Net Metering under attack, again....

[Deleted member 165]

At the tax parcel level. improved and unimproved.

This hurts the middle class the most.

I'm sure this type of assessment is different by location, but here they can only stand at the street and look into your property. They will ask to come in, but you don't have to let them. Nobody does. They can't see my stuff from the street, but they ARE in range.

 

[Deleted member 165]

I can see at point where the death spiral of the electricity industry in various countries will get to the point where enough people do go off-grid causing the cost to maintain the network to fall on the people that can't, and everyone getting hit with a monthly charge even if the premises is not actually connected to the network in order to cover those costs and make access reasonably priced for those that have no means to go off-grid. That or the funding is done via government subsidy out of general revenue (aka taxes, levies etc).

Many places already do this for other essential services such as water but for my own location, Queensland Australia, this is already done. The Queensland government shovels a few hundred million AUD into the regional / remote electricity operation (Ergon, now merged with the metro operation Energex, both government operations) to keep rates comparable with those in the state's metro area, the south east corner including Brisbane.

There is a phrase for that type of behavior. It's called "taxation witout representation". We don't care for that over here.

 

[gnubie]

I'm sure the people that would otherwise end up either paying very large amounts for electricity or simply not be able to afford it might see things a little differently, even in the USA.

 

[Deleted member 165]

I'm sure the people that would otherwise end up either paying very large amounts for electricity or simply not be able to afford it might see things a little differently, even in the USA.

Most Americans I know would just go off grid. I know a lot of those people already. I hope I don't have to throw my solar panels in the harbor.

 

[svetz]

...The Queensland government shovels a few hundred million AUD into the regional / remote electricity operation...

According to this article, Australia spends $29 Billion (2.3% of it's GDP) on energy subsidies.

The population of Australia is ~25 million and according to this 3.24 million (13.6%) live below the poverty line. And according to this the average family size is 2.53. Finally let's say it would cost $20,000 to install a PV system on a house.

So, that 3.2 million people live in 1.26 million homes and it would cost $25 billion to have PV installed on all of them. How about that?
With less money spent on subsidies 3.2 million people could have free power for 20 years and their neighbors could take advantage of their excess power generation. Keep spending at the same rate and in less than 7 years every house in Austrailia would have PV.

I doubt the numbers are right, but it illustrates that if the subsidies had been spent to install solar it would have created just as many (if not more) jobs and in less than a decade everyone in the country would have free power and the country as a whole would have excess power.

But wait, don't you still need the slave-citizens to keep funding those public utilities so businesses can thrive? Nope... when everyone has solar there's going to be excess power across that country that those businesses could buy from the public (homeowners) and pay the reformed utilities which essentially become transmission lines and billing companies. Those that use less energy are rewarded with cash, those that use more either need to supplement the $20k installation or pay a far less electric bill.

I know it sounds like Utopian science fiction, but solar is already cheaper than fossil fuels and as battery prices drop it should become the model of the future if we can break the yoke of subsidies that don't return on their investment as well as others.

 

[Deleted member 165]

According to this article, Australia spends $29 Billion (2.3% of it's GDP) on energy subsidies.

The population of Australia is ~25 million and according to this 3.24 million (13.6%) live below the poverty line. And according to this the average family size is 2.53. Finally let's say it would cost $20,000 to install a PV system on a house.

So, that 3.2 million people live in 1.26 million homes and it would cost $25 billion to have PV installed on all of them. How about that?
With less money spent on subsidies 3.2 million people could have free power for 20 years and their neighbors could take advantage of their excess power generation. Keep spending at the same rate and in less than 7 years every house in Austrailia would have PV.

I doubt the numbers are right, but it illustrates that if the subsidies had been spent to install solar it would have created just as many (if not more) jobs and in less than a decade everyone in the country would have free power and the country as a whole would have excess power.

But wait, don't you still need the slave-citizens to keep funding those public utilities so businesses can thrive? Nope... when everyone has solar there's going to be excess power across that country that those businesses could buy from the public (homeowners) and pay the reformed utilities which essentially become transmission lines and billing companies. Those that use less energy are rewarded with cash, those that use more either need to supplement the $20k installation or pay a far less electric bill.

