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

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#81

Post by xhkkffbf »

cavisne wrote: post #43
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? Be…

These are all fair points.

The extra costs and limits are ostensibly because of safety. Yes, I know that engineers can game the system, but they're listing real reasons why the plant should shoulder the costs to the larger grid.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#82

Post by N_Lens »

compiler_queen wrote: post #80

Zero sympathy from this quarter - what started as a tax dodge to, let's face it, defund schools, hospitals and social security, ended up as a "poor me" self-effacing blog post.

Actually I believe the money you're talking about is being used to bomb many places on the planet.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#83

Post by xboxnolifes »

giblfiz wrote: post #53
bri3k wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget in the middle he states that this is a tax dodge on capital gains from said crypto money.

I'm the original author. I'm not sure why you got down-voted for this, this was absolutely a "tax dodge". The polite term is "tax mitigation strategy", I'm also not sure why this is seen as an openly negative thing? The government wants a type of thing done, they say "hey, we won't pay people directly to do it, but we will subsidize it thru tax incentives" I was like "yeah, I like that thing (solar) and think it's go…

Idk, there's a certain double standard that I see semi-frequently. Direct subsidies and/or rebates to incentivize renewable energy? Good. Tax subsidies to do the exact same thing? Awful, terrible, tax avoiding scum.

Sometimes I wonder if any of the people who complain about this bought an electric car or roof solar with tax credits or rebates.

Or maybe its just HN anti-crypto bias.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#84

Post by FpUser »

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…

>"good intentions being squandered"

Relying on tax credits and otherwise "optimizing" tax payments and "good intentions" do not sleep well together in my opinion.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#85

Post by baking »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #59
baking wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Projects with storage can take advantage of the cheaper solar power by shifting their balance, installing fewer panels and more storage. This leaves the grid better off overall.

Projects with storage can also take advantage of lower grid connection power limits because they are not forced to dump maximum power at peak supply times of the day.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#86

Post by toomuchtodo »

FpUser wrote: post #84
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…

>"good intentions being squandered" Relying on tax credits and otherwise "optimizing" tax payments and "good intentions" do not sleep well together in my opinion.

"Gambler attempts to convert lottery ticket winnings into clean energy to minimize taxes." is fine imho. It didn't work out, but if it had, the outcome would've been "good" and he still learned a lesson and shared with the rest of us. No different than a failed startup. You win or you learn.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#87

Post by FpUser »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #86
FpUser wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"good intentions being squandered" Relying on tax credits and otherwise "optimizing" tax payments and "good intentions" do not sleep well together in my opinion.

"Gambler attempts to convert lottery ticket winnings into clean energy to minimize taxes." is fine imho. It didn't work out, but if it had, the outcome would've been "good" and he still learned a lesson and shared with the rest of us. No different than a failed startup. You win or you learn.

Oh, I am in no way judging them personally. Just do not bring that "we are doing it for the humanity" BS into what is in an essence a pure gamble.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#88

Post by photochemsyn »

If you analyze the effects of doubling solar generation once in the United States on natural gas demand, then analyze the effect of another doubling, then it becomes clear why there isn't the kind of nationwide infrastructure, tax and regulatory support for expanding solar across the USA that exists in countries that have to import natural gas, eg China, Japan, Germany etc.

Natural gas just has more resources to buy politicians in the USA than solar does, that's the nature of the problem. Maybe the investor in this story should have spent have his crypto fortune on buying Texas politicians before even beginning this project - but buying off a lot of politicians is expensive, it's more the province of billionaires than of millionaires.

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#89

Post by [deleted] »

cavisne wrote: post #43
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? Be…

[deleted]

Re: Requiem for a Solar Plant

#90

Post by zekrioca »

jeffrallen wrote: post #78
giblfiz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the original author. I'm not sure why you got down-voted for this, this was absolutely a "tax dodge". The polite term is "tax mitigation strategy", I'm also not sure why this is seen as an openly negative thing? The government wants a type of thing done, they say "hey, we won't pay people directly to do it, but we will subsidize it thru tax incentives" I was like "yeah, I like that thing (solar) and think it's go…

> Why exactly is that bad? Because you could have just paid your taxes like the rest of us have to. Instead you made a big drama and are asking us to agree with you how unfair it all is that you have to pay taxes.

What a nonsense. This is the government itself proposing the subsidie to build up long term renewables, which have a much more important role to local communities. Author then writes about their important experiences, listing important lessons and insights for future endeavours, and you call it a ‘drama’.

Tell me about your intentions without telling me about your intentions.

Post reply on HN