SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision • Hacker News Board

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#111

Post by Tuna-Fish » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

cowkingdeluxe wrote: post #107

ndonnellan wrote: post #9

This article seems to have a more thorough explanation: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-this-sunny-state-trying-... snip ----------------------- A little-understood billing mechanism called net metering is at the heart of the Nevada controversy. Net metering means that residential and commercial solar customers are billed for their “net” energy consumption. They are allowed to send back to the grid the electricit…

What is the actual cost to the grid of a solar home which only uses power at night from the grid and maybe delivers some to it during the day? In any of these anti-solar positions about grid costs I've never seen a factual statement of what it actually costs the power providers.

The same as any other house on the grid.

How much power you typically use and when has almost no impact on how much grid connection costs. All that matters is the peak they must be able to deliver. That is why billing transfer together with consumption makes no sense.

They should be completely split into two bills paid to two different companies like in Finland.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#112

Post by pkaye » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:20 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #97

pkaye wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would happen if more and more people start using solar along with the net metering? Who would pay for the infrastructure costs?

That's up to Nevada to decide. Won't happen for some number of years, what the world's going to look like then is going to be very different. No problem kicking that can down the road.

Well it seems like they decided it right now. They are splitting up the net meeting costs into infrastructure and production costs and expect those who connected to the grid to contribute to the infrastructure costs.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#113

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #109

jacquesm wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your location. Here it's more than double that. 'Vastrecht' as it is called for me is about 50 euros right now. It's one of the more sneaky tricks pulled in order to extract more money from people that have managed to successfully reduce their consumption. After all if you paid just a per KWh and per cubic meter price for electricity and gas then your efforts to conserve energy would pay off much more than…

Ouch. Does that reflect their actual costs at all, or is it just a money grab?

This was done when the local (municipal) and provincial electricity companies were split into a network and a generating entity. It was supposed to bring more transparency and create a market, in fact it brought a lot of graft and trickery. At a guess the actual costs were a fraction because those companies were already paid for aeons ago (they were public property, and then got privatized so we were allowed to rent back the infrastructure that we already owned...).

Short term thinking at its best.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#114

Post by deathhand » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:23 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #90

vinceguidry wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs. So you need something to do with excess capacity. All by itself, units of power aren't all that expensive. But a solar installation is very expensive. You need to amortize the cost of the installation, the people…

> Why should they pay wholesale? They're not buying in wholesale quantities from each consumer. Why should they pay retail? As a consumer thinking about solar, I like that, but it makes no economical sense. What business can afford to buy and sell for the same price? You don't sell a car to the dealership for the price they will sell it for. That would be absurd.

Electricity is covered under something as defined by the government as a "Utility" and thus not a private organization. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Utiliti...

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#115

Post by greendesk » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #103

phkahler wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs. >>So you need something to do with excess capacity. The simplest solution is to push it onto the grid. With net metering you can get the energy back later at not cost. It's like using the grid as a battery. The alternative of cours…

> The simplest solution is to push it onto the grid. With net metering you can get the energy back later at not cost. It's like using the grid as a battery. That's effectively making the power company pay retail.

Not where I live. It is not in USA, but I imagine the same is true for Nevada.

There is an additional charge for consumers, for 'electric grid distribution' charge. This distorts the symmetry of net metering. The result is that a grid company makes money even at retail prices.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#116

Post by 20years » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too.

Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits.

We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It was a gold rush during that time. 2015 was a completely different story and I think 2016 will continue in that downward spiral.

Solar companies really need to figure out a way to survive without state & federal rebates and utility company credits.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#117

Post by Zigurd » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #85

sandworm101 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are. Small backup gens (ie without autostart/disconnects etc) can be bought for a few hundred bucks. If you don't use them that often, say a few hours a year while your offgrid system is under repair, the cost of operation is extremely small.

If you go with a gas generator make sure you stabilize the gas or it won't work by the time that you need it.

Propane or natural gas are cleaner, and more reliable, than gasoline or diesel.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#118

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

20years wrote: post #116

This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too. Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits. We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It wa…

Where I live (Massachusetts), the solar companies have started getting really aggressive with sales. Going door-to-door and camping out at the local home improvement store. Smells a lot like trying to get installs while the getting is still good.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#119

Post by horsecaptin » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

20years wrote: post #116

This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too. Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits. We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It wa…

How does this trend play into California's new law that aims at 50% energy from renewable energy by 2030? Seems anti-competitive.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#120

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jan 08, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #90

vinceguidry wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs. So you need something to do with excess capacity. All by itself, units of power aren't all that expensive. But a solar installation is very expensive. You need to amortize the cost of the installation, the people…

> Why should they pay wholesale? They're not buying in wholesale quantities from each consumer. Why should they pay retail? As a consumer thinking about solar, I like that, but it makes no economical sense. What business can afford to buy and sell for the same price? You don't sell a car to the dealership for the price they will sell it for. That would be absurd.

The solar power is inherently less valuable to the grid than the wholesale power it can get from on-demand variable-output plants, or even the wholesale power it gets from always-on baseload power plants.

If they are forced to buy the uncontrollably variable distributed solar energy, it will be at the expense of the peaking plant, and possibly even the baseload plant, if there is a large enough gap between peak solar production and peak energy consumption.

So it should pay, at most, the price it would have otherwise paid from the power plants if distributed small-time solar installations weren't forcing their excess production back onto the grid.

That means paying less than wholesale. So those solar installations end up paying a bit for the service of using the grid a like a storage battery--as they should.

If you're going to demand equal compensation for your solar power as the peaking power plant, you will have to install equipment on your end that allows the grid to control how much power it chooses to buy from you. Otherwise, it's like haggling over the price of a meal that is already eaten.