Hacker News Reader

Comment by blunte | Hacker News Reader

This article completely fails to mention several other potential factors:

- some states have reduced or removed subsidies to home owners for new solar installations

- solar installations are expensive and take years to pay themselves back (and ultimately become a net gain); but homeowners are staying in one home for shorter periods than in the past, making long-term planning less attractive

- some utilities have pressured local governments to block or make difficult new solar installations because of (real or perceived) problems with pushing a lot of power back into the grid from the endpoints (homes)

- political misinformation campaigns have convinced some simple folk that solar is bad (or is un-patriotic since some regions, such as Texas, are so deeply connected to oil and gas)

How much of a role these other factors have played is up for debate, but I think it's rather disingenuous of Reuters to not even mention some of these.

View on HN

Solar and even moreso batteries are advancing so quickly that waiting for further price deflation seems a logical choice for many.

It's the energy equivalent of holding out for next gen cpu's.

Yeah, it's quite an omission. Why is SolarCity doing fewer installs? It's a mystery. Don't ask - we have no idea! They just aren't.

Texas is actually deeply connected to wind now. https://qz.com/1103816/texas-wind-power-capacity-will-overta...

Wind and solar are complementary -- so that's not a reason for solar to be less popular.

Although a recent Scientific American article had a few quotes suggesting wind and solar being complementary [1], these seemed more anecdotal than persuasive. Other studies do indicate that they are complementary, but don't seem to apply to Texas [2] and [3].

A nice (unpublished?) study supporting the complementary effect of wind and solar power for California concludes that these source of power are complementary [4], but makes an important simplifying assumption that will have to be investigated before we can conclude that solar and wind really are complements. It assumes that each day of a month can be approximated by the average day of the month.

A study that looks at fine grained (i.e. daily) variations in output concludes (among other things) [5] that

> A Wind and solar energy were observed to be highly complementary on an annual basis, but only slightly complementary on a daily basis.

I'm not an expert in this area, but it may be that within Texas specifically that wind is currently viewed as the easiest way to add renewable energy production and that we can expect the benefits from solar's greater or lesser complementary production to come along in the future.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-ar...

[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113... and http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/remea/assessing-complementarity-...

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261172609_PV_and_Wi...

[4] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Comb...

[5] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.4440030202/abs...

Complementary can make many things. You usually need long-distance transmission for wind power - in Texas the good wind is in the panhandle, well away from urban areas. Rooftop solar is usually right where the power is used -- urban areas. So if you have limited and slowly-growing long-distance transmission, rooftop solar is a way to get more renewables into the same grid. That's one kind of complementary.

Texas is one of the top producers of wind and top 10 or so for solar. We produce energy in all forms.

I tried to get solar on our house ~3 years ago. The roof is angled a few degrees too far north so we didn't qualify for any federal, state, or local subsidies or tax credits. I'd love to do it but the numbers don't work out that way.

Not that this necessarily applies to your situation, but for those who might otherwise be dissuaded, it is very doable to install solar panels on the ground to accommodate what requirements exist regarding the incident angle of solar radiation/absorbtion.

I actually find it surprising that your utility finds that to be a deal breaker as it would only limit your ability to generate electricity by a few percent per skewed degree.

The prices have fallen a lot since then what might not have been economically feasible then might be today 3 years is a long time in solar tech.

I would also not omit the fact that an increasing number of utilities offer solar power options. This is how Google consumes solar power for its data centers.

None of these factors (although relevant to the article) would explain why TESLA has lost market share compared to other solar companies.

TFA says investors were concerned about the amount of debt SolarCity was carrying so when Tesla bought them they pivoted more towards commercial properties.

Solar will go big when interest in home ownership goes away due to innovations like Uber which is reducing long term car ownership or multiple car ownership. Once home ownership goes away and we can subscribe to smart, intelligent homes powered by solar and other renewable energy sources, it will begin the golden age of Solar. Unfortunately, we are still 20 years away from this vision.

The lack of property tax deductions in the new tax bill could accelerate this vision.

That's an interesting thought on home ownership being disrupted.

My vision for the future is that the combination of dropping solar costs, the ability to work remotely, and the high cost of home ownership will open up new areas of land for communities to develop where it was not feasible before.

Combined with other trends like tiny homes, 'van dwelling', etc, it seems to make sense: people want to live high quality lifestyles without the high cost.

I picked up 5 acres in the california desert for a few thousand dollars, I lived there in a trailer for a while and learned a lot - I'm convinced it will become more popular as people start to realize it's doable.

with self driving car, ai and robot house automation fabrication + virtual reality ... will drive the cost of home ownership very affordable ... with virtual reality just like the real world ..people does not have to travel that far

> home ownership goes away

Home ownership is the only practical way in which the general public can access leveraged asset price inflation. There has to be big transformation in the economy before home ownership is seen as a cost centre rather than the most profitable investment most people will ever make.

And is also the only way that many people can have stability in where they they live and what they pay. Obviously different people make different tradeoffs but, for many (especially families), it's desirable to have a high degree of control over where you live.

Aboslutely. Can you imagine having the Google "your account has been cancelled and we won't even say why and there's no number you can call" experience with your home rental service? Or your car service?

In all fairness, there are tenant protection laws in presumably all states and they're quite strong in some. Nonetheless, if a landlord decides to sell the building or move into it themselves, you're likely going to have to move when the lease expires. And, of course, if you live somewhere that's popular and growing, you may simply be priced out.

This already happens when your Uber rating declines below a 4 or so (as drivers get to pick their riders by rating) and you can no longer get a ride.

Too bad there aren't alternatives to Uber for people who can't manage to not piss off their drivers. They don't give a bad review unless you give them a really good reason because they're more worried about their stars than a little bit of unruliness on the part of passengers because, you know, dealing with stupid people is 99% of the job(err...side hustle).

Sounds like the system is working exactly as intended to me.

You can’t base a public transportation network on a reputation system no more than you can cut power and water off to people you don’t care for.

They aren't a public transportation network, they are a private business.

I'm kind of curious what you were doing to the drivers since it's dog eat dog enough out there that drivers will pretty much take any fare that's semi-reasonable and they don't think they're going to die.

Before switching to Lyft, I had a 4.4 rating with Uber, and sometimes had to try multiple times to get a ride. I had never been late for a pickup, was always courteous, and never did anything to warrant less than 5 stars.

I don’t use Uber anymore, so it’s less of a personal issue and more of an overreaching policy issue as Uber attempts (poorly) to supplant public transit and personal vehicles with their product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com