This is how it works in NYC, but the wires are almost twice as expensive as the power. (If you add taxes and the numerous weird fees, the total bill is a solid 3x the cost of the power.) It's really all about the grid maintenance and management these days.

▲

myrmidon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair: grid buildout is quite expensive.

A comparison: the giant Dogger Bank offshore wind farm project (multi-GW) cost somewhere in the $10bn range. On the other hand, Germany calculates with >$100bn for grid buildout within the next decade (https://www.netzentwicklungsplan.de/sites/default/files/2023...).

Also, having customers that rely on your grid but buy very little of your power is simply unappealing for operators, so I would assume that their pricing tries to disincentivise as much as possible (=> "they gonna overcharge you for the grid connection").

	▲	TheSpiceIsLife 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The not-so-hidden costs of collecting extremely diffuse wind / solar is the elephant in the room 10x bill for the supporting grid infrastructure. Nuclear advocates, like myself, claim drop in replacement nuclear power reactors at existing coal / gas sites would largely obviate this. Even adding new nuclear power reactors at greenfield sites would constitute a significantly reduced grid build cost, as the power is highly concentrated. And nuclear is so say that nuclear power reactors employees are routine exposed to less radiation at work than they are at home in their kitchen with granite bench tops. YIMBY.

▲

treis 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We do this for gas. IMHO you end up paying monopoly rates for the pipes and then stupid game prices for the gas. Maybe the savvy consumer comes out ahead but seems like a net negative to me.

▲

hvb2 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not monopoly rates, it's actual utility rates. The only problem here is if the utility is allowed to make a profit. Gas pipes, electric lines and internet connections are like roads in today's society. Can't really live without them.

So assuming the pipe maintenance is done at cost, with no money not being spent on the network. What would your better net positive solution even look like?

▲

ZeroGravitas 4 hours ago | parent [-]

People can live without gas pipes. One of the big tasks at the moment is planning to stop people building new gas pipes that won't be used enough to justify the price and how to phase out the existing gas pipes so the pricing doesn't enter a "death spiral" as people start leaving the network, leaving the government to bail it out.

	▲	TheSpiceIsLife 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I’m all for burning less gas, it’s too important a resource to simply burn for heat. But we need to build the nuclear reactors first. In the mean time, no: people can’t just freeze in the dark.

▲

samarthr1 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Heh, wouldnt NYC be best case scenario for a grid? It has high density, large number consumer base etc?

If only they could sort the underground cabling...