3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.