3 ms·

> The only reason it isn't is regulatory spinelessness. The reason it isn't widely used is because it is an absolutely terrible idea. The value of home solar f

> The only reason it isn't is regulatory spinelessness. The reason it isn't widely used is because it is an absolutely terrible idea. The value of home solar fed to the grid is almost everywhere negative to the utility. (They need to maintain fixed capacity to meet worst case demand, constant power sources are cheaper than adjustable ones, and it costs money to bleed off excess power when there is not enough demand for it.) If you force them to pay you for your useless solar excess, they just have to raise the prices on everyone. This makes home solar more attractive, resulting in even larger useless peak production, and higher electricity prices. It gets even worse if the power transmission isn't decoupled from production. A form that would make sense is instead to allow customers to sell electricity back to the utility at the current short term spot price. As excess production would drive that price to be negative, it would limit installation to the level that is healthy to the grid.

pjc50 8y ago
> The value of home solar fed to the grid is almost everywhere negative to the utility [citation needed] Also, being of negative value to the utility is not the same as negative value to society! Is it displacing carbon-based generation? Is it reducing the need to buildout power lines? > costs money to bleed off excess power when there is not enough demand for it This doesn't happen during the day. Very occasionally some wind farms get curtailment payments at 3am or similar. There are no giant resistor banks to dump energy. > force them to pay you for your useless solar excess, they just have to raise the prices on everyone Economics 101: producing more of a product makes it more expensive! No, wait, the other thing. > constant power sources are cheaper than adjustable ones Be specific: nuclear (no longer really being built, surprisingly expensive) or coal (phasing out)? In the UK it mostly displaces dispatchable CCGT: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ (Some of these problems might appear at 10x the current solar market penetration, but most of them are just anticompetitive complaints by utilities because solar shows up as negative demand)

pjc50 8y ago

> The value of home solar fed to the grid is almost everywhere negative to the utility [citation needed] Also, being of negative value to the utility is not the same as negative value to society! Is it displacing carbon-based generation? Is it reducing the need to buildout power lines? > costs money to bleed off excess power when there is not enough demand for it This doesn't happen during the day. Very occasionally some wind farms get curtailment payments at 3am or similar. There are no giant resistor banks to dump energy. > force them to pay you for your useless solar excess, they just have to raise the prices on everyone Economics 101: producing more of a product makes it more expensive! No, wait, the other thing. > constant power sources are cheaper than adjustable ones Be specific: nuclear (no longer really being built, surprisingly expensive) or coal (phasing out)? In the UK it mostly displaces dispatchable CCGT: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ (Some of these problems might appear at 10x the current solar market penetration, but most of them are just anticompetitive complaints by utilities because solar shows up as negative demand)