3 ms·

The problem with Solar is once someone buys it they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy. That is unacceptable especial

The problem with Solar is once someone buys it they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy. That is unacceptable especially from local grid providers and many in the energy sector and since China makes the best solar panels in quality and quantity that will take us maybe more than 3 years to catch up just in quality, it makes them even more bold in not allowing or making it hard for solar to proliferate. The risk is that the cost of energy will be high enough not to make manufacturing and other sector competitive enough but that does not matter as long as energy sector makes money the US can decline the number one goal is each individuals own goal there is no collective goal unless it just happens to be sadly a goal that is shared and individually beneficial.

mainecoder 12d ago
This is also supported by the Federal gov since recently power inverters were banned and there is no major US maker of power inverters this is purposely a policy designed to stymie Solar proliferation. This policy was bought and paid for by the energy sector.
- cucumber3732842 12d ago
  It's not just the energy sector though being big business I assume they do the bulk of the lobbying. The electrician's trade groups and that whole supply chain are also scared shitless of a future where you can't lord a meter connection over people. To an only slightly lesser degree building inspectors and Karens of all colors are also not fans for similar reasons. In exurban and rural areas (i.e. below a certain density depending on climate) the idea that some guy could just move into an old house or slap up a new building, throw up a bunch of panels on a stand, throw a bunch of batteries in a shed and live there without cutting checks to all sorts of parties and jumping through all sorts of compliance hoops and that you'd have to go after them after the fact is a big threat to these people's ability to micromanage how other people live.
  - Schlagbohrer 12d ago
    But the US also has a large number of people who are extremely interested in "off grid" living (or even just LARPing it), I would expect them to be able to exert a lot of counter pressure
    - HappySweeney 12d ago
      Those people aren't wealthy enough to have any real political power, though.
      - cucumber3732842 12d ago
        Nor do they have much economic surplus worth extracting so there's no reason for the .gov to throw them a bone or otherwise curry favor with that demographic.
- thijson 11d ago
  Another policy is to charge EV's registration fees that are way higher than ICE vehicles.
  - jjav 10d ago
    The argument, which isn't entirely unreasonable, is that ICE cars are obviously paying a per-mile usage fee in the form of fuel taxes which supposedly (not always in practice) are supposed to be used to maintain roads. And it works sort-of, since very light cars (which do least damage to road surface) often have good fuel economy so they pay less tax per mile, vs. heavy trucks which do more wear on the road have usually worse mileage so end up paying more per mile in taxes. Not perfect of course, but approximately reasonable. EVs break this system because they pay zero fuel taxes but are quite heavy (for their size) so they wear out the road like a heavier car but pay nothing.
    - thijson 8d ago
      I wonder if heavy trucks pay correspondingly higher then. I would imagine the damage they do is disproportionately higher.
      - jjav 6d ago
        If a truck is getting, say, 12MPG it is paying a lot more in per-gallon taxes than a car getting 40MPG. So yes. (Trucks also pay higher registration fees, but that's separate)
thinkcontext 12d ago
> The problem with Solar is once someone buys it they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy. An odd statement. That could be considered a "problem" for an incumbent energy provider, like say Exxon. But it would be considered a solution for an energy user who would now have more money to devote to something else in the economy.
- rudicjcj3748 12d ago
  the US is an odd place and so I guess it depends on what you consider a norm there. Favouring incumbent rent extractors and profits, versus maximising consumer benefit with low costs — it’s arguable the norm in the US is the former
  - OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
    What is the cost of electricity per KWh where you are from? Here in the USA it varies greatly from Hawaii and California having prices that exceed $0.30 to $0.50+ per KWh but in the midwest electricity is cheap as low as $0.12-15 per KWh for American standards. The former markets lead the USA in soalr installs and that's why. It's a financial decision and the ROI on going solar in the Midwest, USA for example is very long. Illinois is a Midwestern state and is a SREC market so that's a added incentive from the state so the ROI is less. For residential solar cash and bank financed solar projects, we lost the Federal ITC last year but PPAs in residential still exist. The Federal ITC existed though from 2006 under President Bush a Republican extended under President Obama a Democrat and ended under President Trump 2026 for just cash and bank financed residentials projects. The 30% Federal tax credits for the cost of the solar system and a reduction in your federal income taxes lasted for 20 years which is really what drove solar energy growth along with state tax incentives in USA. We had the Rural Renewable Energy Programs (REAP) grants or used to which made the cost of solar for farmers in America like a 2-3 year payback after the Federal ITC, State tax credits and REAP grants. I support solar and have worked in the industry for 10+ years. It's not going anywhere in the USA. We just have to adopt and grow but the USA is still one of the global leaders in the solar installed capacity.
andor 12d ago
With the electrification of transportation and heating, electricity consumption is only going to increase. Not every household will be able to offset this with their own panels. More centralized solar plants and grid-level batteries will still be a thing. As for panel production, you don’t really have to make them locally. Panels are sold with minimal margins (although your tariffs could allow for some local margins). You can make more money off installation and related services.
exabrial 12d ago
I don't think that is at all true. The only real problem is the inverter sync problem. Inverter supply increases grid instability, so much so that most residential units are not allowed to push back into the grid.
- OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
  What do you mean? Where does this happen? Inverters don't push electricity into the grid, the bidirectional meter does when you install solar.
benj111 12d ago
How is buying energy from a probably unsavoury regime 'participating' in the economy? Not sending that money to said regime allows you to spend it locally.
alexk307 12d ago
> they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy Yeah, low-cost, low-maintenance, clean energy from the Sun is great and all, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm just not participating the economy enough. Heating and cooling my home with renewable energy is great for my Family and my community but I really should think of the energy sector and their shareholders first.
- OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
  what do you mean? You are directly supporting the economy e.g. paying solar installers, local distributors, permits, engineering, etc. You're just owning your power, not leasing it. Also, you export electricity into the grid. With extreme heatwaves we have seen in New York, you can couple the solar system with battery storage and discharge when the grid is stressed.
  - alexk307 11d ago
    It was sarcasm to the post above.
    - OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
      lol my bad lol
- jjav 10d ago
  Your primary duty as a citizen consumer is to maximize shareholder value for the dominant corporations.
jjav 10d ago
> That is unacceptable especially from local grid providers and many in the energy sector I truly can't tell if this is sarcasm.. Of course people should be encouraged, wherever feasible, to take advantage of natural energy like solar and wind. That is a feature not a problem. Only for the corporate oligarchs is that "a problem", since they want everyone to be paying perpetual fees to them.

