10 ms·

Solar now ‘cheaper than grid electricity’ in every Chinese city

151 points by blue_devil 7y ago

perfunctory 7y ago
> “There’s also the fact that companies just can’t be bothered a lot of the time – there are roofs all over Europe where solar could probably save money, but people are not jumping to do it.” That's why believing in market forces alone is a little naive. There has to be a little nudge from the government.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  The government nudge should target the energy storage issue by creating cost incentives for energy companies to build out this technology. I don't see how consumers can reasonably cooperate on consuming during daytime, when production is peak. (Automating home consumption via connected devices might result in net loss of energy as the devices' production/use gobbles rare materials and data.)
- supakeen 7y ago
  It's also quite the investment while (at least in some countries) there are plans to lower or remove the payments for delivering power back to the net.
  - llampx 7y ago
    I heard that the same thing happened in California and it's led to a lot of people being disillusioned with the solar promise. Is it lobbying by the utility companies that is leading to these reductions or other factors?
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Too much renewables with fixed compensation makes existing fossil fuel plants unprofitable.
    - Iv 7y ago
      I don't know specifically about Caliornia, but in several places that uses to offer "pay back" plans for injecting power into the grid, the problem was that solar power generates power when it is not in the highest demand and varies too much. I still think there are some adaptations that could be done to mitigate that problem, but the grid seems simply not correctly set up to efficiently use the energy produced by millions of people generating a lot of power during the day and draining a lot at night.
      - llampx 7y ago
        I guess this is where giant Tesla powerwalls or flow batteries come into the picture. A way to efficiently store the energy for when its needed.
        Scoundreller 7y ago
        Or just charge people the actual price, rather than some hodge-podge of pre-defined rates based on Time of Day. Yes, it will be complicated, but these providers also think we all care about itemization of generation, transmission, distribution, power factor, grid line loss and debt retirement charges. I don’t, all I care about is fixed cost and variable cost. Maybe let people overpay through some hedging contract if they prefer to pay an average price. For me, I want my dryer, A/C, water heater, etc. to throttle up and down based on price to lower my bill overall without reducing quality of life.
    - nullc 7y ago
      One thing that has been happening is that peak rate times are moving in response to solar, which has a pretty negative effect on the economics of grid attached solar. Grid attached solar is a lot more attractive when your generation is at substantially at peak rates and your morning/evening grid usage is at part-peak or off-peak rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
  - ivanhoe 7y ago
    Absolutely, my friend got bitten by this in Croatia. He invested quite a lot in solar and then government cut down on what they pay per kWh. Plus with the prices of panels going down all the time you're effectively throwing away money by going into it too early...
- iagovar 7y ago
  I live in a flat, as most europeans do. I'm not even the owner, so how I am supposed to push for that. Even if the owner did I don't think the surface of the roof is enough, not to mention that it has shadows from other buildings, antennas and so on.
  - lhnz 7y ago
    It's likely that you would need to get planning permission to put solar panels on the roof of a building. This generally requires you to be the owner. Therefore it might not be best described as a market failure. It could be better described as a failure due to planning regulations that only give power to land-owners. This is big problem in Europe, since as you point out: many people rent.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      When you own a condo, a similar problem arises: you need everyone in the building to agree, since the roof is shared. In my building, this would be a non-starter.
    - GarrisonPrime 7y ago
      So...you think regulations should allow renters to modify someone else’s property, even if against the owners wishes? If a proposition for solar panels is actually realistic and a net positive, the owners should be easily convinced without resorting to force.
      - AndrewDucker 7y ago
        The owners would have to pay for the panels. They do not pay for the electricity used in the property. Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests.
        0xffff2 7y ago
        >Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests. I would certainly pay a bit more in rent for a place where my energy use was subsidized by panels.
- sergiosgc 7y ago
  It's still not a clear choice, at least not in Portugal. A solar panel + battery setup pays itself back in 10-12 years, without selling electricity back to the grid. This exceeds the warranty/lifetime on batteries and exceeds the warranty on panels (although not the lifetime). It's a risky proposition. Selling back to the grid is priced at the wholesale price: 4¢/kWh (slated for 5¢ early next year). It's sold at a loss, since consumer prices are about 10¢/kWh by night and 20¢/kWh by day. The ability to sell back does not move the needle on the payback period. And note that Portugal is a sunny country. A panel works, on yearly average, 5h/day at full power. In central/northern Europe the numbers are probably worse.
