I understand the price setting is in 5 minute intervals, so the cap will last 5,10,15 mins etc rather than milliseconds, so catching them on your meter should not be too difficult.
3 Likes
Our meter would agree with that.
Our digital smart meter updates every 0.001 kWh of measured power flow. Consumption or Export.
It also knows the date and time to the same accuracy as the mobile phone. It’s also happy to update to the meter display the cumulative and spot data every 20 seconds.
Five minute lots not likely to be a problem.
Note:
There are now schemes in place to reduce the grid loads when there are very high peaks. One is intended to pay larger users to load shed on demand. The other is aimed at residential users controlled devices turning loads offer to reduced power.
Is there another avenue to leverage solar PV + battery owners capacity during peak demand? A residential user with battery does not need to export during peak demand. A home user with battery could agree to operate during peak periods off battery storage alone, IE not draw any grid power. This would offer a similar benefit to the grid without the need to report any feedin. In days of low local solar PV, staying connected to the grid would enable the battery to be topped up off peak.
Should homes with that option be offered a benefit in cash equal to the averaged spot price for staying off the grid for agreed hours each morning and evening peak? Interestingly such a strategy does not need any increase in grid capacity to feed power in locally. It’s one way to reduce stress in the system and make what’s already in place more efficient?
3 Likes
That mostly happens by default for me at all times of day. The house will never draw power from the grid, assuming house demand exceeds panel generation (so there’s a net demand), unless
- the battery is close to empty, or
- the intended instantaneous power draw from the battery exceeds the maximum discharge rate of the battery.
I think the problem being discussed here is the opposite i.e. peak generation not matched by demand. As I understand it, for new systems it must be possible to remotely disable grid feed-in i.e. “generation shedding” (by analogy with load shedding).
I suppose the flipside if doing this is the same should apply to imported power by domestic PV grid connected PVs households.
The $14500/MW equates to $14.50/kW.
I can imagine the media frenzy when a pensioner pays say $30-50 in power to bake some spuds and a small roast because the peak price was around dinner time when the sun wasn’t shining. Ouch.
2 Likes
Yes, $14.50, a typo - I should check before posting!
Only going to happen if on a wholesale deal, and if you are, you really need to keep an eye on current prices! My brother gets SMS alerts for high and low pricing so he can take appropriate actions. He is ahead overall though, even with periods of high prices.
Something along those lines did happen in the US recently though.
1 Like
An updated article regarding this rip-off.
“The AEMC said the scheme would also raise money for network upgrades, instead of going to all consumers.”
So after the consumers have been ripped off for years to “justify the price increases to pay for the gold plated network upgrades”, they should now contribute to upgrading the network to the new “diamond standards”.
With friends like like the AEMC and their ilk, who needs enemies?
I don’t see exactly how this would work. For consumption, Time-of-Use metering works on published, stable pricing. The non-PV customer can alter behaviour in response but that’s about it. The PV customer can alter behaviour and the software can alter its behaviour in response.
For production, how will real-time pricing changes be communicated in a fair and reasonable manner to producers?
Will it not be communicated, with the result that producers just get shafted?
Will it be communicated, with the result that
may not eventuate.
If prices are communicated in real-time, the PV software is just going to dump the energy, rather than earn a negative amount.
I’ve already seen some panel owners saying that they will buy a (bigger / second) battery and go off grid, rather than earn negative amounts. You can bet that 90%+ of the people saying that are full of, um, hot air but some may follow through - and that too will not help “raise money for network upgrades”.
Owners with older (abandonware) systems may be disadvantaged - since the needed software upgrades may not be forthcoming.
Having randomly varying prices will make it harder to consider the economics of an investment in a PV system and harder to audit your power bill for correctness.
Is the system broken who ever the customer?
A standard retail agreement charges an agreed average cost (rate) per unit of power consumed. Whether a consumer is a smaller user with low peak demand or a MacMansion owner who pulls the grid down in the evening peak, the daily cost to be connected is the same. And the power consumed charged at the same unit rate, irrespective of the impact of sipping a little extra or drawing cable melting amounts.
It’s the peak demand that drives the sizing and cost of the network upgrades. The peak demand is also the driver for the higher generation costs, that cause the averaged unit rate to be higher.
If we are going to change consumer behaviour, encourage positive outcomes and address high consumption. Is Time of Use (TOU) metering and billing for all the way forward?
That begets other issues. The easiest example is when it hits 45C outside at 14:00 and the oldies, be they on pensions or self funded, hospital wards, and aged care homes cannot afford to turn on their A/C because it is the peak period.
They can with what they save off peak!
Most users pay a higher flat rate because of peak use. Every time they consume power the added cost is built into the average rate, whether they are higher users in peak times, or eat early and nod off with just a single light and the Tele. An honest TOU tariff would provide significantly lower average rates outside peak periods. The balance of higher peak charges should produce the same total cost over a billing cycle.
IE The billing system can be arranged such that the average user would pay the same or less for their total consumption over an extended period of time.
There is one proposition to leave the billing system exactly as is. It may be the wisest?
When those with the power to do so suggest the introduction of a change that selectively impacts one group of customers. It follows that the whole system should be open to change and restructure. And just not on the single terms those powers have decided. No public consultation, or is the announcement it?
