They lost power if they didn't have an inverter with an isolator, or a hybrid system with an isolator, both of which will keep power at your home which can be used as long as there's (a) sunlight or (b) juice in the batteries. Here's how the hybrid system is set up...
Homeowners can't have that system. I would jump at it. I am a strong solar fan but only if I can be off the grid and not subsidized by the middleclass and poor. Yes upper middleclass and rich people are subsidized and it is wrong. I can afford to pay my correct energy bills and would rather help the poor. Anyway go ask a solar supplier in PJM is you can buy such a system and if they are honest they will tell you no. The subsidy requires power to go out first. That is why it is called net metering. Measures power going out and power coming in.
Maybe in NJ? They won't let you pump your own gas there either.....
If you'll look at the diagram I posted, there's an "AC Disconnect" that channels the solar-powered AC to a separate distribution panel.
This is all true. Without a backup system if the grid goes down your solar panels will not provide power to your house. Solar power is also variable based on the sun and clouds so without the grid (or a good battery backup) for regulation and voltage support your lights would dim and surge and your appliances could get damaged. With a battery backup the battery acts like the grid and smooths out the power used and also acts as a backup or night use.
@DisneyCane, I do think that your concern about farmland usage is worth considering, as there is a lot of pressure on farmland that I recently read about.
The announcement of Disney's second solar farm is in post #399 of this thread, but it's off of SR 429 north of Flamingo Crossings. Are you sure you were on US 27 and not SR 429 when you saw the farm?
Good points all around.
I still think the technology is a little ways off from being truly cost competitive even at utility scale. FP&L is a monopoly utility that can just pass its costs on to rate payers so they bear no risk for a project like this. In my personal experience in the industry these types of batteries still tend to be less efficient than expected and have a lot of operational issues. Battery tech keeps improving dramatically each year so I would say we are less than a decade from battery storage actually being economic.
Your 10 year estimate probably isn't far off. Arizona Public Service recently signed an unusually short 7 year PPA with Calpine for power from an existing natural gas plant.
From my understanding they aren’t planning to use this battery at night when the sun is down but as a supplemental peaking plant. When demand is highest and the price of power is the highest they will be using both the solar plant and the battery at the same time. The battery will be charged during times when the price for power is lower (mornings) and dispatched back to the grid at higher price times (late afternoon). Their estimate of saving $100M is probably mostly a savings of reduced fuel costs (in this case the natural gas that would have been used to run inefficient older peaking units). They will also save on labor. A natural gas plant has a number of highly skilled union plant workers and engineers who make pretty good money. Going from coal to gas is a huge labor savings and then going down to a battery or renewables is even more savings.
In the Northeast, both NY and NJ require all residential solar systems to be connected to the grid first then battery backup. In other words they require you to suffer any power outage like everyone else. Yes you can have a system that gives you 24 hours of power but no one has a system that can last 5 days without power like Sandy caused. I would love to have an off the grid solar system with a natural gas backup generator. But that is illegal and if the GND ever passed would always be illegal. I want the law to change so I only pay for what I use and neither subsidize others nor be subsidized.
