Hacker News Reader

Comment by epistasis | Hacker News Reader

~$100/mile really highlights the challenge of transmission.

Already, our transmission and distribution costs are more expensive than generation costs. Utilities want us to ignore these costs, as unavoidably, because they get to "rate base" T&D costs and charge a fixed rate of profit, meaning that anything extra they can spend on T&D is more profit that, without any competition.

This is why residential solar get such stiff propaganda against it by utilities, going as far to say that residential solar "freeloads" on the grid, rather than saving everybody costs on the grid by reducing the peak needs of T&D.

With wind, perhaps these transmission costs are somewhat unavoidable, but solar can be place elsewhere, and all solar that avoided this doubling of costs due to extra T&D costs should be highly encouraged by everyone (except the utilities, who lose out on profit).

View on HN

I find it hard to believe that truly self-sustained residential solar (solar panels + batteries all local) is going to be net cheaper than centralized grid generation. The maintenance costs should be significantly higher, particularly for the batteries.

It’s not propaganda. The reason it’s freeloading is that you’re still connected to the grid and thus the T&D costs are still there as they’re largely fixed. Utilities have done a poor job of pricing T&D costs correctly (your hookup cost is massively subsidized on the assumption that you will consume an average amount of energy from the grid). Additionally, for a long time (at least in California) utilities were forced to buy back your excess electricity at retail instead of wholesale rates (even if they didn’t need it & they can’t really control electricity you generate like they can with power plants).

Residential solar is a greedy tragedy of the commons solution that is subsidized by everyone else. And if everyone had residential solar + batteries + no grid hookup, someone would have to do the analysis if the maintenance cost vs T&D.

> It’s not propaganda

So how come that rhetoric is only coming out of the US? The rest of the world's distribution networks don't have a problem with residential solar (afaik).

What other countries have meaningful residential solar and haven’t had to deal with the problems? Can you cite anything because I can’t find any good resources online, but AFAICT the US and China are leading the world in solar and it’s possible that the US is leading for residential solar on normalized terms (haven’t checked).

California is probably one of the places in the world with the largest solar residential install and therefore has the most experience with this vs some dark propaganda conspiracy to keep residential solar down? Trust me, residential solar is hugely popular because you basically have free electricity and the government subsidizing the install cost on top + forcing utilities to buy your electricity generation during the day? The political incentives are for more residential solar, not less. The utilities aren’t popular and you can accuse them of shady shit (& they do engage on it), but in this specific instance it does seem more sincere that people are acting because of the threat that residential solar placed to the financial stability of the grid. And no, residential solar doesn’t remove the need for the grid.

https://www.builderonline.com/data-analysis/california-snags...

https://ilsr.org/the-states-of-distributed-solar/

4 of the top 5 solar cities in the US are in California. California has stopped with the explicit rebates to fund residential solar and it’s not just because solar prices have dropped - it’s bad policy. Other places are still lagging because they don’t have enough residential solar installed to make it obviously a bad idea. The residential solar market has seen a massive contraction since the state government stopped forcing utilities to subsidize them as much - they’re still subsidizing a bit but they switched from buying back electricity from residential at retail rates & now instead use wholesale which is what they’d pay any other generator (T&D costs are subsidized because the monthly grid hookup rate is still too cheap for these kinds of houses).

Spain would be the obvious comparison. They're installing rooftop solar like crazy.

They’ve literally just started so it’ll take a while for them to see the problems. But already:

https://www.solarpaces.org/spain-now-needs-csp-for-grid-stab...

https://energypost.eu/spain-as-renewables-rise-managing-supp...

We’ve already carried out this experiment. Rooftop solar is a luxury good that doesn’t actually reduce fossil fuel dependence.

Thankfully Spain has learned the lesson of California & is only giving a wholesale rebate on the bill meaning you’ll never make money from rooftop solar:

https://www.ecovidahomes.com/blog/can-you-sell-electricity-b...

But that doesn’t change the math that using public funds to incentivize rooftop solar is a populist direction that isn’t actually a good idea for the grid. Once enough rooftop solar is installed, watch the grid in Spain start to struggle financially if they haven’t priced the T&D hookup fee correctly (+ expect that fee to rise over time). All that being said, Spain & Europe are slightly different stories - they have a unified electricity grid I believe which lets them export their surplus. Not sure if that actually works for rooftop solar but may help mediate some of the problems that we have in the US.

The Netherlands and Belgium certainly do

Except the ACC calculation used in CA is absolute nonsense and deliberately uses monthly averaging so you don't get a fair cut.

Utilities always want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to pay you almost nothing for power sent to the grid ($0.02) that only considers generation using the most optimistic figures. Then during the worst summer peak times when the spot price for power hits $0.20, $0.50, or even $1.00/kWh you don't get to reap any of that benefit. Thanks to the averaging you still get paid $0.02 and PG&E saves $0.96.

If utilities want "fairness" then let them pay the spot price in realtime or to the average of the nearest 15 minutes on a daily basis. Then I could choose to drain my batteries when the spot price hits ultra high marks which makes it worth my while, incentivizes storage, and helps grid stability.

