Hacker News Reader

Comment by programbreeding | Hacker News Reader

>If the state would focus on higher density living...

>...where they'll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses

The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don't want to live in high density areas. California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.

I'm not saying I'm even for this issue, I don't live in California. But your view is extremely negative and ignores the negatives of your way while also ignoring the positives of the way mentioned in the article.

View on HN

> It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.

Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. Most grid-tie solar inverters do not support disconnected operation. They all have anti-islanding features that disconnect the solar panels when the grid goes down (to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages). There are a few inverters that include an emergency-outlet on the inverter that works when the power is out, but you have to run an extension cord from the inverter to the devices you want to power.

It is possible to buy a hybird off-grid inverter, but they are much more expensive than either plain grid-tie or off-grid, and the power company is going to scrutinize their installation a lot more closely.

> to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages

Surely they can't entirely rely on this for safety?

Backfeed prevention devices are not the only arrow in the safety quiver, but they are required for lineman safety purposes (as well as other net wins, like reduced problems with downed lines meeting up with everyday people). Backfed generators (and now solar, wind, etc.) injure and kill.

>(to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages)

Back-flows from generators, solar and other home power sources are not really an issue. It takes a specific set of circumstances where there's both equipment failure and the utility worker fails to check if lines are live.

Basically, the resistance of the entire neighborhood is indistinguishable to a short from the perspective of the breakers on your power generation equipment.

Still, you shouldn't back feed because we live in a society where everyone must play by the rules of idiots regardless of whether or not they can prove themselves to be otherwise. Therefore you cannot be trusted to flip switches properly yourself and I must advise you to use a proper transfer switch.

Aren't shorts very low resistance? I'm not an electrician so maybe I misunderstand here.

What would be the benefit of me "properly flipping switches" in the context of a natural disaster? What if I am not home?

Yes, and so is a neighborhood. A dim lightbulb has a high resistance. A bright lightbulb has a lower resistance. Multiple bright lightbulbs in parallel, measured together as one, have an even lower resistance.

I don't follow. How does a neighborhood become both high and low resistance?

Where did anyone imply that?

It's not powering the whole neighborhood that's the problem. With downed lines it very well might not put any significant load on the inverter yet still have a significant amount of downed distribution lines live. Normally the fire department or the power company can just take a hot stick and within a couple minutes pull out the fuse upstream of a segment and ground out the lines making it safe from the rest of the grid. With improperly installed generators every house is a potential source of power, there's no quick and easy way to isolate all of them like their is with utility power, and grounding out every segment might not be as easy to do reliably as with utility power. If you ground out the line upstream of the fault then you know with certainty that utility power isn't going to somehow energize the portion of line being worked on but when it's being fed from more than one direction there could be a fault that isn't readily apparent that creates a dangerous situation where a linesman thinks a line is safe when it is live being powered by a generator.

Or use a Powerwall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall

This seems like a simple problem to solve, by putting the inverter at the periphery of the domestic system.

Why does California need Solar farms in first place ? Why not ask nevada to build it and buy electricity from them ?

If solar is profitable why is some private company not doing it already ?

Who told you it was profitable? It isn’t in most areas.

It is in many places, and increasingly so will be almost everywhere:

https://www.eia.gov/renewable/monthly/solar_photo/pdf/pv_tab...

https://twitter.com/LSValue/status/992429019680378880

Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas. Yes, there are exceptions to everything, but by and large, it is NOT profitable without subsidies. You can argue whether or not it's worth the extra cost to taxpayers and consumers etc., but you cannot argue that it's profitable and/or cheaper in most markets without subsidies.

> Sans incentives, it is NOT cheaper than other forms of energy in MOST areas.

You may be referencing old sources. For example, even though the UK's solar potential is reasonably low, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) shows that levelized cost of solar-generated power IS cheaper than MOST other forms of energy.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

People in inner parts of California have to spend significantly more on energy because of extreme weather while we enjoy the moderate weather in Mountain View.

California has higher energy prices and the poor people who tend to live in inner parts are suffering a lot.

When you look at profitability you need to deduct the government subsidies and assume that it comes from our taxes. Is it really sensible idea to tax a farmer in yolo county to pay more for his energy usage because the rich people in bay area have decides that solar is more important ?

This leads to more inequality, resentment and a divided society.

> The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don't want to live in high density areas.

Is this true? IIRC the shortage of urban-style denser housing is so severe that pretty much everyone who prefers that type of housing has to buy a sprawly McMansion anyways, since that's what on the market at prices people can afford.

"Huge" and "inefficient" is in the eye of the beholder, and in most countries your standard-sized American house would fall under both of those categories.

> California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems.

You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc.

> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc.

No thanks. Then some other org controls the power I can get from those panels, can corrupt officials to raise my rates unnecessarily, charge me higher rates for generation facilities that may not be needed except to juice shareholder returns (Duke Energy collected over a billion dollars for a nuclear power plant they'll never build in Florida, and they are under no obligation to return those funds to ratepayers). This is not uncommon. NV Energy in Nevada, Duke and FPL in Florida, utility coalitions in Kentucky and Arizona have all fought against distributed generation, the list goes on.

