7 ms·

I wouldn't characterize that as a bait-and-switch, but as adjusting to economic reality. When solar is <1% of penetration, a solar kWh is basically just as valu

I wouldn't characterize that as a bait-and-switch, but as adjusting to economic reality. When solar is <1% of penetration, a solar kWh is basically just as valuable as any other kWh. When solar gets over 10% of penetration, a solar kWh is worth much less than any other kWh - when the sun is shining, energy is plentiful. By the time you get to ~25% solar penetration, energy is almost free on a sunny day at noon, and much of the value moves into storage, to move the solar energy from noontime to the evening.

vuln 3y ago
What’s “free” about maintaining the equipment or the cost of the equipment over time? The people that invested in installing solar still need to pay off the cost in order to break even. I guess they can eat the cost knowing that they’re saving the planet by giving away power they paid to harvest to a power company to profit off of.
- timerol 3y ago
  You're misreading my comment a bit. It's only "free" on a sunny day at noon, because of the massive oversupply. The panels will make money, but at times when supply is lower, like after 2pm range. This depends on time-of-year as well. Solar prices have been falling rapidly, so the value of a kWh of energy generated via solar has also been falling in competitive power generation markets.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    This only happens a very small fraction of the day, typically within an hour either side of solar noon. And if the voltage goes up too far inverters will typically back off either incrementally or by shutting down entirely.
  - ed25519FUUU 3y ago
    Net metering takes this fully into account, since it’s a dollar-for-dollar trade. I’d electricity is cheap during a certain part of the day, what they pay you is cheap.
oittaa 3y ago
The whole "paying the fair share" is just propaganda from oil companies. I saw a great video about that recently which sums up the situation nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfpa2KqYk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfpa2KqYk0
- timerol 3y ago
  > Why is this important? Because the potential impact of net-metered solar on electricity prices doesn’t even become relevant until you reach higher levels of penetration, or roughly 10% and beyond. I think what I said was in line with that video's conclusions, which seemed to be arguing for continued net metering in the eastern half of the country, and used CA as an example of when the current policy hits its limits.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Real time variable rates are needed. These would also incentivize all sorts of load shifting strategies, which are very economically advantageous, if the damned pricing system can allow them.
    - oittaa 3y ago
      That's very common in Finland and I think in many other countries in Europe. People use their water heaters, charge cars, etc. during the night when it's basically free. https://sähkösopimukset.com/en/ https://xn--shksopimukset-bfb6y.com/en/
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        The old scheme was variable rates on a fixed schedule. I'm talking about more flexible variable rates that correspond to actual conditions (both supply and demand), adjusted at high cadence.
    - ed25519FUUU 3y ago
      That makes it harder for PG&E to gouged customers!
jacquesm 3y ago
Nonsense, until 100% of daytime generation is solar/wind every KW added still offsets generation from other sources. This myth is mostly perpetrated by the suppliers of power based on more expensive and more polluting sources who see the value of their investments slashed.
- gregschlom 3y ago
  "still offsets" - yes "just as valuable" - no Reducing the price that the utility pays for solar KWs makes economic sense.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's not how energy markets work. This is by design and whether or not you think it's fair isn't really all that important. Energy prices are determined by the most expensive source of the moment, not by the least expensive one.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Energy prices are determined by the most expensive source of the moment Most expensive marginal source. More cheap solar shifts over that margin.
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        That's fair, but it would have to shift quite a bit still to get to the point where the marginal source would be a different one. Typically this is to all of the producers benefit (including the solar ones) so they tend to keep those most expensive sources alive at all costs.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  I am fully pro solar, but the duck curve is a real thing. Time value of money and time value of electricity. If there is nobody to consume that extra juice it is of limited utility.
ed25519FUUU 3y ago
Rubbing salt on the wound is Idaho Power announced a massive investment in a solar farm around the same time!

vuln 3y ago

What’s “free” about maintaining the equipment or the cost of the equipment over time? The people that invested in installing solar still need to pay off the cost in order to break even. I guess they can eat the cost knowing that they’re saving the planet by giving away power they paid to harvest to a power company to profit off of.

timerol 3y ago
You're misreading my comment a bit. It's only "free" on a sunny day at noon, because of the massive oversupply. The panels will make money, but at times when supply is lower, like after 2pm range. This depends on time-of-year as well. Solar prices have been falling rapidly, so the value of a kWh of energy generated via solar has also been falling in competitive power generation markets.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  This only happens a very small fraction of the day, typically within an hour either side of solar noon. And if the voltage goes up too far inverters will typically back off either incrementally or by shutting down entirely.
- ed25519FUUU 3y ago
  Net metering takes this fully into account, since it’s a dollar-for-dollar trade. I’d electricity is cheap during a certain part of the day, what they pay you is cheap.

oittaa 3y ago

The whole "paying the fair share" is just propaganda from oil companies. I saw a great video about that recently which sums up the situation nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfpa2KqYk0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPfpa2KqYk0

timerol 3y ago
> Why is this important? Because the potential impact of net-metered solar on electricity prices doesn’t even become relevant until you reach higher levels of penetration, or roughly 10% and beyond. I think what I said was in line with that video's conclusions, which seemed to be arguing for continued net metering in the eastern half of the country, and used CA as an example of when the current policy hits its limits.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Real time variable rates are needed. These would also incentivize all sorts of load shifting strategies, which are very economically advantageous, if the damned pricing system can allow them.
  - oittaa 3y ago
    That's very common in Finland and I think in many other countries in Europe. People use their water heaters, charge cars, etc. during the night when it's basically free. https://sähkösopimukset.com/en/ https://xn--shksopimukset-bfb6y.com/en/
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      The old scheme was variable rates on a fixed schedule. I'm talking about more flexible variable rates that correspond to actual conditions (both supply and demand), adjusted at high cadence.
  - ed25519FUUU 3y ago
    That makes it harder for PG&E to gouged customers!

jacquesm 3y ago

Nonsense, until 100% of daytime generation is solar/wind every KW added still offsets generation from other sources. This myth is mostly perpetrated by the suppliers of power based on more expensive and more polluting sources who see the value of their investments slashed.

gregschlom 3y ago
"still offsets" - yes "just as valuable" - no Reducing the price that the utility pays for solar KWs makes economic sense.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's not how energy markets work. This is by design and whether or not you think it's fair isn't really all that important. Energy prices are determined by the most expensive source of the moment, not by the least expensive one.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Energy prices are determined by the most expensive source of the moment Most expensive marginal source. More cheap solar shifts over that margin.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      That's fair, but it would have to shift quite a bit still to get to the point where the marginal source would be a different one. Typically this is to all of the producers benefit (including the solar ones) so they tend to keep those most expensive sources alive at all costs.
0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
I am fully pro solar, but the duck curve is a real thing. Time value of money and time value of electricity. If there is nobody to consume that extra juice it is of limited utility.

ed25519FUUU 3y ago

Rubbing salt on the wound is Idaho Power announced a massive investment in a solar farm around the same time!