  - piotr1212 7y ago
    > 4¢/kWh (slated for 5¢ early next year). It's sold at a loss, since consumer prices are about 10¢/kWh by night and 20¢/kWh by day Isn't this "selling at a loss" just the difference that the 10 / 20 c is after tax and you sell without tax, or do you have to add tax to the 10/20 c?
    - sergiosgc 7y ago
      There's no tax involved, other than VAT, which applies to both prices.
      - krageon 7y ago
        If you have been told there is no tax involved someone is lying to you. The cost of maintaining the grid and providing power is not as high as you quote as far as I am aware.
      - piotr1212 7y ago
        Are you sure? Does electricity in Portugal cost 10 to 20 cent before tax? Why is it so expensive? We pay 6 cent/kWH before tax in the Netherlands.
        gdhbcc 7y ago
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  People do buy houses, cars, even electronics like laptops through a lease. It is the banks and financial institutes that need a bit of nudge (or appropriate market signals) to start offering competitive lease options and people will be buying solar panels in no time. On the other hand, the recent California law about new houses needing solar panels is a step in the right direction.
- martin_a 7y ago
  Installing solar panels has become more and more uninteresting, at least in Germany. In former times there were generous subsidies for installing solar panels: You got, I think, a fixed amount per kWh that you installed on your roof and you also got a better price for the electricity that you put back into the grid. In Germany it's called "Einspeisevergütung" if I remember correctly. This program was limited though, and now you have to pay for the panels all yourself (or you get only a little bonus from the state) and the prices for "selling" into the grid have fallen drastically because there's just too much electricity on sunny days and its sold for negative values on the international electricity markets. Installing new solar panels on your roof is now only interesting when you can use the electricity for yourself. That means charging EVs, filling battery-powered storage (also expensive and not subsidized, I think) or using the electricity around and in your house. If you've got an older installation you might benefit from the old tariffs and get a little bit more money, but building new systems is rather uninteresting for private households. With rising prices for electricity there will be new "motivation" for installing new solar systems on your house. But as already said, only for using the electricity for yourself. Also a law was changed recently, so that renters can now install their own "balcony solar systems" (one panel for example) and feed that electricity right back into their grid through the wall outlet. This is only allowed with small systems though, so that you may produce enough energy for your household base load, but not make your meter turn backwards. In the bigger picture all of this shows how Germany has, so far, failed to do a real switch to renewable energies or really take a step into that direction. We got lots of solar systems and lots of wind turbines, but we are not able to store the produced electricity for later use. So lots of wind turbines are turned out of the wind, because there's an overproduction of electricity on windy days. And prices for solar generated electricity have dropped, as already mentioned. Meanwhile the four large energy companies in Germany are doing what they want and are holding the government as hostage. Chopping down woods without any need, because some coal-fired power stations needs to be run because we could otherwise lose 20.000 jobs all over Germany. Nobody thinks about how many jobs we could create with a heavy switch and investment in renewable energies and storage solutions for energy. After all, taking a step backwards it's kind of a sad situation.
  - yummypaint 7y ago
    I believe the english term is "feed in laws" where the utility company must pay market rate for power individuals put onto the grid. My understanding is that this was a key driver of Germany's rapid growth in wind power capacity. In the US we dont even have feed in laws
- roenxi 7y ago
  Or alternatively, that the market has a better grasp of the situation than the head of solar analysis at BloombergNEF. Just because she has 'head' and 'solar' in her title doesn't mean she is all-knowing about the solar market. If solar actually represented a better deal companies would be falling over themselves to install solar panels everywhere. It is likely that there are important realities or risks that the analysts have missed. Either that, or someone is going to make a killing installing solar panels on a lease-to-buy basis.
  - addicted 7y ago
    When you consider that governments spend trillions of dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels (this is not an exaggeration), maybe that’s why it hasn’t been taken up despite it being cheaper? And because like any new technologies there are additional factors, such as fear of different and new, and entrenched interests pushing against the new efforts. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies...
    - navigatesol 7y ago
      >When you consider that governments spend trillions of dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels (this is not an exaggeration) It is an exaggeration, and it's mostly on the consumption side, not production. Why does the OECD come up with $150-$200BB a year in subsidies? Why is the IEA estimate ~$400BB?: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defining-fossil-fuel-subsidies https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defin... The IMF report says a whopping $4.6TT of the $5.2TT are "externalities". I think we all agree externalities exist, but externalities are not subsidies, nor are they easy to price.