If the USA had spent the last stimulus more wisely, they could have made every single american home power independent.

 

[gnubie]

According to this article, Australia spends $29 Billion (2.3% of it's GDP) on energy subsidies.

Does that include the cost of providing everyone with an EV, including heavy transport, and setting up the charging network for it too because there's more than just electricity in these figures that are always being waved around. It's not just that either. Despite all the imagery, Australians are a fairly urbanised bunch. The bulk of the population lives in the capitals and immediate surrounds, including high-rise / appartments / blocks of flats. People in those situations will never really have the option of on-premises solar and the number of people living in high density housing is only going to increase so any system going forward still has to be able to support them too. The grid in one form or another is going to be around for a long time yet, unless of course someone comes up with a Mr Fusion.

Supplying a block of flats etc by itself is actually quite a hard thing to do. The HV network has to be kept operating to get electricity to the block. A solar farm has to be available somewhere near by, or the EHV transmission network has to remain functional too to bring that electricity in from a more distant solar farm.

 

[Supervstech]

Legislation NEEDS to be in place forcing coal and gas plants to shut down before ANY solar incentives are cut.

 

[svetz]

If the USA had spent the last stimulus more wisely, they could have made every single american home power independent.

...and created thousands of jobs, a booming solar industry, and expertise that we could export. What would happen to the world if people weren't reduced to fighting over oil scraps?

Does that include the cost of providing everyone with an EV, including heavy transport, and setting up the charging network for it too because there's more than just electricity in these figures that are always being waved around.

That's why I caveated my post with I doubt the numbers are right... but even if off by a fairly large margin it still seems painfully clear that once battery prices come down the world will change.

I don't know that there would be a need for EVs... wouldn't fossil fuel prices drop following the law of supply and demand? I know Australia is the world's biggest exporter of coal, something like 80 billion in the economy? So when everyone does abandon fossil fuels, it would put a crimp into the economies of fossil fuel exporting countries.

 

[gnubie]

Aaahhhh, but that figure you just splashed on kitting out houses with solar panels includes fuel subsidies etc so ... while all that money is being poured into solar, what happens to the price of fuel? Oh I know, just whip out a few more billion from nowhere to cover that cost while houses get fitted with solar, and this still does not address high density premises.

 

[svetz]

Aaahhhh, but that figure you just splashed on kitting out houses with solar panels includes fuel subsidies etc so ... while all that money is being poured into solar, what happens to the price of fuel? Oh I know, just whip out a few more billion from nowhere to cover that cost while houses get fitted with solar, and this still does not address high density premises.

I didn't say it was easy to do, just that the amount of money spent on subsidies alone would take care of the energy needs of those below the poverty line in a single year. All ears for better alternatives.

 

[gnubie]

Really? Is that what you said? Hmmm. Seems to be slightly different in your initial response to mine, and let's not forget that the 'plan' does nothing to address high density housing etc where one can often find low income people...

Over the years I've learned at least one thing, and this is that when anyone says "just do this" in response to a complex situation its usually because they truly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Deleted member 165]

Really? Is that what you said? Hmmm. Seems to be slightly different in your initial response to mine, and let's not forget that the 'plan' does nothing to address high density housing etc where one can often find low income people...

Over the years I've learned at least one thing, and this is that when anyone says "just do this" in response to a complex situation its usually because they truly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

You mean like....stay home? Flatten the curve? ?

 

[svetz]

Really? Is that what you said? Hmmm. Seems to be slightly different in your initial response to mine, and let's not forget that the 'plan' does nothing to address high density housing etc where one can often find low income people...

Over the years I've learned at least one thing, and this is that when anyone says "just do this" in response to a complex situation its usually because they truly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Just reread the post, it doesn't say "just do this" in it anywhere nor is there any semblance of an actual plan (which you're right, I don't know near enough to build one). So, I know what I wrote; but not what you read. But, I can tell you're annoyed by it since you're resorting to not-to-subtle innuendo as a personal attack. Definitely not important enough to me to spend more time on or try to engage in such a conversation. But best of luck to you!

