UK: Cost of charging an electric car surges by 42% - with prices nearing the same as petrol

[JeffKeryk]

You imported, on-peak,193kWh @ $0.48902/kWh
You exported, off-peak, 244kWh @ $0.42558/kWh (this is you exporting this electricity, at full retail)

Your baseline allowance is -309kWh. Your baseline credit appears to be based on the difference between your imports and exports. This is consistent with the bills you sent me previously. One period, the difference was 17kWh, which netted you a savings of $1.35 off your bill. The next period the difference was 137.9kWh, which netted you a savings of $10.00 off your bill.

So:
- if you import more power than you export, this gives us a net positive number, which appears as a credit on your bill.
- if you export more power than you import, this gives us a net negative number, which appears as a charge on your bill.

If you look at your snippet again you will see that your Baseline Credit, on this bill, is in fact a charge of $4.61. However, this basically gets wiped-out by the Generation credit and Power Charge indifference adjustment.

Does that help?

Thanks @OVERKILL
I do understand my bill; there are some nuances I am not completely understanding, but net net I am very satisfied with my solar project. I am fairly tough sell, but the numbers were compelling. Pay once, cry once as we say on BITOG.
I actually posted the snippet as an example of my plan for others, but thanks for going over it regardless.

Solar was a component of my forward looking personal finance plan, which included minimizing recurring costs. My current monthly cost of living, with no mortgage, car payment, etc is really low. This frees cash for things I wanna do, such as helping others who are not as lucky as I have been.

 

[ripcord]

Thanks @OVERKILL
I do understand my bill; there are some nuances I am not completely understanding, but net net I am very satisfied with my solar project. I am fairly tough sell, but the numbers were compelling. Pay once, cry once as we say on BITOG.
I actually posted the snippet as an example of my plan for others, but thanks for going over it regardless.

Solar was a component of my forward looking personal finance plan, which included minimizing recurring costs. My current monthly cost of living, with no mortgage, car payment, etc is really low. This frees cash for things I wanna do, such as helping others who are not as lucky and responsible as I have been.

 

[UncleDave]

(pretty certain) Jeff has what the CPUC and PG&E call a NEM1 contract.

UD has a Nem2 contract.


Heres the construct of my next bill.

https://www.pge.com/includes/docs/p.../solarenergy/billing callouts NEM monthly.pdf

 

[Exhaustgases]

Yeah everyone thinks they will save on that cost of gas with the electric. Of course the price of electric will sky rocket. Its sort of like using farm lands to grow crops for fuel. So not too far into the future the cost to heat your home or cook your food with electric will be crazy, and you will be able to thank electric cars for that. Oh and don't forget the big factories that use electric metal melting furnaces and machinery, food processing etc.
and you think prices are nuts now? If you love electric cars this is what you are wishing on all of us.
I just wish we could discuss all the real issues about all this here.

 

[alarmguy]

I'm fine paying the transmission fee both ways.

Should they be able to charge me a fee to move juice from my own roof into my own box?
They didnt do that I did, they don't repair it maintain it or keep it up or pay the improvment tax on it - I do.

I should be able to opt out of selling if I dont like the deal.

You can opt out, disconnect from their system and provide your own power 24 hours a day. You buy power from an electric company using their system/network but want to dictate the terms of what you pay and what they pay you.
More or less you added solar panels to your house and want a partial pay electric system from the utility that supplies power to everyone else on your terms. Everyone who is connected needs to support 100% of the system costs and generating plant costs if they choose to rely on that system. The "system" in your case has to be there to supply you with power 24 hours a day and everyone needs to support the cost.

With that said, sure, I have no problem if they pay you TRUE wholesale cost for that power as long as the net cost to the system is the same as the people who do not have panels.

 

[UncleDave]

You can opt out, disconnect from their system and provide your own power 24 hours a day. You buy power from an electric company but want to dictate the terms of what you buy.

Not true.

I cannot opt out of buying power from them anymore than I can opt out of paying taxes.

If there is a local pole - I have to connect to it. Im forced to connect and buy power from them. This is a huge discussion in Nor cal right now.

I dont want to dictate what I buy, but I believe its my right to control what I sell my production for.

 

[alarmguy]

Not true.

I cannot opt out of buying power from them anymore than I can opt out of paying taxes.

If there is a local pole - I have to connect to it. Im forced to connect and buy power from them. This is a huge discussion in Nor cal right now.