      - roenxi 7y ago
        And not only are externalities not subsidies, but looking at what appears to be the original paper [0] it seems that fuels for on-road use area big focus. Obviously, on-road fuel is not currently competing with solar panels. [0] https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA...
- jillesvangurp 7y ago
  Most people don't spend enough on energy to make cost savings a big priority. With solar, there are tangible benefits right now if you know what you are doing but delaying your investments a few years may mean you get more benefits. Increasingly it is not the panel cost but everything around it (inverters, batteries, installation cost, etc.). All those things are subject to economies of scale. Basically, you get a delayed effect. In a few years it will go from cheaper to way cheaper to magnitudes cheaper. At that point things get more urgent. Another thing to consider is that supply and demand are not that well matched currently. Basically, there's no such thing as over production for batteries or solar panels currently and even installation is bottle-necked on availability of people to do that. That reflects in the pricing as well. IMHO, the biggest change with solar is that energy cost goes from a variable cost to basically a fixed cost (one time investment in batteries + panels) + variable revenue (from selling excess energy) + variable cost for when your panels don't deliver enough juice. The market is still adapting to this and e.g. the ease of selling excess energy varies between markets. Some companies are going to get more benefit than others. E.g. any companies operating vehicles will probably want to switch to EV. At that point charging them with their own solar panels becomes attractive; especially when combined with vehicle to grid revenue.
- scld 7y ago
  Or, perhaps, this article is naive and the market realizes that there are some unseen costs associated with solar investment. Not to mention the opportunity cost of the capital needed to convert to another type of energy infrastructure.
- piotr1212 7y ago
  I live in a large apartment building in the Netherlands, during the last home owners association meeting we discussed installing solar panels. The problem is the huge uncertainty the government creates. At the moment it is allowed to just deduct the amount of power you create from the amount you use and pay for the remainder. This way the government does not collect energy tax on the energy you create from your solar, thus they treat this as a subsidy. They announced that this subsidy will end by 2023, it is not clear how things will be after that time. Most of the home owners agreed that the risk they will change it into a regulation that will be (financially) bad for us is too large so we are not installing them until there is more clear. But even then, the government changes at least every 4 years, how am I supposed to make a long term investment - (solar takes about 10 years for return on investment around here, with current regulation) - if I don't know if I will be screwed by the next administration? Especially now that the support for the "climate change denial party" is growing.
  - ollie87 7y ago
    A climate change denial party in the NETHERLANDS OF ALL PLACES?! Wow, I hope they like being under water.
    - piotr1212 7y ago
      Unfortunately, we are one of the worst performing countries on the co2 reductions within Europe. Even coal loving Poland and "poor" countries like Romania outperform us.
    - krageon 7y ago
      It is a strategic denial. The Dutch government is (and has always been) as underhanded as possible when it can bring them profits. In this case the profits are in ignoring what is right and exploiting everyone else, a tradition that they have embraced for a very long time.
    - benj111 7y ago
      The Dutch are quite good at dealing with that though, or else they'd already be underwater.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > a little nudge from the government Like the subsidies they've had for years? Regardless, what are they going to do, come forcibly put solar panels on your roof? Keep them maintained? Repair them if a branch falls?
  - perfunctory 7y ago
    First, the quote, and my comment, are in the context of commercial solar projects, not residential. Think about a company installing solar on the roof of a factory. Second, I am sure there are many different ways to implement the nudge. Indeed, maybe instead of subsidizing solar we should rather stop subsidizing fossil. Finally, talking about residential, currently almost every house has a gas pipe connected to it forcibly. And that pipe also requires maintenance. And sometimes gas leaks and your house blows up. And I don't see how forced solar would in theory be different to the current gas situation.
- GarrisonPrime 7y ago
  It’s the government that often prevents market forces from taking advantage of such opportunities. Most regions limit how many competing providers may operate in the same area, requiring that they possess a license - of which legislation allows only a few or even just one to exist. Vested interests, of course, won’t want to make serious investments in new infrastructure until they absolutely have to. Especially if they’re still making payments on their debt for building the current architecture.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
This isn't meant to be troll-y / snark-y, but if the USA factored out subsidies for Big Oil, and then added in the military costs associated with keeping the oil flowing, that would make solar look much more attractive.
