8 ms·

Solar energy comes up often on HN, but it is misleading to talk about solar without differentiating between utility grid solar and consumer rooftop solar. Simp

by opo 4y ago

Solar energy comes up often on HN, but it is misleading to talk about solar without differentiating between utility grid solar and consumer rooftop solar. Simply put, utility grid solar provides low cost power and consumer rooftop solar does not. The rooftop solar price is hidden because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners are often paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme. You can see the cost differences here: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Rooftops are unused space, but the land use is generally a small part of the cost. Utility scale solar will always have economies of scale compared to one-off small installations on someone's roof. A dollar spent on roof-top solar would be MUCH better spent on solar panels installed on the ground by the utility. I am really not sure what to make of anyone who supports the huge subsidies to make rooftop solar viable and then talks about the low cost of solar.

r00fus 4y ago
A proverb "The best is the enemy of the good (enough)". I have control over my ability to deploy rooftop solar. I have little to zero influence with my utility company to promote deployment of utility grid solar. Utility solar just means the utility company can soak up more profits. Every single person with whom I've discussed rooftop solar has not regretted getting it, and complete ROI is measured in years, not decades. Rooftop solar = energy independence. That means a lot to me.
- opo 4y ago
  >Utility solar just means the utility company can soak up more profits. Utilities are generally considered natural monopolies and their rates are regulated. If there are higher costs because they have to literally buy power at the retail rate from a consumer with rooftop solar, they will have to raise the rates for those who can't afford to put in solar. >...Every single person with whom I've discussed rooftop solar has not regretted getting it, and complete ROI is measured in years, not decades. Yes, they haven't regretted it because the costs are being subsidized by tax payers and the less well off rate payers. It isn't very surprising that those who receive money are happy to receive it. In CA, the PUC was going to lower the credit paid to solar owners for sending electricity to the grid to 5 cents a KW and the uproar from wealthy people was large enough that the plan was put on hold. The 5 cents is still more than the 3 cents it costs PG&E for nuclear power, but if the change was implemented, "...The manufacturers of solar systems predicted the death of solar in California,". While I can understand that those who benefit from these huge subsidies would prefer they remain, this is not good public policy. https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/29/ghosted-by-the-puc-folks-await-new-plan-for-rooftop-solar-but-get-silence/ https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/29/ghosted-by-the-puc-fol...
  - r00fus 4y ago
    You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. This is not the case. States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. The utilities are not non-profits, they don't behave like them and have their plants on PUC boards everywhere.
    - opo 4y ago
      >You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. Consumer rooftop solar is the most expensive way ever thought of to provide electrical power. Money is fungible. A dollar tied up in building a one-off consumer solar is exactly a dollar unavailable for building out utility grade solar which can be done at a fraction of the cost. >States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. There is no need to change the subject. We are talking about utility grade solar and consumer rooftop solar. >…PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. All states have a public utility commission. The fact that states heavily subsidize power generation by consumers means that those without solar have to have increased rates. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. That "energy independence" that you say means a great deal to you is totally dependent on the grid to provide electricity to you at night or when the sun doesn't happen to be shining. In many places the costs to maintain that grid are comparable to the costs of providing the actual electricity. Why is it fair for consumer solar households to use the grid but not pay their fair share of the costs? Why should the utility have to electricity from them at up to 10 times the price paid to commercial providers of electricity?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I see this argument made more and more, as all the other arguments against solar are proved beyond doubt to have been total nonsense. It's still not true though. For starters "expensive" rooftop solar costs roughly the same as nuclear, which means it's part of the solution, not the problem. Distributed solar (and batteries) are useful to the grid. It simply makes economic sense to share some of the economic benefits with the people doing the work. The homeowner pays the installer, and then gets payed back over time as they deliver energy to the grid for use by their local area. The key savings for the grid are around lowering the peak demands on the grid transmission lines. There's plenty of documentation on this. People have calculated exactly how much benefit was provided by the rooftop solar and it's regularly shown to have had positive externalities beyond what the homeowner got paid. Though, most of that is for times in the past, when federal incentives may have been overriding local utility attempts to protect their profit margins and most solar was retrofits. And solar generally was in it's infancy and needed subsidized because we didn't have a carbon tax. Today, the key thing is to be buliding net-zero housing, which generally involves adding solar PV (and insulation) at the design and construction phase. Which basically removes all the costs and is saving money from the start. We can also not hook up gas at all, for a massive saving on new construction, plus health and climate benefits. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-side-management/energy-efficiency/zero-net-energy https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-ene... > All new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020. > All new commercial construction will be ZNE by 2030 > 50% of commercial buildings will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030 > 50% of new major renovations of state buildings will be ZNE by 2025. Meanwhile, rooftop solar on commercial buildings, was always cheaper than residential (so cheaper than nuclear for example) due to scale and still makes sense for the same reasons, large commercial bulidings use energy, and using it locally is cheaper than transmitting it. So rooftop solar is good. Subsidies to make markets work better are good. (I'd prefer that the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industries were removed, but if that's not politically viable, I'm happy with counterbalancing subsidies).
- opo 4y ago
  >I see this argument made more and more, as all the other arguments against solar are proved beyond doubt to have been total nonsense. I see this logical fallacy made more and more where people start out by begging the question. No need to prove anything when everyone should just assume you are 100% right on everything! >...For starters "expensive" rooftop solar costs roughly the same as nuclear, which means it's part of the solution, not the problem. Tell that to Germany! (or a fair number of the people on this site). >...Distributed solar (and batteries) are useful to the grid. It simply makes economic sense to share some of the economic benefits with the people doing the work. The homeowner pays the installer, and then gets payed back over time as they deliver energy to the grid for use by their local area. In places like CA, a consumer installs solar cells, gets the federal tax credit and can then sell their power back to the utility for the retail rate (around 30 cents per KWH). A commercial entity that installs solar cells can maybe sell their power back at 1/10 that rate. In order to subsidize the wealthy home owner, rates for the less wealthy households had to increase. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. >So rooftop solar is good. It is a bit silly to just say something is 'good'. We need to compare it with its alternatives. The direct alternative is ground based solar. Consumer rooftop solar is much more hazardous to the installers and much more expensive - I don't think either of those two statements is in doubt. In order to hide the cost of consumer rooftop solar, there are tax credits and often those who can't afford solar are forced to subsidize the costs for their wealthier neighbors. >Subsidies to make markets work better are good. Subsidies to take money from the poor to give to the wealthy are not good public policy. In CA, the PUC proposed lowering the credit paid to solar owners for sending electricity to the grid to 5 cents a KW and the uproar from wealthy people was large enough that the plan was put on hold. The 5 cents is still more than the 3 cents it costs PG&E for nuclear power, but if the change was implemented, "...The manufacturers of solar systems predicted the death of solar in California,". While I can understand that those who benefit from these huge subsidies would prefer they remain, this is not good public policy.
dzhiurgis 4y ago
Kinda funny the typical order is ev > solar > batteries, while it should opposite!

