Trump Administration Subsidizing Solar?

[longview]

Just the decentralization of residential power production itself is invaluable.
It (A) makes residential power production more robust, (B) takes stress off the grid, (C) provides a certain amount of recoverability in disaster situations, and (D) ultimately creates competition for price in the cost of power generation.
Oh, did I mention that it also frees up more grid power which can then be available to business?

But (A/B) is possibly the most important of all, I daresay. Decentralization is sometimes a very good thing.

The only think that keeps solar from being a winner across the board, are the prices above the wholesale price
that some utilities are required to pay for surplus power for alternate sources.
It was a good incentive for early adopters, but is toxic to future solar growth,
because it increases the cost of goods sold price for the non solar customers.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The only think that keeps solar from being a winner across the board, are the prices above the wholesale price
that some utilities are required to pay for surplus power for alternate sources.
It was a good incentive for early adopters, but is toxic to future solar growth,
because it increases the cost of goods sold price for the non solar customers.

Well hopefully that will shake out in the end but now the final frontier is storage costs.
If we're talking about batteries, or any other kind of storage, we're then talking about truly robust residential power.
Grid tied is by far the most common form of res-solar energy but that is to residential power what Prius is to EV cars, most Priuses cannot drive in pure EV for more than a handful of miles at best.

Tesla's "Power Wall" system starts at around $3500.00 but I predict that in another five years home battery storage solutions will be about what a good hot water heater costs today. And that's about the time when home "power wall" style backup systems will begin to become commonplace.

 

[longview]

Well hopefully that will shake out in the end but now the final frontier is storage costs.
If we're talking about batteries, or any other kind of storage, we're then talking about truly robust residential power.
Grid tied is by far the most common form of res-solar energy but that is to residential power what Prius is to EV cars, most Priuses cannot drive in pure EV for more than a handful of miles at best.

Tesla's "Power Wall" system starts at around $3500.00 but I predict that in another five years home battery storage solutions will be about what a good hot water heater costs today. And that's about the time when home "power wall" style backup systems will begin to become commonplace.

I do think the power wall concept could level off the duty cycle issue with solar, but I think other options will happen first.
I think the path will be a bit different, because of the vast existing demand for traditional fuels.
Modern refineries, mostly have very large grid connections because of co generation.
With power to liquid technology,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cite.201700129
It will be possible for the refineries to store all of the surplus energy from solar, as transport or heating fuels.
The original concept from Germany was to store summer solar surplus as "un" Natural gas, in the gas grid for winter heating,
but we have a need for massive storage, and a massive demand. If the storage can meet the needs of one of the demands
at a reasonable price, and be mostly transparent to the end user, I think it will be the path of least resistance.

 

[Visbek]

Gosh, I hope you're not lumping the Moon shot program in with pork.

Heh... No, I mean it in the sense of "a long-term program that is so fantastical it might never work out." This is in contrast to, say, the government developing supercomputers for a specific short-term need, like predicting hurricanes.

 

[JasperL]

Logic does not seem to be the realm of ether fringe!

No, I guess not, it's just that Trump and the GOP have been beating that Solyndra! drum non-stop for 6 years now, and it's a bit much how seamlessly the GOP and Trump will transition from bashing government subsidies of solar to supporting them.

It's good policy, so I support it. We subsidize and have for decades all forms of energy production, so subsidizing solar makes sense even in, IMO, the "free market" sense of a level playing field for the various energy options.

 

[longview]

No, I guess not, it's just that Trump and the GOP have been beating that Solyndra! drum non-stop for 6 years now, and it's a bit much how seamlessly the GOP and Trump will transition from bashing government subsidies of solar to supporting them.

It's good policy, so I support it. We subsidize and have for decades all forms of energy production, so subsidizing solar makes sense even in, IMO, the "free market" sense of a level playing field for the various energy options.

I am all for subsidizing home solar installation, just not for surplus purchase plans above the wholesale price.
The National interstate system was justified based on strategic mobility for the military,
but yielded benefits far beyond it's cost. I suspect solar is the same thing.
Subsidies can be justified because a distributed grid is better strategically than a centralized one,
but the benefits will go far beyond simple strategy.
Criticizing Solyndra made for good press, and Solyndra had it's share of faults, but R&D always has a lot of loosers
for every winner. Solyndra's idea may yet be viable, but without their baked in high overhead.