I dont want to dictate what I buy, but I believe its my right to control what I sell my production for.

How can you be forced? Just dont use their power, disconnect in your home.

 

[UncleDave]

How can you be forced? Just dont use their power.

The system will reports as disconnected because its designed that way - plus the bill still keeps coming for the connection fee, taxes, nuclear decommissioning and a host of other fees regardless.

Local zoning laws do not allow unconnected homes if a grid connection is available.

I go build a cabin in the woods I own on remote property - no problem.

 

[OVERKILL]

I dont want to dictate what I buy, but I believe its my right to control what I sell my production for.

I can get onboard with that, you should be able to be a market participant and bid your generation into the system.

Funny aside:
On twitter this AM I saw a guy claim that in terms of curtailment, that fossil sources should be curtailed first (which I agree with) because nuclear has a far lower marginal cost, so it's cheaper to keep running it (OK, that's basically true) but he then goes on to state that nuclear should be curtailed before renewables because VRE has basically no marginal cost; it's essentially "free" which shows a huge disconnect between people like this, advocating for policy, and how these systems actually function.

Yes, OPEX for VRE is very close to zero, but you still have CAPEX, that is recouped via rates (assuming no subsidies perverting the system/market). Nobody is building wind or solar and then putting it on the grid for free, this is total delusion; abject fantasy. This is why VRE projects have PPA's or require REC's and if these incentives are removed, why the adoption rate will tank, because the problem with having a whole pile of generation that only generates during a specific period, or, comes in huge waves, is that you invariably end up with a surplus and that surplus doesn't have any value, and in a market system, that drives down the market rate, which can hit zero or even go below zero.

Now, who in their right mind is going to build capacity that, when it produces, will receive close to $0.00/kWh? Nobody of course.

So, this is how we end up with all these insane schemes like REC's and the like that make these generators profitable when the market isn't. Of course this has a profound impact on all the other generators, who then have to bid in much higher when they are required, to make a profit, as now they are having to operate "flexibly", which is harder on equipment, increasing R&M costs, than pure baseload. So that, plus the cost of the REC's/subsidy, ultimately drive-up total system costs, but you'll have these same folks talking about how these sources are "the cheapest" while waving their hands wanting you to ignore all the rest of this.

 

[ecotourist]

Not surprised.

My friends in Belgium tell me its now 3Ka month to cool or heat their 1500SQ Ft houses.

A little clarification would be good.

Is this for the current (ie cool) months? Or predicted costs for the coldest months? For a reasonably well insulated house with double or triple pane windows, or for an uninsulated house with single pane and leaky windows?

The point is you can super-insulate a house in a moderately cold area (occasional -20 F) so it requires essentially no additional heating. There are always a few heat inputs because people live there (and people generate quite a bit of heat) and there are also clothes washing, cooking, lighting and entertainment system heat inputs. There are also new problems to deal with - particularly ventilation with associated heat recovery systems, and de-humidification. Super insulation is not often done but it can be.

Heating costs and insulation costs are a cost and comfort trade off. In cold climates with expensive heating costs, people insulate their houses really well and install double and triple pane windows to retain (expensive) heat. In moderate climates with cheap energy it's not (or at least hasn't been) such a priority.

 

[UncleDave]

I can get onboard with that, you should be able to be a market participant and bid your generation into the system.

Funny aside:
On twitter this AM I saw a guy claim that in terms of curtailment, that fossil sources should be curtailed first (which I agree with) because nuclear has a far lower marginal cost, so it's cheaper to keep running it (OK, that's basically true) but he then goes on to state that nuclear should be curtailed before renewables because VRE has basically no marginal cost; it's essentially "free" which shows a huge disconnect between people like this, advocating for policy, and how these systems actually function.

Yes, OPEX for VRE is very close to zero, but you still have CAPEX, that is recouped via rates (assuming no subsidies perverting the system/market). Nobody is building wind or solar and then putting it on the grid for free, this is total delusion; abject fantasy. This is why VRE projects have PPA's or require REC's and if these incentives are removed, why the adoption rate will tank, because the problem with having a whole pile of generation that only generates during a specific period, or, comes in huge waves, is that you invariably end up with a surplus and that surplus doesn't have any value, and in a market system, that drives down the market rate, which can hit zero or even go below zero.

