[conradpdx]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I don't think we're arguing about that. We're arguing about the technical details of how much "possible" is likely to be.

The basic problem is that most renewables produce power when they want to, which is not necessarily when people want to use that power. So if you're going to use mostly those renewables, you either have to build a lot of excess capacity, and/or you have to have some way to store the energy until it's needed. Building excess capacity costs money. So does building energy storage, and in addition the inevitable losses mean you waste 15-30% (for pumped storage) or more of the generated energy.

What it boils down to is that neither the engineering nor the economics of a largely-renewable grid are as simple as it seems you'd like to think. The problems just don't scale linearly. Small amounts of intermittent generation are easily handled, large amounts are difficult.

Which is the beauty of the the home owners jumping in. Make it a money making opportunity for them and they pretty much remove themselves from the grid (A few batteries would be a good investment) while at the same time adding power to it.

Like I said there would be the need for outside power sources, but because you have a smaller customer base (houses producing/saving/selling their own power-nearly eliminated from the equation) the back up system gets smaller which in general means it's more efficient and more responsive.

I really don't see how it's that much more complex than it currently is. All power facilities have people and computers watching the systems and adjusting the plants outputs to meet the needs of it's customers. I might get a little more complicated than it is now, but it wouldn't be unsurmountable.

It's not as if the current system is all that great or run well. Ask anyone in California that's suffered through brown outs and black outs. (Usually in the summer while the sun is shining).