This also means you pay for distribution on inbound power but don't get credit on outbound. Even though that saves the utility a little bit on distribution that seems fair. If utilities want to get paid for maintaining grid access then let an independent entity run those numbers and bill it accurately. I don't mind paying a grid access charge if it weren't pulled out of PG&E's ass as a backdoor attempt to kill solar.

I agree that making them buy power back at the full retail rate is not sustainable but NEM3 in CA (and the upcoming income-based monthly fixed charge) are nothing but utility scams.

Last but not least as a matter of public policy I strongly believe encouraging energy independence is a social good. In emergency situations having a few neighbors with enough solar+batteries to keep the lights on is a good for society as a whole. We are in that situation and plan to run a cell phone charging station in our driveway if it ever happened that the grid was down for more than a few hours (eg earthquake/storm/grid collapse). Having an EV also means if we are careful we can charge the car enough to make short or medium trips every few days. Not being beholden to gas tanker trucks or utility operators is great IMHO. I just need to add Starlink for backup internet :)

Thank you. I can't believe how much FUD is out there from IOU (investor owned utilities) lobbyists that the general populace has accepted uncritically as fact. We need to encourage distributed generation by policy for so many reasons, not the least of which is a reduced need for transmission and land use.

Wholesale rates never go to $1/kwh. Why should you get paid more than what PG&E pays its suppliers?

As for why a monthly average is used, I don’t know but there could be legitimate reasons (eg smart meters weren’t built to measure the reverse direction and maybe the software isn’t properly certified or something)

> In emergency situations having a few neighbors with enough solar+batteries to keep the lights on is a good for society as a whole

In a rich neighborhood this works really well. Most people benefit from a stable and highly functioning grid. It’s also cheaper than a bunch of poorly planned adhoc solar and battery capacity randomly scattered about.

> Having an EV also means if we are careful we can charge the car enough to make short or medium trips every few days. Not being beholden to gas tanker trucks or utility operators is great IMHO. I just need to add Starlink for backup internet :)

Again, you’re describing your privileged situation and acting like society would benefit from making your personal situation better.

If everyone had an EV and solar, their solar capacity would need to first be overbuilt to accommodate that addition. But solar capacity sizing today is a mix of how much your current pre-EV usage constrained by the panel efficiency multiplied by available rooftop space. Most people don’t live in single unit dwellings either and rooftop solar for an apartment complex isn’t going to provide all the necessary power.

So yeah, I’m on pg&e’s side here. It’s their grid. They’re being forced to take electricity generation from residential but if they weren’t being forced by regulators they should be free to just say no to capacity being fed from anyone but official suppliers. Otherwise you’re selling into their grid without actually paying for access (+ the utilities didn’t factor in rooftop solar when building out the generation for the grid). You can’t have things both ways and rooftop solar in California is 100% a massive subsidy being provided to the privileged people adding that capacity.

> In emergency situations having a few neighbors with enough solar+batteries to keep the lights on is a good for society as a whole

In what world is the grid down but your personal solar + battery installation is keeping the lights on for the entire neighborhood without using said grid?

> Wholesale rates never go to $1/kwh. Why should you get paid more than what PG&E pays its suppliers?

I believe CASIO's spot price cap on generation is in fact $1/kwh. This is only ever reached on a handful of peak summer days and only for a a few hours at most.

> In a rich neighborhood this works really well.

Solar is not exclusively a rich neighbor hood thing... well it certainly is now with NEM3 since the economics are broken.

> Most people don’t live in single unit dwellings either

Well you'll be pleased to know the utilities have colluded to make shared solar for apartments/condos un-economic too so everyone can get screwed.

>So yeah, I’m on pg&e’s side here. It’s their grid.

PG&E can't exist without eminent domain forcing private property owners to give away space for power poles and buried lines. They also enjoy both a monopoly and guaranteed profit! The regulator by law ensures that they get to recover all costs no matter what those are.

I'm not saying utilities shouldn't get paid to build and maintain the grid. I'm also not saying they shouldn't get paid something to maintain extra generating capacity.

I'm saying the hand-wringing about how rooftop solar owners are all rich leeches hurting the utilities and low-income people is a bunch of utility-created BS to justify screwing everyone over for higher utility company profits.

Arbitrage is how utilities make money. Forecasting, signing contracts, making hedges. Figuring out what average price to charge consumers to even out the fact that electricity is dirt-cheap at 3am and outrageously expensive on the hottest summer days at 3pm. They can and do understand the impact of solar. Solar lowers their profits so they want to kill it. Was CA NEM2 unreasonable to the utility? Yes. Is NEM3 a good compromise? Absolutely not. Is charging customers a fixed monthly charge based on their income a reasonable or even fair thing to do? Hell no.

> In what world is the grid down but your personal solar + battery installation is keeping the lights on for the entire neighborhood without using said grid?