 

[FreeWits]

Trump at one time argued just about every side of every issue. He also promised to cut taxes by $10 trillion, grow the military, protect SS and Medicare, build a wall, AND balance the budget in 8 years.

Trump is now opposed to single payer, of course.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908413019050463232

I already mentioned why Trump isn't for single-payer. In my estimation, he still is, but he knows he won't get anything through and wouldn't have gotten elected advocating for single-payer. Trump shot down Bernie's proposal largely because it wasn't going to get passed. Trump is a very practical person. Advocating for a single-payer that has no chance to pass harms the chances of getting single-payer or something close to it. More than anything, Trump wants something that is practical and works. So anything that is going to collapse on itself is also a no-go, as is anything that basically works to not cover people. Actually, if you look at what Trump advocated for, he is pretty much doing what he said he would do.

 

[JasperL]

I already mentioned why Trump isn't for single-payer.

Wait, you said, "HINT: Trump advocated for single-payer health care" Now you say he didn't or changed his mind, like on just about every other issue during the campaign? Say it isn't so!! He said he'd protect pre-existing conditions protections, then backed a GOP plan that would effectively strip them. I guess that is another change of heart. It's almost like he knows and cares nothing about the issue, and is just saying whatever it is he thinks people want to hear, with no effort or follow up to fulfill his many conflicting promises. So, like a carnival barker.

In my estimation, he still is, but he knows he won't get anything through and wouldn't have gotten elected advocating for single-payer. Trump shot down Bernie's proposal largely because it wasn't going to get passed. Trump is a very practical person. Advocating for a single-payer that has no chance to pass harms the chances of getting single-payer or something close to it. More than anything, Trump wants something that is practical and works. So anything that is going to collapse on itself is also a no-go, as is anything that basically works to not cover people. Actually, if you look at what Trump advocated for, he is pretty much doing what he said he would do.

OK, so he did and did not advocate for single payer. Got it. And he's doing pretty much what he said he'd do, except on the big issues where he's not. Like, on healthcare and the budget, where he wanted $10 trillion in tax cuts and protect SS and Medicare and expand the military and to balance the budget, all in 8 years.

 

[Into the Night]

I am all for subsidizing home solar installation, just not for surplus purchase plans above the wholesale price.
The National interstate system was justified based on strategic mobility for the military,
but yielded benefits far beyond it's cost. I suspect solar is the same thing.
Subsidies can be justified because a distributed grid is better strategically than a centralized one,
but the benefits will go far beyond simple strategy.
Criticizing Solyndra made for good press, and Solyndra had it's share of faults, but R&D always has a lot of loosers
for every winner. Solyndra's idea may yet be viable, but without their baked in high overhead.

The interstate system is maintaining and building post roads. The federal is not only allowed to do that, it is EXPECTED to do that.

Nothing gives the federal government the right to implement communism or fascism.

 

[Media_Truth]

The only think that keeps solar from being a winner across the board, are the prices above the wholesale price
that some utilities are required to pay for surplus power for alternate sources.
It was a good incentive for early adopters, but is toxic to future solar growth,
because it increases the cost of goods sold price for the non solar customers.

We've discussed this before, and I still see this as a very weak argument. I have never seen any data from you, showing what percentage of netmetered solar installations produce a surplus. I know a large number of renewable energy owners, and I am the only one that I know that created a surplus (I have solar panels and a wind turbine). And yet, since I've purchased a VOLT, I also no longer create a surplus.

Netmetered Solar PV systems are usually not designed to create a surplus. I looked for this data, and I can't find anything. So please provide.

In addition, I think the last time we discussed this, less than 1/4 of the States in the US even use the wholesale rate for surpluses. That means that most Utilities already reimburse surpluses at the retail rate. In and of itself, this is a very good reason not to oversize the PV systems, as the number of years to payback goes way up!

 

[FreeWits]

Wait, you said, "HINT: Trump advocated for single-payer health care" Now you say he didn't or changed his mind, like on just about every other issue during the campaign? Say it isn't so!! He said he'd protect pre-existing conditions protections, then backed a GOP plan that would effectively strip them. I guess that is another change of heart. It's almost like he knows and cares nothing about the issue, and is just saying whatever it is he thinks people want to hear, with no effort or follow up to fulfill his many conflicting promises. So, like a carnival barker.



