5 ms·

I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me the solar panels on single family dwellings do benefit everyone. Presumably there are times when the house in q

I have no horse in this race, but it seems to me the solar panels on single family dwellings do benefit everyone. Presumably there are times when the house in question is producing more than it uses, at which point electricity is being pumped back into the grid (I dunno about aus but in the US they're compensated far below market rates for this generation). So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space that they own (at great expense!) to contribute to the grid. Apartment dwellers (or condo owners) as you have noted don't usually have the same kind of space to sell off. And of course apartment dwellers benefit from the reduction in externalities.

_carbyau_ 6y ago
"So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space that they own (at great expense!) to contribute to the grid." Well, the "great expense" is subsidised is the issue. So not that great an expense. Effectively their power bills should cancel out the remaining costs eventually and then the home owner should effectively get "free energy" after that. How much free energy? Maybe none and they are ripped off! Maybe lots. Generally people are betting on at least some, or they wouldn't do it. My point though is why not spend that money on power grid infrastructure which would benefit all of us! In particular the economies of scale should have more environmental AND economic impact than thousands of custom roof sites installed with varying degree of expertise and maintained by home amateurs.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  No, they're selling their roof real estate to improve the capacity for the whole grid. That's why they're receiving money, although you choose to think of as a subsidy. The great expense was the acquisition of said real estate. This money spend does benefit everyone (even me, on the other side of the planet), because it improves the climate change situation, and locals in particular, because it doesn't require using lots of land to do it. That land can be used for something else useful to you.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    I never said not to do anything at all. I just want the action to be different. So you'd still get your climate change benefit - which I want too! Maybe it works differently where you are but nothing is sold here. No paperwork changes hands regarding property ownership. At any point, if the homeowner wants to throw the roof solar out, they can. They are getting a subsidy. The subsidy makes the solar panel vs energy costs deal work out. It was ultimately to spur the solar panel industry - which I agree benefits everyone in the general global warming sense. But in the global sense it doesn't matter whether that is via a thousand homeowners or a single power station. As for the land? :-) Australia has plenty of that. We're amongst the lowest population density on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... Go full fantasy and we have arid land for enough solar panels to power everyone on the planet - twice over! That fantasy ignores many realities. It is a terrible idea in a practical sense. But it makes the point - we've got space for solar panels for one or two solar power stations for our local populace. My point is that benefitting everyone a bit more equally rather than significantly the homeowners would be nice.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> (I dunno about aus but in the US they're compensated far below market rates for this generation). That's not true. California (which is a part of the US) uses net metering, under which consumer solar surplus is sold to the grid at retail rates.

_carbyau_ 6y ago

"So it sounds to me as if home owners are selling off space that they own (at great expense!) to contribute to the grid." Well, the "great expense" is subsidised is the issue. So not that great an expense. Effectively their power bills should cancel out the remaining costs eventually and then the home owner should effectively get "free energy" after that. How much free energy? Maybe none and they are ripped off! Maybe lots. Generally people are betting on at least some, or they wouldn't do it. My point though is why not spend that money on power grid infrastructure which would benefit all of us! In particular the economies of scale should have more environmental AND economic impact than thousands of custom roof sites installed with varying degree of expertise and maintained by home amateurs.

bagacrap 6y ago
No, they're selling their roof real estate to improve the capacity for the whole grid. That's why they're receiving money, although you choose to think of as a subsidy. The great expense was the acquisition of said real estate. This money spend does benefit everyone (even me, on the other side of the planet), because it improves the climate change situation, and locals in particular, because it doesn't require using lots of land to do it. That land can be used for something else useful to you.
- _carbyau_ 6y ago
  I never said not to do anything at all. I just want the action to be different. So you'd still get your climate change benefit - which I want too! Maybe it works differently where you are but nothing is sold here. No paperwork changes hands regarding property ownership. At any point, if the homeowner wants to throw the roof solar out, they can. They are getting a subsidy. The subsidy makes the solar panel vs energy costs deal work out. It was ultimately to spur the solar panel industry - which I agree benefits everyone in the general global warming sense. But in the global sense it doesn't matter whether that is via a thousand homeowners or a single power station. As for the land? :-) Australia has plenty of that. We're amongst the lowest population density on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... Go full fantasy and we have arid land for enough solar panels to power everyone on the planet - twice over! That fantasy ignores many realities. It is a terrible idea in a practical sense. But it makes the point - we've got space for solar panels for one or two solar power stations for our local populace. My point is that benefitting everyone a bit more equally rather than significantly the homeowners would be nice.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> (I dunno about aus but in the US they're compensated far below market rates for this generation). That's not true. California (which is a part of the US) uses net metering, under which consumer solar surplus is sold to the grid at retail rates.