3 ms·

In most places unless there are huge subsidies (e.g. net metering) commercial scale solar should be less expensive overall. Solar owned by the homeowners might

In most places unless there are huge subsidies (e.g. net metering) commercial scale solar should be less expensive overall. Solar owned by the homeowners might help in niche scenarios but overall it's often just not a good investment for many individual homeowners

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Net metering technically isn't a subsidy since they are being compensated for a benefit they provide, it's just forcing utilities to not pay less than they're benefiting, and solar is a good investment for individuals when sensible regulation ensures they get a share of the benefits they provide to the grid. Here's a respected centrist think tank's take: https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-benefit/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-meterin... "Nevertheless, by the end of 2015, regulators in at least 10 states had conducted studies to develop methodologies to value distributed generation and net metering, while other states conducted less formal inquiries, ranging from direct rate design or net-metering policy changes to general education of decisionmakers and the public. And there is a degree of consensus. What do the commission-sponsored analyses show? A growing number show that net metering benefits all utility customers"
- wbl 9y ago
  It's a subsidy. Powerplants don't get paid retail rates.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Powerplants often get paid many multiples of retail rates at peak times. The retail rates are averages. And, in places with air-con usage, those peaks coincide to a high degree with solar production. So it's not a subsidy.
    - wbl 9y ago
      What if we paid consumers like powerplants then?
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        The closer we get to the economically perfect solutions the better, but even powerplants have lots of weird regulations and "subsidies" around their pricing e.g. paying gas peakers to be on standby because it's not clear exactly how much power will be needed. At some point you have to accept simplicity rather than waste money on perfection. Net-metering is a pretty good solution by any measure.
      - jhayward 9y ago
        Why would we do that? The structure of how power plants generate electricity and are paid for it are idiosyncratic to their particular operating and economic conditions. It would make no sense to try to force something completely unlike that in to their regime. Thus the many efforts that are designing a "value of solar" regime that encompasses the important aspects of solar, so that equitable and efficient cost schemes can be designed.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

Net metering technically isn't a subsidy since they are being compensated for a benefit they provide, it's just forcing utilities to not pay less than they're benefiting, and solar is a good investment for individuals when sensible regulation ensures they get a share of the benefits they provide to the grid. Here's a respected centrist think tank's take: https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-metering-is-a-net-benefit/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/rooftop-solar-net-meterin... "Nevertheless, by the end of 2015, regulators in at least 10 states had conducted studies to develop methodologies to value distributed generation and net metering, while other states conducted less formal inquiries, ranging from direct rate design or net-metering policy changes to general education of decisionmakers and the public. And there is a degree of consensus. What do the commission-sponsored analyses show? A growing number show that net metering benefits all utility customers"

wbl 9y ago
It's a subsidy. Powerplants don't get paid retail rates.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Powerplants often get paid many multiples of retail rates at peak times. The retail rates are averages. And, in places with air-con usage, those peaks coincide to a high degree with solar production. So it's not a subsidy.
  - wbl 9y ago
    What if we paid consumers like powerplants then?
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      The closer we get to the economically perfect solutions the better, but even powerplants have lots of weird regulations and "subsidies" around their pricing e.g. paying gas peakers to be on standby because it's not clear exactly how much power will be needed. At some point you have to accept simplicity rather than waste money on perfection. Net-metering is a pretty good solution by any measure.
    - jhayward 9y ago
      Why would we do that? The structure of how power plants generate electricity and are paid for it are idiosyncratic to their particular operating and economic conditions. It would make no sense to try to force something completely unlike that in to their regime. Thus the many efforts that are designing a "value of solar" regime that encompasses the important aspects of solar, so that equitable and efficient cost schemes can be designed.