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

161–170 of 213 posts

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

#161

Post by Nelson69 »

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 utilities here charge me a connection fee, regardless of my meter.

I get all of my energy from a roof top solar system but to stay on the grid I have to pay a connection fee which in my mind covers transmission costs and infrastructure. Being that it's a utility I can see them charging for that stuff, some how, either by a fee or by arbitrage between wholesale and retail costs, that seems reasonable. It radically changes the value of solar though.

If you can sell energy at wholesale prices what's the argument for restricting your ability to buy it at wholesale? Could you buy it from a different provider and just use the utility to transmit it?

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

#162

Post by Retric »

pkaye wrote: post #92
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…

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

There is generally a separate grid connection fee. This is noticeable if you have a weekend cabin in the woods for example.

From my dominion bill:

Distribution Service 15.73$ followed by "Electricity Supply Svc (ESS)" which is based on usage and then several fees/taxes.

Your phone bill probably does the same thing if your regularly calling other countries your paying a connection fee plus a usage fee.

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

#163

Post by sandworm101 »

Zigurd wrote: post #117
jacquesm wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cleaner and reliable, but not as utilitarian. NG/LNG rigs aren't as portable, especially if they are tied into a residential gas line. A small gas gen can be moved around by hand, and fed with fuel siphoned out of your car if need be.

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

#164

Post by blacksmith_tb »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
iamphilrae wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers could keep their grid connection for backup purposes, but it should be rarely needed. Therefore if a customer is acting 99% self-sufficient, the grid operator is going to lose out. And this could happen within years when battery tech becomes cost effective. This change in legislation has just served to shorten that timeline.

Just keeping the grid connection is a major cost.

It's my only cost here in cloudy Oregon. I generate around 1.5MWh a year above what I use, so net-metering means I have more credits than I can ever use. But I have to pay $10 a month to be connected, whether or not I am giving away power.

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

#165

Post by toomuchtodo »

kyleblarson wrote: post #133
mikeash wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My god! Might as well go solar and natural gas backup gen at those rates.

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

#166

Post by maxerickson »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #165
kyleblarson wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My god! Might as well go solar and natural gas backup gen at those rates.

I bet natural gas is not available there.

(the not at all rugged township I used to live in had it in their planning documents that there would not be natural gas lines run -- they want to discourage development)

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

#167

Post by toomuchtodo »

maxerickson wrote: post #166
toomuchtodo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My god! Might as well go solar and natural gas backup gen at those rates.

I bet natural gas is not available there. (the not at all rugged township I used to live in had it in their planning documents that there would not be natural gas lines run -- they want to discourage development)

LP tank onsite. Its what most rural folks use for heat when there's no infrastructure available.

http://www.missiongas.com/images/500gallonpropanetank.jpg

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

#168

Post by throwaway1037 »

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 probably wouldn't want to use copper anyway. Power lines in the US tend to be aluminum. It's cheaper and lighter, even though it requires a larger gauge.

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

#169

Post by rsync »

vinceguidry wrote: post #81
CWuestefeld wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's a long reach to get to the OP's "de facto ban on rooftop solar". If we take the OP at face value, then, it seems to be declaring that solar energy is completely impractical, and can't survive without life support. I realize that other forms of energy generation are all subsidized in various ways, so it's clearly not as serious as my above interpretation, but still, it doesn't speak well of solar.

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…

"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."

Doesn't the Tesla home battery change all of that ? Solar on the roof and one or two Tesla batteries in the house and ... no grid usage whatsoever, correct ?

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

#170

Post by danans »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #134
dpark wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Actually, the fact that government-regulated private utilities are very reliable and low risk generators of investment returns (people still consume energy during a recession) is the reason they are a cornerstone of many retirement investment funds.

Locally operated municipal utilities, however, are less likely to be turning a profit, at least not one that benefits shareholders.

Edit: clarifications

Post reply on HN