Tweet
The Rocky Mountain Institute released a report today projecting the economics of solar power over the next 35 years. You can download it here (you'll have to give them an email address, but the report is free).
The headline-grabbing conclusion is that if historical trends continue (a big if, of course), with 10-15 years it will be cheaper in a lot of places to be completely off-grid with solar panels and batteries than grid tied. They also suggest that within 15 years up to half of residential customers in some places could go off grid.
I think this conclusion is extreme: for starters, fewer than half of homes in many places are even suitable for solar panels (due to shading, roof orientation, etc.). But the core conclusion makes sense, in that cheaper PV and battery prices in the not too distant future could lead to a situation where grid operators have to compete at a disadvantage to the off grid option.
IMHO, this would be a very bad outcome. Grid-tied solar is inherently more efficient than using batteries, since the grid provides a way to deliver excess generation to people who can use it immediately, rather than taking the losses (both financial and energetic) of storing the extra in a battery. So even in an age of cheap and ubiquitous solar power, we want to encourage people to stay connected to the grid rather than cutting the cord.
So we need to have policies and pricing structures which encourage customers to stay on-grid. But that doesn't seem to be the approach utilities have been pursuing. Instead, they want to impose punitive connection fees (as in Arizona) or demand-based pricing, ideas which may discourage grid-connected customers from installing solar; but also encourage solar-powered homes to go off-grid.
Power companies are effectively betting that customers would rather be grid-tied than solar-powered, and they are trying to make it harder to be both. At some point, if prices continue to drop, they will lose that bet big-time.
All my opinion of course. But I wish more utilities would think in terms of engineering their future role in a world of cheap residential solar, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the face of technological change.
The headline-grabbing conclusion is that if historical trends continue (a big if, of course), with 10-15 years it will be cheaper in a lot of places to be completely off-grid with solar panels and batteries than grid tied. They also suggest that within 15 years up to half of residential customers in some places could go off grid.
I think this conclusion is extreme: for starters, fewer than half of homes in many places are even suitable for solar panels (due to shading, roof orientation, etc.). But the core conclusion makes sense, in that cheaper PV and battery prices in the not too distant future could lead to a situation where grid operators have to compete at a disadvantage to the off grid option.
IMHO, this would be a very bad outcome. Grid-tied solar is inherently more efficient than using batteries, since the grid provides a way to deliver excess generation to people who can use it immediately, rather than taking the losses (both financial and energetic) of storing the extra in a battery. So even in an age of cheap and ubiquitous solar power, we want to encourage people to stay connected to the grid rather than cutting the cord.
So we need to have policies and pricing structures which encourage customers to stay on-grid. But that doesn't seem to be the approach utilities have been pursuing. Instead, they want to impose punitive connection fees (as in Arizona) or demand-based pricing, ideas which may discourage grid-connected customers from installing solar; but also encourage solar-powered homes to go off-grid.
Power companies are effectively betting that customers would rather be grid-tied than solar-powered, and they are trying to make it harder to be both. At some point, if prices continue to drop, they will lose that bet big-time.
All my opinion of course. But I wish more utilities would think in terms of engineering their future role in a world of cheap residential solar, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the face of technological change.
Comment