- diafygi 7y ago
  This quip is a common trope that has several problems with it and is years out of date. Please stop using it. First, oil-based energy doesn't compete with solar to a large extent. That will change as EVs get more popular, but outside of islands like Hawaii, oil isn't used much for electricity generation (where solar competes). Second, solar is already attractive for most new generation scenarios in many locations, including dispactchable situations where you also need storage. It's getting so cheap that it's starting to compete with existing generation. http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-solar-plus-storage-is-undermining-the-economics-of-existing-coal-fired-generation/ http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-solar-plus-storage-is-undermining...
- ggm 7y ago
  This isn't only sunk cost, it's attributed to different budgets. You would struggle to get many people to accept the subsidy exists. Likewise in car manufacture, or aircraft, or almost any established industry with a large cost/price distinction and externalities unmet. All gas and oil has fugitive C02 issues. Look what happened with that gas storage well in California which had months long leaks. Were the owners required to offset the extra CO2? Or the gulf oil leaks which have been continuously flowing since the sixties? Or tar sands? Nobody budgets the remediation cost into the unit cost of the energy.
  - benj111 7y ago
    Sunk cost shouldn't be a factor at all. It is already spent, it shouldn't affect future investment decisions, see the 'sunk cost fallacy'. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallac...
- mc32 7y ago
microcolonel 7y ago
This is the framing chosen by state propagandists.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Nothing in China is real and all the citizens are brainwashed about every topic with no accuracy whatsoever. Remember when it was leaders from communist countries believing the US supermarkets were fake? I think it would be more productive to dissect the particular nuances of this issue, as other comments have
concerned_user 7y ago
From engineering standpoint it is not an easy task to balance random load that comes and goes from solar, centralized solar plants is one thing but panels on the roof is another. While electricity is abundant running the grid is not such an easy task as it may seem. So this might explain why there is such push back from utility companies against uncontrolled user solar devices connected to their grid.
- supermatt 7y ago
  what does "balance the random load" mean in an engineering context? i would have thought electricity would balance itself?
  - martin_a 7y ago
    I'm no electrician myself, but I know that it's not easy to generate a really good sine wave with a constant frequency and match it to the grid. While electronic componentes are making big steps in that direction, "classic" mechanical generators are still superior for this as they are running very constant. That's why lots of people fear that solar panels with their sudden power generation (as in "clouds are gone, let's bring it on!") might be a danger to the grid as they are fluctuating quite a bit.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      It's definitely a variable, but in the UK "domestic" sizing is up to 4kW. I can induce the same variability in the grid by making a cup of tea with an electric kettle.
      - martin_a 7y ago
        You mean the sizing of solar panels? I think in Germany it's higher, at least my landlord spoke about something like 25 kW, but I'm not totally sure about that.
  - Mtinie 7y ago
    I interpreted the term “random load” to mean unpredictable supply given variable external factors like specific locations’ weather. Edit: fixed wording
B2oka 7y ago
Fundamental problem of this type of article: comparing $/kWh across energy sources without accounting for energy dispatchability. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation) See people commenting on Germany and Portugal situations or articles by this man (https://medium.com/@oliviercorradi https://medium.com/@oliviercorradi)
- stefan_ 7y ago
  Yes. There are times in the German power grid when you can get paid for consuming (green) electricity!
  - llampx 7y ago
    Charging an EV sounds like the best way of taking advantage of that.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      Too bad the grid is too dumb to let end-users actually get these prices. And the distribution and transmission prices are usually fixed. But I think they should float with supply and demand too: the drivers of upgrades and failures are the peak-time users of capacity. That’s what we do with data, don’t know why we don’t do it with electrons.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        Some EV manufacturers are ahead of the game. https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/controllable-charge-laod.png https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/contr...
        Scoundreller 7y ago
        My fear is some grid will sign an exclusive deal with XYZ company when they should really just expose the prices and markets to end-users. Why yes, my intelligent electricity agent would like my dryer to book 2 kWh at 4AM-5AM with a 4cent penalty to me if you cancel. Most of my loads are thermal, and I have lots of thermal banking available. If electricity prices are negative, run my A/C full tilt.
Proven 7y ago
FFS the place is an isolated communist-run economy with all sorts of central and local market distortions (that work both in favor or against solar), and these guys "analyze" its prices. That is completely unusable for any sensible analysis. Garbage in, garbage out.

