3 ms·
Solar panels have dropped so much in cost since 2009 that what used to be a cute, green-washing positive card for utilities to play is now a dangerous threat.
by marze 12y ago
Solar panels have dropped so much in cost since 2009 that what used to be a cute, green-washing positive card for utilities to play is now a dangerous threat.
If too many install solar they won't be able to make the payments on their existing polluting plants.
The US government should offer now to cover all defaults on existing plants, but not on new gas or coal plants. That would reduce utility incentive to oppose widespread solar.
In reality, residential solar can benefit utilities in a major way in areas with high cooling loads, because the generated power comes right at the peak load (if the panels are oriented to the west, slightly less so for south orientation). And solar is much cheaper for peak power than a peaking plant that only operates a few days a year. Peaking power is the most expensive power because you need to make payments for a plant that rarely is turned on and generating revenue, but must be there otherwise you'd have brownouts whenever everyone runs their air conditioners run at the same time.
- tbrownaw 12y agothe generated power comes right at the peak load (if the panels are oriented to the west, slightly less so for south orientation) Why would anyone do this? You generate more power by pointing them south, and the net metering rules mean it doesn't matter to you what time of day that happens.
- mrfusion 12y agoNot everyone has an optimally oriented roof, right?
- yaskyj 12y agoThat's simply not true. For the majority of the United States, solar panels don't make economic sense. Your average kWh price after solar installation needs to be less than what the utility charges for it to be feasible. This only happens in places with really high rates (e.g. Hawaii), extremely sunny places (e.g. Arizona), or places with high tax incentives (e.g. Louisiana). Also, solar production doesn't peak with consumption.