3 ms·

> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. That's not a fair argument. > The costs of th

by hvb2 1y ago

> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. That's not a fair argument. > The costs of the power company are in 2 parts. Generation and Distribution That's the real issue. How, in most places in the us that I know of, these 2 are combined. Which leads to this problem becoming a thing. We all pay taxes for roads. Whether we use them or not. Being connected to the grid should make everyone pay an equal share based on their connection size. Who delivers power over that connection? Pick your provider, make it a free market where power is a true commodity. Generation prices will drop significantly, distribution prices will probably go up. You can apply the above reasoning to the ISPs of the world too. Like roads, and electric connections, I think we can all consider an internet connection as vital to our daily lives as roads are

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
>> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. > That's not a fair argument. Why not? Plenty of people do it.
- hvb2 1y ago
  Because disconnecting is so draconian, it comes with many more downsides than upsides. It's like saying we should all use helicopters if we don't like traffic. Smaller grids are harder to get right and more expensive to run because you need more surplus capacity to be able to deal with peak demand.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    Ok, your point is valid. You can't disconnect from the grid if you want all the benefits that the grid bestows. But then the reverse is true - if you are enjoying the benefits that the grid bestows then you need to pay for that. Yes, in the past the "variable benefits" and the "fixed benefits" were all rolled into a single payment, which was based on variable use. It was "simple" and "mostly fair". Now that a single payment is no longer fair, it makes sense that the benefit-cost needs to be split into a variable, and fixed, component. That's not some sort of new tax, or penalty for solar users. It's simply costing benefits correctly. So we return to the point - if you want the benefits, then these are the costs of that. If you don't need the benefits then you can disconnect. (Personally I like the benefits, and hence pay my share of the fixed costs.)

by hvb2 1y ago

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

>> You don't. Disconnect from the grid completely. If you don't need the power company then disconnect from them. > That's not a fair argument. Why not? Plenty of people do it.

hvb2 1y ago
Because disconnecting is so draconian, it comes with many more downsides than upsides. It's like saying we should all use helicopters if we don't like traffic. Smaller grids are harder to get right and more expensive to run because you need more surplus capacity to be able to deal with peak demand.
- bruce511 1y ago
  Ok, your point is valid. You can't disconnect from the grid if you want all the benefits that the grid bestows. But then the reverse is true - if you are enjoying the benefits that the grid bestows then you need to pay for that. Yes, in the past the "variable benefits" and the "fixed benefits" were all rolled into a single payment, which was based on variable use. It was "simple" and "mostly fair". Now that a single payment is no longer fair, it makes sense that the benefit-cost needs to be split into a variable, and fixed, component. That's not some sort of new tax, or penalty for solar users. It's simply costing benefits correctly. So we return to the point - if you want the benefits, then these are the costs of that. If you don't need the benefits then you can disconnect. (Personally I like the benefits, and hence pay my share of the fixed costs.)