5 ms·

I like this argument but I disagree with it. I will stipulate that PG&E qualifies as a 'poorly run, centralized utility' and based on its billing it cannot pro

I like this argument but I disagree with it. I will stipulate that PG&E qualifies as a 'poorly run, centralized utility' and based on its billing it cannot provide power to residential homes for less money than a locally installed solar system can. The reasons for this are worth considering. PG&E has to maintain a power transmission infrastructure. That infrastructure has a high inspection cost, land use cost, equipment costs, and insurance risk cost (witness that the threat of the being found liable that their transmission line maintenance (or lack thereof) contributed to the most expensive wild fire in CA history). Then there are the externalities which we don't account for as much in either scenario. Whether it is the cost of scrubbers on a coal plant, the waste storage costs of nuclear, or the gas pipeline infrastructure for natural gas plants that leaks methane into the air. What solar does it centralizes the manufacture of the energy production equipment with finite externalitie. It provides highly granular capacity that can be deployed without large step wise changes in capacity (this is the 'nearly unused plant' problem where you have to run a plant because the instantaneous need occasionally exceeds your current generate capacity while the average need is staying below that level (this is where Teslas battery farms help energy companies cut costs). So when comparing systems dollars to systems dollars, Solar with the current economics of about $3.25/watt installed is actually cheaper than poorly run centralized power plants.

vkou 8y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong - solar power generation is fantastic in areas that can support it (Which is most of the world.) Rooftop solar power generation is what I have an issue with. Utility-scale solar has all the advantage that you cited, without the disadvantages of being incredibly labour-intensive, overcomplicating the electric grid, and offloading long-term maintenance to non-experts. If you are going 100% off-the grid, then yes, local installations may be cheaper (Because they don't include the cost of maintaining the grid.) However, you'll still have to maintain a national grid - because not all buildings or businesses have the rooftop capacity, or the hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital to install enormous battery blocks. So, what ends up happening, is that a few people drop off the system, and raise prices for everyone else - including people who don't have the option to drop off the grid. My building, for instance, houses 40 units. It has four times the rooftop capacity of an average home. No amount of battery storage is ever going to let it be grid-independent. Other residences dropping off the grid, completely, just shift costs around - they wont reduce overall costs.
- skybrian 8y ago
  It requires a grid, but maybe not a national grid? There has been a lot of talk about how we need more long-distance power lines for load-balancing solar and wind. However, the PG&E bankruptcy seems to show that we've been underestimating what it takes to properly maintain a grid. Are long-distance power lines more expensive than we thought? Or maybe rural, fire-prone areas would do better with more local solutions that reduce the amount of low-usage power lines that need to be maintained?
  - hedora 8y ago
    PG&E is a pretty poor strawman for anti-grid arguments. CA pays 2x what neighboring states do for electricity, and despite having mild weather and high population density have unreasonably high levels of safety and reliability issues. It’s probably second only to Puerto Rico on that front, at least in the US. Having said that, I’m eagerly awaiting the day I can disconnect my house from the grid, and close my account with them.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  It's interesting that you say this because I've had the same feeling. However, I'm still quite hopeful for rooftop installation simply because from a societal point of view it's a better utilisation of land. Where I live we have really ideal conditions for both solar and wind and while I'm relatively happy dotting every hilltop in this area with wind turbines, they've been clear cutting the forest, paving it over and carpeting it with solar panels. I realise that we're going to need some of this, but I would really like to minimise it as much as possible and I'm willing to pay for it. It frustrates me no end that at the same time they started pushing renewable options, they deregulated power sales and capped the distribution costs for the power company in our area. So while the costs of running the grid goes up, they have have no leeway in increasing prices to match. Sigh... I sometimes feel I'm going to be living in a literal silicon valley at some point... The irony, of course, is that I live in Japan and while we have oodles of geothermal potential, it's still a politically sensitive option to even experiment with (for fear of disrupting the hot springs -- lots and lots of money tied up in that and already people complain about the drop off in temperature due to over use...)
sokoloff 8y ago
For 6-7 hours on most days, rooftop solar can provide power to residential homes more cheaply than PG&E. For 12+ hours a day, PG&E is almost certainly cheaper I believe.
eigenvector 8y ago
You cannot just look at $/MW costs when the goal is to have 100% generation adequacy (i.e. demand is uncontrolled, people can turn on loads within their home whenever they want and always expect to have adequate supply). If loads are interruptible and you don't mind not being able to turn on your air conditioner at 10pm on a hot summer night, then sure, off-grid rooftop solar can be cheaper. Primarily, the way people who actually live off-grid operate is the same way people without running water wash dishes: you ration your consumption. But most people want power for all their stuff, all the time. It will always be easier to plan for generation adequacy and resiliency centrally rather than every single power user having to install enough generation and storage to meet their own needs, 100% of the time.
- cbhl 8y ago
  Totally agree that it's easier to plan a centralized system over a decentralized one, provided that you adequately fund people to maintain all the components. (And trim trees!) But have you ever been in a power outage, used your cell phone as a flashlight, and thought, "man, I wish my entire house ran off of a battery like my cell phone?" A home builder already plans for 95% generation adequacy of hot water -- they literally find space in the floor plan for a hot water heater, and decide how big the tank should be. If you run out, either you ration usage or you buy a bigger water tank. If home batteries had the right safety-energy density ratio (admittedly -- hard problem; see the RFS for Energy), you could just include one in the floor plan based on 80%ile usage, like the batteries in laptops, and cell phones, and electric cars. They're just too big and expensive now.

