Slashdot Mirror
The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
Lucas123 writes: Distributed rooftop solar is a threat not only to fossil fuel power generation, but also to the profits of monopolistic model of utilities. While the overall amount of electrical capacity represented by distributed solar power remains miniscule for now, it's quickly becoming one of leading sources of new energy deployment. As adoption grows, fossil fuel interests and utilities are succeeding in pushing anti-net metering legislation, which places surcharges on customers who deploy rooftop solar power and sell unused power back to their utility through the power grid. Other state legislation is aimed at reducing tax credits for households or businesses installing solar or allows utilities to buy back unused power at a reduced rate, while reselling it at the full retail price.
I think solar is great - I have some panels on my camper, which is very conducive to solar type use because it's already designed to function off-grid. But let's be realistic. Let's say every home in America stuck a couple thousand watts of solar power on their roof, and wanted to sell the power into the grid (as opposed of having to store it on-site). How is that supposed to work? If no power generation is required by the power company when the sun is shining, but the full normal generation is required the instant clouds sweep over a community or at night, etc, then how is that supposed to work? None of the power generation plants can function in that "instant on / instant off" type of a mode. Particularly not nuclear. The point is, once the adoption reaches some (rather smallish) percentage, there will be some major problems and costs that will have to be addressed.
Regarding the incentives (tax credits and the like), again, once solar hits some critical mass, why would the government provide incentives? The incentives did their job, and got some number of people to adopt solar.
Nothing is stopping anyone from using solar. It's just that it may not be a profitable (as in selling electricity or getting a tax break) endeavor. So don't whine when it can't be used purely for an economical advantage.
Better known as 318230.
The current system lets the home owner use the power grid as a battery, storing excess energy for later use. And this battery is free. But it's not free - someone has to pay for the power lines, meters, and generation or storage capacity that makes it work.
Electric bills have two components, the supply cost and the delivery cost. The supply cost is what the electric company should be paying for electricity it buys from the home owner. But the electricity the home owner buys back should include the delivery cost.
In effect, the utilities are subsidizing home generation, which may make sense for now, but is not a plausible end game.
The thing is that with net metering, solar power users are effectively using the grid as a giant battery that they charge up during the day and discharge during the night.
They aren't paying for use of that battery, but the utility company is still expected to maintain it. If you're not buying electricity from them, then they are providing that service for no pay - and that's not a sustainable business model.
It's not a problem when only a microscopic percentage of users have net-metered solar power - but if a large number of people do it, then there could be a huge problem...and if there is ever more daytime solar power being generated (eg on cloudy days in winter) than is being consumed - then there will be a GIGANTIC problem to resolve - and that's going to require massive investments that they won't have.
So I do have *some* sympathy for them. They should, at some point, be allowed to charge for the service of effectively storing your power for you...although we're not remotely close to that point right now.
www.sjbaker.org
It is important to vote out the corrupt politicians who take industry money and write their laws.
I agree with you. The only problem is that the next guy is just as corrupt, if not more so. We've got a two party system where both sides are just as corrupt as the other. For some reason most people are convinced that any third party candidate would be a wasted vote. I guess that's why almost no one I've ever voted for has been elected.
The only problem is that the next guy is just as corrupt, if not more so.
No, the problem is that he and the corrupt party are constantly rewarded with reelection. The voters have to work the system and be as active as the lobbyists, not just show up every two years. Why I am being modded down for stating this, I do not understand, aside from an ulterior motive on the moderator's part.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Okay, I'm going to have to critique the article a bit. Please note that I live in Alaska and almost purchased solar panels myself - it's just that the distributor I looked at purchasing the panels from made break-even assumptions that not even I could swallow. It definitely doesn't make sense to pay somebody to install them up here.
Anyways - very first paragraph, 'ensure utility companies pay for unused power that is routed back into the power grid - a practice known as net metering'. To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail. To put it another way, let's say you're a biodiesel producer in your spare time, and every so often you have some surplus. Do you expect the local biodiesel station to purchase your fuel* for the pump price? Or are they going to want to pay the price they get it from their distributor for?