 

[Deleted member 165]

Dang, I thought there was a mod fight for a second there. Guess not.

 

[tictag]

Another solution to ease the hemorrhaging of treasury funds would be for the US to ban all imported Solar and force local manufacturing - at least tax paying dollars would stay within the US rather than all going to China. Somewhat of a anti-globalisation stance but, hey, you currently have a President elected on that agenda.

 

[Ampster]

Unfortunately the US did not invest in research in the early 2000's and we lost our technology lead. Instead of research, we invested in companies like Solyndra and others. We do not have the manufacturing know how or capacity. Tesla Glaas roof is the exception, but currently a niche and unproven to date.

 

[tictag]

According to this article, Australia spends $29 Billion (2.3% of it's GDP) on energy subsidies....

You're forgetting one thing ... you are assuming a static energy need. Global electricity demand is currently on an exponential growth curve, meaning that local PV generation would simply reduce the rate of growth - energy companies would still need to support a growing energy demand, even if every home in the country had PV on their roof e.g. EV manufacturing increase, robotic automation of everything, increased A/C demand as the climate warms etc.

 

[svetz]

You're forgetting one thing ...

That's too kind... more like a million. Solar by itself is great, but those numbers don't include battery costs and that's probably the biggest flaw there. For a stable and reliable grid when you're essentially doing away with 90% of conventional fossil fuels in just a decade you need to install batteries.

Where might that money come from to do all this? The Creative accounting most politicians favor? Somebody who knew what they were doing could probably plan that solar would replace plants due to be decommissioned/renovated, to the extent that solar would replace that service area. Not as crazy as you might think, this article says it costs $3.50/W (US) to build a new coal powerplant and according to this it's $27/W to renovate an old coal power plant to modern standards. Solar by itself is easily favorable, the kicker is energy storage. Well, that and who's going to invest that kind of money with no return on investment? But why should government mandate that citizen's have to perpetually keep those behemoths alive when government can provide (when energy storage is economical) an alternative that economically frees citizens? Take the $27/W renovation...Government should scrap that and do it now... the kilovault is $1/W, installed solar is <$3W, why pay for something 6.75x as expensive that will need a lot of yearly maintenance and a lot of coal to run? Government could do it cheaper, charge the same amount for power, and once the system was paid back they could reduce rates and invest in the next plant.

Also keep in mind that post is just bandying numbers, it's only meant as thought experiment and numbers should be thought of as order-of-magnitude. Even within that order of magnitude, it does seem possibly that every Australian home could have solar in under a decade for a few percent of GDP.

...you are assuming a static energy need...

I'd argue that although the $20k/home is static, that same $20k will buy more kW over time, especially since its assuming installation on 10 million homes (just looked that up, only 9M as of 2016) which is sure to bring prices down. Assuming all those are grid connected, the reducing costs would probably more than offset the demand growth over the same time period.

Not sure that the $20k per home is enough, but here's the reasoning I went through. In the U.S. solar installed can cost upwards of $3/W ($4.50/W AUD), so that's only 4.3 kW. I know there are articles saying it'll be at $1/W long before any of this could start...I'll believe that when I see it. With a big commitment behind it, $2.25 ($3.38 AUD) sounds likes a reasonable starting point... so that's about a 6 kW starting array. From this article the average house consumes 13.7 kWh/d, so assuming an insolation of 4.5, it should be about twice the average. Still, you might decide you only want to allow "free" power at the average to avoid wasteful behavior like this; that is they get charged if they go over a set amount. The excess can flow out to the grid and be used to continually reduce everyone's power bill. As the amount of solar goes up, that average can be increased, at least until everyone has solar.

 

[LanduytG]

Legislation NEEDS to be in place forcing coal and gas plants to shut down before ANY solar incentives are cut.

Do you realize how many jobs are lost if you do away with fossil fuels. A very big part of the US economy is from the energy sector. I'm all for solar but I'm not willing to let hundreds of thousands of jobs be lost over it. I believe a happy medium can be found if people would just work together for a change.

Greg