Comment by soared | Hacker News Reader

Comment by soared | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is a good reply since it feels accurate but generally is not, which captures the sentiment of those opposing solar.

1. “The grid needs an upgrade”. This is true regardless of whether solar exists or not. Energy demand, battery technology, etc have all changed but the grid has not kept pace (on purpose). End customers may foot the bill, again, regardless of solar.

2. Solar does receive more subsidies, intentionally. This is how you quickly drive adoption of new technology and stop the old technology (gas/coal) from using its market power to stop new technology growth. Subsidies jumpstart the switch to solar, which in the long term is good for our country (export more energy), our planet, and for individuals who want energy independence.

3. Taxes aren’t flat rates, so when you make more you pay more progressively. A poor person pays significantly less than a rich person does for solar subsidies.

4. Chinese domination isn’t a reason for not using solar. If we want to change that, the US should motivate buyers to buy US (subsidize), increase import costs (targeted, time limited tariffs), or promote growth of the industry (education, research, etc).

I am not an electrician, but big problem with home-solar is grid not being bi-directional. In my whereabouts it's common to have good „down“ power, but no permit for „up“ back to the grid. Which makes it not worth it for home users. Batteries make it somewhat better, but it's still far from ideal.

For big commercial arrays, the grid used to have main lines to certain old school plants. Now for solar new major lines are needed to middle-of-nowhere locations to connect solar and wind farms. While old-school plants were more concentrated and closer to major locations, it was less costly than major lines out-there and to many more locations. And, obviously, investors into solar/wind ain't willing to food those bills.

The problem with solar subsidies, especially when it comes to home solar, is that they're very skewed to favor better-off people.

As for Chinese, yes, something needs to be done. But for now I kinda understand people who ain't happy subsidies are ending up in China.

>2. Solar does receive more subsidies, intentionally. …

>3. Taxes aren’t flat rates, so when you make more you pay more progressively. A poor person pays significantly less than a rich person does for solar subsidies.

Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying a great deal more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone MUCH further if spent on other solar projects) - it isn’t hard to imagine that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels. This sort of wealth transfer to the more wealthy actually hurts everyone in the long run. The goal should be to decarbonize the grid - not implement some kind of a reverse Robinhood scheme.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com