6 ms·

And here in the USA some states are punishing solar customers who sell their energy, by taxing them on infrastructure costs, to protect the big energy companies

by alex20 10y ago

And here in the USA some states are punishing solar customers who sell their energy, by taxing them on infrastructure costs, to protect the big energy companies. Their reasoning for taxing them is to "maintain the lines and equipment". The counter-argument to that is, "customers who consume pay taxes and fee's to maintain the lines, and on top of that, the government is giving them tax breaks to help "maintain the lines" i get mad even thinking about it. Same with internet, Cable, TV. The lawmakers will always try and mitigate the disruption, but all they are doing is delaying the inevitable.

maxerickson 10y ago
Which states do you think have the worst solar laws?
Mvandenbergh 10y ago
The solution to this is to bill people separately for fixed transmission & distribution infrastructure, capacity, and electricity used. Ideally electricity used and fed back into the grid would both be constantly re-priced as well to reflect supply and demand. FYI - most regional utilities in the US are publicly owned, not private, so I'm not sure who "the big energy companies" are.
jmcgough 10y ago
My gf is an electromechanical engineer at a solar power startup (and obviously supportive of solar power initiatives). Just asked her about this, and she said that: 1) the electrical grid wasn't designed for transferring power this way, and it can damage the grid 2) because solar power isn't a constant power source (say, a cloud blocks the sun for a minute), power companies need to keep power available for someone who's using solar. The amount of this is dictated by their peak power usage. May not seem like a big thing, but as more and more people switch to solar, they suddenly need to hold massive amounts of power, as disruptions can affect people in entire regions. Then she started getting heavy into the physics of reactive power and my brain stopped working T_T Anyways, there's a reason that they're charging fees for solar usage. You're using their electrical grid, and it costs money to maintain it and improve it to handle some of the new challenges of solar power.
- jmcgough 10y ago
  Legislation around blocking non-profit internet and cable is just evil though :\
- peppaz 10y ago
  Good thing Tesla is making huge battery packs for our homes so we can ditch the grid entirely.
  - DamnYuppie 10y ago
    You don't need to wait for Tesla, you can buy Lithium battery packs now. Heck even AGM or wet cell batteries work fine. I have about 800 ampH and I can do pretty much anything I want except run an AC off of it.
    - artmageddon 10y ago
      How much did it run?
      - DamnYuppie 10y ago
        Batteries were about $650.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    I think it will never be the case that you can run a household solar/battery plant for less than a utility can do it on massive scale and just run a wire to your house (remember to factor in depreciation on all your household kit, batteries and inverters don't last forever).
    - azernik 10y ago
      I think this applies more on the battery side than the solar side. There are certain options for storage that are totally impractical for home use. For example, vanadium redox batteries [1] are so bulky that you probably don't want to put them in expensive residential real estate, but they're pretty cheap and effective. But a mix of residential solar and utility-managed batteries could be viable; it's not clear to me that the economies of scale for large solar installations are very strong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
ptaipale 10y ago
Their reasoning for taxing them is to "maintain the lines and equipment". That is a very valid reason. Solar power - like wind - is erratic in nature and has much higher requirements for the power transmission network than e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear of fossil power. The erratic nature is even worsened by subsidies which encourage people to peak production, regardless of consumption. The way these subsidies have been implemented varies across countries, but wherever you have them, you are also inviting trouble to the power grid.
- narag 10y ago
  That is a valid reason while they can get away with it. That won't be the case for long. As soon as the storage costs follow the panels', the grid at the current cost will be a very hard sell. Of course, providing a good location, etc.
hueving 10y ago
The infrastructure belongs to the utility. Why do you feel entitled to use it for free? It would be like demanding free Internet because you run a website lots of people visit so your upload is greater than your download.
elif 10y ago
Oh boo hoo. In my state, we are not allowed to tie into the grid at all.
ProAm 10y ago
> The counter-argument to that is, "customers who consume pay taxes and fee's to maintain the lines It's not consumption anymore, but usage. You are using the grid infrastructure you should be required to help maintain it. It was just never an issue before now. Everyone uses the grid, the community needs to help maintain it.
rayiner 10y ago
In most places, power companies pay to build and maintain the grid, not the government with taxes.

by alex20 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

Which states do you think have the worst solar laws?

Mvandenbergh 10y ago

The solution to this is to bill people separately for fixed transmission & distribution infrastructure, capacity, and electricity used. Ideally electricity used and fed back into the grid would both be constantly re-priced as well to reflect supply and demand. FYI - most regional utilities in the US are publicly owned, not private, so I'm not sure who "the big energy companies" are.

jmcgough 10y ago

My gf is an electromechanical engineer at a solar power startup (and obviously supportive of solar power initiatives). Just asked her about this, and she said that: 1) the electrical grid wasn't designed for transferring power this way, and it can damage the grid 2) because solar power isn't a constant power source (say, a cloud blocks the sun for a minute), power companies need to keep power available for someone who's using solar. The amount of this is dictated by their peak power usage. May not seem like a big thing, but as more and more people switch to solar, they suddenly need to hold massive amounts of power, as disruptions can affect people in entire regions. Then she started getting heavy into the physics of reactive power and my brain stopped working T_T Anyways, there's a reason that they're charging fees for solar usage. You're using their electrical grid, and it costs money to maintain it and improve it to handle some of the new challenges of solar power.

jmcgough 10y ago
Legislation around blocking non-profit internet and cable is just evil though :\
peppaz 10y ago
Good thing Tesla is making huge battery packs for our homes so we can ditch the grid entirely.
- DamnYuppie 10y ago
  You don't need to wait for Tesla, you can buy Lithium battery packs now. Heck even AGM or wet cell batteries work fine. I have about 800 ampH and I can do pretty much anything I want except run an AC off of it.
  - artmageddon 10y ago
    How much did it run?
    - DamnYuppie 10y ago
      Batteries were about $650.
- ams6110 10y ago
  I think it will never be the case that you can run a household solar/battery plant for less than a utility can do it on massive scale and just run a wire to your house (remember to factor in depreciation on all your household kit, batteries and inverters don't last forever).
  - azernik 10y ago
    I think this applies more on the battery side than the solar side. There are certain options for storage that are totally impractical for home use. For example, vanadium redox batteries [1] are so bulky that you probably don't want to put them in expensive residential real estate, but they're pretty cheap and effective. But a mix of residential solar and utility-managed batteries could be viable; it's not clear to me that the economies of scale for large solar installations are very strong. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

ptaipale 10y ago

Their reasoning for taxing them is to "maintain the lines and equipment". That is a very valid reason. Solar power - like wind - is erratic in nature and has much higher requirements for the power transmission network than e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear of fossil power. The erratic nature is even worsened by subsidies which encourage people to peak production, regardless of consumption. The way these subsidies have been implemented varies across countries, but wherever you have them, you are also inviting trouble to the power grid.

narag 10y ago
That is a valid reason while they can get away with it. That won't be the case for long. As soon as the storage costs follow the panels', the grid at the current cost will be a very hard sell. Of course, providing a good location, etc.

hueving 10y ago

The infrastructure belongs to the utility. Why do you feel entitled to use it for free? It would be like demanding free Internet because you run a website lots of people visit so your upload is greater than your download.

elif 10y ago

Oh boo hoo. In my state, we are not allowed to tie into the grid at all.

ProAm 10y ago

> The counter-argument to that is, "customers who consume pay taxes and fee's to maintain the lines It's not consumption anymore, but usage. You are using the grid infrastructure you should be required to help maintain it. It was just never an issue before now. Everyone uses the grid, the community needs to help maintain it.

rayiner 10y ago

In most places, power companies pay to build and maintain the grid, not the government with taxes.