Did I miss where this article explains why this should be the case? There's a lot of data here, but not much explanation of the methodology or why it makes sense.
It's cheaper to build utility scale solar/wind, it's probably cheaper to build utility scale batteries, and seems like these would function equivalently to distributed solar/batteries. So where is the advantage coming from?
The only possible advantage I can see is the average load on the grid would be lower with distributed solar/batteries, but the peak load would be the same, so I don't think that helps at all.
How do you figure? Say I have 8 kw of solar panels + storage on my house and those exceed my needs by 25% in the summer, but run short by 10% in the winter.
Sure, I grid power, but the peak is on a hot day in the summer and even if I don't meet my needs because it's cloudy, I'm still producing power and therefore decreasing the peak.
How is that different than 8 kw of solar panels in a utility scale solar installation that costs significantly less than your residential system? $0.94/W for utility scale [1], and $2.81/W for residential [2].
Agreed, I'm all for utility scale projects. But you said "The only possible advantage I can see is the average load on the grid would be lower with distributed solar/batteries, but the peak load would be the same". How did you come to that conclusion? Only seems possible in the weird case of peak power demand being when there's no solar available, and all batteries are discharged. Even cloudy days generate power.
I don't dispute that utility is cheaper per KW, if it's done. That raises a bunch of problems and disadvantages:
1) Larger projects require funding, likely a loan, and oil/gas/coal lobby will fight it. It's also relatively common for home owners to fight utility scale solar/wind near their homes.
2) Such projects require land, which involved politics, expense, impacts the environment, etc. Solar on the roof consumes no land.
3) Solar on the roof reduces cooling loads on the house (in addition to the power generated)
4) Solar on the roof + batteries enables surviving a grid power outage, unlike utility grids
I agree the total peak load on the grid would be lower if many houses had residential solar + batteries. The question is, is that an overall cheaper solution than if those solar panels and batteries were in utility scale installations?
The article claims yes. I'm saying I'm suspicious of that claim, because I don't understand why it would be the case. All of the issues you mentioned (politics, land, etc.) should be baked in to the cost numbers I mentioned (which are ~3x lower for utilities than residential installations).
We agree, utility scale solar is cheaper than rooftop. However the vast majority of (over 97%) of electricity in the USA is not from Solar.
Also keep in mind, just because your power company can build solar 3x cheaper than you can, does not imply they will sell the power to you are 1/3rd the cost. They have to service the loan, provide a profit, pay off any insurance/risk mitigation, have stock holders, etc. etc. etc.
After all the current price you pay for kwh, is a combination of the cheapest power your power company can find, and is often high enough for numerous vendors to offer "free" solar and charge you less than the power company does for power.
No, Australia already has massive rooftop solar adoption because it's the cheapest energy source there. A lot of that is soft costs of installation which Australia reduced by having easier regulations.
It's cheaper to build utility scale solar/wind, it's probably cheaper to build utility scale batteries, and seems like these would function equivalently to distributed solar/batteries. So where is the advantage coming from?
The only possible advantage I can see is the average load on the grid would be lower with distributed solar/batteries, but the peak load would be the same, so I don't think that helps at all.