3 ms·

>Domestic PV is really gaming the rate system, avoiding costs while still benefiting from the things those costs support. All powerlines, transformers and ever

>Domestic PV is really gaming the rate system, avoiding costs while still benefiting from the things those costs support. All powerlines, transformers and everything else is the same with or without solar panels. What new costs are happening because of solar that solar owners are avoiding? Tax reductions for voluntary things is not comparable to payouts. They are method to get the rich to pay for solar so the non-rich don't have to, and in the past few years it has gotten us more carbon neutral energy than anything else. Clearly a win-win good thing. Trying to describe it as the opposite doesn't hold up. Edit: Utility cos that sell electricity themselves may increase prices to make up what they lose when they can't sell as much gas, nuclear, coal etc, and blame it on solar. That's not a subsidy for solar though, it's a subsidy for corporations.

pfdietz 1y ago
The powerlines, transformers, etc. have to be paid for. These are not new costs, they're existing, ongoing costs. Previously, these were paid for by becoming part of the per-kWh price of electricity, under the assumption that all the electricity each consumer is using goes over the grid. But with solar, consumers can largely (but not entirely) self-power, and use the grid only rarely. They are benefiting from the presence of the transmission/distribution infrastructure (and the power sources feeding it) but aren't paying the same amount for it.
- Kon5ole 1y ago
  >The powerlines, transformers, etc. have to be paid for. These are not new costs, they're existing, ongoing costs. That's true but powerlines exist to transport high voltage power from power plants to consumers far away, and transformers convert that to usable voltages. Residential solar does not require any such powerlines or transformers, because the low-voltage power is consumed locally, where it's produced. There was a story here recently about balcony solar installations in Germany. Basically a small solar panel adds power to your house through the house's existing wiring. Rooftop solar works the same way, but is large enough that sometimes your surplus can be consumed by your neighbor as well, and when more people get solar it expands to the next neighborhood, and so on. This is handled by the utilities already, since the effect of adding solar to your house is basically the same as if you stop using your stove or stop charging your car. So it's kind of perfect initially - no new technical solutions are needed and no heavy investments since it just works with existing infrastructure. Of course this becomes a problem eventually and will require storage solutions first of all and eventually also high voltage transmission. But not yet. The real problem here is that large corporations live from the profits of selling electricity. They will protect that profit at all costs, so when demand drops - due to solar or anything else - they will increase the prices. Note that they are not necessarily using that profit to properly maintain any infrastructure: https://www.wattstrialfirm.com/powerful-results/historic-13-billion-pge-wildfire-settlemen/ https://www.wattstrialfirm.com/powerful-results/historic-13-...
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    > Residential solar does not require any such powerlines or transformers, because the low-voltage power is consumed locally, where it's produced. Of course it does. If it didn't, the residential solar user would just disconnect from the grid entirely. The point here is that even if one uses the grid rarely, one is still depending on it being there. And that dependency means one is still exploiting things with fixed costs. Large solar rollouts will force changes to rate structures, for example charging even residential users for the maximum power they use (or could use) rather than the total energy they consume. With such rates the financial benefit to the consumer of residential solar becomes much lower or nonexistent.
    - Kon5ole 1y ago
      >The point here is that even if one uses the grid rarely, one is still depending on it being there. And that dependency means one is still exploiting things with fixed costs Obviously the grid is needed and anyone using it should pay. But equally obviously, you should not have to pay when you are NOT using it! And residential solar is not using it. Also obviously, we should not have to pay more than what is required to maintain the grid, in order to protect the profits of power companies that are being squeezed by free electricity. If they are increasing the prices due to solar, they should be held accountable for the actual reasons why. We are deviating from the topic, I just wanted to protest against the notion that there is something wrong or sinister about encouraging rooftop solar. It's one of the best things that have happened in the efforts to reduce emissions, perhaps second only to the large-scale deployment of electric cars.
      - pfdietz 1y ago
        What is wrong is pretending that the current rate structure is from some natural law, rather than contingent on the structure of the grid and how consumers are using it. I've seen this repeatedly when net metering is scaled back. This is represented as some nefarious and unfair change when it is nothing of the sort.

pfdietz 1y ago

The powerlines, transformers, etc. have to be paid for. These are not new costs, they're existing, ongoing costs. Previously, these were paid for by becoming part of the per-kWh price of electricity, under the assumption that all the electricity each consumer is using goes over the grid. But with solar, consumers can largely (but not entirely) self-power, and use the grid only rarely. They are benefiting from the presence of the transmission/distribution infrastructure (and the power sources feeding it) but aren't paying the same amount for it.

Kon5ole 1y ago
>The powerlines, transformers, etc. have to be paid for. These are not new costs, they're existing, ongoing costs. That's true but powerlines exist to transport high voltage power from power plants to consumers far away, and transformers convert that to usable voltages. Residential solar does not require any such powerlines or transformers, because the low-voltage power is consumed locally, where it's produced. There was a story here recently about balcony solar installations in Germany. Basically a small solar panel adds power to your house through the house's existing wiring. Rooftop solar works the same way, but is large enough that sometimes your surplus can be consumed by your neighbor as well, and when more people get solar it expands to the next neighborhood, and so on. This is handled by the utilities already, since the effect of adding solar to your house is basically the same as if you stop using your stove or stop charging your car. So it's kind of perfect initially - no new technical solutions are needed and no heavy investments since it just works with existing infrastructure. Of course this becomes a problem eventually and will require storage solutions first of all and eventually also high voltage transmission. But not yet. The real problem here is that large corporations live from the profits of selling electricity. They will protect that profit at all costs, so when demand drops - due to solar or anything else - they will increase the prices. Note that they are not necessarily using that profit to properly maintain any infrastructure: https://www.wattstrialfirm.com/powerful-results/historic-13-billion-pge-wildfire-settlemen/ https://www.wattstrialfirm.com/powerful-results/historic-13-...
- pfdietz 1y ago
  > Residential solar does not require any such powerlines or transformers, because the low-voltage power is consumed locally, where it's produced. Of course it does. If it didn't, the residential solar user would just disconnect from the grid entirely. The point here is that even if one uses the grid rarely, one is still depending on it being there. And that dependency means one is still exploiting things with fixed costs. Large solar rollouts will force changes to rate structures, for example charging even residential users for the maximum power they use (or could use) rather than the total energy they consume. With such rates the financial benefit to the consumer of residential solar becomes much lower or nonexistent.
  - Kon5ole 1y ago
    >The point here is that even if one uses the grid rarely, one is still depending on it being there. And that dependency means one is still exploiting things with fixed costs Obviously the grid is needed and anyone using it should pay. But equally obviously, you should not have to pay when you are NOT using it! And residential solar is not using it. Also obviously, we should not have to pay more than what is required to maintain the grid, in order to protect the profits of power companies that are being squeezed by free electricity. If they are increasing the prices due to solar, they should be held accountable for the actual reasons why. We are deviating from the topic, I just wanted to protest against the notion that there is something wrong or sinister about encouraging rooftop solar. It's one of the best things that have happened in the efforts to reduce emissions, perhaps second only to the large-scale deployment of electric cars.
    - pfdietz 1y ago
      What is wrong is pretending that the current rate structure is from some natural law, rather than contingent on the structure of the grid and how consumers are using it. I've seen this repeatedly when net metering is scaled back. This is represented as some nefarious and unfair change when it is nothing of the sort.