by opo 4y ago

r00fus 4y ago

A proverb "The best is the enemy of the good (enough)". I have control over my ability to deploy rooftop solar. I have little to zero influence with my utility company to promote deployment of utility grid solar. Utility solar just means the utility company can soak up more profits. Every single person with whom I've discussed rooftop solar has not regretted getting it, and complete ROI is measured in years, not decades. Rooftop solar = energy independence. That means a lot to me.

opo 4y ago
>Utility solar just means the utility company can soak up more profits. Utilities are generally considered natural monopolies and their rates are regulated. If there are higher costs because they have to literally buy power at the retail rate from a consumer with rooftop solar, they will have to raise the rates for those who can't afford to put in solar. >...Every single person with whom I've discussed rooftop solar has not regretted getting it, and complete ROI is measured in years, not decades. Yes, they haven't regretted it because the costs are being subsidized by tax payers and the less well off rate payers. It isn't very surprising that those who receive money are happy to receive it. In CA, the PUC was going to lower the credit paid to solar owners for sending electricity to the grid to 5 cents a KW and the uproar from wealthy people was large enough that the plan was put on hold. The 5 cents is still more than the 3 cents it costs PG&E for nuclear power, but if the change was implemented, "...The manufacturers of solar systems predicted the death of solar in California,". While I can understand that those who benefit from these huge subsidies would prefer they remain, this is not good public policy. https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/29/ghosted-by-the-puc-folks-await-new-plan-for-rooftop-solar-but-get-silence/ https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/29/ghosted-by-the-puc-fol...
- r00fus 4y ago
  You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. This is not the case. States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. The utilities are not non-profits, they don't behave like them and have their plants on PUC boards everywhere.
  - opo 4y ago
    >You are positing a zero-sum game between utility solar and rooftop solar. Consumer rooftop solar is the most expensive way ever thought of to provide electrical power. Money is fungible. A dollar tied up in building a one-off consumer solar is exactly a dollar unavailable for building out utility grade solar which can be done at a fraction of the cost. >States (and the USG) subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of 10x what they subsidize solar. All energy sources require subsidies, but the solar subsidy is one of the lowest. There is no need to change the subject. We are talking about utility grade solar and consumer rooftop solar. >…PUC rates going down for solar buyback will do nothing for the non-solar users. The fact that (some states') utility companies are regulated doesn't mean the regulation is protected from regulatory capture. All states have a public utility commission. The fact that states heavily subsidize power generation by consumers means that those without solar have to have increased rates. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. That "energy independence" that you say means a great deal to you is totally dependent on the grid to provide electricity to you at night or when the sun doesn't happen to be shining. In many places the costs to maintain that grid are comparable to the costs of providing the actual electricity. Why is it fair for consumer solar households to use the grid but not pay their fair share of the costs? Why should the utility have to electricity from them at up to 10 times the price paid to commercial providers of electricity?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

