Re: Surplus electricity

From	Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Newsgroups	sci.electronics.design
Subject	Re: Surplus electricity
Date	2026-03-27 10:10 -0700
Message-ID	<n2ns0aFr48mU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <10putk4$1cd2c$2@dont-email.me> <n2gdbsFd9usU1@mid.individual.net> <10pv31p$1ecbo$2@dont-email.me> <n2gmcmFel98U1@mid.individual.net> <10pvbm7$1h598$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/24/26 5:53 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/24/2026 4:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> Yes.  But, to avoid the cost of on-site storage, you have to be able to
>>> identify (and isolate) a large enough load to make it viable.  Solar
>>> landscape lighting doesn't cut it.
>>
>> But like I said fridges and freezers do. They are a big chunk in the 
>> electric bill of otherwise frugal hopuseholds.
> 
> Yes, but not big enough to consume the sorts of "excess" power
> that you can have available.  Think: air conditioning, etc.
> 

In my case not because I haven't used the big A/C in years. It's swamp 
cooler only.


>>> As nothing prevents you from powering that load from the utility
>>> WHEN utility power is available, you can use the utility when
>>> needed and NOT rely on it for storage.  So, they have no voice in your
>>> deployment decisions and can only affect the price you pay as a
>>> regular consumer.
>>
>> When you do that here they charge you an effective $0.45/kWh. 
>> Motivation enough not to do that.
> 
> They don't know the difference between a "solar enhanced" load
> and a traditional load.  That's the point.  You aren't relying
> on the utility to store your "excess", just *supplement* your needs.
> 

Ideally one would supplement when prices are low. It Texas you can, in 
California that doesn't make economic sense. The ToU rates they offer 
are a bad deal. You only get a miniscule discount during solar excess 
supply but when you then want to cook or bake a meal in the evening you 
get severely punish by huge upcharges. Meaning your total electricity 
bill would now be higher. Therefore, many people like myself are not 
signing up for that.



>>> And, if you've already put your "toe" in, you can easily put your
>>> whole "foot" in if their "standard" pricing becomes too costly.
>>
>> That gets expensive, fast, mainly because of high peak loads. But some 
>> people out here do that and go completely off grid.
> 
> It is common, here, in outlying areas.  But, they have to be able to
> store their excess to get through periods of no power.
> 
> If, instead, you use local solar to power certain loads and utility
> power to carry those loads when your storage is exhausted, then
> you just look like a smaller user.
> 

That can be done if you are mostly retired. For example, run the dryer 
or the vacuum cleaner while it is sunny outside. For working people it's 
just not feasible.


>>>>> It also forces you onto a ToU tariff so the extra load you have during
>>>>> those peak hours (e.g., your air conditioning unit) is billed at a
>>>>> higher rate than if you had the standard tariff.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't use the utility as a storage medium, then only local
>>>>> building codes determine how much power you can generate and how
>>>>> you dispose of the excess (run outdoor lights during the daylight
>>>>> hours to boast of how much "extra" power you have available, to
>>>>> the disdain of your neighbors).
>>>>
>>>> Well, my last employer before becoming self-employed again reacted 
>>>> like many businesses do. They moved nearly all of production To 
>>>> Costa Rica. That fixes such issues.
>>>
>>> Until their economy tanks, etc.  Many pharmaceutical houses moved
>>> production to Puerto Rico (taking advantage of tax breaks).  I suspect
>>> none of them are still there, contending with unreliable power...
>>
>> Costa Rica is much more stable. Companies take a really long view on 
>> that sort of stuff.
> 
> Everything is stable -- until it isn't.
> 

For businesses, 3-5 years is fine. You make sure not to invest too much 
or too longterm. Then, should things turn socialist you can leave.


>>> I know of many factories in New England that moved south (US) to take 
>>> advantage
>>> of cheaper labor and "right to work" legislation.  Then, discovered the
>>> workforce didn't have the skills necessary to continue making their 
>>> products.
>>
>> That shows a lack of due diligence on their part. Assessing the skills 
>> of a work force isn't that difficult. I've seen similar but there the 
>> problem was that the workforce in the selected country did not 
>> comprehend English well enough. That almost qualifies for a Darwin 
>> award :-)
> 
> If your industry doesn't have a presence in an area, then you don't have
> a reliable way of knowing what the local population can provide, in terms
> of quality of labor AND willingness to work in said industry.
> 

That's what business service providers are for. They scout such things 
and you can buy a targeted report. Those reports usually cost thousands 
of dollars but are often worth it.


> Why no AI startups in Romney, West Virginia?
> 

Well, everybody knows that :-)

Nowadays with remote work it doesn't matter so much. I have worked 
remotely for decades. I have never personally met many of my longterm 
clients yet we have done lots of projects together, from concept to 
production. I could live on a Caribbean island as long as Fedex lands there.


