Surur t1_iw2mx9l wrote
This is going to become a big issue, as the more well-off will be reducing their payments to the electrical grid system, meaning the poorer people will have to bear a greater and greater share of the fixed cost of the system.
As grid price rises to compensate more and more well-off people will be incentivised to get their own solar and batteries.
People who live in low-density suburban housing in particular will benefit a lot more from solar energy than people who live in high density urban areas.
Then with the rise in EVs (again favouring the well-off who buy new cars) those with solar will basically drive for free also.
Interestingly in Australia (where 1/3 of homes have solar), most solar is installed in below average income areas.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/rooftop-solar-uptake-still-highest-in-low-income-australia-63263/
Probably because the initial investment is much lower and the return more obvious. Apparently the payback time for solar is only 4 years in Austalia, while its often decade in USA.
ContextSensitiveGeek t1_iw32qey wrote
The Vimes theory of wealth accumulation is accurate once again.
ItilityMSP t1_iw360t5 wrote
Nice boots you have there Context. I prefer the ones with cardboard soles as you can feel the street.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3ooke wrote
This isn’t a sound or rational analysis. Rooftop solar isn’t a zero sun situation. Houses with solar will put power back onto the grid during peak hours and at times prices will go negative for a whole area, everyone can benefit from that. Batteries reduce demand in the evening and during peak consumption hours which isn’t bad for poor people either. Effectively rooftop solar is going to lead to the development of a lot of micro-grids that can improve reliability as the larger grid ages.
Moreover, as wind and solar displace coal poor people who are more likely to live downwind of power plant will disproportionately benefit from not breathing in power plant emissions.
Surur t1_iw3qqhw wrote
You have not addressed any of my points, and in particular the fixed cost of maintaining the grid, and how energy companies will maintain profitability when their most profitable customers are defecting without raising prices for others.
Gdadddy t1_iw3rsau wrote
Energy compagny buy the excedent of private owned solar panels at very low price, and sell it back at the regular price, taking the same margins as on other sources and having no problem to fonction.
In this situation you might look for problems whithout looking for the solutions that exist already and implement naturally
SNRatio t1_iw5f13a wrote
>Energy compagny buy the excedent of private owned solar panels at very
low price, and sell it back at the regular price, taking the same
margins as on other sources and having no problem to fonction.
This increases the cost of the last mile infrastructure, as it turns out a lot of older infrastructure doesn't have the capacity to handle whole neighborhoods putting electricity back onto the grid.
It also forces utilities to use more expensive peaker plants to generate electricity at the times when solar isn't providing as much.
​
> taking the same margins as on other sources
If they take the same margins as from other sources, then there are no additional funds available to make up for the shortfall. They need to have a much higher margins (compared to other sources) to do that.
cruisereg t1_iw5ki77 wrote
No funds for the shortfall? What about the massive profits? My utility’s parent company (Duke Energy) made over $18 Billion in profit in 2021. So yeah I’m not buying the whole shortfall thing.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3s92k wrote
> in particular the fixed cost of maintaining the grid
Maintenance isn't necessarily a fixed cost it can be variable depending on the generation source, transmission distance, and a bunch of other factors.
A lot of utility companies are charging fees to people with rooftop solar for exactly this purpose. Also, if you have a localized micro-grid the cost structures will be pretty different. Additionally things like residential batteries can smooth demand and decrease the need to spin up costly nat gas and coal plants during peak demand.
> when their most profitable customers
Residential power is only 22% of US electricity consumption, it isn't the most profitable part.
Surur t1_iw3x855 wrote
> Residential power is only 22% of US electricity consumption, it isn't the most profitable part.
Source?
-Ch4s3- t1_iw3xuru wrote
Here let me google this basic fact for you https://rpsc.energy.gov/energy-data-facts.
Surur t1_iw3ykfq wrote
You said:
> Residential power is only 22% of US electricity consumption, it isn't the most profitable part.
If you are being snarky, it helps to be right:
> The residential sector accounts for about 21% of total U.S. energy consumption.
Energy is not the same as electricity.
Also the EPA disagrees with you lol.
Lastly, your "source" says nothing about profitability.
0/3 lol
-Ch4s3- t1_iw40aog wrote
Even at 37% of electricity consumption there's no reason to believe that it's "the most profitable". Price per kwh is going to vary a lot regionally and manufacturing and commercial energy might be paying spot prices at odd times.
I guess I just don't get why people like you come in pissing and moaning about the cost of rooftop solar declining. Its obviously a good thing for less energy to be coming from fossil fuels and yet some ass-hat like you always needs to whine about it not being perfect. Seriously half of this sub is just fucking doomers sliding in to piss on everything.
BrokeVic t1_iw4rgvo wrote
Well I hope you don't feel that way about my posts. Because that is not my intentions at all. I agree it will help a lot of people. My only question is how sustainable will it be in the future considering the facts that state the emissions are worse off than just sticking with regular electricity. Unless the solar panels or wind turbines are running off of hydrogen. And refining hydrogen is becoming cheaper also. So that I believe will be the way to go in the long-term future.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw4uh35 wrote
I think I was just being a grouchy asshole
Surur t1_iw420dw wrote
> Even at 37% of electricity consumption there's no reason to believe that it's "the most profitable"
Given that business rates for electricity is usually lower than residential rates, there is no reason it would not be, but whatever. There was no reason for you to make an unsubstantiated claim however.
Anyway, I am all in favour of solar energy. I only expect there will be some disruption due to the transition.
It's not a concept I made up - check out The Utility Death Spiral for more.
-Ch4s3- t1_iw43qum wrote
I apologize I was being a jerk.
I'm familiar with the Utility Death Spiral, I'm skeptical that its possible at this point in the technology adoption curve of wind/solar to firmly say much about what the grid will or won't look like in the future.
YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iw66uuh wrote
If almost everybody produces their own energy and due to that there’s no private business incentive there anymore, I don’t see why the industry wouldn’t just be nationalised?
Just like water services are.
snakeskinsandles t1_iw4kts4 wrote
>zero sun
Is that a typo or a pun?
Or a ty-pun?
-Ch4s3- t1_iw4m7k5 wrote
Typo from my phone
BrokeVic t1_iw3gm3d wrote
I cannot provide a link to the documentary. But if any of you watch the documentary called "planet of the humans" a film by Jeff Gibbs which is a investigator and or finder of truth. Then you will see proof to my word and truth to my word. I don't just make stuff up. I look for facts only just like you do. And if you watch the film you will be surprised by the facts. I wish I can send you some type of link for the film but I can sorry. I hope you watch it. I would love to get feedback from anyone who watches it or has seen it.
[deleted] t1_iw5vpia wrote
[removed]
oiseauvert989 t1_iwggkma wrote
It is well known.
It is a mish mash of illogical fallacies. It simply point out things everyone knows (renewable energy isn't perfect) and implies they undermine the case for making our energy renewable (which of course makes no sense).
I wouldn't really call it a good place to look for facts. It is one of those movies where if you think about it, the whole thing falls apart. As someone working for a humanitarian organisation which has to respond to climate emergencies and wars over oil, I would say that it is about time Michael Moore retired. He really doesn't have an accurate view of the present, never mind the future.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments