I got a no money down lease from Solar City. My power company though, charges me a set of fees each month (metering, meter reading, access fee, taxes, etc.) that cost $18-$20. I did get a big enough check at the end of the year to cover five months of the fees, but still, in some areas, homeowners get a better deal than in other places.
And, power companies are fighting back, looking to eliminate or severely reduce net metering and add even more fees.
ComEd in Illinois took care of this issue with on site power generation and having to credit the homeowner for sending power back the grid.
They got the state legislature to remove that from the law.
This is the same legislature that let them transfer the nuclear power plants to a subsidiary so rate payers could compete in the free market with the rest of the country to buy the power form the plants they paid the highest rates in the USA to build.
â The subsidies mean that someone else (perhaps less well of and unable to afford solar cells) is helping pay for your âgood feelingsââ
1 - Other power sources are also subsidized.
2 - If less-well-off people are being more heavily taxed than very-well-off people, thatâs a problem with the system of tax collection and bracketing (and a problem that would persist across all government-funded initiatives, not just solar subsidies), not a problem with the spending of those funds, If itâs a problem that the money of lower-SES people is paying for this guyâs solar panels, then suggest that the tax system make wealthier people foot the bill, not that this guy stop installing solar panels.
It does seem like we are reaching an inflection point with solar energy, finally:
And relative to other forms of energy:
Sorry, but there is no inflection point in your data. Perhaps you are thinking of a different term (and before I get flamed, I would note that the lower graph appears to show concave-down but that it oscillates to such a degree that it is impossible to determinel and more specifically, I would note that 2/3rds of the graph are essentially linear while the rest are essentially concave up (d^2x/dt^2 >1) ).
Well Wikipedia says
a point on a curve at which the curvature or concavity changes sign from plus to minus or from minus to plus
I would argue that the 2nd graph, showing the cost of solar electricity becoming cheaper than grid electricity, is indeed a place where the sign changed from plus (solar is more expensive than the grid) to minus (solar is less expensive than the grid).
Anyway, interpret it as poetic license if you like, additional pedantry probably wonât make the topic more interesting for anyone.
(And yeah, the up front costs of solar are improving but still huge, even if generating the electricity is more efficient than ever.)
Yes, Iâm being a little pedanticâIâm a math geek and it happens. I modified my post after you posted. In any case, a concave down plot of price over time wouldnât really make sense. And since the price is approaching a floor, it has no choice but to go concave up (without an extraordinarily massive subsidy). The latter 2/3rds of the graph are as much concave up as concave down. I think it is more of an optical illusion that it appears concave down relative the the first third. It is actually pretty linear (except perhaps for the last sixth which is clearly concave up).
Although I agree with what youâre saying, the subsidies are intended to spur growth in a young industry. It also means that a utilities infrastructure doesnât have to be expanded by 1 extra house when your house practically can go off the grid thanks to solar. This zero sum and possibly -1 sum system does help everyoneâs utility bill. Now I donât have to pay for expansion. Could there be better ways to spend that subsidy money? Probably.
Great analysis. I also think people first need to get into their homesâ structure a bit. Re-insulate, fix leaky windows and doors, improve ventilation in the places it needs to be. Then, install as many LED bulbs as possible, get rid of electronics that draw power when âoffâ or put them on a kill switch.
The point is to get the house down to the minimum draw. Then size and install a solar system, which might be a lot smaller. That 12k could become 8k, or less. And weight less on the roof, too.
Not totally ripping on solar, because I definitely believe itsâ the future, but what is seldom mentioned is that if you live in any part of the nation that gets heavy rain, snow, or hail⌠especially hail⌠you can end up damaging the solar panels to the point that they need repair. Weâve seen plenty of whole installations ruined by hail and heavy rain before. Weâve seen snow weigh down the roof to the point that it cracked the panels and allowed water in, shorting them out. (Nearly a total loss). In one case, hail broke a panel, shorted it, and shot the inverter too. They had insurance, but itâs still around $3000 out of pocket for the deductible, and around $1000 a year premium.
Green energy is a common good, and we pay taxes towards the common good. I have no problem having some of my taxes go towards reducing the amount of dirty energy used.
?
Tax subsidies come from our taxes. Thereâs no reason for your electric company to charge you more just because the government if paying for part of my electricity bill.
Green energy is indeed a common good. Thatâs why we owe it to ourselves to do it in the most effective way possible. This probably isnât through the mass deployment of small-scale PV cells, which is perhaps THE most expensive and inefficient way to generate renewable energy.
With respect to who pays for the subsidies, I was thinking of the Australian model where the subsidies are indeed funded from the overall electrical supply costs through carbon taxes paid by the electricity companies. In any case, even if funded from non-carbon indexed general revenue, the vast majority of people without solar cells are indeed subsidising those who have them.
Insurance doesnât mean that damage isnât a loss to the economic system.
I donât follow what you are saying because of the double negative.
What I am saying is, if you are generating your own power, you have to pay for that apparatus if things fail. And if you are still connected to grid power, you have to sell all your power back to the electric company, and then buy back your power use at discounted rates. This results in a net gain for you, for awhile, but the utility can if needed jump their rates back up or remove the discount after the government subsidy to THEM goes away.
Youâre right, I wanât clear. Thanks.
The damage is an economic loss, regardless of insurance.
Always knew this, never knew why?
Also, worth noting, the whole âJimmy Carter put solar panels up , Reagan had them removed because heâs an assholeâ isnât exactly true.
Carter put them on the roof in 1979. They were for heating water only. They were seldom used, even by Carter, as the hot water it served was for the white house proper, not the living area for the president.
In 1986, 7 years later, the roof was being repaired and Ronald Reagan had them removed to do that. The cost to put them back up was prohibitive as some parts of the equipment had broken on disassembly from the roof. He chose not to put them back up.
This wasnât some thing he did 48 hours after winning the presidency. This was something he did 7 years later.
Itâs like Al Gore (who I love, actually), installing the panels on his house and then taking a private jet all over the nation. It was a lot for show, and not really used.
get rid of electronics that draw power when âoffâ or put them on a
kill switch.
This âphantom powerâ (not to be confused with the microphone thing) is in most cases utterly trivial, and you wind up wasting more energy flipping the power switch (not to mention manually resetting device clocks) than you would ever save by ensuring that some little LED isnât wasting 400 milliwatt-hours overnight.
I have an old stereo that draws a few watts when âoffâ but itâs on a power strip. That kind of stuff adds up.
Iâve heard that this standby power draw can be considerable in items like plasma TVs. Anyone ever measure this?
