1,413 karma · joined April 20, 2014
>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.
The market price is not the retail price. Does a grocery store buys produce from a supplier at the price they sell it to the consumer? Of course not. The wholesale price for power in CA is variable but generally around 4 cents a kilowatt wile the retail price that customers pay is generally 30 cents and above. If the market price for power is 4 cents, and a supplier can effectively sell their power for 30 cents, they are not selling it at the market price. If consumer solar producers were treated as every other supplier of electricity and were paid at the same rates, then there would be no subsidy.
>...If someone is increasing your power bill and blaming it on some one else's solar panels, I'd say you are being scammed
No, that is the reality of how net metering works. That $115 to $245 cost estimate paid by every other household in CA was from the CA PUC. They have made some changes to this going forward, but the current beneficiaries are still grandfathered in.
>...But this is a choice that doesn't exist. We are not talking about a bunch of money that has been collected and is being spent on people's rooftop solar instead of being spent on utility solar.
This was a choice that was made by politicians and this is money that is being spent every day. The CA legislature and PUC could have said that household rates will increase by $115 a year and the money will be used to build out grid solar and storage - if that had been done there would be MUCH more solar power and grid storage being produced. You just need to look at the LCOE for utility and consumer rooftop solar to see the cost differences. The LCOE difference grid batteries vs home batteries is also dramatic.
>There is no money except the homeowner's money that is being spent here, and they can only choose to get rooftop solar. ... It transfers no money from anyone but from the homeowners to makers of solar panels.
If every household's electricity rates go up by $115 a year, then every household is spending an additional $115. If someone is paying an extra $115 a year, it doesn't make sense to tell them they are not paying extra.
From the 2024 numbers the LCOE for utility solar was $29 - $92 and the consumer rooftop solar LCOE was estimated to be $122 to $284. Depending on the projects, utility solar was estimated to usually be somewhere around 3-10 time cheaper than rooftop solar. If the transmission and distribution costs could bring the low cost of utility solar anywhere near the very high cost of consumer rooftop solar, that would be very concerning as that $122 - $284 cost estimate also doesn’t cover any of the costs of firming intermittency. I have never heard anyone else implying the costs of distributing the electricity from new utility solar projects could increase the cost that much. The money that has gone to pay for net metering to subsidize those very high consumer rooftop costs should have gone to utility solar and grid storage projects - the goal is to decarbonize the grid and the money should be spent where it will do the most good.
No, the subsidies don’t stop at installation - they often just really begin. Often wealthier households have been able to sell back their electricity to the grid at the retail rate. Providing the infrastructure and reliability of the grid is very expensive, so there is a huge difference between the wholesale costs and retail rates for delivered electricity. In CA, it was estimated that all non-solar households in CA paid an estimated extra $115 to $245 per year to cover the subsidies given to their wealthier neighbors. It was estimated that as the number of consumer solar installation increase, that increased cost would grow to between $385 and $550 per year by 2030. Ignoring all the subsidies given to install the system, that $115 per household per year adds up to a great deal of money. 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 is to decarbonize the grid - not implement some kind of a reverse Robinhood scheme.
>…You're right, I made a mistake and didn't notice the rooftop category was gone. My bad.
Yea it is unfortunate they removed that category - hopefully it will return in future versions.
Yea, I have never actually seen any estimates of the cost when adding panels to new construction, but it sure seems like a reasonable idea.
If we are really at the point where distribution costs for utility solar make it cost anywhere near the cost of consumer rooftop solar, we have a real problem. If that is true, we probably need a different approach to decarbonize the grid. I don't think you are right.
Well, it means that the government will have less available money to spend on other priorities. Often there are also state and utility subsidies, but those subsidies are often not the largest subsidy. Besides the direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. As I said before, the whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme.
>...Solar is way cheaper in this year's report.
No it is not. I used last year's numbers since the 2025 report for reasons, does not include consumer rooftop solar. The closest comparison would likely be the category of Solar PV—Community & C&I. In 2024, the cost estimate was $54 - $191 in 2025, the price range was $81 - $217.