Now, who in their right mind is going to build capacity that, when it produces, will receive close to $0.00/kWh? Nobody of course.

So, this is how we end up with all these insane schemes like REC's and the like that make these generators profitable when the market isn't. Of course this has a profound impact on all the other generators, who then have to bid in much higher when they are required, to make a profit, as now they are having to operate "flexibly", which is harder on equipment, increasing R&M costs, than pure baseload. So that, plus the cost of the REC's/subsidy, ultimately drive-up total system costs, but you'll have these same folks talking about how these sources are "the cheapest" while waving their hands wanting you to ignore all the rest of this.

Peoples capacity for delusion is incredible.

I'm completely aligned with you in that every generator has to pay its freight in terms of grid usage maintenance and growth and Im more than happy to pay that bill, and that once you start with disproportionate incentives it creates an untenable system. The word free gets used with zero understanding of how this all works.

Of course the guys that bought in early (2016) get a way better deal than the guys after but there is still a very reasonable ROI to be had.

Its tricky balancing act - how do you encourage self generation and frugality without punishing someone else?

As much as I hate to get a worse deal than the next guy the NEM2 is probably a pretty fair deal for me.

 

[UncleDave]

A little clarification would be good.

Is this for the current (ie cool) months? Or predicted costs for the coldest months? For a reasonably well insulated house with double or triple pane windows, or for an uninsulated house with single pane and leaky windows?

The point is you can super-insulate a house in a moderately cold area (occasional -20 F) so it requires essentially no additional heating. There are always a few heat inputs because people live there (and people generate quite a bit of heat) and there are also clothes washing, cooking, lighting and entertainment system heat inputs. There are also new problems to deal with - particularly ventilation with associated heat recovery systems, and de-humidification. Super insulation is not often done but it can be.

Heating costs and insulation costs are a cost and comfort trade off. In cold climates with expensive heating costs, people insulate their houses really well and install double and triple pane windows to retain (expensive) heat. In moderate climates with cheap energy it's not (or at least hasn't been) such a priority.

I just got back from a week long trade show in the Netherlands and each European country is going through its own energy upheaval at the moment, this discussion dominated every dinner and bar talk.

It isnt super clear even to those being affected how they are going to do it but Belgium has stepped in with an energy cap for consumers for the moment while stimulating every kind of solar and self heating they can - but there is one constant - Its unaffordable overnight.

in a surprise move - the RAI convention center refused to run air condition claiming it "not to be good for the environment" which is debatable but for sure that move was better for their costs.

 

[JeffKeryk]

For @UncleDave and @OVERKILL
I am on NEM2; NEM1 ended in Dec 2016; our solar switched on in March 2018.

 

[UncleDave]

For @UncleDave and @OVERKILL
I am on NEM2; NEM1 ended in Dec 2016; our solar switched on in March 2018.


View attachment 118848

Your bill structure appears totally different from what Im going to get- of course I didn't see it all.

Have you been forced onto a time of use plan?

 

[OVERKILL]

For @UncleDave and @OVERKILL
I am on NEM2; NEM1 ended in Dec 2016; our solar switched on in March 2018.


View attachment 118848

You must have the gold-plated version, lol

 

[UncleDave]

You must have the gold-plated version, lol

definitely - Im going to get about 2-4C a KWH pay a hookup fee and all kinds of great things.

 

[wpod]

Yes, in Australia, they are already starting to curtail people's solar when there is too much. That, and wholesale rates paid to embedded generators, is the way things are headed.

Explain the obvious, When the Sun Shines.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Your bill structure appears totally different from what Im going to get- of course I didn't see it all.

Have you been forced onto a time of use plan?

Yes, I am on a TOU.
Check your email for a copy of a bill. @OVERKILL did an analysis awhile back; my job is just to pay and pay and pay.
I love my solar.

 

[UncleDave]

Yes, I am on a TOU.
Check your email for a copy of a bill. @OVERKILL did an analysis awhile back; my job is just to pay and pay and pay.
I love my solar.

Thanks will drill in and check it out as well as share mine.

Feel like I have a similar job - paying and paying.

I feel very warmly toward my solar, hoping it blossoms to love.

 

[OVERKILL]

Explain the obvious, When the Sun Shines.

Yup. The fun of course is that your rooftop solar stops being a profit centre when the grid operator cuts you off and you can't export. There has been some outrage, lol.