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

SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

solarthermalmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 213 posts

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#121

Post by hwstar »

mbrutsch wrote: post #8
DiabloD3 wrote: post #2

So, seeing as how the Governor of Nevada just cost thousands of citizens of his state their job, in an industry that is progressive and required for the survival of that state (and the nation as a whole), why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? Politicians need to be taught that they serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they stop doing what they are told, they will no longer be emplo…

> Politicians need to be taught that they serve at the pleasure of the people, and when they stop doing what they are told, they will no longer be employed. I have seen very little evidence that this is true, at least in the last 50 years or so. Sure, there are isolated recalls here and there, but the vast majority suffer no repercussions regardless of how they act. A single vote every few years is a piss-poor way of…

That coupled with deep pocket companies supplying nearly 90% of campaign financing to elected officials narrows the choices to the point the voters can never get a candidate which truly represents their interests.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#122

Post by toomuchtodo »

ghaff wrote: post #118
20years wrote: post #116

This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too. Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits. We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It wa…

Where I live (Massachusetts), the solar companies have started getting really aggressive with sales. Going door-to-door and camping out at the local home improvement store. Smells a lot like trying to get installs while the getting is still good.

There is a production tax credit that provides 30% off the system cost that eventually expires.

EDIT: It behooves you to install a solar system on your dwelling sooner than later.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#123

Post by toomuchtodo »

pkaye wrote: post #112
vinceguidry wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's up to Nevada to decide. Won't happen for some number of years, what the world's going to look like then is going to be very different. No problem kicking that can down the road.

Well it seems like they decided it right now. They are splitting up the net meeting costs into infrastructure and production costs and expect those who connected to the grid to contribute to the infrastructure costs.

Which works, until it doesn't. The price of solar will continue downward, the price of batteries will continue downward, and eventually it'll be cheaper to disconnect from the grid regardless. That's what's going on in Hawaii right now. The utility started to push back against users interconnecting their solar panels, so people went entirely off the grid instead.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#124

Post by protomyth »

The ruling is not a "de facto ban on rooftop solar", it says that the power company should pay the SAME amount no matter who provides the energy to the grid (wholesale rather than retail). If that change kills a company of industry then there are some major problems with the business model.

Hopefully this will encourage energy storage systems. Using the grid that already has enough energy as virtual storage is a pretty shady way to enhance your business. If you cannot store energy yourself than accept that you are going to pay for someone else to do it for you.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#125

Post by JoblessWonder »

> "Governor Brian Sandoval’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to terminate Nevada’s rooftop solar industry just days before Christmas, SolarCity® announced that it has been forced to eliminate more than 550 jobs in the state."

I get that it is a trade magazine, but wow... that is some sensationalism. It makes it sound like he is literally shutting down the industry, not just the rates that drove the market's rapid growth.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#127

Post by brockers »

jacquesm wrote: post #19
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why has the state legislature not immediately begun impeachment? I was under the impression that impeachment is not a "I didn't get my way, I'm going to remove you from office" card. It's not for validating the whims of the electorate because some of them think they're not being served. It's for bringing official charges to an elected official and putting them on trial. What charges can you file against the governo…

I know it isn't but technically it really should be. What use is it to have someone represent you that no longer serves your interests.

Under this same logic the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) would have lead to the impeachment of the President and most of the Democrats in Congress. It was HUGELY unpopular and has only recently become so-so... 5 YEARS after it was passed.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#128

Post by 20years »

ghaff wrote: post #118
20years wrote: post #116

This is not specific to only Nevada. Utility companies have started pulling back power-bill credits in other states too, just not as aggressive as Nevada. Arizona was effected last year which caused job loss and solar downsizing and this is happening in CA too. Lots of state rebates are starting to go away and utility companies are pulling back on credits. We worked with over 50 solar companies in 2013 to 2014. It wa…

Where I live (Massachusetts), the solar companies have started getting really aggressive with sales. Going door-to-door and camping out at the local home improvement store. Smells a lot like trying to get installs while the getting is still good.

Yeah they are trying to get as many people in before the tax credit expires. It's going to be a much tougher sell after that happens.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#129

Post by baldfat »

vinceguidry wrote: post #81
CWuestefeld wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's a long reach to get to the OP's "de facto ban on rooftop solar". If we take the OP at face value, then, it seems to be declaring that solar energy is completely impractical, and can't survive without life support. I realize that other forms of energy generation are all subsidized in various ways, so it's clearly not as serious as my above interpretation, but still, it doesn't speak well of solar.

It's not that simple. Solar is only really practical if it fits into the grid system, otherwise there's no real point. The energy it gives you goes up and down, and not in sync with your own household needs. So you need something to do with excess capacity. All by itself, units of power aren't all that expensive. But a solar installation is very expensive. You need to amortize the cost of the installation, the people…

> over around 30 years before it's really worth it

That is ANCIENT Solar Technology. If you care to read this it actually is

Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

I think you need to re-research solar technology.

Re: SolarCity Will Eliminate Over 550 Job Due to State’s Anti-Rooftop Solar Decision

#130

Post by krschultz »

protomyth wrote: post #124

The ruling is not a "de facto ban on rooftop solar", it says that the power company should pay the SAME amount no matter who provides the energy to the grid (wholesale rather than retail). If that change kills a company of industry then there are some major problems with the business model. Hopefully this will encourage energy storage systems. Using the grid that already has enough energy as virtual storage is a pret…

There are no problems with the business model, it just doesn't pencil out in that state anymore. Keep in mind the business model for solar is basically trading higher up front capital costs for lower long term recurring costs, and the capital costs are largely invested into products that have a rapidly declining cost. That sounds like a great plan to me, and while it requires subsidizes today, in a few years it won't. Arguably the entire drop in oil prices over the last few years was due to the realization by major players that we will see the end of fossil fuel demand before we see the end of fossil fuels. One of the key contributors to that is unsubsidized price of solar panels was getting very close to the price of oil (~24 months ago).

I would also argue, if you do not take care of the externalities of your energy production yourself, than accept that you are going to have to subsidize people that are reducing the demand for it. Why is it on the solar owners to pay for all of their energy storage but not on the coal power plants to capture and store their CO2 emissions?

Post reply on HN