151 points by blue_devil 7y ago

> “There’s also the fact that companies just can’t be bothered a lot of the time – there are roofs all over Europe where solar could probably save money, but people are not jumping to do it.” That's why believing in market forces alone is a little naive. There has to be a little nudge from the government.

blue_devil 7y ago
The government nudge should target the energy storage issue by creating cost incentives for energy companies to build out this technology. I don't see how consumers can reasonably cooperate on consuming during daytime, when production is peak. (Automating home consumption via connected devices might result in net loss of energy as the devices' production/use gobbles rare materials and data.)
supakeen 7y ago
It's also quite the investment while (at least in some countries) there are plans to lower or remove the payments for delivering power back to the net.
- llampx 7y ago
  I heard that the same thing happened in California and it's led to a lot of people being disillusioned with the solar promise. Is it lobbying by the utility companies that is leading to these reductions or other factors?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Too much renewables with fixed compensation makes existing fossil fuel plants unprofitable.
  - Iv 7y ago
    I don't know specifically about Caliornia, but in several places that uses to offer "pay back" plans for injecting power into the grid, the problem was that solar power generates power when it is not in the highest demand and varies too much. I still think there are some adaptations that could be done to mitigate that problem, but the grid seems simply not correctly set up to efficiently use the energy produced by millions of people generating a lot of power during the day and draining a lot at night.
    - llampx 7y ago
      I guess this is where giant Tesla powerwalls or flow batteries come into the picture. A way to efficiently store the energy for when its needed.
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        Or just charge people the actual price, rather than some hodge-podge of pre-defined rates based on Time of Day. Yes, it will be complicated, but these providers also think we all care about itemization of generation, transmission, distribution, power factor, grid line loss and debt retirement charges. I don’t, all I care about is fixed cost and variable cost. Maybe let people overpay through some hedging contract if they prefer to pay an average price. For me, I want my dryer, A/C, water heater, etc. to throttle up and down based on price to lower my bill overall without reducing quality of life.
  - nullc 7y ago
    One thing that has been happening is that peak rate times are moving in response to solar, which has a pretty negative effect on the economics of grid attached solar. Grid attached solar is a lot more attractive when your generation is at substantially at peak rates and your morning/evening grid usage is at part-peak or off-peak rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  Absolutely, my friend got bitten by this in Croatia. He invested quite a lot in solar and then government cut down on what they pay per kWh. Plus with the prices of panels going down all the time you're effectively throwing away money by going into it too early...
iagovar 7y ago
I live in a flat, as most europeans do. I'm not even the owner, so how I am supposed to push for that. Even if the owner did I don't think the surface of the roof is enough, not to mention that it has shadows from other buildings, antennas and so on.
- lhnz 7y ago
  It's likely that you would need to get planning permission to put solar panels on the roof of a building. This generally requires you to be the owner. Therefore it might not be best described as a market failure. It could be better described as a failure due to planning regulations that only give power to land-owners. This is big problem in Europe, since as you point out: many people rent.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    When you own a condo, a similar problem arises: you need everyone in the building to agree, since the roof is shared. In my building, this would be a non-starter.
  - GarrisonPrime 7y ago
    So...you think regulations should allow renters to modify someone else’s property, even if against the owners wishes? If a proposition for solar panels is actually realistic and a net positive, the owners should be easily convinced without resorting to force.
    - AndrewDucker 7y ago
      The owners would have to pay for the panels. They do not pay for the electricity used in the property. Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests.
      - 0xffff2 7y ago
        >Therefore there is no way for it to be in their economic interests. I would certainly pay a bit more in rent for a place where my energy use was subsidized by panels.
sergiosgc 7y ago
It's still not a clear choice, at least not in Portugal. A solar panel + battery setup pays itself back in 10-12 years, without selling electricity back to the grid. This exceeds the warranty/lifetime on batteries and exceeds the warranty on panels (although not the lifetime). It's a risky proposition. Selling back to the grid is priced at the wholesale price: 4¢/kWh (slated for 5¢ early next year). It's sold at a loss, since consumer prices are about 10¢/kWh by night and 20¢/kWh by day. The ability to sell back does not move the needle on the payback period. And note that Portugal is a sunny country. A panel works, on yearly average, 5h/day at full power. In central/northern Europe the numbers are probably worse.
- piotr1212 7y ago
  > 4¢/kWh (slated for 5¢ early next year). It's sold at a loss, since consumer prices are about 10¢/kWh by night and 20¢/kWh by day Isn't this "selling at a loss" just the difference that the 10 / 20 c is after tax and you sell without tax, or do you have to add tax to the 10/20 c?
  - sergiosgc 7y ago
    There's no tax involved, other than VAT, which applies to both prices.
    - krageon 7y ago
      If you have been told there is no tax involved someone is lying to you. The cost of maintaining the grid and providing power is not as high as you quote as far as I am aware.
    - piotr1212 7y ago
      Are you sure? Does electricity in Portugal cost 10 to 20 cent before tax? Why is it so expensive? We pay 6 cent/kWH before tax in the Netherlands.
      - gdhbcc 7y ago
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
People do buy houses, cars, even electronics like laptops through a lease. It is the banks and financial institutes that need a bit of nudge (or appropriate market signals) to start offering competitive lease options and people will be buying solar panels in no time. On the other hand, the recent California law about new houses needing solar panels is a step in the right direction.
martin_a 7y ago
Installing solar panels has become more and more uninteresting, at least in Germany. In former times there were generous subsidies for installing solar panels: You got, I think, a fixed amount per kWh that you installed on your roof and you also got a better price for the electricity that you put back into the grid. In Germany it's called "Einspeisevergütung" if I remember correctly. This program was limited though, and now you have to pay for the panels all yourself (or you get only a little bonus from the state) and the prices for "selling" into the grid have fallen drastically because there's just too much electricity on sunny days and its sold for negative values on the international electricity markets. Installing new solar panels on your roof is now only interesting when you can use the electricity for yourself. That means charging EVs, filling battery-powered storage (also expensive and not subsidized, I think) or using the electricity around and in your house. If you've got an older installation you might benefit from the old tariffs and get a little bit more money, but building new systems is rather uninteresting for private households. With rising prices for electricity there will be new "motivation" for installing new solar systems on your house. But as already said, only for using the electricity for yourself. Also a law was changed recently, so that renters can now install their own "balcony solar systems" (one panel for example) and feed that electricity right back into their grid through the wall outlet. This is only allowed with small systems though, so that you may produce enough energy for your household base load, but not make your meter turn backwards. In the bigger picture all of this shows how Germany has, so far, failed to do a real switch to renewable energies or really take a step into that direction. We got lots of solar systems and lots of wind turbines, but we are not able to store the produced electricity for later use. So lots of wind turbines are turned out of the wind, because there's an overproduction of electricity on windy days. And prices for solar generated electricity have dropped, as already mentioned. Meanwhile the four large energy companies in Germany are doing what they want and are holding the government as hostage. Chopping down woods without any need, because some coal-fired power stations needs to be run because we could otherwise lose 20.000 jobs all over Germany. Nobody thinks about how many jobs we could create with a heavy switch and investment in renewable energies and storage solutions for energy. After all, taking a step backwards it's kind of a sad situation.
- yummypaint 7y ago
  I believe the english term is "feed in laws" where the utility company must pay market rate for power individuals put onto the grid. My understanding is that this was a key driver of Germany's rapid growth in wind power capacity. In the US we dont even have feed in laws
roenxi 7y ago
Or alternatively, that the market has a better grasp of the situation than the head of solar analysis at BloombergNEF. Just because she has 'head' and 'solar' in her title doesn't mean she is all-knowing about the solar market. If solar actually represented a better deal companies would be falling over themselves to install solar panels everywhere. It is likely that there are important realities or risks that the analysts have missed. Either that, or someone is going to make a killing installing solar panels on a lease-to-buy basis.
- addicted 7y ago
  When you consider that governments spend trillions of dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels (this is not an exaggeration), maybe that’s why it hasn’t been taken up despite it being cheaper? And because like any new technologies there are additional factors, such as fear of different and new, and entrenched interests pushing against the new efforts. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies...
  - navigatesol 7y ago
    >When you consider that governments spend trillions of dollars a year subsidizing fossil fuels (this is not an exaggeration) It is an exaggeration, and it's mostly on the consumption side, not production. Why does the OECD come up with $150-$200BB a year in subsidies? Why is the IEA estimate ~$400BB?: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defining-fossil-fuel-subsidies https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-challenge-of-defin... The IMF report says a whopping $4.6TT of the $5.2TT are "externalities". I think we all agree externalities exist, but externalities are not subsidies, nor are they easy to price.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      And not only are externalities not subsidies, but looking at what appears to be the original paper [0] it seems that fuels for on-road use area big focus. Obviously, on-road fuel is not currently competing with solar panels. [0] https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA2019089.ashx https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/WPIEA...
jillesvangurp 7y ago
Most people don't spend enough on energy to make cost savings a big priority. With solar, there are tangible benefits right now if you know what you are doing but delaying your investments a few years may mean you get more benefits. Increasingly it is not the panel cost but everything around it (inverters, batteries, installation cost, etc.). All those things are subject to economies of scale. Basically, you get a delayed effect. In a few years it will go from cheaper to way cheaper to magnitudes cheaper. At that point things get more urgent. Another thing to consider is that supply and demand are not that well matched currently. Basically, there's no such thing as over production for batteries or solar panels currently and even installation is bottle-necked on availability of people to do that. That reflects in the pricing as well. IMHO, the biggest change with solar is that energy cost goes from a variable cost to basically a fixed cost (one time investment in batteries + panels) + variable revenue (from selling excess energy) + variable cost for when your panels don't deliver enough juice. The market is still adapting to this and e.g. the ease of selling excess energy varies between markets. Some companies are going to get more benefit than others. E.g. any companies operating vehicles will probably want to switch to EV. At that point charging them with their own solar panels becomes attractive; especially when combined with vehicle to grid revenue.
scld 7y ago
Or, perhaps, this article is naive and the market realizes that there are some unseen costs associated with solar investment. Not to mention the opportunity cost of the capital needed to convert to another type of energy infrastructure.
piotr1212 7y ago
I live in a large apartment building in the Netherlands, during the last home owners association meeting we discussed installing solar panels. The problem is the huge uncertainty the government creates. At the moment it is allowed to just deduct the amount of power you create from the amount you use and pay for the remainder. This way the government does not collect energy tax on the energy you create from your solar, thus they treat this as a subsidy. They announced that this subsidy will end by 2023, it is not clear how things will be after that time. Most of the home owners agreed that the risk they will change it into a regulation that will be (financially) bad for us is too large so we are not installing them until there is more clear. But even then, the government changes at least every 4 years, how am I supposed to make a long term investment - (solar takes about 10 years for return on investment around here, with current regulation) - if I don't know if I will be screwed by the next administration? Especially now that the support for the "climate change denial party" is growing.
- ollie87 7y ago
  A climate change denial party in the NETHERLANDS OF ALL PLACES?! Wow, I hope they like being under water.
  - piotr1212 7y ago
    Unfortunately, we are one of the worst performing countries on the co2 reductions within Europe. Even coal loving Poland and "poor" countries like Romania outperform us.
  - krageon 7y ago
    It is a strategic denial. The Dutch government is (and has always been) as underhanded as possible when it can bring them profits. In this case the profits are in ignoring what is right and exploiting everyone else, a tradition that they have embraced for a very long time.
  - benj111 7y ago
    The Dutch are quite good at dealing with that though, or else they'd already be underwater.
big_chungus 7y ago
> a little nudge from the government Like the subsidies they've had for years? Regardless, what are they going to do, come forcibly put solar panels on your roof? Keep them maintained? Repair them if a branch falls?
- perfunctory 7y ago
  First, the quote, and my comment, are in the context of commercial solar projects, not residential. Think about a company installing solar on the roof of a factory. Second, I am sure there are many different ways to implement the nudge. Indeed, maybe instead of subsidizing solar we should rather stop subsidizing fossil. Finally, talking about residential, currently almost every house has a gas pipe connected to it forcibly. And that pipe also requires maintenance. And sometimes gas leaks and your house blows up. And I don't see how forced solar would in theory be different to the current gas situation.
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
It’s the government that often prevents market forces from taking advantage of such opportunities. Most regions limit how many competing providers may operate in the same area, requiring that they possess a license - of which legislation allows only a few or even just one to exist. Vested interests, of course, won’t want to make serious investments in new infrastructure until they absolutely have to. Especially if they’re still making payments on their debt for building the current architecture.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

This isn't meant to be troll-y / snark-y, but if the USA factored out subsidies for Big Oil, and then added in the military costs associated with keeping the oil flowing, that would make solar look much more attractive.

diafygi 7y ago
This quip is a common trope that has several problems with it and is years out of date. Please stop using it. First, oil-based energy doesn't compete with solar to a large extent. That will change as EVs get more popular, but outside of islands like Hawaii, oil isn't used much for electricity generation (where solar competes). Second, solar is already attractive for most new generation scenarios in many locations, including dispactchable situations where you also need storage. It's getting so cheap that it's starting to compete with existing generation. http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-solar-plus-storage-is-undermining-the-economics-of-existing-coal-fired-generation/ http://ieefa.org/ieefa-u-s-solar-plus-storage-is-undermining...
ggm 7y ago
This isn't only sunk cost, it's attributed to different budgets. You would struggle to get many people to accept the subsidy exists. Likewise in car manufacture, or aircraft, or almost any established industry with a large cost/price distinction and externalities unmet. All gas and oil has fugitive C02 issues. Look what happened with that gas storage well in California which had months long leaks. Were the owners required to offset the extra CO2? Or the gulf oil leaks which have been continuously flowing since the sixties? Or tar sands? Nobody budgets the remediation cost into the unit cost of the energy.
- benj111 7y ago
  Sunk cost shouldn't be a factor at all. It is already spent, it shouldn't affect future investment decisions, see the 'sunk cost fallacy'. https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/ https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/03/25/the-sunk-cost-fallac...
mc32 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

