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

The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

cleantechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#11

Post by Kon-Peki »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4
belval wrote: post #3

This 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.

I'm up in the north central US. People around here have started putting solar in an east-west orientation rather than due south.

They are trading peak power generation for peak usefulness.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#12

Post by belval »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4
belval wrote: post #3

This 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.

This is addressed in the "Common misconception" of the "California Duck Curve" article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve

> California's annual demand peaks usually occur around 3 pm to 5 pm, when solar power output is still substantial. The reason that California's annual peak tends to be earlier than the daily peak is that California's annual peak usually occurs on hot days with large air conditioning loads, which tend to run more during midday.

TLDR: The overall peak is between 3 and 5PM.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#13

Post by blitzar »

horsawlarway wrote: post #9
blitzar wrote: post #7

Earlier 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…

My black and white approach works just fine, I am more than happy to see the poor shareholders get fucked. Take away their monopoly and allow competition. It turns out it is already happening as community choice aggregators (CCAs) are all over the place and CEOs of companies with monopolies have proven worthy of their massive salaries by driving their business into bankrupcy.

There is a reason for governments to exist beyond writing and regulating the creation of monopolies for private citizens to get rich. The costs to amortize the initial construction can't just be waved away because they paid all the money out in dividends and executive bonuses. These companies raked in money in bucketloads, agressively wrote down the construction costs and still had money left over to pay fat dividends.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#14

Post by blitzar »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #11
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm up in the north central US. People around here have started putting solar in an east-west orientation rather than due south. They are trading peak power generation for peak usefulness.

I am fortunate enought to have a south west facing roof, not fortunate enough to have sunshine. Obviously the peak solution is just to to track the sun across the sky all day - smartflower.com

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#15

Post by philipkglass »

bsder wrote: post #6
mjh2539 wrote: post #2

This 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…

Panel owners aren't the only group that would get cranky about unbundling. Some non-solar consumers also reap effective subsidies from bundling costs into per-unit charges. Rural customers in low density areas would have higher bills if they paid for infrastructure explicitly. So would customers in dense areas who consume only a little electricity each month but still need the infrastructure to work around the clock. Customers who live in urban or suburban areas and consume a lot of electricity would see their bills fall. Since this latter group tends to be more affluent than the previous two groups, charging each customer proportionally to their incurred costs is also likely to be perceived as unfair.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#16

Post by JoeAltmaier »

It's not just a matter of 'solar is good'. A rational system generates the power it needs on the grid that needs it when its needed. Solar does none of that.

And it seems obvious that a mishmash of solar panels on thousands of roofs pointed in random directions, is nowhere as efficient as a large solar farm.

I've always thought of rooftop solar as 'energy theatre'.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#17

Post by JoeAltmaier »

belval wrote: post #12
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is addressed in the "Common misconception" of the "California Duck Curve" article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve > California's annual demand peaks usually occur around 3 pm to 5 pm, when solar power output is still substantial. The reason that California's annual peak tends to be earlier than the daily peak is that California's annual peak usually occurs on hot days with large air conditioning loads,…

Which isn't peak sunshine. That's at around noon?

At 2PM your solar panels are producing about half of what they could.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#18

Post by gandalfian »

mjh2539 wrote: post #2

This 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…

The utility company using their scale to build their own cheap utility scale solar farms and give everyone bargain energy at sunny times? Thus making microgeneration uneconomic and restoring the communal system?

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#19

Post by leephillips »

bsder wrote: post #8
ericmay wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In other words, the grid is part of critical infrastructure. As such, it should be a governmental function supported by taxes, rather than a product invested in by private companies.

Re: The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid

#20

Post by throwaway27727 »

blitzar wrote: post #13
horsawlarway wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My black and white approach works just fine, I am more than happy to see the poor shareholders get fucked. Take away their monopoly and allow competition. It turns out it is already happening as community choice aggregators (CCAs) are all over the place and CEOs of companies with monopolies have proven worthy of their massive salaries by driving their business into bankrupcy. There is a reason for governments to exis…

OP did say poor people, not poor shareholders. Those least likely to own solar panels, i.e. those with less wealth (don't own their own houses, can't afford the capital for installation) are the ones who bear the cost of higher power plant prices.
Post reply on HN