Slashdot Mirror
Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power
An anonymous reader writes: Incremental improvements have been slowly but surely pushing solar power toward mainstream viability for a few decades now. It's getting to the point where the established utilities are worried about the financial hit they're likely to take — and they're working to prevent it. "These solar households are now buying less and less electricity, but the utilities still have to manage the costs of connecting them to the grid. Indeed, a new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory argues that this trend could put utilities in dire financial straits. If rooftop solar were to grab 10 percent of the market over the next decade, utility earnings could decline as much as 41 percent." The utilities are throwing their weight behind political groups seeking to end subsidies for solar and make "net metering" policies go away. Studies suggest that if solar adoption continues growing at its current rate, incumbents will be forced to raise their prices, which will only persuade more people to switch to solar (PDF).
There's a long tradition of regulating electrical utilities -- their new-plant construction, their service build-out, and most especially their rates. If connecting single-household solar installations and buying back power from them is imposing an undue burden, and they can prove this, adjust the tariffs accordingly.
But you shouldn't quash an entire emerging industry just to protect an old and established one. Unfortunately, that seems to be one of the main duties of legislatures.
If the amount of money made from the actual electricity falls too far then the cost will be transferred to a network connection costs.
This is already the case in Australia where the cost per kw/h is predominately made up but the cost of the distribution network rather than the generation costs.
You may see an increase in people disconnecting from the grid all together but I would suggest that will remain a fringe component for the foreseeable future. Battery costs are too high and most people's electricity consumption is very lumpy meaning they need a lot of storage. Finally people will pay for the security of mains power.
In Australia you tend to see a feed-in tariff - ie the electricity you put into the grid is priced. For a while this was heavily subsidised meaning the feed in rate could be more than double the buy rate. Which skewed the market terribly, basically the people who could afford solar systems were funded by renters and those that couldn't.
Now the feed in rates are a commercial competition between the various energy retailers.
In the end someone has to provide the wires, transformers and sub-stations. Those don't care where the power comes from. If it cannot be paid for by the generators it will be paid for by the consumer directly.
Pay solar at wholesale rates, or, make grid interconnect a separate fee, and charge them for that.
Grid interconnects already appear as a separate fee in most places. Perhaps not at its fair market value, but go fuck a goat if you think I'll pay over a dollar per KW for my occasional nighttime use.
Solar advocates, of course, can't stand the idea they should actually have to pay for the delivery of goods and services, even if it costs them a measely five bucks a month
Try $14, for me. And yeah, I consider that fair. Ending net metering and charging me when they resell my peak-demand production for 10x what they pay me for it? Yeah, I can afford batteries, can they afford every other house going off-grid?
Why batteries? Spin up a buried flywheel in a vacuum.
Because flywheels aren't actually all that energy dense, even after quite a few years of development. To store more energy, you want bigger radius, more mass, or higher speed. There are material limits to all of those things. Push any of those criteria too far and you end up with a flywheel that has a distressing tendency to self-disassemble. Catastrophically.
Oddly enough, as difficult as it is, the materials science of figuring out more efficient ways to store electrical energy by moving ions around is still easier than the materials science of keeping spinning-very-fast things in one piece.
Take away the government subsidies on solar purchase & installation and this problem doesn't even exist.
Take away the USA's $70 billion + fossil fuel subsidies at the same time. And drop a few of the wars they're fighting to ensure supply while you're at it.
Let me know if they'll save enough to put some cheap rooftop solar in.
That kind of argument can go both ways. When one single power line goes out, whole neighborhoods go without power. If the average household had a solar array with a Tesla (or other battery powered car plugged in), it could keep on running whether or not there were major interruptions in the power grid.
Your analogy of lighting a stadium with a bunch of shitty Christmas Tree bulbs makes no sense here.. especially if the stadium was covered in solar panels with a battery storage unit.
You're basically trying to argue that a centralized power grid is better than a decentralized power grid.. It certainly isn't going that direction in computing (depending on how you view the cloud).
--- We need more Ron Paul!