OK, so he did and did not advocate for single payer. Got it. And he's doing pretty much what he said he'd do, except on the big issues where he's not. Like, on healthcare and the budget, where he wanted $10 trillion in tax cuts and protect SS and Medicare and expand the military and to balance the budget, all in 8 years.

Yes, Trump advocated for single-payer but he knew he couldn't get elected as a Republican advocating for a single-payer system and calling it that, so he pulled it back a bit and didn't use that term. It's funny how your big catch of Trump is nothing more than ignoring the context. Trump has been more upfront about what he wants than any of the other candidates, but he's also a practical person. It doesn't do any good to advocate for a policy that has no chance to get passed. Trump has talked about this in the past. But since you don't consider the context of the situation at all, you don't understand the situation at all. That says nothing about Trump and everything about you. Your also complaining about one aspect a very complicated form of legislation in a bill that didn't even get passed. Preexisting coverage still exists. Maybe you should pick a policy that actually changed against what he said. You're also ignoring that the natural process of politics will change some stances, especially when Congress is passing the legislation and Trump is the President. He needs to get stuff through, not hold to his own stances to such an extent that nothing gets passed. You know, like how Bernie Sanders can't make any changes in the government because he doesn't compromise at all, so he does absolutely nothing good for the people that voted him in.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, Trump advocated for single-payer but he knew he couldn't get elected as a Republican advocating for a single-payer system and calling it that, so he pulled it back a bit and didn't use that term. It's funny how your big catch of Trump is nothing more than ignoring the context. Trump has been more upfront about what he wants than any of the other candidates, but he's also a practical person. It doesn't do any good to advocate for a policy that has no chance to get passed. Trump has talked about this in the past. But since you don't consider the context of the situation at all, you don't understand the situation at all. That says nothing about Trump and everything about you. Your also complaining about one aspect a very complicated form of legislation in a bill that didn't even get passed. Preexisting coverage still exists. Maybe you should pick a policy that actually changed against what he said. You're also ignoring that the natural process of politics will change some stances, especially when Congress is passing the legislation and Trump is the President. He needs to get stuff through, not hold to his own stances to such an extent that nothing gets passed. You know, like how Bernie Sanders can't make any changes in the government because he doesn't compromise at all, so he does absolutely nothing good for the people that voted him in.

My point was simple enough - Trump changes some positions like the rest of us change our socks, and during the campaign he made a series of just laughably impossible promises, like the tax plan and balancing the budget etc. So that he lobbied for "single payer" at some point is to say nothing. What has come out of his administration with regard to healthcare? Nothing.

 

[Media_Truth]

Yes, Trump advocated for single-payer but he knew he couldn't get elected as a Republican advocating for a single-payer system and calling it that, so he pulled it back a bit and didn't use that term. It's funny how your big catch of Trump is nothing more than ignoring the context. Trump has been more upfront about what he wants than any of the other candidates, but he's also a practical person. It doesn't do any good to advocate for a policy that has no chance to get passed. Trump has talked about this in the past. But since you don't consider the context of the situation at all, you don't understand the situation at all. That says nothing about Trump and everything about you. Your also complaining about one aspect a very complicated form of legislation in a bill that didn't even get passed. Preexisting coverage still exists. Maybe you should pick a policy that actually changed against what he said. You're also ignoring that the natural process of politics will change some stances, especially when Congress is passing the legislation and Trump is the President. He needs to get stuff through, not hold to his own stances to such an extent that nothing gets passed. You know, like how Bernie Sanders can't make any changes in the government because he doesn't compromise at all, so he does absolutely nothing good for the people that voted him in.

This post seems to imply that Trump is making all these efforts to work with Congress. I see very little effort, as is evidenced by the lack of results. Maybe we have a different perspective. I don't see a divisive tweet complaining about his "Wall" not getting funded, an EFFORT TO WORK WITH CONGRESS.

 

[FreeWits]

My point was simple enough - Trump changes some positions like the rest of us change our socks, and during the campaign he made a series of just laughably impossible promises, like the tax plan and balancing the budget etc. So that he lobbied for "single payer" at some point is to say nothing. What has come out of his administration with regard to healthcare? Nothing.

