7 ms·

One thing that's often overlooked in statistics like this is roof top solar because it's just not that easy to account for. In places like Australia, where doub

One thing that's often overlooked in statistics like this is roof top solar because it's just not that easy to account for. In places like Australia, where double digit percentages of homes have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels, this is a non trivial amount that is putting a lot of pressure on energy suppliers to adapt. Effectively whole states are running on solar when the sun comes out (which it does a lot over there). Whether they like it or not, demand for grid electricity drops a lot whenever these panels are producing. And of course a lot of people are installing batteries as well. That must be happening in the US as well and it must be having some impact. https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data This article seems to suggest that the amount of installed solar has doubled in the last four years and that the pace is accelerating. Also it states that the solar market expanded by 40% last year.

digdugdirk 4y ago
Keep in mind that many US states are actively implementing legislation to disincentivize solar installation. Not disagreeing with your statement, just pointing out that there's many headwinds to a greener energy future.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Sure, but is that slowing down installations or just setting us up for a correction some time in the future when people install solar anyway? It seems to me that the market for rooftop solar is in any case supply constrained, not demand constrained. And I can't imagine this being very popular with homeowners or the politicians that represent them, regardless of their political color. So, there might be some backlash against this as well at some point.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Correct. Legislation to disincentive rooftop solar works until battery economics improve sufficiently, at which point the install velocity accelerates because you can sidestep unfavorable net metering or time of day pricing. You’ll then consume your own solar during production, consume it from batteries when not producing, and relying on the grid for shortfall. The next fight will be the legal ability to disconnect from the grid and be self sufficient when they attempt to make connection charges onerous and mandatory. Tangentially, at scale, this is referred to as a utility death spiral. https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility-death-spiral-as-a-possible-future-scenario/ https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility...
    - throwaway2037 4y ago
      The future of some electrity giants is "peaking" (cloudy / windless days and nights) and electricty transfer. They need to adjust for the future, instead of cry like big babies.
    - kragen 4y ago
      you could imagine governments charging a yearly tax for having solar panels installed, analogous to the property tax many charge on real estate
      - toomuchtodo 4y ago
        Spain tried something similar and reversed course eventually. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-electricity-idUSKCN1MF1T0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-electricit...
        kragen 4y ago
        that's good, i'd only heard about the initial boneheaded policy
- tmountain 4y ago
  I have solar on my roof, but I had to negotiate a net metering agreement with my utility company. I have friends saying the same utility company is now pushing back on new agreements. It seems that stupid issues will need to be resolved before solar hits a critical mass. That said, batteries help.
  - thehappypm 4y ago
    Net metering is a bad deal for utilities, though. The “delivery” part of the cost of electricity is more than half; it accounts for the maintenance of the grid etc. People dumping energy into the grid doesn’t lower that cost.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      This is an important point that applies more broadly: anything that lowers electricity costs for consumers is a "bad deal" for utilities. Since in most areas, utilities are monopolies that are not subject to competition, they should not be allowed to deny cost-saving tech advances just because it lowers overall system cost and their overall percentage of revenue and profit goes down.
      - pyrale 4y ago
        The thing is, there are issues with handling a grid that go beyond the money aspect. Balancing a grid that relies on a few production plants is already a non-trivial endeavour. Changing the network is usually a slow process. Adding a new power line to fix some topologic issues can take years to plan and millions to build. Having a robust grid means grid operators have to know details of the network, and be able to know how to reroute power when a line becomes too close to its limits or (worse) when a circuit-breaker opens. Studying the current network takes time. That's why adapting to frequent changes isn't realistic, purely from the carrier's perspective, without even looking into power production aspects.
    - throwaway2037 4y ago
      Thank you for saying this out loud. Let me preface by saying that I am not a shill for big electricity companies. The cost of electricity, including green energy, and "net metering" needs to including the cost of transfer -- basically "big wires". Most people are delusional about the cost of transfer. One idea: Force generation and electricity transfer to be separate companies. Today, they are frequently a single company. This might help to create more realistic "net metering" pricing. Also, it might help to have some gov't rules for "net metering" pricing contracts. Edit So typical here: Your comment is being downvoted. It still stands an important point to consider.
simion314 4y ago
I will install solar(not in US) but AFAIK batteries are not yet cost effective, Am I wrong and someone invented some cheap batteries? I expect that a company could be more efficient building giant batteries(chemical, gravity, etc) then a household buying something and maintaining it.
- thomaslangston 4y ago
  Batteries are not cheap, but they are cost effective based on local conditions. Time of use billing. The battery is generating ROI if it can arbitrage energy over the day. Net metering + solar. If net metering is not available, or sufficiently discounted, and your energy usage is not high enough during the day to use all your solar power, then batteries generate ROI. Grid stability. A battery effectively is insurance against outages of a few hours. With sufficient solar and rationing, that may extend to week long outages (think natural disasters).
  - seb1204 4y ago
    Yes indeed, even a small battery that allows you to shift the late afternoon usage of your house away from the grid will generate ROI by saving you electricity cost compared to a lower feed in tariff during the day.
  - simion314 4y ago
    I think a solar system that also gives you independence from the grid is much more expensive, the program that we are using to get some subsidies do not include this extra features , so if power is out even if we have solar we still be out of power. Maybe in 10 years or realistically more a more advanced system would be worth it for my situation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
roenxi 4y ago
> ...have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels... Do you have a source for that? It sounds kinda silly. The maintenance + OH&S aspects of solar panels are nontrivial and it doesn't make sense to mandate them on residential homes. I've always assumed that once the economics make sense it'll be easier to build a massive solar farm and let people use the grid as usual. Much less risk of people falling off roofs,heavy objects falling off roofs, wiring being misconnected, weird maintenance problems, managing the ebb and flow of energy, etc. I don't want to have to look after my own panels.
simplicio 4y ago
I don't really understand the advantage of rooftop solar over just putting the same number of solar panels in a field somewhere. Id think it would be a lot cheaper to install the panels in one-place then having to distribute them to a bunch of differently shaped and oriented roof tops, and cheaper to have a few large inverters instead of a bunch of small ones.
- ben_w 4y ago
  I suspect it's political. Technically, there's also distribution losses (just because we can do HVDC, 5% losses per 1000km, doesn't mean we want to spend the money for it); but I think it's mainly to avoid politicians decrying prime farmland being used for a thing they don't think looks as pretty as sheep grazing on grassy rolling hills.
- debesyla 4y ago
  Depends on the country - some fields are better used for construction, farming or just being left as a natural habitat. And the roofs can't be used for any of those three things. So... But it depends on the country. Some countries have a whole lot of "low use" fields, like natural or industrial deserts. Others don't.
- looping__lui 4y ago
  1) you would use up less nature as no new land is repurposed 2) you produce it in close proximity to where its used
- rhplus 4y ago
  Rooftop solar can help cool roofs/attics by a small amount.
- epistasis 4y ago
  Electrical transmission and distribution costs dwarf the cost of solar generation, 1x-5x the cost of solar generation, and you have to beef all that up for utility scale solar. Also, the interconnection queues for attaching your project to the grid are getting astronomically long now, and this is one of the biggest impediments to new renewable generation. One of the most valuable assets of a coal generation sites is its connection to the grid; all the rest of facility might have negative value, but the value of the connection can offset all that. Utility scale solar is great, until you consider how to connect it up to load.
kragen 4y ago
rooftop solar has the advantage that it doesn't depend on installing new transmission lines to get a grid connection this is especially important in backwards countries like the usa with their so-called license raj preventing modernization since most household energy is used for low-grade heating and cooling (refrigerator, air conditioner, oven, clothes dryer) i think thermal energy storage is likely to be a crucial enabling factor; mit's solar house used phase-change materials, but i suspect thermochemical energy storage is a better option (why thermal energy storage instead of batteries? in the limit it's about three orders of magnitude higher capacity for a given price)

