5 ms·

There is also an implicit government subsidy on coal and gas plants: Not charging them for the externalities they produce namely carbon, mercury, and the other

There is also an implicit government subsidy on coal and gas plants: Not charging them for the externalities they produce namely carbon, mercury, and the other radioactive isotopes they release into the air (not to mention all the water they heat up in our rivers and streams). There is an explicit government subsidy for nuclear in the form of insurance (private insurers won't touch them). Furthermore, the energy distributed generation produces during the day is actually more valuable to the grid (daytime electricity is generally more valuable than night time with rate prices being an average). The energy world is a complex place with plenty of incentives to go around.

oillio 12y ago
How many of those Chinese factories producing PV panels are being held responsible for 100% of their externalities?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Externalities go both ways. If you want to hold PV producers responsible for 100% of their calculated externalities, you end up subsidising them anyway.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar-idUSKBN0EF08A20140604 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar... Between 15% and 35% import duty on Chinese solar panels. I don't know if that covers 100% of their externalities, but I'm sure in terms of "taxes paid for externalities caused" they are WAY ahead of any carbon industries now. This probably wipes out most subsidies too.
- dpierce9 12y ago
  I was simply talking about operating externalities. I haven't spent as much time looking at the construction externalities but my educated guess is that on a per watt of generation capacity, the net out of construction and operation favors PV. Not needing fuel is a huge deal.
barney54 12y ago
While it is true that solar during the day is a bit more valuable, what really matters is what it is displacing. Check out this document from the California grid operator on page 3. http://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewables_fastfacts.pdf http://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewabl... In 2013, the average load on the electric grid only stayed in a 2 gigawatt band from midnight through 6pm. When there wasn't much deviation, nat gas combined cycle plants (or nuclear, or coal) can run most efficiently. But by 2020, the growth in solar production in the middle of the day will cause dispatachable power plants (nat gas combined cycle along with nat gas turbines) to deal with a change of 13 gigawatts between 4 pm and 8 pm. This is a huge change in a short amount of time. Thank kind of ramping of power plants is not efficient. Also note in the graph that the highest system demand occurs at about 9pm. That means that solar does not help cover the highest demand. In this situation, solar does not help reduce the amount of power plants and it leads to the increased use of less efficient (and faster acting) power plants. So while solar seems cheap, it leads to other costs if you want to keep the lights on.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  So, we need more storage on the grid. Currently, as I understand, practically all residential PV coming online is grid-interactive without battery backup. The power companies actively oppose homeowners installing battery backup systems, because they're concerned about people charging their batteries using cheap power at night, and then selling that power back to the utility during the day. In some cases they have refused to approve PV installations with battery backup for this reason. As a homeowner, I would find a system with battery backup to be more attractive than one that's useless in a power outage (though, granted, significantly more expensive, depending on capacity). While I understand the utilities' concern, I think there has to be a solution. Doesn't it stand to reason that with all this PV coming online, power prices in the middle of the day should drop, even below nighttime prices? And the prices should be highest on summer evenings? And that such a pricing pattern would supply the correct incentives to owners of PV systems with battery backup?
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
pstuart 12y ago
Don't forget oil. The U.S. military isn't cheap.

oillio 12y ago

How many of those Chinese factories producing PV panels are being held responsible for 100% of their externalities?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Externalities go both ways. If you want to hold PV producers responsible for 100% of their calculated externalities, you end up subsidising them anyway.
crdoconnor 12y ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar-idUSKBN0EF08A20140604 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar... Between 15% and 35% import duty on Chinese solar panels. I don't know if that covers 100% of their externalities, but I'm sure in terms of "taxes paid for externalities caused" they are WAY ahead of any carbon industries now. This probably wipes out most subsidies too.
dpierce9 12y ago
I was simply talking about operating externalities. I haven't spent as much time looking at the construction externalities but my educated guess is that on a per watt of generation capacity, the net out of construction and operation favors PV. Not needing fuel is a huge deal.

barney54 12y ago

While it is true that solar during the day is a bit more valuable, what really matters is what it is displacing. Check out this document from the California grid operator on page 3. http://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewables_fastfacts.pdf http://www.caiso.com/documents/flexibleresourceshelprenewabl... In 2013, the average load on the electric grid only stayed in a 2 gigawatt band from midnight through 6pm. When there wasn't much deviation, nat gas combined cycle plants (or nuclear, or coal) can run most efficiently. But by 2020, the growth in solar production in the middle of the day will cause dispatachable power plants (nat gas combined cycle along with nat gas turbines) to deal with a change of 13 gigawatts between 4 pm and 8 pm. This is a huge change in a short amount of time. Thank kind of ramping of power plants is not efficient. Also note in the graph that the highest system demand occurs at about 9pm. That means that solar does not help cover the highest demand. In this situation, solar does not help reduce the amount of power plants and it leads to the increased use of less efficient (and faster acting) power plants. So while solar seems cheap, it leads to other costs if you want to keep the lights on.

ScottBurson 12y ago
So, we need more storage on the grid. Currently, as I understand, practically all residential PV coming online is grid-interactive without battery backup. The power companies actively oppose homeowners installing battery backup systems, because they're concerned about people charging their batteries using cheap power at night, and then selling that power back to the utility during the day. In some cases they have refused to approve PV installations with battery backup for this reason. As a homeowner, I would find a system with battery backup to be more attractive than one that's useless in a power outage (though, granted, significantly more expensive, depending on capacity). While I understand the utilities' concern, I think there has to be a solution. Doesn't it stand to reason that with all this PV coming online, power prices in the middle of the day should drop, even below nighttime prices? And the prices should be highest on summer evenings? And that such a pricing pattern would supply the correct incentives to owners of PV systems with battery backup?
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago

pstuart 12y ago

Don't forget oil. The U.S. military isn't cheap.