Note:
Depending on supplier and state those on pensions or seniors may be receiving concessions or rebates. It’s never been a true user pays system. Some one has always paid more or less of their share. And someone else taken the profits.
Gold plating and the sprinkling of diamond dust has always been to the cost of the consumer. These costs are built into the rates every user is charged, whether they are the ones driving up the need to increase the network capacity or not.
There is currently no benefit to users who consume a higher portion of their electricity in daylight hours relative to users who consume most early in the morning and in the evenings. It appears to favour busy families and those working long daylight hours over those who are mostly at home all day, such as retirees and the elderly.
It’s not simply about who pays less. There’s a community benefit to reducing the carbon footprint of the NEG.
For the current proposal to charge PV owners to upgrade the grid.
Is it asking those who have been able to fund a portion of our GHG reductions to pay a ‘big fat tax’ for supporting GHG reductions? Apologies to the Liberal Party of Australia for borrowing their way of thinking.
That is often easier said than done. How many 2AM laundry cycles will it take to balance out the A/C for an hour at 2PM?
2 Likes
Exactly.
Those who are in a position to install solar and refuse to do so are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
They are the ones who should receive a surcharge for contributing to the global warming problem, not those who have actually done something about it.
What about those who are not in a position to take up PV? Surcharge them also? How does one differentiate those who cannot from those who can but do not? I trust you can see where that goes so I need not belabour it.
Perhaps mandating all new construction includes PV arrays and batteries and no permits given where the sun doesn’t shine at least 8 hours a day every day?
Easy. Those who own their residences, whose residences are suitable for installing solar, and who have income or assets to afford it.
Those who rent, who have unsuitable residences or have no money don’t pay
Somewhat akin to the income and assets tests for pensions.
1 Like
That could create a bureaucracy that costs all the possible benefits and more just to administer who and who isn’t eligible and the determination of all the hardship cases that will need assessing.
I think it needs some changing of the way Solar/Renewable is mandated. I feel a new house/development or purchases of already existing housing has to be made to include Renewables, a renovation at some cost point (has to be set in legislation) is required to include Renewable generation. Those owned for Rental purposes need to be required to allow tenants to install renewable options or for the owners to be required to have them installed. Some of the Micro Hub thinking and provisioning needs to be developed particularly with new developments and network upgrades and storage of excess power…
Who pays, well we all do through taxes (things like carbon taxes but also other tax increases eg GST), cost increases to the cost of purchasing power, cost increases to housing on building (whether business or personal), renovation, purchase of properties. Outcome to be hopefully more networking of power to be suited to the renewable energy power generation whether large or small scale. This all should finally mean that the cost of power will fall as more of the large scale energy production becomes less needful.
To those less able to pay eg Pensioners the Government already has a system in place to offset some of the increased costing to those users. They could increase the interest free or very low interest loans to those who are less able to afford these changes so that they can implement them on their owned properties or their rented accommodation.
No pain free answers though.
2 Likes
If the design of the system is as suggested it will not work. Note TOU and off peak as they are now applied do not necessarily reflect actual generating cost.
An alternate design of the system is to charge less between 8:30am and 5pm compared with current averaged rates. Note this is when the system is seeing the cheapest power due to solar +/- wind across the NEG, not typically 2am.
If the design of the system is to have a low fixed rate based on the average cost of power between those hours there is certainty.
If the design of the system is to set the peak rate accordingly to be a fixed rate that scales with demand. Note there is currently a low cost base load, albeit coal generated that carries through the evening peak. Perhaps that sets the base rate and user allowance for the peak demand period? Longer term it may morph to reflect the cost of what replaces that base load, EG wind + pumped storage?
Yes, TOU rates could alternately be like Texas and dynamic infinitely variable rates. Perhaps not such a great way to go By example.
2 Likes
That must be fair, I guess. Those who were fortunate enough to be able to save and did so, and became self funded get zip and pay taxes, and those who were not so fortunate get support. Yes, very fair. Self funded could be $1 over the test or $100,000,000 over and are treated the same?
My point is not about the test, but about the fairness aspects that become binary switches.
3 Likes
For many reasons, including the practicalities of concerns akin to sports rorts, preferencing donors, preferencing miners, electorates, special interests (recovery led by gas?) - you know I know, and I know you know and we both hope for the best and both understand how hard that would be under the current system of governance.
1 Like
Maybe, but then maybe there isn’t a non-broken version of the system.
I thought that, at one time, there was a tiered consumption rate i.e. the first X kWh in the billing period are charged at one rate and then the remainder at a different rate (which could then be used to penalise high-consumption households).
On top of that there are mid-period rate changes, occasionally.
All on top of TOU metering.
I don’t think we want a confusopoly where nothing provides any incentive to change consumer behaviour because consumers don’t understand the system and are totally confused.
To be fair, a household can be on a 100% Green Power plan, not install PV, and yet … not be part of the problem.
As stated above, rental properties also sort of fall into this category. PV is diabolical in a rental property. A Green Power plan is a much better option for a rental property.
If PV then definitely also battery - because otherwise grid operators are already pushing back over the scale of PV generation. It makes no sense to mandate more PV until the grid can handle it.
It could also be argued that in some respects state governments should have got their act together and built massive solar farms by the dozen about 15 years ago - and no household would ever need to install PV and batteries (unless off grid).
The point was actually
which is implicitly off-grid, solving/avoiding a wires and poles and managing the grid problem.
