7 ms·

I have a friend in America who has a fairly large PV set up on part of his property. Listening to the all the obstacles he's had to overcome and all the surpri

I have a friend in America who has a fairly large PV set up on part of his property. Listening to the all the obstacles he's had to overcome and all the surprising limitations he's saddled with, I can't help but suspect that the power company in his area that he's selling the power to would rather that these sorts of installations simply not exist. Coupling that with the fact that off-peak pricing isn't the norm in a lot of markets, I have to wonder if trying to implement smaller build outs is really worth the effort or expense... though I'll be the first to say that I've not researched it thoroughly.

oliveshell 7y ago
Some utility companies in the U.S. are quite solar-hostile. A major Alabama utility charges a monthly “backup fee” of $5 per kW of installed solar, regardless of usage: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/728761703/to-some-solar-users-power-company-fees-are-an-unfair-charge https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/728761703/to-some-solar-users...
- jtc331 7y ago
  I’d bet the unsubsidized economics of residential solar for the utility actually make this likely a pretty reasonable number. I have solar myself, but we have to be honest that residential installs really destroy the economics of traditional power generation. And net metering regulation makes that even more the case, which is why net metering can’t last and/or storage will be required along with residential solar.
mepiethree 7y ago
The profit model for utility companies is to build new power plants, power lines, and substations, and charge their rate payers for that build ("rate base" it). Then they get a cut of their expense as profit. If too many people build solar, the utility can't build new infrastructure and charge everyone for it. And, they now have to manage balancing solar production with electricity usage, which means hiring new analysts which can't be rate based. So, of course they are hostile to it. Personal, distributed solar cuts their profits and increases their costs. But, because their profit is based on charging customers for building new electric infrastructure, it lowers the costs for all of their customers when a group of people preempt that by installing solar on their homes. It is good for everyone when rich people buy solar; the air gets cleaner, and electricity becomes cheaper. So some states, like California, compel them to facilitate solar via tax credits and other regulations.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  > If too many people build solar, the utility can't build new infrastructure and charge everyone for it. Right. Because solar does not play well with existing infrastructure but solar needs the grid to be even close to viable. It needs it because it is a diffuse intermittent power source, where the peak power generation does not actually match peak power use. Solar overproduction cannot be saved for later either, meaning that you have another infrastructure challenge of dealing with overproduction when you don't need it. In general, solar only really works if it is paired with a a traditional power generator that can ramp up quickly (when there is no solar output) and ramp down quickly (when solar output is high). The only power generators that can do that are ones that burn fossil fuels. That's why natural gas companies are a BIG lobby group for solar. That's why Germany is signing massive, multi-decade deals to ship Russian gas, as they expand their wind and solar infrastructure. If you care about getting rid of carbon emissions, solar is a disaster. Not to mention energy use in building panels and the number of rare earth materials each one needs, the problems with recycling them, and their land-use requirements and the environmental impact of that. >It is good for everyone when rich people buy solar No. Just no.
  - reustle 7y ago
    I may be misunderstanding but it seems like most of your comment completely ignores batteries?
    - new_realist 7y ago
      Batteries double the cost of solar for a 24 hour storage cycle. If you want to store energy for 48 hours, the cost doubles again. 96 hours? Doubles again. Want to store a mere 10% of US electrical generation from summer to use in winter? Literally 52 trillion (yes, trillion) dollars if you use batteries. A bit expensive, even if you spread the cost over 25 years. Pumped hydro, CAES and hydrogen stored in salt caverns are much cheaper at that scale.
      - Retric 7y ago
legohead 7y ago
Where does he live? Some states are surprisingly anti-progressive. California actually has measures to help people install solar (since 1979!). Things like HOAs can't deny your installation based on aesthetics, and anything under 10KW is allowed with very little oversight.
SuoDuanDao 7y ago
I had a professor who worked for the electrical utility in Ontario for years before teaching. They definitely would prefer if they didn't exist. Not so much for the competition with their own generation, but their distribution infrastructure gets more complex as more small generators tie into it, hence more work for them.

oliveshell 7y ago

Some utility companies in the U.S. are quite solar-hostile. A major Alabama utility charges a monthly “backup fee” of $5 per kW of installed solar, regardless of usage: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/728761703/to-some-solar-users-power-company-fees-are-an-unfair-charge https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/728761703/to-some-solar-users...

jtc331 7y ago
I’d bet the unsubsidized economics of residential solar for the utility actually make this likely a pretty reasonable number. I have solar myself, but we have to be honest that residential installs really destroy the economics of traditional power generation. And net metering regulation makes that even more the case, which is why net metering can’t last and/or storage will be required along with residential solar.

mepiethree 7y ago

The profit model for utility companies is to build new power plants, power lines, and substations, and charge their rate payers for that build ("rate base" it). Then they get a cut of their expense as profit. If too many people build solar, the utility can't build new infrastructure and charge everyone for it. And, they now have to manage balancing solar production with electricity usage, which means hiring new analysts which can't be rate based. So, of course they are hostile to it. Personal, distributed solar cuts their profits and increases their costs. But, because their profit is based on charging customers for building new electric infrastructure, it lowers the costs for all of their customers when a group of people preempt that by installing solar on their homes. It is good for everyone when rich people buy solar; the air gets cleaner, and electricity becomes cheaper. So some states, like California, compel them to facilitate solar via tax credits and other regulations.

macspoofing 7y ago
> If too many people build solar, the utility can't build new infrastructure and charge everyone for it. Right. Because solar does not play well with existing infrastructure but solar needs the grid to be even close to viable. It needs it because it is a diffuse intermittent power source, where the peak power generation does not actually match peak power use. Solar overproduction cannot be saved for later either, meaning that you have another infrastructure challenge of dealing with overproduction when you don't need it. In general, solar only really works if it is paired with a a traditional power generator that can ramp up quickly (when there is no solar output) and ramp down quickly (when solar output is high). The only power generators that can do that are ones that burn fossil fuels. That's why natural gas companies are a BIG lobby group for solar. That's why Germany is signing massive, multi-decade deals to ship Russian gas, as they expand their wind and solar infrastructure. If you care about getting rid of carbon emissions, solar is a disaster. Not to mention energy use in building panels and the number of rare earth materials each one needs, the problems with recycling them, and their land-use requirements and the environmental impact of that. >It is good for everyone when rich people buy solar No. Just no.
- reustle 7y ago
  I may be misunderstanding but it seems like most of your comment completely ignores batteries?
  - new_realist 7y ago
    Batteries double the cost of solar for a 24 hour storage cycle. If you want to store energy for 48 hours, the cost doubles again. 96 hours? Doubles again. Want to store a mere 10% of US electrical generation from summer to use in winter? Literally 52 trillion (yes, trillion) dollars if you use batteries. A bit expensive, even if you spread the cost over 25 years. Pumped hydro, CAES and hydrogen stored in salt caverns are much cheaper at that scale.
    - Retric 7y ago

legohead 7y ago

Where does he live? Some states are surprisingly anti-progressive. California actually has measures to help people install solar (since 1979!). Things like HOAs can't deny your installation based on aesthetics, and anything under 10KW is allowed with very little oversight.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago

I had a professor who worked for the electrical utility in Ontario for years before teaching. They definitely would prefer if they didn't exist. Not so much for the competition with their own generation, but their distribution infrastructure gets more complex as more small generators tie into it, hence more work for them.