vkou 8y ago

Oh, don't get me wrong - solar power generation is fantastic in areas that can support it (Which is most of the world.) Rooftop solar power generation is what I have an issue with. Utility-scale solar has all the advantage that you cited, without the disadvantages of being incredibly labour-intensive, overcomplicating the electric grid, and offloading long-term maintenance to non-experts. If you are going 100% off-the grid, then yes, local installations may be cheaper (Because they don't include the cost of maintaining the grid.) However, you'll still have to maintain a national grid - because not all buildings or businesses have the rooftop capacity, or the hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital to install enormous battery blocks. So, what ends up happening, is that a few people drop off the system, and raise prices for everyone else - including people who don't have the option to drop off the grid. My building, for instance, houses 40 units. It has four times the rooftop capacity of an average home. No amount of battery storage is ever going to let it be grid-independent. Other residences dropping off the grid, completely, just shift costs around - they wont reduce overall costs.

skybrian 8y ago
It requires a grid, but maybe not a national grid? There has been a lot of talk about how we need more long-distance power lines for load-balancing solar and wind. However, the PG&E bankruptcy seems to show that we've been underestimating what it takes to properly maintain a grid. Are long-distance power lines more expensive than we thought? Or maybe rural, fire-prone areas would do better with more local solutions that reduce the amount of low-usage power lines that need to be maintained?
- hedora 8y ago
  PG&E is a pretty poor strawman for anti-grid arguments. CA pays 2x what neighboring states do for electricity, and despite having mild weather and high population density have unreasonably high levels of safety and reliability issues. It’s probably second only to Puerto Rico on that front, at least in the US. Having said that, I’m eagerly awaiting the day I can disconnect my house from the grid, and close my account with them.
mikekchar 8y ago
It's interesting that you say this because I've had the same feeling. However, I'm still quite hopeful for rooftop installation simply because from a societal point of view it's a better utilisation of land. Where I live we have really ideal conditions for both solar and wind and while I'm relatively happy dotting every hilltop in this area with wind turbines, they've been clear cutting the forest, paving it over and carpeting it with solar panels. I realise that we're going to need some of this, but I would really like to minimise it as much as possible and I'm willing to pay for it. It frustrates me no end that at the same time they started pushing renewable options, they deregulated power sales and capped the distribution costs for the power company in our area. So while the costs of running the grid goes up, they have have no leeway in increasing prices to match. Sigh... I sometimes feel I'm going to be living in a literal silicon valley at some point... The irony, of course, is that I live in Japan and while we have oodles of geothermal potential, it's still a politically sensitive option to even experiment with (for fear of disrupting the hot springs -- lots and lots of money tied up in that and already people complain about the drop off in temperature due to over use...)

sokoloff 8y ago

For 6-7 hours on most days, rooftop solar can provide power to residential homes more cheaply than PG&E. For 12+ hours a day, PG&E is almost certainly cheaper I believe.

eigenvector 8y ago

You cannot just look at $/MW costs when the goal is to have 100% generation adequacy (i.e. demand is uncontrolled, people can turn on loads within their home whenever they want and always expect to have adequate supply). If loads are interruptible and you don't mind not being able to turn on your air conditioner at 10pm on a hot summer night, then sure, off-grid rooftop solar can be cheaper. Primarily, the way people who actually live off-grid operate is the same way people without running water wash dishes: you ration your consumption. But most people want power for all their stuff, all the time. It will always be easier to plan for generation adequacy and resiliency centrally rather than every single power user having to install enough generation and storage to meet their own needs, 100% of the time.

cbhl 8y ago
Totally agree that it's easier to plan a centralized system over a decentralized one, provided that you adequately fund people to maintain all the components. (And trim trees!) But have you ever been in a power outage, used your cell phone as a flashlight, and thought, "man, I wish my entire house ran off of a battery like my cell phone?" A home builder already plans for 95% generation adequacy of hot water -- they literally find space in the floor plan for a hot water heater, and decide how big the tank should be. If you run out, either you ration usage or you buy a bigger water tank. If home batteries had the right safety-energy density ratio (admittedly -- hard problem; see the RFS for Energy), you could just include one in the floor plan based on 80%ile usage, like the batteries in laptops, and cell phones, and electric cars. They're just too big and expensive now.