A Nevada utility just told 49,000 Lake Tahoe residents that it’s redirecting 75% of their electricity supply to data centers — and they have less than a year to find a new power source.
In what developed country can a utility company just cancel a customer's access to a critically important service?
Last I checked "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" did not include electricity!
Forced by fascism to use green tech. This must hurt MAGA.
My utility power isn't on the chopping block (yet?) but skyrocketing rates have finally pushed me to install a real PV system.
Currently sitting on 2.4 KW of PV and 32 KWh of battery storage. Still in the process of installing as the specific mounts I need have been out of stock, but should have those hopefully by June and can finally begin the install in earnest. Once I have the mounts, I'm going to get a few more panels and will have about 3.5 KW of PV on the roof. Would like to do more, but that's all the south-facing roof real estate I have to work with. Planning on a ground mount setup for another 3 KW or so but need to get the base system going first.
I'm tempted to go ahead and buy some more battery capacity because I have a sinking feeling the demand (and price/availability) for those is going to increase dramatically in the next few years.
North (and east/west) facing panels are still worth having, don't discount them.
On my system in the north of England (not traditionally great for solar), I have 10 north and 10 south facing panels, all the same kind of panel.
On a bright, sunny day the north panels produce about 30% of my overall output, which is much less than the south facing panels but given on a good day I can produce 60kWh+, that's still ~20kWh of energy I'd otherwise lose.
However, it's on the crappy, overcast days that it really matters because both sets of panels generate about the same amount as each other (clouds reflect light). Sure, it's less then half the total output of a "good" day, but we're still talking a good 20kWh of output. Without the north panels, it would be half that.
Panels themselves are cheap, so don't skimp on them.
Sounds liberating! You did it the installs yourself or through contractors? How many years do you reckon it takes for that scale of solar to pay for itself?
You did it the installs yourself or through contractors?
Fully DIY unless I reach a point where I think I've bitten off more than I can chew. I haven't started moving circuits from the main panel yet, but I'm confident I can do that and meet code. I may call in an electrician when it comes time to convert the old main panel into just a main breaker and wire its output to the PV inverters, but that's mostly just to make sure that part is safe and up to code.
How many years do you reckon it takes for that scale of solar to pay for itself
Not fully sure. I've got about $7,000 invested so far just in components and materials plus probably another $1,000 or so on the horizon for another 4 panels, wiring, and other accessories. The two 16 KWh batteries are the largest expense ($2600/each) since grid-tie isn't an option for me. Electric rate is currently $0.26/KWh and rising, so this is mostly a way to insulate myself from further rate increases as well as provide backup power (I re-allocated the money I was saving for a whole house generator to the batteries for this).
Very, very rough math estimates at current rates, break even is just over 8.4 years. That's $8,000 cost divided by $0.26/KWh divided by 10 KWh per day (5 hours @ 2 KW) divided by 365 days in a year. That break even time could be reduced by adding more panels (already planning to) and/or electric rates rising more (they sure aren't going down anytime soon/ever).
Out of curiosity, what are you using all of that power for? That sounds like a huge system.
The battery is huge, the panels are small.
Even 12 hours of constant sun, can't charge 32 kWh battery with just 2,4 kWh panels, and only barely with 3.5 kWh panels, when consumption is considered too.
We have 11 kWh panels and 7,5 kWh battery. The reason the battery isn't twice that size is that battery was expensive when we had our system installed. But we would not be able to utilize more than 15 kWh battery for our household.
Realising it was 2.4 to 3.5 on the roof, not as well. Plus the 3 on the ground. Still a fair size though.
With 3.5 on the roof, and 3 on the ground it is enough for an average household if there is a lot of sun. And most places it should be enough at least during the summer.
That much would pretty much cover my usage in winter, summer I would be exporting the vast majority of it.
Which I probably should do, my provider gives not awful export rates. So might be worth just going pure solar for now and look at batteries later if export rates fall. IIRC it is like 60% or so what you would pay to buy energy you get for selling it. So if my panels make more than I use and I can shift a good amount of usage to daytime, free energy for a few decades after it's paid for the install.
That’s a pretty small setup tbh.
I have a 36kW solar setup and 86kWh battery bank.
Damn, an inspiration to us all.
We need to pass laws to force data centers off the electrical grid. Make them use solar and batteries.
Data centres not being able to get connections to the grid is making them get gas generators, e.g. this. We need to be taxing that more, not arbitratily limiting electricity usage and forcing businesses into using fossil fuels.
I'm with you in spirit, but I've been wanting to go PV+battery for far longer than the AI plague has been a thing. I'd like to be able to afford both of those. Otherwise, we'd be adding them to the list of unobtaniums along with SSD, memory, and GPUs.
Not incorrect but we're heading towards a future where the grid might be a backup option. Which benefits us all.
We've basically had this scenario unfold in the Netherlands during the last ~15 years. It lead to energy companies charging customers for sending their excess electricity to the grid for some reason.
Wow! That's like, the opposite of how you ensure a grid is robust.
Idk what's going on in NL, but here in Estonia it's necessary because there's so much excess production in the summer sometimes that it could destabilize the grid if it was all allowed to the grid.
This makes the fossil fuel plants shut down completely during excess periods and people get smart inverters and batteries to prevent selling to the grid when there's too much production.
It's a variable rate though. For example tonight the lowest price will be 1.45 cents per kWh, but if there's a ton of sunlight being predicted for a weekend in the summer, it can go negative.
Heh the image used by the article looks AI generated,
Driving homeowners to solar and batteries.
I know lol I had the same thought, I'm pretty sure it is.
I rather suspect that there will be a massive increase in domestic terrorism because of situations precisely like this over the next few years.
I don't condone violence, I'm just stating that this is a logical byproduct of driving the general populace into a desperate situation where they have nothing to lose.
Even before the price increases coming from these huge power guzzlers being built solar and batteries has paid off. Its not uncommon to see something like 5 cent a KWh or payoff in about 7 to 10 years depending on which way you want to look at it. Solar is so good for this, it scales from house level all the way up to big grid projects in the MWs.
Americans are all about rugged individualism, aren't they?!!?
the irony of the author using a generated slop thumbnail
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities: