10 ms·

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).

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
      Only if you’re failing to build enough solar. There is zero reason to ramp up storage rather than reduce the need for it. Over production is cheaper than any other option and reduces the need for longer term storage as daily solar output never drops to zero. Solar is cheap enough it’s still cost competitive if you assume significant power production is wasted. Further, battery systems are designed to avoid full discharge, design for 99.5% of the time and you have spare capacity for the last 0.5%.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > daily solar output never drops to zero True, but it is also almost never 'rated power'. Typically a solar installation will deliver somewhere between 30 and 50% of rated power on average, depending on your latitude it might be even lower. The times when solar panels work at their best is during clear winter days and when they are capable of two axis adjustment. Because of the cost of such an installation the typical choice is to install more panels running at lower efficiency. And you'd need to size your batteries for those worst case scenarios of obscured sub in which case your panels might only output between 5 and 10% of their nominal capacity. For reference, my 1600W array is outputting 15.9 Watts right now, earlier, at the best time of the day it was making about 300W due to the sky being overcast. If I had to rely on battery power to make up the difference I would not be able to make it on solar alone. A healthy mix uses both solar and windpower, hydro if you have access to it (it is by far the most stable of the three and capable of providing baseline power without any tricks).
dclusin 7y ago
The utility companies also have to deal with excess capacity created by solar, typically by selling at a loss to other states. This shortfall is then made up by other customers, which as a demographic, tend to be poorer than solar panel owners.

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
    Only if you’re failing to build enough solar. There is zero reason to ramp up storage rather than reduce the need for it. Over production is cheaper than any other option and reduces the need for longer term storage as daily solar output never drops to zero. Solar is cheap enough it’s still cost competitive if you assume significant power production is wasted. Further, battery systems are designed to avoid full discharge, design for 99.5% of the time and you have spare capacity for the last 0.5%.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      > daily solar output never drops to zero True, but it is also almost never 'rated power'. Typically a solar installation will deliver somewhere between 30 and 50% of rated power on average, depending on your latitude it might be even lower. The times when solar panels work at their best is during clear winter days and when they are capable of two axis adjustment. Because of the cost of such an installation the typical choice is to install more panels running at lower efficiency. And you'd need to size your batteries for those worst case scenarios of obscured sub in which case your panels might only output between 5 and 10% of their nominal capacity. For reference, my 1600W array is outputting 15.9 Watts right now, earlier, at the best time of the day it was making about 300W due to the sky being overcast. If I had to rely on battery power to make up the difference I would not be able to make it on solar alone. A healthy mix uses both solar and windpower, hydro if you have access to it (it is by far the most stable of the three and capable of providing baseline power without any tricks).

dclusin 7y ago

The utility companies also have to deal with excess capacity created by solar, typically by selling at a loss to other states. This shortfall is then made up by other customers, which as a demographic, tend to be poorer than solar panel owners.