mainecoder 12d ago

This is also supported by the Federal gov since recently power inverters were banned and there is no major US maker of power inverters this is purposely a policy designed to stymie Solar proliferation. This policy was bought and paid for by the energy sector.

cucumber3732842 12d ago
It's not just the energy sector though being big business I assume they do the bulk of the lobbying. The electrician's trade groups and that whole supply chain are also scared shitless of a future where you can't lord a meter connection over people. To an only slightly lesser degree building inspectors and Karens of all colors are also not fans for similar reasons. In exurban and rural areas (i.e. below a certain density depending on climate) the idea that some guy could just move into an old house or slap up a new building, throw up a bunch of panels on a stand, throw a bunch of batteries in a shed and live there without cutting checks to all sorts of parties and jumping through all sorts of compliance hoops and that you'd have to go after them after the fact is a big threat to these people's ability to micromanage how other people live.
- Schlagbohrer 12d ago
  But the US also has a large number of people who are extremely interested in "off grid" living (or even just LARPing it), I would expect them to be able to exert a lot of counter pressure
  - HappySweeney 12d ago
    Those people aren't wealthy enough to have any real political power, though.
    - cucumber3732842 12d ago
      Nor do they have much economic surplus worth extracting so there's no reason for the .gov to throw them a bone or otherwise curry favor with that demographic.
thijson 11d ago
Another policy is to charge EV's registration fees that are way higher than ICE vehicles.
- jjav 10d ago
  The argument, which isn't entirely unreasonable, is that ICE cars are obviously paying a per-mile usage fee in the form of fuel taxes which supposedly (not always in practice) are supposed to be used to maintain roads. And it works sort-of, since very light cars (which do least damage to road surface) often have good fuel economy so they pay less tax per mile, vs. heavy trucks which do more wear on the road have usually worse mileage so end up paying more per mile in taxes. Not perfect of course, but approximately reasonable. EVs break this system because they pay zero fuel taxes but are quite heavy (for their size) so they wear out the road like a heavier car but pay nothing.
  - thijson 8d ago
    I wonder if heavy trucks pay correspondingly higher then. I would imagine the damage they do is disproportionately higher.
    - jjav 6d ago
      If a truck is getting, say, 12MPG it is paying a lot more in per-gallon taxes than a car getting 40MPG. So yes. (Trucks also pay higher registration fees, but that's separate)

