5 ms·

Keep in mind that many US states are actively implementing legislation to disincentivize solar installation. Not disagreeing with your statement, just pointing

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.

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.