Rooftop/distributed solar is a hedge against utility shenanigans, and with how quickly rooftop solar pays itself back (under 10 years in over half the US states while rolling the cost into a long term fixed rate loan product, ie your mortgage), it's insane we don't mandate its installation in more places on new/retrofit construction [1].

Disclosure: I own a 10kw solar install on my roof. I’m biased and opinionated.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg (NREL US Solar Potential Map)

[+] https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg (Rate of return on cash invested by state)

Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. If you are grid tie you are subject to whatever rate they will pay you for your power and charge you for power.

Storage will only get cheaper, it's only a matter of how quickly [1] [2]. Based on historical renewable generation and storage rapid cost declines, you will be able to be self sufficient faster than utilities will be able to put you over the barrel by moving peak pricing away from the solar "duck curve" [3].

[1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Storage 2017)

[2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries... (Lithium-ion batteries below $200/kWh by 2019 will drive rapid storage uptake, finds IHS Markit)

[3] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...

Storage doesn't matter if the solar panels on your roof cannot cover your average power consumption, if they don't you need someone to supply power externally.

Just because you may need to supplement your supply doesn’t mean “storage doesn’t matter.”

With storage you need less supply and you can supplement your supply when rates are lowest.

>Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies.

You can be "off grid" by throwing a switch.

Very few inverters will do this.

Most meter boxes have such a switch?

Most inverters don't work without connection to the grid. If you flip the fuse or meter box to go "off grid" the inverter will stop working that very same second.

You can however get expensive inverters than do work of the grid, but they are, as mentioned, expensive compared to a simple grid-tie inverter.

The “expensive” part isn’t necessarily true. Some grid-tie inverters have limited backup capability for very little cost. IIRC the SMA Sunny Boy series can supply 15A 120V using a dedicated outlet. SolarEdge’s StorEdge is their standard DC-coupled storage inverter, and it can supply 5kW of backup power.

Electricity is not a public utility in California, so wouldn't that solution require the four(?) private utilities in California to raise prices or sell bonds to purchase land/build a solar power plant?

Not so obvious. Prop 13 puts a cap on property taxes.

> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install...

Why why just new homes. Instead tax all electricity consumers on their bills to pay for the solar farms.

This is how California works; privilege old residents over the new.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is very clearly what California voters want. The idea is that we have these massive boom/bust cycles (that seem to trend upwards) and we want to ensure that those who are already here benefit from the boom times, even at the cost of making things rather harder for the newcomers.

The interesting thing is that... a lot of the older service people I've talked to, barbers, uber drivers, etc... own homes around here that they bought when it was cheap. because of these rules, sure, they can't eat out everyday, but they can continue to live around here, should they so choose, on very small wages. I think that our rent control and our prop 13 and other favoring of existing residents does in part subsidize our service industry; in some ways, I think it's why services around here just aren't as expensive as you would expect, when you consider how much more expensive rent is here (and programers are here) vs. the rest of the country.

I personally think that the economy would be better overall if we just built a lot and then raised the costs of the output of locally produced services in line with rent, e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages. But, I do think it's important to understand the majority California view.

"e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages."

...wait, what?

by the same percentage as, perhaps? Both are intensely local, and while local tech industry wages have been increasing pretty dramatically over the last decade, I think that service industry wages have stagnated, as have prices. I think the economy would be better off if we had the same degree of inflation in the service sector as we have in the tech sector.

Just my opinion, of course, and I understand it's an unpopular one.

Ultimately the wage increases would increase costs to the consumer, so it seems that you’d want to factor in the population as a whole (minus the service industry, as is the example).

TLDR; the proportion of programmers matters.

Avoid that altogether and tax energy production equal to the economic cost of its damage. Redistribute the funds gathered to all citizens since they're the ones impacted by the damage. Buy solar panels, pay the steep tax, take whatever steps work for you, where you live, etc.

So rich people hardly notice the difference, and pensioners die of heat stroke because they can't afford air conditioning?

Tax energy according to its externalities. Then fix the resulting poverty by redistributing money according to the standard of living you want to ensure. Do not mix both policies.

Pensioners receive a check from the tax funds just like everyone else. Assuming pensioners use less electricity than average, they will receive a net benefit.

Corporations using a lot of electricity get the same sized tax dividend check the pensioner gets, so it's a net loss for them. The wealthy subsidize the poor under this system.

It functions alot like ubi actually.

Pensioners tend to use more power than younger residents which is why inflation in power costs hurts them proportionally more.

They don't use more than factories, big box retailers, large corporate offices, data centers, families with children, etc. As long as they're less than the average, they get a net benefit.

Pensioners in general are on a fixed income which is where your idea breaks down.

Their income is irrelevant. If they consume fewer kWh of electricity than the average power company customer, they will get a net benefit. They might pay a $25 tax, but get a $40 benefit. Meanwhile the large factory might pay $5,000 but they still get the same $40 rebate the pensioner gets.

Given that large corporations who consume huge amounts of electricity are in the pool, it's almost impossible that the pensioner could consume more than the average.

"If" they wont! as they dont go out to work and also fell the cold more. You seem to be missing the point here

Businesses will use orders of magnitude more than the pensioners. The fact that a pensioner might use more per capita than a young person doesn't matter. When the young person leaves the home for work, they're just going to a different building that is also consuming electricity, generating more pollution tax. Plus, there are more people per household in a young home because of children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com