In the houses with two service connections with one being switched-what did you connect to the switched one when it was used?Yes,I too like the idea to hydro energy storage as opposed to batteries.

Water heater tanks, washing machines (you would set it to the starting point, and it starts when power comes), dryers, storage heaters, dish washers....

We have a special service available from the power company called time of use. The meter is replaced with one with a clock and is set to a different rate between 23:00 and 05:00. Subscribers to this service usually have ceramic storage electric heaters. Some dishwashers, washing machines etc. have a start delay timer, and it can be used so the machine will only start after 23:00. There are no switches or separate wiring, only the clock based rates. When the meter is read, there are two readings : the daytime at the higher rate and the nighttime at the lower rate.

At some point there was also discussion about option that household would get electricity cheaper if they agreed to let powercompany possibility of disconnect for a shot time some loads like heating or boiler and it was emphasize that disconnection time would be so short that it would not be notable. 

They do that here for air conditioning...its an optional thing that you can sign up for, then at the end of summer you get a rebate on your energy bill.
(I don't have AC, but if I did I'd take advantage of this offer)

The thing is the storage and load control infrastructure should have been build before the massive support for this not so well controllable generation.
And it is irony, than even without the solar or wind parks, that infrastructure would really save quite some pollution, just by moving from the peak regulation power to the way more efficient and cleaner base power generation...
But that is a bit harder to explain to the people, so even if it is way more efficient (at least it works) in reducing the emission, it won't look so "green" as the "generating the electricity from nothing", so not attractive for politicians...

Now we have the situation with very limited grid stabilizing mechanism (just the peak generation and very little capacity in storage), but a lot of power from not controllable sources, in that environment the energy from the not controllable sources can not lower the emission...

Pumped reservoirs are restricted to very mountainous areas where there are sufficient height differences in a relatively small area so as to make such a system relatively economical.  Sufficiently long lived (15 years and up) batteries are usually the best option at the bottom end of the scale as they are relatively easy to use.  Compressed air would also be an option for places that already need it and have room for the requisite tank farm but is stupid for generating electricity due to the pathetic system efficiencies.
I say leave wind and solar to the applications where they are best suited as the main reason for pushing them (CO2 is EEEEEEVVVVVUUUUULLLLLLLLLL!!!1 and will kill us all or something) is a giant pile of rubbish.

The system that was tried in Israel is, where the powe company actually switches on and off power to your 2nd meter (an ordinary meter, not a 2 rate). Initially it was controlled by a hard-set timeswitch, but over time it would be changed to remote ripple control, so that the power company actually control the load when they want. The system was abandoned before it reached this stage

Solar cell panels have an ill that has not been brought up---They have a useful life of only 10yrs.Then they have to be replaced.Toxic chemicals are needed to make them-and they contain toxic chemicals-so landfilling is not so good for these.In the US some of the elements in solar panels are actually legally toxic.So disposal of spent panels could be a problem.For renewable power--Hydro is still the best.Gravity always works!!!Windmills can pose a hazard to migrating birds.Not so green either-and some power windmills have been abandoned because they don't pay.The abandoned mill can pose problems-no maintenance--how long will the rotor last?And when they blowout from high winds--the blades can fly a long distance!

Are  lamps really going to be banned? I know that SBMVs and Moon pulse lamps were made to workaround the ban, but is the ban really going to take effect?  I hoped to have a farm someday and have  fixtures all over like the farms I have seen before. But if this stupid ban  takes effect, might as well forget about it. Are they really going to be banned?

It is rumored that they will be banned, but I still haven't seen an official government document that proves it. Don't get your hopes up, though.

If they ban mercury vapor it will be just another victory for greenbrainers makes no sense at all. It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid politicians are they ate all idiots!. Sorry il get off my soapbox now. In the UK we have economy seven its a low rate electric supply thru the night originally controlled by timeclocks but later they changed to radioteleswitches wich get there on off commands frow phase shifting the 200 Kc/s longwave BBC transmitter

The aim of the politicians is $$$ and not Earth preserving or good lighting, so they are not as bad at doing their job the way _they_ see it

I've stocked up on mostly 175w MV lamps as well as a few 175w probe start MH ballasts to run them, I also have 175 probe MH lamps to use on the same ballasts once I have run out of MV.

I'm activly collecting more 250w MV and MH lamps too since I already have a couple 250w MH/MV combo ballasts now

I have one brand new GE 201SA Mercury fixture, and plenty of bulbs to run on it.  I also have a Regent 175W MV fixture that is on the outside of my building that I tinker with from time to time.  So, the Govt can ban all they want, but it will be a long time before they take mercurys from me. 

It's crazy that the government sees it necessary to ban ballast, then lamps for an energy policy. People in general whether it be consumers or business will upgrade to solid energy efficient lighting technologies when it makes economical sense to do so. According to statistics I've read about lighting technologies many were already upgraded off older technologies way before the GOV made it mandatory.

So, if a person wanted to run a reliable technology (MV in this case) than a higher L/W technology with the understanding that the MV technology was going to consume more energy, let em. Those that are penny pinchers and want to save all the energy at the cost of an unreliable technology (LED in this case), then they can do that too.

Forcing us all to change lighting technology, is just plain wrong.

I dislike LED technology primarily from the throw away setup it's designed to be. I like replaceable/repairable components. Fixtures that contain a power supply (choke, ballast, driver, etc.) and a standard re-lamping socket design. Something that can be consumer maintained.

LED systems that require the fixture to be replaced are not consumer maintainable, must be serviced (legally) by a Licensed Electrician.

So much for changing your own lights (although we will anyways).