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

Requiem for a Solar Plant

7goldfish.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#41

Post by Dylan16807 »

kragen wrote: post #40
Dylan16807 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a simply incorrect answer. Okay, how small of a connection would they have to restrict him to for me to be correct? > BESS, simple curtailment at peak hours, or angle diversity would solve the problem. That much extra curtailment is a major problem. That much extra angle diversity hurts output. Batteries are a workaround for not being able to properly hook up the panels.

You'll have to do your own calculations based on your own site data. Onsite BESS permits you to not only get by with a smaller hookup but also sell your energy at times when people are willing to pay for it.

> You'll have to do your own calculations based on your own site data.

I did my calculation already. It said that a 1/3 drop in hookup for panels that were already hookup-constrained is not a proper hookup.

Straightforward math.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#42

Post by Retric »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #34
bri3k wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He started out to find ways to lower his tax burden. Found something with solar infrastructure in a different state. Went ahead with it in spite of having no experience with the local laws or infrastructure projects and wondered why it failed?

I'm not shocked that it failed. But taking money that would have been profit and turning it into company creation/expansion is something that is taxed lower for a reason.

> for a reason.

Yea, corruption. Tax breaks on past gains are just handouts and everyone wants a handout.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#43

Post by cavisne »

stego-tech wrote: post #2

This is a good story that taps into a lot of the systemic failings in America that hinder progress. Failure of the state to prioritize energy sufficiency over hypothetical mineral rights. Failure of utility companies to maintain their infrastructure to modern standards. Failure of governments to produce consistent and predictable business environments. Failure of bureaucracy to prepare creators and visionaries for su…

Its a good read but are his intentions unambiguously good? He had a windfall from crypto (ie contributing nothing to society). Then he was desperate to avoid paying the tax he owed on that windfall.

Is there any actual need for this Solar Farm in the middle of nowhere (that was only built there because of a tax scheme)? Are Texas ratepayers meant to cover the cost of the interconnect in their $/Kwh instead of him?

Better to just pay his taxes and move on, and leave the subsidies for an actual useful solar project.

EDIT: Oh and mineral rights are basically the original cryptocurrency/memecoin, so its somewhat funny that they came into play

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#44

Post by Dylan16807 »

Retric wrote: post #42
Dylan16807 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not shocked that it failed. But taking money that would have been profit and turning it into company creation/expansion is something that is taxed lower for a reason.

> for a reason. Yea, corruption. Tax breaks on past gains are just handouts and everyone wants a handout.

> past gains

To focus on "past": I don't think deferring the gains for a couple years is a big deal. It's not a handout because he'll still be paying the same taxes if he doesn't end up reinvesting the money. It just offers him some more time to set up a business, instead of having to do it same-year.

To focus on "gains": If you don't like the entire idea of reinvested money not counting as profits, oh boy that's a big objection, and it's not that way because of corruption.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#45

Post by Retric »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #44
Retric wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for a reason. Yea, corruption. Tax breaks on past gains are just handouts and everyone wants a handout.

> past gains To focus on "past": I don't think deferring the gains for a couple years is a big deal. It's not a handout because he'll still be paying the same taxes if he doesn't end up reinvesting the money. It just offers him some more time to set up a business, instead of having to do it same-year. To focus on "gains": If you don't like the entire idea of reinvested money not counting as profits, oh boy that's a b…

Sign me up for some interest free loans then. Deferring capital gains is a huge windfall.

Reinvesting money getting special treatment provides zero benefits to the economy. It falls under the fallacy that rich people can avoid investing their fortunes, inflation already makes that a nonstarter. The only result here is a handout.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#46

Post by kragen »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #41
kragen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll have to do your own calculations based on your own site data. Onsite BESS permits you to not only get by with a smaller hookup but also sell your energy at times when people are willing to pay for it.

> You'll have to do your own calculations based on your own site data. I did my calculation already. It said that a 1/3 drop in hookup for panels that were already hookup-constrained is not a proper hookup. Straightforward math.

You're leaving out most of the relevant factors, presumably because you don't know them.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#47

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Retric wrote: post #45
Dylan16807 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> past gains To focus on "past": I don't think deferring the gains for a couple years is a big deal. It's not a handout because he'll still be paying the same taxes if he doesn't end up reinvesting the money. It just offers him some more time to set up a business, instead of having to do it same-year. To focus on "gains": If you don't like the entire idea of reinvested money not counting as profits, oh boy that's a b…

Sign me up for some interest free loans then. Deferring capital gains is a huge windfall. Reinvesting money getting special treatment provides zero benefits to the economy. It falls under the fallacy that rich people can avoid investing their fortunes, inflation already makes that a nonstarter. The only result here is a handout.

Business expenses are tax deductions because business taxes are on profits and profits are calculated as revenue minus expenses.

Taxing businesses on revenue rather than profits doesn't work because it would bankrupt every business with slim margins, which is most of them, while effectively cutting taxes for the ones with the thickest margins and creating a massive tax subsidy for vertical integration.

> It falls under the fallacy that rich people can avoid investing their fortunes, inflation already makes that a nonstarter.

If all someone cared about was avoiding inflation they could just buy a stack of precious metals. Moreover, the return from typical passive investments (e.g. S&P 500) significantly exceeds the rate of inflation.

The preference for investment is as opposed to spending. If inflation is at 3% and someone is getting a 10% return from stocks, they can avoid real value loss while still spending up to 70% of the nominal profits. But we'd rather people build factories and develop new drugs and technologies than buy second private jets and third personal mansions.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#48

Post by baking »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #33
baking wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh come on. He was doing it for the tax credits. Without the tax credits, this project wouldn't have come close to making sense.

The tax credits aren't coming out of the grid somewhere else. The project is a negative to tax revenue, positive to the grid, and positive to CO2 levels.

He's using the tax credits to undersell projects with storage that would have been more positive for the grid. Solar without storage in Texas is coal to Newcastle. Subsidizing bare-bones solar is not good for the grid.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#49

Post by kragen »

gwern wrote: post #22

One of the problems with undisclosed and thoughtless use of LLMs for writing, like ChatGPT in this case, is that it undermines trust. Take the many quotes in this article, which all sound like ChatGPT. Obviously, none of those people said those words, or even anything all that like what they supposedly said, because that's not what real people sound like. If the author is willing to silently do that (which could be u…

I wonder if you're right, and if so, to what extent he used it. The site does at least predate ChatGPT: http://web.archive.org/web/20180316124237/http://7goldfish.c...

I'd expect ChatGPT to make no typographical errors in a list of post titles.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#50

Post by Retric »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #47
Retric wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sign me up for some interest free loans then. Deferring capital gains is a huge windfall. Reinvesting money getting special treatment provides zero benefits to the economy. It falls under the fallacy that rich people can avoid investing their fortunes, inflation already makes that a nonstarter. The only result here is a handout.

Business expenses are tax deductions because business taxes are on profits and profits are calculated as revenue minus expenses. Taxing businesses on revenue rather than profits doesn't work because it would bankrupt every business with slim margins, which is most of them, while effectively cutting taxes for the ones with the thickest margins and creating a massive tax subsidy for vertical integration. > It falls und…

> Business expenses

Investment isn’t a business expense.

> If all someone cared about was avoiding inflation they could just buy a stack of precious metals.

Capital gains of precious metals “yield” drops you below inflation.

> But we'd rather people build factories and develop new drugs and technologies than buy second private jets and third personal mansions.

Someone needs to do that for your hypothetical 10% S&P gains. Giving handouts to wealthy people hardly discourages them using a private jet, just the opposite.

Post reply on HN