First, Trump stated early in his campaign that he was for single-payer, which is when his campaign would've been the most pure for what he actually wants. He would adapt his ideas to what the Republican base and party bosses want later, as all candidates have to in order to win the election. Secondly, you are picking policies like health care that haven't actually been addressed yet. They can still be addressed positively. Trump's stances on policies like immigration, foreign trade, etc. have stayed the same. TPP, NAFTA, PCA, TTIP...I mean it goes on and on. Trump has not been bouncing around on these policies. You are cherry-picking issues that haven't even been addressed in a very unfair way.

 

[FreeWits]

This post seems to imply that Trump is making all these efforts to work with Congress. I see very little effort, as is evidenced by the lack of results. Maybe we have a different perspective. I don't see a divisive tweet complaining about his "Wall" not getting funded, an EFFORT TO WORK WITH CONGRESS.

Trump has Tweeted in the past about his wall. He found ways to make progress, but he made a big deal about Congress not funding his wall. He made a very real and fair offer to Congress that Democrats rejected, which would've helped Dreamers. Democrats simply couldn't have Dreamers actually having their issues solved, because then they might not vote for Democrats.

 

[longview]

The interstate system is maintaining and building post roads. The federal is not only allowed to do that, it is EXPECTED to do that.

Nothing gives the federal government the right to implement communism or fascism.

So is the Government expecting people to be shipping M1 Abrams tanks through the mail?
because the weight specifications for the interstate system is designed around the military's heavy equipment.
Strategic mobility is a valid justification, but as I was saying regardless of the purpose, the interstate
system has been a large boost to the economy.

 

[longview]

We've discussed this before, and I still see this as a very weak argument. I have never seen any data from you, showing what percentage of netmetered solar installations produce a surplus. I know a large number of renewable energy owners, and I am the only one that I know that created a surplus (I have solar panels and a wind turbine). And yet, since I've purchased a VOLT, I also no longer create a surplus.

Netmetered Solar PV systems are usually not designed to create a surplus. I looked for this data, and I can't find anything. So please provide.

In addition, I think the last time we discussed this, less than 1/4 of the States in the US even use the wholesale rate for surpluses. That means that most Utilities already reimburse surpluses at the retail rate. In and of itself, this is a very good reason not to oversize the PV systems, as the number of years to payback goes way up!

We have been over this, if your system uses net metering to level out daily surplus with nightly lack of generation,
the utility is effectively paying you the retail price for the surplus you push into the grid each day.
Say you system generates 27 kwh on a sunny day, but you only use 20 kwh during the period of generation.
The extra 7 kwh goes into the grid, and is consumed by someone else on the grid.
That evening you start drawing from the grid, and get credit for the 7 kwh you pushed in earlier.
Each Kwh credit has the value of 1 retail unit kwh, because that is all they could sell your surplus for,
and the utility had to pay the same cost of goods sold for the Kwh s you later retrieved on credit.
There are many articles out there about this issue.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...g-is-the-solar-industrys-junk-food#gs.vzpuYO8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b8ce89f1b89_story.html?utm_term=.c865c77fe926
The bottom line is that for solar power to expand at the rate it needs to, we have to solve the net metering problem.
Failure to admit that it is a problem, is not part of the solution.

 

[Media_Truth]

We have been over this, if your system uses net metering to level out daily surplus with nightly lack of generation,
the utility is effectively paying you the retail price for the surplus you push into the grid each day.
Say you system generates 27 kwh on a sunny day, but you only use 20 kwh during the period of generation.
The extra 7 kwh goes into the grid, and is consumed by someone else on the grid.
That evening you start drawing from the grid, and get credit for the 7 kwh you pushed in earlier.
Each Kwh credit has the value of 1 retail unit kwh, because that is all they could sell your surplus for,
and the utility had to pay the same cost of goods sold for the Kwh s you later retrieved on credit.
There are many articles out there about this issue.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...g-is-the-solar-industrys-junk-food#gs.vzpuYO8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...b8ce89f1b89_story.html?utm_term=.c865c77fe926
The bottom line is that for solar power to expand at the rate it needs to, we have to solve the net metering problem.
Failure to admit that it is a problem, is not part of the solution.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that even if the Utility is reimbursing at the wholesale rate, that they are somehow incurring the expense of the retail rate?

 

[longview]

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that even if the Utility is reimbursing at the wholesale rate, that they are somehow incurring the expense of the retail rate?

