Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

It's simple: A utility's costs for a customer are basically a fixed cost for a connection plus a variable cost for the power a customer uses. The fixed cost pays for the astoundingly expensive equipment needed for a connection, and the variable cost pays just for the actual power. In the US, the wholesale cost of power on the grid has long been about 0.5 cents per kWh, that is, relatively low. I have some figures from 2007 saying that the cost of power at the plant from coal is less than 3 cents per kWh and, nuclear fission, 2 cents.

Now, if a lot of consumers put solar panels on their roofs but remain connected to the grid, then they will pay less to the utility which stands to fail to get back its fixed costs.

So, eventually the customer will get an electric bill that itemizes a much larger fixed cost for the connection and a lower variable cost for the actual power.

In the meanwhile, there will be a lot of 'politics' where people with solar panels want to pay not enough for the fixed cost of the grid which will mean that people without solar panels will pay too much.

And the people with solar panels will want to be able to sell power back to the utilities which; such power will cause engineering problems on the grid, and the solution of these problems will raise the fixed costs.

For the batteries, so far they are too expensive. Same for home electric generators. Generally a big problem with electric power is that storage is very expensive.

Net, for generating electric power, super tough to improve on the results of the last 100 years in electric power engineering where the power comes from falling water, burning coal, or nuclear fission.

In simple terms, for the grid, really no one wants power from unreliable sources such as wind and solar because (1) still need the fixed cost of the present system for when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, (2) wind/solar variability can cause stability issues on the grid (to be solved by a 'smart grid', that is, more fixed cost for the grid), (3) the good wind/solar sources are generally too far from the major grid demands meaning long distance transmission lines (more cost). My guess is that if take the subsidies away from wind and solar, then for the grid wind/solar will fall like a lead balloon.

Broadly, wind/solar for the grid asks us to pay for fixed cost twice, once for wind/solar and again for our current system for when wind/solar are not providing enough power. Heck, except for dress up, I have just one pair of shoes and wear them rain or shine -- I don't have separate shoes for rain and then shine. I have one computer for night and day and not separate computers for each. I want to pay for just one source of fixed cost of electric power, not one source on days with wind or sun and another source otherwise.

Power from wind/solar may be useful, say, for smelting aluminum, generating hydrogen from water, providing energy to make gasoline for water and coal. Note something these three candidate uses have in common: The output is easily stored, that is, buffered. Then notice the problem of electric power for the grid: The means of storage are far to inefficient.

For the grid, as far as I can see, wind and solar are just nonsense pushed by a 'wind/solar subsidy industry' that wants to talk people into measuring temperature not with thermometers but pictures of polar bears.

There is another candidate, small nukes. So, from Japan can buy a 'box'. In a neighborhood, dig a hole in the ground, install the box, and cover it over. Connect the box to the grid of the neighborhood. Then the box, just buried in its hole in the ground, provides all the electric power for the neighborhood for, say, 20 years. The savings are maintaining the long distance power transmission from the power station to the neighborhood. Of course the interior of the box is a nuclear fission reactor.

Now if my startup works and I get rich and build a nice place in the rural hills of, say, New Hampshire, then maybe I will be able to get such a box! Also for my 4 wheel drive truck to get around in the winters, use that power to make gasoline from water and coal! Maybe!

Decentralized power generation makes society as a whole far more resilient against sabotage and natural disasters.

As for the business model, Heinlein has a comment: "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

I was recently in rural South Sudan, at a place where there are no power lines within 80 miles. So the systems they use must be off the grid by necessity.

There were several PV and battery setups there which worked pretty well. Obviously you need to be careful with the amount of power that you use, but it can run computers, TV and lighting with a reasonable setup.

There was a computer lab at one installation which had one desktop machine acting as a server and about 15 thin clients to keep the power usage low.

I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in New Zealand at least, power going each way is metered separately.

Power is sold to the electric company at a much lower rate than the power that is bought from the electric company.

So you might buy power for 27c/kwh and sell it for 3c/kwh.

"In response, I've reduced my power usage"

Perhaps those green power policies aren't so poor after all.