
Ask HN: Do battery costs justify “buy all sell all” over “net metering”? - westurner
Are batteries the primary justification for &quot;buy all sell all&quot; over &quot;net metering&quot;?<p>Are next-gen supercapacitors the solution?
======
westurner
> _Ask HN: Do battery costs justify "buy all sell all" over "net metering"?_

> _Are batteries the primary justification for "buy all sell all" over "net
> metering"?_

> _Are next-gen supercapacitors the solution?_

With "Net Metering", electric utilities buy consumers' excess generated energy
at retail or wholesale rates.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering)

With "Buy All, Sell All", electric utilities require consumers to sell all of
the energy they generate from e.g. solar panels (usually at wholesale prices,
AFAIU) and buy all of the energy they consume at retail rates. They can't
place the meter after any local batteries.

Do I have this right?

 _Net metering_ :

(used-generated) x (retail || wholesale)

 _Buy all, sell all_ :

(used x retail) - (generated x wholesale)

For the _energy generating consumer_ , net metering is a better deal: they
have power when the grid is down, and they keep or earn more for the energy
generation capability they choose to invest in.

Break-even on solar panels happens sooner with net metering.

Utilities argue that: maintaining grid storage and transfer costs money, which
justifies paying energy generating consumers less than they pay for more
constant sources of energy like dams, wind farms, and commercial solar plants.

Building a two-way power transfer grid costs money. Batteries require
replacement after a limited number of cycles. Spiky or bursting power
generation is not good for batteries because they don't get a full cycle.
[Hemp] supercapacitors can smooth out that load and handle many more partial
charge and discharge cycles.

Is energy storage the primary justifying cost driver for "buy all, sell all"?

What investments are needed in order to more strongly incentivize clean energy
generation? Do we need low cost supercapacitors to handle the spiky load?

Are these utilities granted a monopoly? Are they price fixing?

Energy demand from blockchain mining has not managed to keep demand constant
so that utilities have profit to invest in clean energy generation and a two-
way smart grid that accommodates spiky consumer energy generation. Demand for
electricity is falling as we become less wasteful and more energy efficient.
As the cost of renewable energy continues to fall (and become less expensive
than nonrenewables), there should be more margin for energy utilities which
cost-rationally and environmentally-rationally choose to buy renewable energy
and sell it to consumers.

Please correct me with the appropriate terminology.

How can we more strongly incentivize consumer solar panel investments?

~~~
westurner
Here's a discussion about the lower costs of hemp supercapacitors as compared
with graphene super capacitors:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16800693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16800693)

""" Hemp supercapacitors might be a good solution to the energy grid storage
problem. Hemp absorbs carbon, doesn't leave unplowable roots in the fields,
returns up to 70% of nutrients to the soil, and grows quickly just about
anywhere. Hemp bast fiber is normally waste. Hemp anodes for supercapacitors
are made from the bast fiber that is normally waste.

Graphene is very useful; but industrial production of graphene is dangerous
because lungs and blood-brain barrier.

Hemp is an alternative to graphene for modern supercapacitors (which now have
much greater [energy density] in wH/kg)

"Hemp Carbon Makes Supercapacitors Superfast”
[https://www.asme.org/engineering-
topics/articles/energy/hemp...](https://www.asme.org/engineering-
topics/articles/energy/hemp-carbon-makes-supercapacitors-superfast)

> _“Our device’s electrochemical performance is on par with or better than
> graphene-based devices,” Mitlin says. “The key advantage is that our
> electrodes are made from biowaste using a simple process, and therefore, are
> much cheaper than graphene.”_

> _Graphene is, however, expensive to manufacture, costing as much as $2,000
> per gram. [...] developed a process for converting fibrous hemp waste into a
> unique graphene-like nanomaterial that outperforms graphene. What’s more, it
> can be manufactured for less than $500 per ton._

> _Hemp fiber waste was pressure-cooked (hydrothermal synthesis) at 180 °C for
> 24 hours. The resulting carbonized material was treated with potassium
> hydroxide and then heated to temperatures as high as 800 °C, resulting in
> the formation of uniquely structured nanosheets. Testing of this material
> revealed that it discharged 49 kW of power per kg of material—nearly triple
> what standard commercial electrodes supply, 17 kW /kg._

[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=hemp+supercapacit...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=hemp+supercapacit..).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor)

I feel like a broken record mentioning this again and again. ""'

