Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

solarthermalmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 213 posts

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

#131

Post by 20years »

horsecaptin wrote: post #119
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.

So far net metering is still at retail rates in CA but PG&E, SCE and SDG&E are fighting hard to change that. Ref: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-califor...

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

#132

Post by Retric »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #111
cowkingdeluxe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Night time peaks are likely far lower, also transmission losses are higher as temperature increases requiring more transmission infrastructure.

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

#133

Post by kyleblarson »

mikeash wrote: post #87
jacquesm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll charge a fixed fee just for the hookup, and it can be quite a large percentage if your consumption is minimal.

Isn't it on the order of $10-20/month?

I live in a small town in the North Cascades of Washington and my "connection fee" is $40 per month while my electric bill varies from $75 to $175 depending on the season.

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

#134

Post by thescriptkiddie »

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.

A power company is not a normal business, they are a public utility. They aren't supposed to be making money, they're supposed to be providing a public service.

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

#135

Post by jogman »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
Symmetry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea isn't that you can go off grid but rather that you can now make use of the excess power that you would have been selling back to the grid during the night and so effectively capture the same residential rates through reduced use.

Sure. But that's effectively the exact same thing as net-metering, only with a lot more fixed costs. And batteries wear out as well. The grid is a lot better for this, unfortunately that requires cooperation of the grid operators and owners. There is an alternative to this, the equivalent of a credit union but for power where a number of people band together to do their own little grid, but the complexities and dange…

Things like that are in the making: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/544471/renewable-energy...

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

#136

Post by new_hackers »

phkahler wrote: post #98
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…

>> 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 time of day matters, the cost is usually more when you need it (i.e. in the morning when you are taking a shower and making your coffee and evening when you get home from work and kick on your AC). So putting power on at a low usage time (10 am) is not the same as using at a high usage time (10 pm).

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

#137

Post by pkaye »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #123
pkaye wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which works, until it doesn't. The price of solar will continue downward, the price of batteries will continue downward, and eventually it'll be cheaper to disconnect from the grid regardless. That's what's going on in Hawaii right now. The utility started to push back against users interconnecting their solar panels, so people went entirely off the grid instead.

A few places have plenty of sun throughout the year. Hawaii might be ideal for this. But what about many parts of the US where you deal with winter rains and snow? No battery will be sufficient to store energy in those situations. So the reality is most people will continue to connect to the grid for some time to come and someone has to pay the costs of that infrastructure. However if people manage to be truly self sufficient then that is great and I fully support them.

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

#138

Post by thescriptkiddie »

jacquesm wrote: post #102
msandford wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought for a long time that a neighborhood 48V DC exchange might be viable. You'll have to pull thick copper of course, but $1/foot for wires is pretty cheap compared to battery prices. Here in the US the NEC says that anything under 50V isn't really regulated because they don't want to get involved in people's path lighting, phone, ethernet, doorbells, thermostats, garage door opener signaling, etc. The other…

You'll want to think long and hard about how you're going to deal with fuses. For the kind of currents that batteries can put out it can be quite expensive to properly fuse things. 50V was a fairly arbitrary voltage deemed to be 'safe', however there are cases known of people dying from 50V and even lower (in particular, one very nasty accident involving a Swiss ham in pre-internet times). A bus made of thick copper…

You seem to be doubting the feasibility of micro grids, but people are already doing this with 240 V. Granted, it's harder to steal copper wire that is at 240 V.

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

#139

Post by toomuchtodo »

pkaye wrote: post #137
toomuchtodo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which works, until it doesn't. The price of solar will continue downward, the price of batteries will continue downward, and eventually it'll be cheaper to disconnect from the grid regardless. That's what's going on in Hawaii right now. The utility started to push back against users interconnecting their solar panels, so people went entirely off the grid instead.

A few places have plenty of sun throughout the year. Hawaii might be ideal for this. But what about many parts of the US where you deal with winter rains and snow? No battery will be sufficient to store energy in those situations. So the reality is most people will continue to connect to the grid for some time to come and someone has to pay the costs of that infrastructure. However if people manage to be truly self s…

I don't disagree. In the most sunny areas of the world, people will go off grid if the grid tries to price them out. Those not in sunny locations will be beholden to the utility.

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

#140

Post by protomyth »

krschultz wrote: post #130
protomyth wrote: post #124

The ruling is not a "de facto ban on rooftop solar", it says that the power company should pay the SAME amount no matter who provides the energy to the grid (wholesale rather than retail). If that change kills a company of industry then there are some major problems with the business model. Hopefully this will encourage energy storage systems. Using the grid that already has enough energy as virtual storage is a pret…

There are no problems with the business model, it just doesn't pencil out in that state anymore. Keep in mind the business model for solar is basically trading higher up front capital costs for lower long term recurring costs, and the capital costs are largely invested into products that have a rapidly declining cost. That sounds like a great plan to me, and while it requires subsidizes today, in a few years it won't…

"Why is it on the solar owners to pay for all of their energy storage but not on the coal power plants to capture and store their CO2 emissions?"

Because those are two separate issues. One has nothing to do with the other.

The story here is that a solar customer wants the government to force the power company to store his/her energy for them and the grid is not designed for that. The power company pays a wholesale rate to all its suppliers.

I see this as a push to get better storage technology developed which will benefit far more people. The solar company is being disingenuous and I bet there books are not quite as positive before this event as they let on.

I like home solar and will probably install it when I decide to buy a home, but I will install a storage system and a cut off so I can use my panels without the backfeed to the grid incase of power outage.

Post reply on HN