Hacker News Reader

Comment by moepstar | Hacker News Reader

Ugh, what i don't get is the "oh, i got that for free - let's just waste it in any way i can think of" mentality.

Every kWh fed back into the grid is a kWh that is displacing energy generated by coal, gas, nuclear, ....

I'm from Spain, have panels and a bit of this mentality. The thing is the electric utility sells at market price (say 30 cents), but buys at incredible low prices (about 5 cents). That makes them a net earning of 25 cents for an energy they didn't invest a dime to produce, and in fact I have to pay to distribute (about 5€/month).

My target is to net zero, but never net negative (put more in the grid that I consume), because that would be working for the utility. If I'm selling too much, a unneeded oven pyrolisis or AC it is.

Pay me 80% of the market prices and I will contribute more to the grid. Also that I'm no hardcore hippie: I'm doing my part investing around 60K in PV, so I want my returns either as €€€ or in comfort, not in virtue. And I'm not taking ethical climate lessons from people who doesn't have any panel.

It's like "oh, you bought a Tesla, you should give rides to your neighbors that still run gas vehicles. But Uber keeps 80% of the earnings".

You're providing electricity when there's large supply, and you're buying it when there's less supply and large demand.

The prices actually make sense, as evidenced by you still selling despite the low price and still buying despite the high price.

I don't know in other countries. Here in Spain I sell at a fixed price. Right now, and you can check it at esios.ree.es, pool price if you're buying (i.e. a regular consumer without panels) is 24.4 cents. My panels are producing at peak right now at noon. I can't consume it all, and selling at about 3 cents. Obviously, at night, I have to buy, currently at 35 cents.

This doesn't make any sense. In fact, there's a law that makes me meet a minimum kWh sold per year (which I carefully plan to meet in october) or I get fined. Once the minimum is done, I close the faucet until february. E.g if I'm not at home for the weekend, the extra energy goes to heat the house.

If they paid 80%, would they still have a viable business as more people ran solar?

They have to pay to run and maintain the grid. That money has to come from somewhere.

For people on solar and battery power, the grid is a backup, but I don't think we can have this incredibly expensive backup system running to our houses for low cost.

I could see a future where the grid is no longer viable, and people run solar and batteries with diesel backup.

Because people buy things for themselves usually. E.g. they bought the solar system to give themselves power, not to benefit other people, so that it's had this weird side effect of abundance is something that they openly admit they can't process.

Only if there’s demand for that marginal kWh. If not, it truly is wasted.

1 GW into the grid allows us to do maintenance of a nuclear reactor during summer, so it be ready for winter. It’s temporally displacing energy, not unlike a battery.

Good point.

Yet short sighted, think about solar becoming mainstream and most households being in the same situation - who are you going to be giving the energy to if everybody around is in surplus feeding back?

We'll soon realize that batteries, hot water and other forms of energy storage should be shared/communal.

Your definition of “short sighted” might need an amendment.

> think about solar becoming mainstream and most households being in the same situation

This is a happy problem. It would mean humans have overcome climate change.

That much surplus energy will create demand. From grid sized battery arbitrage, to desalination, to powering factories in the day.

You should learn to celebrate the sun-optimal but significantly better solution. Especially knowing that we can always keep improving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com