digdugdirk 4y ago

Keep in mind that many US states are actively implementing legislation to disincentivize solar installation. Not disagreeing with your statement, just pointing out that there's many headwinds to a greener energy future.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
Sure, but is that slowing down installations or just setting us up for a correction some time in the future when people install solar anyway? It seems to me that the market for rooftop solar is in any case supply constrained, not demand constrained. And I can't imagine this being very popular with homeowners or the politicians that represent them, regardless of their political color. So, there might be some backlash against this as well at some point.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Correct. Legislation to disincentive rooftop solar works until battery economics improve sufficiently, at which point the install velocity accelerates because you can sidestep unfavorable net metering or time of day pricing. You’ll then consume your own solar during production, consume it from batteries when not producing, and relying on the grid for shortfall. The next fight will be the legal ability to disconnect from the grid and be self sufficient when they attempt to make connection charges onerous and mandatory. Tangentially, at scale, this is referred to as a utility death spiral. https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility-death-spiral-as-a-possible-future-scenario/ https://eepower.com/news/71-of-u-s-utilities-see-the-utility...
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    The future of some electrity giants is "peaking" (cloudy / windless days and nights) and electricty transfer. They need to adjust for the future, instead of cry like big babies.
  - kragen 4y ago
    you could imagine governments charging a yearly tax for having solar panels installed, analogous to the property tax many charge on real estate
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Spain tried something similar and reversed course eventually. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-electricity-idUSKCN1MF1T0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-electricit...
      - kragen 4y ago
        that's good, i'd only heard about the initial boneheaded policy
tmountain 4y ago
I have solar on my roof, but I had to negotiate a net metering agreement with my utility company. I have friends saying the same utility company is now pushing back on new agreements. It seems that stupid issues will need to be resolved before solar hits a critical mass. That said, batteries help.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Net metering is a bad deal for utilities, though. The “delivery” part of the cost of electricity is more than half; it accounts for the maintenance of the grid etc. People dumping energy into the grid doesn’t lower that cost.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    This is an important point that applies more broadly: anything that lowers electricity costs for consumers is a "bad deal" for utilities. Since in most areas, utilities are monopolies that are not subject to competition, they should not be allowed to deny cost-saving tech advances just because it lowers overall system cost and their overall percentage of revenue and profit goes down.
    - pyrale 4y ago
      The thing is, there are issues with handling a grid that go beyond the money aspect. Balancing a grid that relies on a few production plants is already a non-trivial endeavour. Changing the network is usually a slow process. Adding a new power line to fix some topologic issues can take years to plan and millions to build. Having a robust grid means grid operators have to know details of the network, and be able to know how to reroute power when a line becomes too close to its limits or (worse) when a circuit-breaker opens. Studying the current network takes time. That's why adapting to frequent changes isn't realistic, purely from the carrier's perspective, without even looking into power production aspects.
  - throwaway2037 4y ago
    Thank you for saying this out loud. Let me preface by saying that I am not a shill for big electricity companies. The cost of electricity, including green energy, and "net metering" needs to including the cost of transfer -- basically "big wires". Most people are delusional about the cost of transfer. One idea: Force generation and electricity transfer to be separate companies. Today, they are frequently a single company. This might help to create more realistic "net metering" pricing. Also, it might help to have some gov't rules for "net metering" pricing contracts. Edit So typical here: Your comment is being downvoted. It still stands an important point to consider.

