3 ms·

0.30/kWh is really a lot. Its a massive subsidy. 0.5/kWh seems a bit mean, but it's the same as here in the UK. The main thing with solar is that it's cheaper t

0.30/kWh is really a lot. Its a massive subsidy. 0.5/kWh seems a bit mean, but it's the same as here in the UK. The main thing with solar is that it's cheaper to use what you generate. Due to the sun, you probably can't use all the midday, and are in deficit at night... but that's why flat rate doesn't make sense. Evening electricity is usually more expensive, daytime very cheap. (Weather dependent, of course) Paying at flat rate is to encourage adoption, but doesn't make economic sense. Batteries are pretty cheap now. Solar + battery will pay back in under 4y, even in dull England.

dmix 4y ago
So it's going from good intentioned gov subsidy over the short term to incentivized adoption -> hard cuts to meet the long term realities of the market? I guess the people who bet on centralized subsidies probably want some middle ground. But California saw it was mostly going to private companies engineered to take advantage of [current subsidy] and anything half-way would just continue pumping money into greenco instead of the future? And they decided to cut and run and bet on raw energy/climate outcomes instead of whats best for greenco?