relying on a 100+ year-old business model.


Now there are challenges that utilities need to be compensated for in all rate structures. I’m talking about the need for cleaner generation portfolios, infrastructure improvements and defenses against cyber security threats. But they can be dealt with prudently while maintaining incentives to use less energy and reduce dependence on the grid. The means to think proactively are all around us if regulators and stakeholders commit to it. There are several examples to draw from to illuminate what’s working and what’s not.

At this week’s winter meetings of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) in Washington, the Committee on Consumer Affairs is searching for “real solutions to real challenges”. They’re grappling with questions such as, “Will consumers dictate what services they are provided in the future?” Fixed charges were not overtly on this agenda although distributed generation is considered a "critical issue" a NARUC committee is studying.

Thus far, about half the U.S. states have decoupled utility profits from revenues in ways that don’t rely too heavily on fixed charges. See adjacent map. The onus is on the remaining half – especially in the electricity sector – to follow suit.

theenergycollective

[rollin]

Decentralized is the way to go. PV and wind should be able to be disconnected from the grid quickly and replacement components on hand.

My reasoning? It's all about the reality that the corporate power sectors and government are nor really ghung-ho about changing to renewable energy. I think there will be major failures of the grid due to lack of fossil fuels, there will be major failures due to foot-dragging in procedures and technology to integrate the new power sources into the grid.
When natural gas runs short, do you shut the grid or keep the homes heated? Since nothing runs without electricity anymore it's a loaded question. They will try to do both, do the impossible. Unless there is sufficient backup from solar and wind, the grid will go down.

The ability to remove individual sources from the grid or at least small groups will be the safest method. When the cities go dark, the screaming might get the ball rolling to remedy things but also there will be lots of finger pointing going on.
In the meantime, being able to pump well water and have some lights will be a great advantage while "society" finally gets it's act in gear or goes dark completely.

[KaiserJeep]

Sounds good in theory. BUT the synchronus inverters that allow the Solar PV installations to tie to the grid and use it as lossless energy store will not produce any power in the absence of a working grid. This is done deliberately for the safety of those working on the grid - but it means that when the grid fails, all the distributed solar, wind, and small hydropower energy producers are also offline.

You can cheat if you know how. If I am in the midst of a power failure I can throw the Transfer switch from "Grid" to "Generator", disconnecting my house totally. After 5 minutes of generator power, my Solar PV comes online and increases the available power to generator capacity plus solar PV capacity - but only during the day.

Nobody has batteries or other energy storage unless they have an off-the-grid installation, as batteries are very costly and require maintenance.

[Pops]

Everyone always overlooks solar thermal.

Space and water heating are the largest energy uses at home, depending where you live they can be 75% of energy consumption. Solar thermal is cheaper and simpler than an equivalent amount of PV on any scale and a pane of glass can last generations.