>>> You don't have to canvas the entire store to know what SHOULD be in it.
>>> Additions arrive via documented processes and removals similarly.  If
>>> the "net" isn't relatively accurate, then your business has far more
>>> serious issues to address!  If you don't know what you have on hand,
>>> how can you commit to *selling* anything?
>>
>> Sure but then there are the state rules and they want it all counted 
>> and certified.
> 
> If a state wants to capture inventory costs, it can write whatever rules it
> wants to make that practical.  If they put too high a bar, then companies
> look at the cost of *avoiding* those rules.
> 

Exactly. Just like it happens with other costs or red tape. Costs get 
too high -> hightail it.


>> Also, if they'd tax on inventory during the year that would entice 
>> companies to keep their stuff out of state. Or leave lock, stock and 
>> barrel. Which some did.
> 
> That just increases their cost to do business *in* the state.
> 
> Our sales tax approaches 10% (9.mumble).  On a $50K vehicle, there is a 
> huge
> incentive to avoid that tax.  Yet, you don't see dealerships moving outside
> of the region where the taxes are imposed -- because that inconveniences
> their customers.  Would you want to stake your business in an 
> unincorporated
> area and have to worry about where you were going to get police, fire,
> insurance, etc.?
> 
> As long as your competitors are stuck in the same boat, there is no real
> incentive to play games.
> 

It's the consumers who play those games. There is a reason why many 
people in our area have their huge RVs registered in Florida, Montana, 
Oregon, et cetera. Sometimes their whole fleet of cars.

I remember people in WA state who got together on Saturdays, rented the 
biggest U-Haul truck they could find and then drove down to OR. There 
they bought whatever was needed. Big ticket items such as washers, 
dryers, fancy dishwashers, leather sofas, video games, computers, and so 
on. No sales tax in OR.


> The same applies to mail-order firms.  If buying on-line allowed you to 
> avoid
> local sales taxes, those retailers would have a price advantage.


And they do even though Internet sales are now taxed. Some people look 
for small mom and pop shops out of state whose biz volume is below the 
threshold so they can sell sans tax. That's an instant 10% discount in 
your area.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-20 09:36 -0700
  Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 10:46 -0700
    Re: Surplus electricity Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-03-20 19:14 +0100
    Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 14:13 -0700
      Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-20 15:28 -0700
        Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-20 16:42 -0700
          Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 07:18 -0700
            Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 09:41 -0700
              Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 10:06 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-21 10:36 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-21 11:12 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-23 23:30 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-23 08:55 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 15:59 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-23 08:22 -0700
              Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-21 11:15 -0700
    Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 13:00 -0700
      Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 13:42 -0700
        Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 14:01 -0700
          Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 15:18 -0700
            Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-24 15:33 -0700
  Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-20 10:47 -0700
    Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 13:32 -0700
      Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 13:53 -0700
        Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 14:17 -0700
          Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 15:26 -0700
            Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-24 16:51 -0700
              Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 17:53 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 20:54 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-24 21:21 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 00:14 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 02:25 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:05 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 12:30 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 13:29 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 14:47 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:00 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:20 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:33 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 15:54 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-25 18:20 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-25 22:21 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:10 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 01:28 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 07:45 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 16:31 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 09:17 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 15:38 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 14:32 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 14:52 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 22:03 +0000
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-25 15:11 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-26 21:17 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 22:14 +0000
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-25 22:01 +0000
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-25 15:52 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-26 20:58 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 16:51 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 02:48 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 01:25 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-26 07:48 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-27 15:19 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 04:24 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 01:55 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-27 11:43 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 15:37 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-29 12:10 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-30 14:47 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-30 08:09 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-31 16:13 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-03-31 10:59 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 15:10 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 01:08 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-31 20:34 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-01 15:36 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-01 01:10 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 02:25 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-01 12:35 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 14:54 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 00:07 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-02 17:40 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 06:53 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 10:32 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 02:45 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 09:06 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 09:16 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 08:07 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-04-02 09:04 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-02 08:05 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 03:16 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-02 20:51 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-03 16:29 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity JM <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> - 2026-04-03 07:22 +0100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-03 12:17 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 05:10 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-03 19:16 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> - 2026-04-03 16:30 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 17:05 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 11:02 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-04 16:55 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-04 11:35 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 12:53 +1000
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-05 00:29 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 15:46 +1000
                Re: Surplus electricity "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-05 01:55 -0400
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-04-05 16:57 +1000
                Re: Surplus electricity Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2026-03-26 18:30 +0000
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-28 02:15 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> - 2026-03-26 16:19 +1100
                Re: Surplus electricity Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2026-03-27 10:10 -0700
                Re: Surplus electricity Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2026-03-27 15:22 -0700
      Re: Surplus electricity Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-03-24 13:54 -0700

csiph-web