The LCOE of battery systems for residential systems is still incredibly high according to the Lazard report - an unsubsidized cost maybe 3 - 10 times more expensive than grid batteries.
>...Given that rooftop solar usually pays for itself despite being less cost-efficient that other forms of solar,
If that is the case, then less well off rate payers shouldn't have to subsidize their wealthier neighbors. If it does require subsidies, then that money should go to where it will do the most good in decarbonizing the grid - not as a giveaway to wealthier home owners.
>I see no reason to discourage it.
Who said anything about discouraging it? I certainly wouldn't want to discourage it.
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme.
Any subsidies for solar power should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further than a dollar spent subsidizing wealthy homeowners who install panels on their roof.
Unfortunately, just yesterday there were a surprising amount of people who seemed to argue that increased competition would at best have no effect, and at worst, would actually increase prices:
https://ij.org/report/striving-for-better-care/overwhelming-...
Are people claiming that the USSR provided a valid counter-balance for the working class? At any rate, if the chances of political violence have actually decreased in democracies due to the end of the USSR, isn't that a good thing?
This is misleading. Demand from midnight to 5 AM in CA is much higher than you imply and unfortunately the largest provider of power at night is generally natural gas.
As I said before:
>>Diablo Canyon provides close to 18,000 GWh per year of clean power. If that goes away this year, it will obviously take a while to be able to replace the power with other clean power.
>...New nuclear just doesn’t fit especially if it’s taking 4+ years to build.
I find that those who actually want to decarbonize the grid, don't particularly care what clean technology is used and different countries will have a different mix of technologies they use. The mix that works best in say CA, might not be what works best, in say, Canada.
It is only non-urgent if a country wants to minimize the people it is killing by recklessly burning coal. Otherwise, no big deal.
>…For evidence have a read:
Yes I had seen that. Which is why I wrote:
>>…The 12 billion dollar estimate included costs unrelated to Diablo Canyon according to PG&E. Their estimate is closer to 8B, of which the majority will be covered by selling the electricity. They have a 1.1 billion dollar grant to help with some of the rest, though unclear how much the state will have to subsidize things in the end.
CA battery capacity has had better growth than I thought. Though there is obviously a difference between batteries to provide power for a few hours a day and a plant that would provide power 24/7. Diablo Canyon provides close to 18,000 GWh per year of clean power. If that goes away this year, it will obviously take a while to be able to replace the power with other clean power.
Well I guess it is impossible to upgrade the grid in any kind of reasonable timeframe in Germany. There are still other options that could be done to hasten the end of burning coal - I pointed out a few, there are likely others.
>Then it comes down to the cost question. You can maintain a piece of infrastructure forever but at some point the costs does not justify the gain. Better spend the money on renewables and storage instead.
Yes it is a question. Unfortunately you have given no evidence of the actual costs.
>...You do know that France is on a downward trend of nuclear power as well?
In 2014 France set a goal to reduce nuclear's share of electricity generation to 50% by 2025. This target was delayed in 2019 to 2035, before being abandoned in 2023. (I am sure France is also trying to increase renewables and storage.)
>An example of such stupidity is Diablo Canyon in California requiring a $12B subsidy on top of regular income for selling electricity to run 5 extra years from 2025 to 2030.
This comment shows you don't really grasp the issue of power in CA. The 12 billion dollar estimate included costs unrelated to Diablo Canyon according to PG&E. Their estimate is closer to 8B, of which the majority will be covered by selling the electricity. They have a 1.1 billion dollar grant to help with some of the rest, though unclear how much the state will have to subsidize things in the end. The issue is that Diablo Canyon provides about 1/4 of the clean power in CA and can provide it when renewables can't - like every other place, CA currently has a tiny amount of grid storage. Without Diablo Canyon, CA will likely have to buy power from coal plants in other states. So CA is willing to pay extra to avoid having to burn coal. That is different than Germany that decided it would rather burn coal than use nuclear.
We will see when Germany actually stops during fossil fuels. Unfortunately, there certainly do seem to be some advocates of solar/wind who would prefer to go decades (or maybe much longer) burning coal and killing people and destroying the environment when their country had the option to use a clean energy source.
