Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaaarrgh | Hacker News Reader

We're nowhere near close to home charging for the number of EVs estimated by 2030. Go ask around, very few organizations are working on it compared to public chargers. Apartment managers and condo associations aren't demanding them and only homeowners have a say, after they pay for the upgrade. Not to mention, the power companies hate the idea. They won't even let people with solar panels feed their excess power to the grid.

We would need a federal mandate to get there, and I don't see it happening.

View on HN

> They won't even let people with solar panels feed their excess power to the grid.

Is that true? If so, TIL...

Depends on your state https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/03/which-states-o...

It is not true, but they do make it very hard in some places and as a group utilities do kind of hate the idea. Almost all states require net metering, which what allows people to sell their solar to the grid, and there is some federal regulation too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005). Despite these requirements most utilities make it pretty hard to set up.

I opted NOT to sell my excess to PNM (New Mexico), because the agreement allowed them to claim my 6.7kW array as part of their own progress towards renewable conversion.

What I didn't understand was that I ended up with an even better deal! I get back the excess kW/h on a 1:1 basis. This is much better "pricing" than I would have received if I had sold it for cash.

Granted this model only works if there's a part of the year when you produce more than you need and another part of the year where you produce less. Since we heat more or less exclusively with electric air source heat pumps, but need no heat or a/c during summer, this works extremely well for us.

What's wrong with them counting your solar as part of their conversion? Nothing wrong with you declining if the price isn't high enough, but if they're paying someone for solar power, whether it's an individual or a company, I think they should count that as part of their renewable portfolio.

Even if there's nothing morally wrong with it, not agreeing will make their numbers look worse, with might encourage them to build more of their own renewable generation. So it's also a way of encouraging more renewables.

florida's been trying to kill net metering for years: https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/12/20/fl... https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/power-bills-could-rise-ev... they even allegedly derailed a democratic election using a fake candidate: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-florida-power...

This has to do with lack of demand during high PV production. This excess energy still has to go somewhere, it doesn't just disappear. This costs the grid operators money, so either they charge you or don't let you feed the excess power to the grid.

Are you saying the price is negative during high PV production? In sane markets like Finland solar panel owners need to pay for generating electricity to the grid if the price is negative (which is it sometimes).

> In sane markets like Finland solar panel owners need to pay for generating electricity to the grid if the price is negative

If this were the case, why would solar panel owners not stop "selling" power to the grid at their expense when that happens? What incentive would ever exist to pay to put power on the grid?

I think the point is to encourage people to have a way to stop exporting when there is not the demand by passing on the negative price that all generators would see in that situation.

Apparently not generating power will cause the panel to slightly overheat which will add additional tear on the panel, so it might make sense to pay the negative prices instead.

Note that electricity generated will first be used by the consumer and only excess is sold to the grid.

Regular consumers don't offer their production on the energy markets so they don't set the price. Maybe your panels can be counted as part of the energy company's solar production, in that case I guess they could indirectly have an influence? I'm not sure if this is done though. A negative price can just be a result of tax subventions (in case you still make a profit even if the price goes negative) or when it's simply cheaper to bid a negative price so that you can keep producing instead of having to turn off production and then reboot it at a later time.

In Australia, you generally get paid for your panels contribution to the grid, but with any recent installs/contracts the feed-in tariff is puny.

Early adopters sometimes got long-term contracts with much more attractive feed-in tariffs, but that was back when people were installing fewer panels. Now those people usually have to decide between maintaining the great rate or upgrading their systems and having to create a new contract.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com