Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (70289)	6/1/2016 4:58:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86350

If it was such a great deal for other consumers, it would be a great deal for utilities (since they pass along the costs, if it hurts them it won't be a great deal for other consumers). If it was such a great deal for utilities it wouldn't have to be forced on them or at least they wouldn't fight it so much. A free market produces better information than any economic study can. Undertake and implement a rigorous, transparent, and precise “value of solar”analytic and rate-setting approach that would compensate rooftop solar customers based on the benefit that they provide to the grid. Seen as an alternative to ‘traditional’ net-metering rate design, a “value of solar” approach would credit solar owners for (1) avoiding the purchase of energy from other, polluting sources The value to the utilities and to other customers from avoiding purchasing other energy is the price of that energy, minus the cost they have to pay for the solar energy. (If the solar energy costs more, then the value is negative.) There is an additional benefit of avoiding pollution (or of having pollution be created elsewhere where the solar equipment is manufactured, but I'll accept its a real reduction not just a transfer) but that's not a benefit to customers as customers. Also the pollution benefit may not be very large. It would be large if solar could reliably produce whatever is needed and if its replacing coal. But if its replacing hydro-power (with excess water just been allowed over the spillway), there isn't any benefit (actually a net pollution cost since there is some pollution to manufacture and install the capacity). That's probably a minor issue, but its not the only one. Since utilities can't rely on the solar, they may have to keep other production online. If they are burning coal to do this then you get all the pollution, and all the cost of the coal, plus you also get the cost of the solar capacity. Gas capacity is more expensive per amount used then coal, but beyond having some base capacity, gas makes more sense because it can be turned on and off rapidly. But you have to pay for the extra capacity. The cost, both environmental and in dollars, is minimized, and the benefit is maximized, in places like the desert southwest were demand goes up during the day time (which is usually also sunny) and where the conditions are best for solar in the first place. Outside of such areas, you can get extra demand for heating or for other things that don't peak in the sunniest parts of the day, and its less often sunny. In such places not only do you get less electricity from your investment in solar, its also less reliable even during the day time. Solar might not reduce the capacity need at all, and won't reduce the amount of fuel burning as much with some of that extra capacity kept online if solar produces and unpredictable or unreliable surplus.