simion314 4y ago

I will install solar(not in US) but AFAIK batteries are not yet cost effective, Am I wrong and someone invented some cheap batteries? I expect that a company could be more efficient building giant batteries(chemical, gravity, etc) then a household buying something and maintaining it.

thomaslangston 4y ago
Batteries are not cheap, but they are cost effective based on local conditions. Time of use billing. The battery is generating ROI if it can arbitrage energy over the day. Net metering + solar. If net metering is not available, or sufficiently discounted, and your energy usage is not high enough during the day to use all your solar power, then batteries generate ROI. Grid stability. A battery effectively is insurance against outages of a few hours. With sufficient solar and rationing, that may extend to week long outages (think natural disasters).
- seb1204 4y ago
  Yes indeed, even a small battery that allows you to shift the late afternoon usage of your house away from the grid will generate ROI by saving you electricity cost compared to a lower feed in tariff during the day.
- simion314 4y ago
  I think a solar system that also gives you independence from the grid is much more expensive, the program that we are using to get some subsidies do not include this extra features , so if power is out even if we have solar we still be out of power. Maybe in 10 years or realistically more a more advanced system would be worth it for my situation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 4y ago

> ...have solar and where building codes are actually being changed to require solar panels... Do you have a source for that? It sounds kinda silly. The maintenance + OH&S aspects of solar panels are nontrivial and it doesn't make sense to mandate them on residential homes. I've always assumed that once the economics make sense it'll be easier to build a massive solar farm and let people use the grid as usual. Much less risk of people falling off roofs,heavy objects falling off roofs, wiring being misconnected, weird maintenance problems, managing the ebb and flow of energy, etc. I don't want to have to look after my own panels.

simplicio 4y ago

I don't really understand the advantage of rooftop solar over just putting the same number of solar panels in a field somewhere. Id think it would be a lot cheaper to install the panels in one-place then having to distribute them to a bunch of differently shaped and oriented roof tops, and cheaper to have a few large inverters instead of a bunch of small ones.

ben_w 4y ago
I suspect it's political. Technically, there's also distribution losses (just because we can do HVDC, 5% losses per 1000km, doesn't mean we want to spend the money for it); but I think it's mainly to avoid politicians decrying prime farmland being used for a thing they don't think looks as pretty as sheep grazing on grassy rolling hills.
debesyla 4y ago
Depends on the country - some fields are better used for construction, farming or just being left as a natural habitat. And the roofs can't be used for any of those three things. So... But it depends on the country. Some countries have a whole lot of "low use" fields, like natural or industrial deserts. Others don't.
looping__lui 4y ago
1) you would use up less nature as no new land is repurposed 2) you produce it in close proximity to where its used
rhplus 4y ago
Rooftop solar can help cool roofs/attics by a small amount.
epistasis 4y ago
Electrical transmission and distribution costs dwarf the cost of solar generation, 1x-5x the cost of solar generation, and you have to beef all that up for utility scale solar. Also, the interconnection queues for attaching your project to the grid are getting astronomically long now, and this is one of the biggest impediments to new renewable generation. One of the most valuable assets of a coal generation sites is its connection to the grid; all the rest of facility might have negative value, but the value of the connection can offset all that. Utility scale solar is great, until you consider how to connect it up to load.

kragen 4y ago

rooftop solar has the advantage that it doesn't depend on installing new transmission lines to get a grid connection this is especially important in backwards countries like the usa with their so-called license raj preventing modernization since most household energy is used for low-grade heating and cooling (refrigerator, air conditioner, oven, clothes dryer) i think thermal energy storage is likely to be a crucial enabling factor; mit's solar house used phase-change materials, but i suspect thermochemical energy storage is a better option (why thermal energy storage instead of batteries? in the limit it's about three orders of magnitude higher capacity for a given price)