I see this argument made more and more, as all the other arguments against solar are proved beyond doubt to have been total nonsense. It's still not true though. For starters "expensive" rooftop solar costs roughly the same as nuclear, which means it's part of the solution, not the problem. Distributed solar (and batteries) are useful to the grid. It simply makes economic sense to share some of the economic benefits with the people doing the work. The homeowner pays the installer, and then gets payed back over time as they deliver energy to the grid for use by their local area. The key savings for the grid are around lowering the peak demands on the grid transmission lines. There's plenty of documentation on this. People have calculated exactly how much benefit was provided by the rooftop solar and it's regularly shown to have had positive externalities beyond what the homeowner got paid. Though, most of that is for times in the past, when federal incentives may have been overriding local utility attempts to protect their profit margins and most solar was retrofits. And solar generally was in it's infancy and needed subsidized because we didn't have a carbon tax. Today, the key thing is to be buliding net-zero housing, which generally involves adding solar PV (and insulation) at the design and construction phase. Which basically removes all the costs and is saving money from the start. We can also not hook up gas at all, for a massive saving on new construction, plus health and climate benefits. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-side-management/energy-efficiency/zero-net-energy https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-ene... > All new residential construction will be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020. > All new commercial construction will be ZNE by 2030 > 50% of commercial buildings will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030 > 50% of new major renovations of state buildings will be ZNE by 2025. Meanwhile, rooftop solar on commercial buildings, was always cheaper than residential (so cheaper than nuclear for example) due to scale and still makes sense for the same reasons, large commercial bulidings use energy, and using it locally is cheaper than transmitting it. So rooftop solar is good. Subsidies to make markets work better are good. (I'd prefer that the subsidies given to the fossil fuel industries were removed, but if that's not politically viable, I'm happy with counterbalancing subsidies).

opo 4y ago
>I see this argument made more and more, as all the other arguments against solar are proved beyond doubt to have been total nonsense. I see this logical fallacy made more and more where people start out by begging the question. No need to prove anything when everyone should just assume you are 100% right on everything! >...For starters "expensive" rooftop solar costs roughly the same as nuclear, which means it's part of the solution, not the problem. Tell that to Germany! (or a fair number of the people on this site). >...Distributed solar (and batteries) are useful to the grid. It simply makes economic sense to share some of the economic benefits with the people doing the work. The homeowner pays the installer, and then gets payed back over time as they deliver energy to the grid for use by their local area. In places like CA, a consumer installs solar cells, gets the federal tax credit and can then sell their power back to the utility for the retail rate (around 30 cents per KWH). A commercial entity that installs solar cells can maybe sell their power back at 1/10 that rate. In order to subsidize the wealthy home owner, rates for the less wealthy households had to increase. As an example, at the current time, non-solar households in CA pay an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It is estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost will grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030 for less wealthy households to cover the costs of wealthier households. I can understand why those getting the subsidy like it, but that doesn't make it good public policy. >So rooftop solar is good. It is a bit silly to just say something is 'good'. We need to compare it with its alternatives. The direct alternative is ground based solar. Consumer rooftop solar is much more hazardous to the installers and much more expensive - I don't think either of those two statements is in doubt. In order to hide the cost of consumer rooftop solar, there are tax credits and often those who can't afford solar are forced to subsidize the costs for their wealthier neighbors. >Subsidies to make markets work better are good. Subsidies to take money from the poor to give to the wealthy are not good public policy. In CA, the PUC proposed lowering the credit paid to solar owners for sending electricity to the grid to 5 cents a KW and the uproar from wealthy people was large enough that the plan was put on hold. The 5 cents is still more than the 3 cents it costs PG&E for nuclear power, but if the change was implemented, "...The manufacturers of solar systems predicted the death of solar in California,". While I can understand that those who benefit from these huge subsidies would prefer they remain, this is not good public policy.

dzhiurgis 4y ago

Kinda funny the typical order is ev > solar > batteries, while it should opposite!