thinkcontext 12d ago

> The problem with Solar is once someone buys it they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy. An odd statement. That could be considered a "problem" for an incumbent energy provider, like say Exxon. But it would be considered a solution for an energy user who would now have more money to devote to something else in the economy.

rudicjcj3748 12d ago
the US is an odd place and so I guess it depends on what you consider a norm there. Favouring incumbent rent extractors and profits, versus maximising consumer benefit with low costs — it’s arguable the norm in the US is the former
- OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
  What is the cost of electricity per KWh where you are from? Here in the USA it varies greatly from Hawaii and California having prices that exceed $0.30 to $0.50+ per KWh but in the midwest electricity is cheap as low as $0.12-15 per KWh for American standards. The former markets lead the USA in soalr installs and that's why. It's a financial decision and the ROI on going solar in the Midwest, USA for example is very long. Illinois is a Midwestern state and is a SREC market so that's a added incentive from the state so the ROI is less. For residential solar cash and bank financed solar projects, we lost the Federal ITC last year but PPAs in residential still exist. The Federal ITC existed though from 2006 under President Bush a Republican extended under President Obama a Democrat and ended under President Trump 2026 for just cash and bank financed residentials projects. The 30% Federal tax credits for the cost of the solar system and a reduction in your federal income taxes lasted for 20 years which is really what drove solar energy growth along with state tax incentives in USA. We had the Rural Renewable Energy Programs (REAP) grants or used to which made the cost of solar for farmers in America like a 2-3 year payback after the Federal ITC, State tax credits and REAP grants. I support solar and have worked in the industry for 10+ years. It's not going anywhere in the USA. We just have to adopt and grow but the USA is still one of the global leaders in the solar installed capacity.

andor 12d ago

With the electrification of transportation and heating, electricity consumption is only going to increase. Not every household will be able to offset this with their own panels. More centralized solar plants and grid-level batteries will still be a thing. As for panel production, you don’t really have to make them locally. Panels are sold with minimal margins (although your tariffs could allow for some local margins). You can make more money off installation and related services.

exabrial 12d ago

I don't think that is at all true. The only real problem is the inverter sync problem. Inverter supply increases grid instability, so much so that most residential units are not allowed to push back into the grid.

OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
What do you mean? Where does this happen? Inverters don't push electricity into the grid, the bidirectional meter does when you install solar.

benj111 12d ago

How is buying energy from a probably unsavoury regime 'participating' in the economy? Not sending that money to said regime allows you to spend it locally.

alexk307 12d ago

> they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy Yeah, low-cost, low-maintenance, clean energy from the Sun is great and all, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm just not participating the economy enough. Heating and cooling my home with renewable energy is great for my Family and my community but I really should think of the energy sector and their shareholders first.

OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
what do you mean? You are directly supporting the economy e.g. paying solar installers, local distributors, permits, engineering, etc. You're just owning your power, not leasing it. Also, you export electricity into the grid. With extreme heatwaves we have seen in New York, you can couple the solar system with battery storage and discharge when the grid is stressed.
- alexk307 11d ago
  It was sarcasm to the post above.
  - OutflowLabsInc 11d ago
    lol my bad lol
jjav 10d ago
Your primary duty as a citizen consumer is to maximize shareholder value for the dominant corporations.

jjav 10d ago

> That is unacceptable especially from local grid providers and many in the energy sector I truly can't tell if this is sarcasm.. Of course people should be encouraged, wherever feasible, to take advantage of natural energy like solar and wind. That is a feature not a problem. Only for the corporate oligarchs is that "a problem", since they want everyone to be paying perpetual fees to them.