This is the framing chosen by state propagandists.

rolltiide 7y ago
Nothing in China is real and all the citizens are brainwashed about every topic with no accuracy whatsoever. Remember when it was leaders from communist countries believing the US supermarkets were fake? I think it would be more productive to dissect the particular nuances of this issue, as other comments have

concerned_user 7y ago

From engineering standpoint it is not an easy task to balance random load that comes and goes from solar, centralized solar plants is one thing but panels on the roof is another. While electricity is abundant running the grid is not such an easy task as it may seem. So this might explain why there is such push back from utility companies against uncontrolled user solar devices connected to their grid.

supermatt 7y ago
what does "balance the random load" mean in an engineering context? i would have thought electricity would balance itself?
- martin_a 7y ago
  I'm no electrician myself, but I know that it's not easy to generate a really good sine wave with a constant frequency and match it to the grid. While electronic componentes are making big steps in that direction, "classic" mechanical generators are still superior for this as they are running very constant. That's why lots of people fear that solar panels with their sudden power generation (as in "clouds are gone, let's bring it on!") might be a danger to the grid as they are fluctuating quite a bit.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    It's definitely a variable, but in the UK "domestic" sizing is up to 4kW. I can induce the same variability in the grid by making a cup of tea with an electric kettle.
    - martin_a 7y ago
      You mean the sizing of solar panels? I think in Germany it's higher, at least my landlord spoke about something like 25 kW, but I'm not totally sure about that.
- Mtinie 7y ago
  I interpreted the term “random load” to mean unpredictable supply given variable external factors like specific locations’ weather. Edit: fixed wording

B2oka 7y ago

Fundamental problem of this type of article: comparing $/kWh across energy sources without accounting for energy dispatchability. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation) See people commenting on Germany and Portugal situations or articles by this man (https://medium.com/@oliviercorradi https://medium.com/@oliviercorradi)

stefan_ 7y ago
Yes. There are times in the German power grid when you can get paid for consuming (green) electricity!
- llampx 7y ago
  Charging an EV sounds like the best way of taking advantage of that.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Too bad the grid is too dumb to let end-users actually get these prices. And the distribution and transmission prices are usually fixed. But I think they should float with supply and demand too: the drivers of upgrades and failures are the peak-time users of capacity. That’s what we do with data, don’t know why we don’t do it with electrons.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Some EV manufacturers are ahead of the game. https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/controllable-charge-laod.png https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/02/contr...
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        My fear is some grid will sign an exclusive deal with XYZ company when they should really just expose the prices and markets to end-users. Why yes, my intelligent electricity agent would like my dryer to book 2 kWh at 4AM-5AM with a 4cent penalty to me if you cancel. Most of my loads are thermal, and I have lots of thermal banking available. If electricity prices are negative, run my A/C full tilt.

Proven 7y ago

FFS the place is an isolated communist-run economy with all sorts of central and local market distortions (that work both in favor or against solar), and these guys "analyze" its prices. That is completely unusable for any sensible analysis. Garbage in, garbage out.