- Restart the nuclear power plants that are feasible to restart. The last 3 plants were only shut down in 2023 - it isn't like all the plants were shut down in 2011. It may very well be that Germany doesn’t feel it has the expertise to run nuclear power plants in the long term, so once the power isn’t needed or can be replaced by clean energy (either produced in Germany or imported), feel free to shut down the nuclear plants.
- Work with Denmark and France to import more of their power that is not coal based.
- Reward conservation more.
- Move the big industrial users of electricity out of Germany.
Some of these alternatives are likely not palatable, but like I said, Germany dug itself into a hole. Any of these alternatives sounds better than essentially deciding instead to murder people by burning coal when you have other options.
It would be one thing if Germany's bad mistakes in this area only affected Germany. Unfortunately people downwind of Germany die because it is still burning coal. Unfortunately climate change will affect everyone.
>...We also need to decarbonize aviation, shipping, agriculture, industry, construction etc. The grid is not the end,
Many of the changes needed to decarbonize those industries will rely on using electricity, so the grid is critical.
>...The fastest, cheapest and most efficient way of quickly displacing fossil based energy production today is building renewables and storage.
We will see if Germany is still burning coal and natural gas when countries like Finland are not.
Unfortunately, there is a country that shut down nuclear power plants while they still have operating coal plants. Over time, coal use is declining in Germany, but that isn't the story so far in 2025:
>…The share of electricity produced with fossil fuels in Germany increased by ten percent between January and the end of June 2025, compared to the same period one year before, while power production from renewables declined by almost six percent, the country’s statistical office
>… Coal-fired power production increased 9.3 percent, while electricity production from fossil gas increased by 11.6 percent.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-prod...
Shutting nuclear power plants down when you are still burning coal is almost unbelievable... I don’t think future generations will look kindly on countries who shut down a clean form of power while they still are running the most dangerous and dirty form of power generation ever created.
Germany uses a little over 500 TWh of electricity per year.
Germany has a little more than 20 GWh of grid storage.
Maybe you didn't intend too, but your words certainly implied it:
>>...it didnt prove conclusively that you could decarbonize your electric grid without any help at all from nuclear power.
Since you reference Germany later, the implication above was that Germany did prove you could decarbonize your electric grid without any help at all from nuclear power. Which might be true someday in the future, but Germany certainly hasn't decarbonized their grid yet. The one thing that Germany did "prove conclusively" is that thousands of lives were needlessly lost over the last 15 years because of bad policy.
>Germany is merely transitioning the fastest
Germany will certainly not be carbon neutral the fastest. I guess it will beat Poland though.
>Not the country next door to it that didnt even try.
You have a point - it is the responsibility of every country to decarbonize. I guess a big issue here is simply money - Poland GDP is much smaller than Germany and they have less available options. Though besides your claim, I've never heard anyone actually lauding Poland's efforts or thinking it was a good thing they are using coal.
>...They are seemingly obsessed with what was once ~8-12% of Germany's power output, but the actual environment? Not that important.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Like I said, I find that those who actually want to decarbonize the grid, don't particularly care what clean technology is used and different countries will have a different mix of technologies they use. Unfortunately, there certainly do seem to be some advocates of solar/wind who would prefer to go decades (or maybe much longer) burning coal and killing people and destroying the environment when their country had the option to use a clean energy source.
>…The share of electricity produced with fossil fuels in Germany increased by ten percent between January and the end of June 2025, compared to the same period one year before, while power production from renewables declined by almost six percent, the country’s statistical office
>… Coal-fired power production increased 9.3 percent, while electricity production from fossil gas increased by 11.6 percent.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/fossil-electricity-prod...
The direct deaths caused by burning coal are significant. I didn’t see any current estimates for those being killed downwind from Germany's reckless burning of coal, but overall the EU has a high death rate:
>…Europe, coal kills around 23,300 people per year and the estimated economic costs of the health consequences from coal burning is about US $70 billion per year, with 250,600 life years lost.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147972...
