The Attack on Rooftop Solar Power in California Is Beyond Stupid • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by blitzar » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 11:48 PM UTC

throwaway27727 wrote: post #20

blitzar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who spoke up for those people before the shareholders stopped getting their fat dividend? Nobody. Now that the big corporations (and their shareholders) are struggling the crys from the rooftop is "wont somebobdy think of the poor people".

How about putting back some of the excess profits from the monopoly that were taken every year till now?

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

#22

Post by belval » Wed, Dec 15, 2021, 11:54 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

belval wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, but that's a bit like turning the problem on its head, the important part is that solar panels do help during California's peak, which wouldn't be true in most other places because the peak would be happening much after 5PM.

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

#23

Post by petertodd » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 12:10 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

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'.

> 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 don't think that's obvious at all. Solar farms either use up expensive land, or have to be located so far away that transmission costs could be a significant percentage. Solar roofs get both land and structural support for free, thye're located much closer to where the electricity is needed, and can be engineered to double as a roof surface that you needed anyway. They also aren't "pointed in random directions": installers carefully analyze each roof to determine what sides/angles are worth putting panels on.

> A rational system generates the power it needs on the grid that needs it when its needed.

Solar fundamentally can't always generate the power when it's needed, regardless of where you put the solar panels. That said, solar does a particularly good job of powering air conditioning loads: for that solar roofs both put the power where it's needed, and when it's needed.

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

#24

Post by petertodd » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 12:13 AM UTC

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.

> Folks aren't home during peak sunshine.

Work-from-home is certainly changing that. Not to mention stay-at-home parents, etc.

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

#25

Post by yumraj » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 12:13 AM UTC

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.

Why not let the AC run during the day so that it remains cool on free electricity, and you don’t need AC at night.. No?

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

#26

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 1:38 AM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #10

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…

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 electrica…

I suppose that may be the case - although I don't really see much solar specced for true off-grid use.

I think the main point is that there are some negative consequences to allowing folks to opt out of what were previously shared utilities. Intentional or not - we had a form of social contract around pricing utilities, and that contract falls apart if the wealthiest can buy their way out of future payments.

That doesn't mean I agree with the way that california (and many other states) are trying to hamfist those who buy solar into subsidizing utility companies, but it does mean there's a real conversation to be had that's not as simple as "Fuck the poor - I have mine".

It's a similar conversation to the one around gas taxes. EV owners avoid paying them, but gas taxes are primarily funding road infrastructure, which is still shared by EV owners. So we had a social contract that worked, and we have to find a replacement. That's a real discussion, and not some simple black and white "They buy EV, they pay less" talk.

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

#27

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 1:51 AM UTC

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…

Utility pricing is one of the most regulated things in the country.

They don't "regulate the creation" of a monopoly for something like power - it's the definition of "natural monopoly". They regulate it so hard because capitalism DOES NOT WORK for this. Texas still tries it, and we're all seeing how well their underfunded, poorly maintained utilities blow up the second you get a slight perturbance in the natural order (ooops - hope joe blow likes his 16k power bill this month!)

Also - Even if you were to buy true off-grid solar and completely avoid the grid for your home, there is literally no way you are not taking advantage of power provided by the power companies. It's in your street lights, your cell towers, your stores, your gas stations, your schools/libraries/gov buildings. It's running the pumps for your sewers, the traffic lights for your roads, the signage at your DMV. It's EVERYWHERE - And you are using it.

So do I think this particular legislation is the right way to solve it? No - probably not. But I'm not an angry child who's unable to hold a real conversation around how we structure society.

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

#28

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 1:52 AM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #15

bsder wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

If we are going to subsidize certain groups, let’s make it explicit and subsidize the poor instead.

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

#29

Post by daniel-cussen » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 2:49 AM UTC

petertodd wrote: post #23

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

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'.

> 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 don't think that's obvious at all. Solar farms either use up expensive land, or have to be located so far away that transmission costs could be a significant percentage. Solar roofs get both land and structural support for free, thye're located much closer to wher…

> both put the power where it's needed, and when it's needed.

And it turns light into electricity instead of heat like a similar-colored roof would.

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

#30

Post by etempleton » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:14 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #5

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…

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.…

The lack of energy storage is the issue. If the utilities could pay users to deploy the energy when they needed it there wouldn’t be an issue. The problem is solar energy peaks and there is nothing that can be done with that energy because power plants take time to bring on and off line. Natural Gas is relatively quick to bring online, but it still takes time and money.

We no longer have a renewable energy production challenge. If we wanted to we could produce more than enough energy with wind and solar energy cheaply. The problem is we don’t have good affordable energy storage solutions.