No one needs to be reimbursed for anything for the net metering credits to affect the cost of goods sold price
of electricity. The credit of net metered Kwh sets the effective purchase price.
Consider that if you receive 7 kwh of credit, that you later claim, you are claiming those Kwh at the retail rate,
in that if you did not have the credit, you would have to purchase the Kwh at the retail rate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When George W. Bush won the 2000 election (well...the term "won" is being used loosely - LOL) we had BROADBAND internet.
It was still a little bit new but we had it, and it was readily available.
It took the Russians almost twelve years to catch up to the point where they had data throughput speeds that could be useful enough to try to mount a propaganda attack.

That's because the Russian government would not and could not subsidize broadband development, rollout and penetration the way ours did.
In 1996, a personal computer cost the equivalent of one hundred thousand dollars US in Russia. In 2000, the Russians barely even knew what the internet was or how to use it. In 2004, dial up was the only service available for 95% of private homes. In 2008, broadband was only available in the Moscow and St. Petersburg metropolitan areas. It took till 2012 for them to catch up.

That's what the so called "free market" does. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the free market but let's not pretend that it always knows best because its record when left strictly to its own is not always that stellar. Venture capitalists do indeed do a lot of research but venture capitalists appreciate when Uncle Sam wants to help a little bit with some of the heavy lifting, don't ever doubt that.

You are clueless in that regard.

It was illegal to sell certain computer technologies with Russia. Some time after the cold war ended, this changed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am all for subsidizing home solar installation, just not for surplus purchase plans above the wholesale price.

I have to part with you there.

The National interstate system was justified based on strategic mobility for the military,
but yielded benefits far beyond it's cost. I suspect solar is the same thing.

I will repeat the only project (subsidy to power companies) that I agree with. That is a nationwide HVDC network. Think of it like our interstate system, but for power.

Subsidies can be justified because a distributed grid is better strategically than a centralized one,
but the benefits will go far beyond simple strategy.
Criticizing Solyndra made for good press, and Solyndra had it's share of faults, but R&D always has a lot of loosers
for every winner. Solyndra's idea may yet be viable, but without their baked in high overhead.

And I will repeat that venture capitalists are far better suited to take on the risk, or say sorry... Not a likely good outcome.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The interstate system is maintaining and building post roads. The federal is not only allowed to do that, it is EXPECTED to do that.

Nothing gives the federal government the right to implement communism or fascism.

Not true. We already had a nationwide system. I agree large projects should be the task of the federal government, just not tasks like bailing out GM, or loan guarantees to capitalists.

 

[Media_Truth]

No one needs to be reimbursed for anything for the net metering credits to affect the cost of goods sold price
of electricity. The credit of net metered Kwh sets the effective purchase price.
Consider that if you receive 7 kwh of credit, that you later claim, you are claiming those Kwh at the retail rate,
in that if you did not have the credit, you would have to purchase the Kwh at the retail rate.

So you are saying - When I am producing a surplus, all those credits should be on my bill at a Wholesale Rate. When I am using electricity, all that usage should be billed at the Retail Rate. Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[longview]

So you are saying - When I am producing a surplus, all those credits should be on my bill at a Wholesale Rate. When I am using electricity, all that usage should be billed at the Retail Rate. Am I understanding this correctly?

When you purchase electricity for any reason, it should be at the retail rate.
when you sell electricity for any reason, it should be at the wholesale rate.
Net metering has people push in Kwh s that are credited at the retail rate,
when they claim those credits they are again at the retail rate, however when the utility
sells those same Kwh, they can only sell them for the retail rate.
The utility pays for everything with the difference between the wholesale and retail rate,
forcing the utility to purchase some Kwh at the retail rate, reduces the gross profit, and increases the overhead costs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So you are saying - When I am producing a surplus, all those credits should be on my bill at a Wholesale Rate. When I am using electricity, all that usage should be billed at the Retail Rate. Am I understanding this correctly?

That's how I believe it should be done. If not the wholesale rate, then the rate of the power without the other charges attached to the retail rate.

Here is a clip from my last electricity bill:



As you see, the rate I pay for electricity before other fees is $0.0651 per kWh. However, with all the fees and minus the $11 basic charge, I pay $0.113/kWh for my electricity.

I will agree that home owners with my billing schedule should be able to sell electricity back to the PGE for no more than the $0.0651/kWh.