I’m Out!

thanks for taking on this oft-misunderstood topic. The popular press will likely never recognize the associated subtleties (they don’t have the time or motivation), so it is helpful to have people with some deeper insight help round out the discussion.

In the same spirit, I wanted to refine your definition of net-metering, because your explanation is somewhat oblique. The function of net-metering is not to zero-out an electricity bill (though this is one possible result); rather, net-metering is a policy/technology construct that enables a utility customer to net any production from on-site generation against usage–whether or not the former exceeds the latter.

Net-metering is first and foremost a public policy instrument meant to spur residential DG, in the service of a number of policy goals. you rightly point out the two main problems with the policy as it has been implemented, and the potential benefits of rectifying them. You also point out that the market realities of the current tariffs limit the true potential of residential DG.

It will be interesting to see how this issue evolves. For example, the emergence of an affordable, high-capacity battery technology might easily allow the residential user to store micro-gen (solar, wind) from off-peak, and sell back to the utility on-peak. this would enable residential users to command higher prices for their power, creating a positive feed-back loop for larger systems with more capacity; if such systems become ubiquitous enough in certain service areas, the resulting aggregation of power actually will benefit the utilities by reducing the need for building additional peak capacity.

Thanks again for taking on this issue; your work is well done.

Andy

i dont think i mentioned it before, but I am working at the DOE this summer on the recovery act team handling smart grid.

good point about jobs: that is something we struggle with every day here. In a lot of ways, smart grid eliminates jobs (meter readers).

Lets catch up sometime over the phone. I will be back in the bay area mid aug also

Chris

1. A capitalist free-market system requires perpetual growth as capital seeks ever-increasing rates of return. Just switch on CNBC for 5 minutes and you’ll likely hear the need for “growth,” and turn on CNN and listen to a politician speak and you’ll here them talk about creating job and growing the economy. If you watch any videos on youtube regarding population expansion, which is based on the excess amount of energy (allowing an explosion in food production available due to free-flowing capital) you will see what looks like a CANCER spreading across the globe leaving absolute destruction in its wake.

2. While leaders of industry would like to believe otherwise, humans are merely PART OF a complex web of natural systems, not IN CHARGE or CONTROL of such.

3. Given that natural systems are FINITE, such INFINITE GROWTH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

4. The fundamental goal of a capitalist economy is to create wealth from production which involves three key ingredients…a)raw materials (i.e. nature) b) energy (i.e. hydrocarbons) and c) ingenuity backed by capital (i.e. VC). Supposedly the system is open to everyone (American Dream) but in reality each unit of additional growth accrues primarily to the wealthy class and does not trickle down to the middle and lower classes, especially during the past 25 years. This disparity will inevitably lead to civil unrest and a totalitarian government system put in place under the guise of “protecting” the people from some external threat (terrorism, boogie man, you pick your poison).

So, as well-intended as the “green movement” may be, it will be wholly inadequate to stem the tide of the devastation inevitably associated with a growth-based system of ever-expanding exploitation of creatures, both human and non-human and the natural support systems upon which all parties depend to survive.

Please pass this along to your gang at Presidio. Peace….

GV