The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
cleantechnica.com
The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
1–10 of 34 posts
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#2This issue isn't as clearly cut as articles like this make it out to be. There are a few competing interests: the (wealthier than average) folks that own solar panels, the utility companies, and the plants.
Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. So the plants increase the base rates they charge so that they remain profitable. This increase is then paid for by everyone (not just the solar owners). But it's still a net win for the solar owners, because they're the ones saving the most when rates are highest (when it's hottest, and ACs are cranked up). So effectively, doing nothing (and letting plants increase rates) acts as a net wealth transfer to those with solar panels.
This isn't in the interest of the common good. So the utilities try to soften the costs by taxing the solar owners. But then the math for the solar owners is thrown off because they anticipated saving more/making more over the life time of the panel.
I don't know what the right answer is.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#3This is an interesting issue because it's something I thought would happen at some point, but I just don't see how and why it would be applied to California.
Grid-tied solar has an issue because they feed energy to the grid when the sun is shining which for a lot of northern states/Canada, does not make sense because it is unrelated to when there is actually peak demand (the evenings).
In California though, a lot of energy goes to AC, and AC is most needed when the sun is shining bright so I don't understand why it would be an issue?
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#4This is an interesting issue because it's something I thought would happen at some point, but I just don't see how and why it would be applied to California. Grid-tied solar has an issue because they feed energy to the grid when the sun is shining which for a lot of northern states/Canada, does not make sense because it is unrelated to when there is actually peak demand (the evenings). In California though, a lot of…
Folks aren't home during peak sunshine. They're home in the evening. They may turn on the AC then to cool off the house from a day of heat accumulation. Just when the solar has tapered off.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#5This issue isn't as clearly cut as articles like this make it out to be. There are a few competing interests: the (wealthier than average) folks that own solar panels, the utility companies, and the plants. Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. So the plants increase the base rates they charge so that they remain profitable. This increase is then paid for by everyone (not just the s…
And with the proliferation of battery technology, eventually the solar owners (and increasing numbers of them) may just disconnect from the grid and then the numbers really won't work.
My off the cuff solution here is that energy providers/plants/etc. need to invest in storage capacity, or eventually the economic incentives will win out and people just won't buy energy from them in states where solar + battery works.
If you are a net producer of energy, the only calculus that makes sense (unless you want to pay for access to the grid as a form of insurance) is that you get money for providing energy back to the grid. Otherwise you just disconnect and figure it out afterward.
With renewals, decentralization of energy production, and battery proliferation we're going to see some interesting market dynamics play out here soon. We probably need a general energy market accessible to producers as small as a single person all the way up to a nuclear plant. Perhaps you should be able to log in to an energy market like you do your brokerage and buy or sell energy.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#6This issue isn't as clearly cut as articles like this make it out to be. There are a few competing interests: the (wealthier than average) folks that own solar panels, the utility companies, and the plants. Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. So the plants increase the base rates they charge so that they remain profitable. This increase is then paid for by everyone (not just the s…
> I don't know what the right answer is.
You have to unbundle the two different costs:
1) Infrastructure cost. It costs a fixed amount to connect someone to the always-on grid. This needs be set.
2) Consumption cost. It costs a different amount to consume produced electricity.
The problem is that the panel owners are going to get very cranky (as you see in this article) when that happens because maintaining the grid is quite a bit more expensive than the production costs and they're going to lose their cost benefit.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#7This issue isn't as clearly cut as articles like this make it out to be. There are a few competing interests: the (wealthier than average) folks that own solar panels, the utility companies, and the plants. Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. So the plants increase the base rates they charge so that they remain profitable. This increase is then paid for by everyone (not just the s…
> Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable.
There is more supply, the utilities should be dropping their prices and excess, high cost production drop out of the market. Ofc ourse that assumes that it is a f free market.
> So the utilities try to soften the costs by taxing the solar owners.
Oh how noble of them to look out for the little guy. There is a small chance that they are just opportunists gauging as much money as possible out of any avenue they can. Of course it would be unheard of for a big business with a practical monopoly over a basic human necessity to do such a thing.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#8This issue isn't as clearly cut as articles like this make it out to be. There are a few competing interests: the (wealthier than average) folks that own solar panels, the utility companies, and the plants. Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. So the plants increase the base rates they charge so that they remain profitable. This increase is then paid for by everyone (not just the s…
And with the proliferation of battery technology, eventually the solar owners (and increasing numbers of them) may just disconnect from the grid and then the numbers really won't work. My off the cuff solution here is that energy providers/plants/etc. need to invest in storage capacity, or eventually the economic incentives will win out and people just won't buy energy from them in states where solar + battery works.…
> may just disconnect from the grid and then the numbers really won't work
Which works until everybody is off the grid and then collapses.
Everybody relies on the fact that the grid is ubiquitous. Street lights, traffic lights, water pumps, etc. When the grid isn't ubiquitous, you lose all manner of things we take for granted.
We've seen this before in California. Some suburbs made a point of being in unincorporated land to avoid being associated with LA. Well, they found out really quickly that their infrastructure was horribly expensive when they had to pay for it all themselves.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#9This issue isn't as clearly cut as articles like this make it out to be. There are a few competing interests: the (wealthier than average) folks that own solar panels, the utility companies, and the plants. Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. So the plants increase the base rates they charge so that they remain profitable. This increase is then paid for by everyone (not just the s…
> Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. There is more supply, the utilities should be dropping their prices and excess, high cost production drop out of the market. Ofc ourse that assumes that it is a f free market. > So the utilities try to soften the costs by taxing the solar owners. Oh how noble of them to look out for the little guy. There is a small chance that they are just op…
I mean - regressive taxes are bad. And this situation is essentially a regressive tax bundled into your power bill.
Those with less means are forced to continue buying power from utilities that are faced with shrinking customer bases, and which have high, long-term costs (Building power plants ain't cheap, and the costs to amortize the initial construction can't just be waved away because "there is more supply"...)
Does that mean utilities aren't also angling to make the most of the situation? Of course not - they are businesses.
But it does mean your black and white approach isn't really useful here - unless you're fine with poor people getting fucked. Maybe you are.
Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Solar is cutting into the margins that the plants need to be profitable. There is more supply, the utilities should be dropping their prices and excess, high cost production drop out of the market. Ofc ourse that assumes that it is a f free market. > So the utilities try to soften the costs by taxing the solar owners. Oh how noble of them to look out for the little guy. There is a small chance that they are just op…
I mean - regressive taxes are bad. And this situation is essentially a regressive tax bundled into your power bill. Those with less means are forced to continue buying power from utilities that are faced with shrinking customer bases, and which have high, long-term costs (Building power plants ain't cheap, and the costs to amortize the initial construction can't just be waved away because "there is more supply"...) D…
You're describing a death spiral, like has happened with car insurance in some places. As the costs on those still in the market go up and the costs of getting away from it come down, you can expect more and more people to go for the exit. Which sounds great, except it eventually leaves the few who can't get out stuck with the bill for the whole thing.
I suppose the question is what we expect to make of the electrical grid in the future and how to pay for it. If the goal is to stop having a grid, the death spiral seems like a reasonable way to get there.