Never mind that all those coal plants are also contributing to climate change and are poisoning the oceans enough that many species of fish are not safe to eat. The waste problem from coal will also be a problem for future generations to deal with - not all the ash from burning coal is being deposited in people's lungs.
In 2023, I saw a stat that in 2023 about 17.0% of Germany electrical production was from burning coal. As a comparison, I believe that before the phase out of nuclear power, it generated about 25% of the electricity.
If Germany wanted to shut down nuclear power plants after they had decarbonized their grid, that would be their choice - shutting them down when you are still burning coal is almost unbelievable. I don’t think future generations will look kindly on countries who shut down a clean form of power while they still are running the most dangerous and dirty form of power generation ever created.
The federal capital gains rates are higher than the effective tax rates paid by a family making a median income, but I suspect you are asking why the capital gains rates are not higher than the highest marginal rates.
One issue is simply that capital gains tax rates generally don't account for inflation. If you build a business over a few decades and sell it, much of the increase in value will be simply due to inflation. Do you want to encourage long term investment, or make it so only financially illiterate people do long term investments?
>...In 2021, Krugman tweeted: "I like it and plan to steal it. This report does look like what you'd expect if recent inflation was about transitory disruptions, not stagflation redux".
As Smith pointed out:
>...But in late 2021, inflation spread to become very broad-based. Services inflation was always significant, and took over from goods inflation as the main contributor in 2022.
>The notion that this was just some transient supply-chain disruptions that was only affecting specific products was absolutely central to Team Transitory’s claims in the summer of 2021. And that was incorrect.
>...Team Transitory also called the end of the inflation at least a year and a half too soon. On October 13, 2021 Krugman tweeted "Three month core inflation. Why isn't everyone calling this a victory for team transitory"
>...So they didn’t entirely whiff here. They just greatly overstated their case. And their complacency in 2021 probably fed into the Fed’s decision to delay the start of rate hikes until 2022, which in retrospect looks like a serious mistake.
What did get vindicated was mainstream economics as taught in our textbooks.
As Smith wrote:
>...Mainstream macro’s first victory was in predicting that the inflation would happen in the first place. In February 2021, Olivier Blanchard used a very simple “output gap” model to predict that Biden’s Covid relief bill would raise demand by enough to show up in the inflation numbers. His prediction came true. He didn’t get everything right — he thought wages would rise more than consumer prices, and he neglected the lagged effects of Trump’s Covid relief packages and Fed lending programs. But his standard simple mainstream model got the basic prediction right when most people made the opposite prediction, and this deserves recognition.
>More importantly, mainstream macro appears to have gotten policy right.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/grading-the-economic-schools-o...
Nobody is saying anything different.
>...And several previous Japanese conclusions of "the USSR will not be able to do X" had proven catastrophically wrong. For example …
The Japanese had already moved all of their experienced troops from Manchuria before the invasion. They were surprised that the USSR would break the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, but the defense of the home islands was their main concern at that point.
As your source says:
>...The Soviet entry into this theater of the war and the defeat of the Kwantung Army were significant factors in the Japanese government's decision to surrender unconditionally on 15 August, as it became apparent that the Soviet Union had no intention of acting as a third party in negotiating an end of the war on conditional terms.
The Japanese knew the USSR was not a threat to the main islands and the USSR knew they would likely fail if they tried to invade Hokkaido. The Japanese had hopes that the USSR would be willing to negotiate with the Allies on their behalf, but once the Soviets declared war was, they knew that would not happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Ho...
In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Even that wasn't considered enough:
>...Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops."
The second step in this joke is something like "Reorganize.", not "Blame yourself".
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
https://www.lazard.com/media/uounhon4/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
>...This does not include government subsidies. Where they're still available the price decreases further.
The rooftop solar price is usually hidden because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid which causes higher electricity bills for those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme. One might argue that we should be subsidizing solar energy, but then the subsidies should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further than a dollar spent subsidizing wealthy homeowners who install panels on their roof.
>...A vast number of US homeowners have installed such a system and are very happy they did so.
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 a lot further if spent on other solar projects) - don't you think 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.