That's not what I mean. I'm not saying every home would be able to run this way, just that it is a good thing in a disaster if some homes here and there are able to supply their own power. It means there is somewhere in the neighborhood that can power a fridge/freezer to save food or handle sensitive medications. Where neighbors can go to charge cell phones. If you've never lived in a hurricane-prone area you may not understand how much of a lifeline it is for someone on the block to have a generator or solar+battery.

I mean EV the same way: if someone on the block has an EV and solar then they can assist their neighbors... eg driving to a water/food distribution point even when gasoline supply is cut off for a few weeks. Or drive to a pharmacy to pickup critical medication.

Hopefully you never find yourself in such a situation but from a public policy POV having that kind of distributed self-sufficiency capability (paid for by individuals on their own) is a good thing.

Residential solar is primarily really for single family homes and similar types of residences. Within populated areas of California (which is where most energy consumption is going to be in California) it is 100% a richer area. Sure, those kinds of homes are also common in the suburbs but the suburbs where that’s affordable are where there’s significantly fewer people living. I don’t know the setup in other places but any big metropolitan area is probably going to look similar and that’s where most of the energy demand and resultant CO2 emissions are coming from.

You don’t see solar on high rises because this kind of strategy does not work.

As for emergency disaster response, historically this entailed the government having designated shelter places with disaster supplies (eg diesel generators, large amount of food stores, cots to sleep people, etc). This would typically be things like schools and sports arenas because of how much emergency shelter could be provided. I don’t see how adhoc disaster preparedness where you rely on some neighbors thinking ahead for everyone else is better than a strategic plan intentionally meant to cover everybody. It’s a nice perk if you’re lucky, but I’d rather make sure that centralized planning can actually help everyone. Btw this wasn’t because the local government was competent - if I recall correctly there were federal and state laws requiring cities be able to handle such emergencies. I’m not sure if we’ve gotten worse at them that you’re now concerned, but generally I have seen pretty good disaster response mechanisms.

I was specifically referencing shared-billing scenarios which was just getting under way but has basically been knee-capped by the CPUC.

The idea was that a homeowner's association (for condo owners) or apartment building owner could install solar panels connected to a designated meter. Then they could associate other resident meters to be the recipients of credits generated by the designated meter. The utility would distribute the credits in the configured proportions.

This would allow condo owners to collectively buy solar panels for the whole complex. Or allow an apartment building owner to let renters buy "shares" of the panels to offset their own usage, or offer it for "free" as a feature eg "we have solar panels that lower your electric bill for free, rent here"*.

None of that matters now though, they've made it not economically viable to do.

* All features of an apartment are paid for in rent, absolutely nothing is really free. Anything an apartment offers for free just means "I'm paying for it in my rent as long as I live here".

>...This is why residential solar get such stiff propaganda against it by utilities, going as far to say that residential solar "freeloads" on the grid

The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very expensive compared to utility grade solar:

>…Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If not for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 147 and 221 U.S. dollars per megawatt hour.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind. Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse Robinhood scheme.

Residential solar is very inexpensive if you install it yourself. 3kW solar panel is $195.90 [0]. 10kW battery is $2200.

[0] https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256806170563774.html

Something's off there. From the product description:

3000WProduct Description

Widely used: Under 4 hours of full sunlight, the daily production capacity is 400wh/day. It is very suitable for RVs, caravans, oceans, camping vehicles, electric scooters, golf carts, power wheels, fishing motors, tool trailers, and backup power sources for small sheds.

【 Excellent Performance 】: Single crystal solar panels are made of corrosion-resistant aluminum frames, which can be used for more than ten years and can withstand strong winds (2400Pa) and snow loads (5400Pa). IP65 rated terminal box and 21% high battery efficiency.

[Easy to install]: Pre drilled holes on the back and plug and play cables allow for quick installation

【 Multi protection 】: 20A PWM controller: built-in short circuit, open circuit, and overload protection to ensure safety. And it supports three types of batteries: lithium batteries, lead-acid batteries, and colloidal batteries.

Technical parameters:

Rated power: 100W

Single listing for multiple items. Second item is 100W panel 24x35cm for $22. The last item is supposed to be 3kW panel 98x54cm. I wouldn't buy from a seller with such messed description.

> The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very expensive compared to utility grade solar:

that's not the utility's problem

residential solar freeloads on the grid because it doesnt reduce peak need, and home generators have historically been paid at a price equivalent to generation plus transmission rate. This means other consumers have to pay generation + 2X transmission for any home solar power they consume.

The economics of home solar are terrible. There is some value in home battery, but even then it still makes far more sense for industrial scale battery than home.

> it doesnt reduce peak need

Residential solar doesn't use batteries?

Batteries use batteries, not solar.

Either way, Peak need is still determined by when residential batteries are empty because residential batteries are not sized to a day without sun, let alone multiple.

Therefore, you are always stuck with a grid built with capacity for the same peak.

> Therefore, you are always stuck with a grid built with capacity for the same peak.

Thanks, I understand your point now. I thought you were arguing something much looser.

But I think you're looking at residential solar in isolation, and not considering the load-shifting that comes with a smart grid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com