Now, the actual situation is quite a bit more complicated- electricity isn't really stored, and the marginal cost per watt during peak times can be quite a bit higher than what you're charged as a home customer, without time cost considerations. Electricity costs tend to be a bit higher during the day, so the argument has been that panels tend to displace expensive power, not cheap power. But as market penetration increases, it can change the paradigm that utilities operate under, and unlike most industries, if it's doing it's job the power company IS looking 40 years ahead.
The argument is that grid-tie solar users are often close to even production, and due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid. They effectively use the grid as a giant battery.
So, while the answer for any given solar install is 'complex', on average net metering is a subsidy. Whether it's a worthy subsidy, that's up to individuals to decide.
The problem with rooftop solar being 'on par with prices for common fossil-fuel power generation in just two years' is that we may face a situation where power becomes MORE EXPENSIVE during the night(and late evenings when people are still up). Again, are we talking about utility, IE right at the plant, or retail, after it's traveled through potentially hundreds of miles of power line? Because the former is around $.02/kwh, the latter more like $.08. Browsing the citing document, not only are they using retail, but they're not predicting the price drop he predicts. They're predicting it'll drop below standard retail prices. Which includes grid maintenance.
Disconnecting from the grid is possible(in most areas), but it substantially increases costs to the solar installer to put in a battery bank and often even a generator. Operating the generator is obviously, much more expensive than buying power from the electric company.
If made into law, the Kansas legislation would allow utilities to pay solar customers using net metering less than the retail rate of electricity. In turn, utilities could use the excess electricity that customers were turning back to them and sell it at the retail rate.
So... Like how a regular business operates? I know, lose a little on each sale, but we'll make it up on volume!
Anyways, I support more solar power, but we have to realize that we'd see some drastic changes if it ever exceeds 20% of electricity generation here in the States. It's not anywhere near that yet, but like I said, the power companies are looking ahead. Heck, we might face a future where daytime power is much 'cheaper' than night time, and there's a big push for people to charge their vehicles at work. Of course, that means all those home panels will be producing electricity that has to transition the grid... Please note that I'm looking 10-20+ years into the future here.
As a bigger fan of electric vehicles, I can't help but imagine a system where 'retired' EV batteries are used to make homes, if not entirely self-sufficient, at least only really dependent upon a 'neighborhood grid'.
*Let's say you're good at it and it's identical to their normal product.
I don't read AC A human right
My neighbors who've deployed solar panels on their roofs do it by leasing from a PV distributor. They're not shoveling out $20,000 to have it installed. It's typically free, and then you pay a fixed rate that's generally a little lower than your typical retail electricity rates. So it's NOT the rich deploying distributed solar.
2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't our government give subsidies and tax breaks to those altruistic generators of fossil fuels to which you so warmly refer to as "acting in the interests of the little guy"? (Spit a little Diet Pepsi out of my mouth with that one).
3) Utilities get to sell any power returned through the grid at full-blown retail rates. Yeah, they're not facing bankruptcy... just yet.
4) Distributed solar represents what... less than 1% of all energy generated? I think PG&E will survive the assault for at least another week or two.
Net metering is just another subsidy for solar, and it is already well known that solar subsidies are one of the least cost effective methods to compact climate change. We could reduce CO2 emissions by ten times as much if the money was spent on attic insulation or LED lighting, and a hundred times as much if it was spent on contraceptives for third world women.
Whoa cowboy. With net metering we have an additional source of resources for the monopoly that controls electricity in a given region. And its generated at the point of use, reducing distribution cost. If they're too stupid to figure out how to use new technology and load balance, they should be obligated to figure it out or rescind their monopoly.
"Its well known" that you make shit up. There are many different scenarios and some are not conducive to solar. However in my state (high coal usage), my rooftop solar panels are currently cheaper today than coal generated electricity. They'll generate back the power that it took to make them within a year or two and over 20 years I'm looking at an 8-10% ROI. How is eliminating coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
I'm with you that insulation and LEDs are the way to go but even I think 10x is optimistic (back to: you're making shit up). I also agree contraception should be ubiquitous and lower population is an excellent way to fix most of the problems in the world today, but start in the US. A lower class american consumes orders of magnitude more resources than most Africans, Indians, and rural Chinese.
I have yet to see an example of "the XXXXX industry" acting in the interests of anyone but themselves. Benefits to outside parties are pretty much always coincidence.