4 ms·

Is it cheaper in Australia because it’s publicly subsidized? From what I understand in the states the only reason it’s even remotely affordable is because it’s

Is it cheaper in Australia because it’s publicly subsidized? From what I understand in the states the only reason it’s even remotely affordable is because it’s already subsidized.

epistasis 3y ago
No, not at all. The reason it's expensive in the US is all regulatory, and because of the ever changing patchwork of utility rules that make it economical or not to attach your own generation to the grid. Last I heard, roughly 30% of the cost of solar in the US is spent merely on customer acquisition. Because the only forms that survive are those that swoop in when there's a window of economic plausibility for solar to work for homeowners, before the utility in a particular small area changes their mind and buys off the regulators to make it cost infeasible for homeowners to generate. There's a huge advantage to the grid of having generation be more local: more than half of energy costs are transmission and distribution, and these are costs that utilities can reliable charge a profit for, so they try to make these costs as high as possible. When customers install their own solar, this reduces the peak daytime need for T&D, and the grid is sized for peak usage. So everyone would be better off with far more local solar, except for the utility.
- dalyons 3y ago
  But Australia has private grids too, so everything you say about utilities would also be true there. No?
  - rgmerk 3y ago
    Utilities don’t particularly like rooftop solar here either, but a combination of factors has meant that their efforts to stop rooftop solar have been less successful. Now, the constituency of people with solar panels on their roofs is so large that it will be very politically difficult for the industry to turn back the clock.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    The rules are far more uniform. In addition to more consistency from the utilities, there's also far more consistency with building codes and permitting. In the US, every little municipality does their own damn thing, on their own timeline, with whatever quirks exists within a small bureaucracy ruled by politicians elected by people that rarer even know their names. Having more uniform rules across states and regions would reduce a lot of the overhead of installing residential solar.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  > this reduces the peak daytime need for T&D, and the grid is sized for peak usage Where I'm from, peak usage is on cold, dark, winter days. So there are no savings to the grid from locally generated solar as they still have to be fully dimensioned for a large load. If the billing was honest, people with solar+local battery would have $0 bills throughout most of the year and then January hits and they get a $3000 bill for using the grid over the coldest, darkest 3 days. I'm all for solar - every marginal reduction of fossil fuels used is a big win. We just have to be honest about the costs and challenges.
  - rgmerk 3y ago
    While the solar may be of relatively little use at that time a battery would still help shift the load around and reduce peak demands on the grid. V2G would also really help in this scenario because of the sheer size of EV batteries. If you’re using them as home storage batteries once or twice a year it’s probably not going to hurt the lifespan too much.
    - nomel 3y ago
      > If you’re using them as home storage batteries once or twice a year it’s probably not going to hurt the lifespan too much. For much of the world, the dim days of winter are much longer than a few days. Storage couldn't work for these places. Taking clean energy from distance places would be required.
      - rgmerk 3y ago
        Yes and no. Yes, I get that winter lasts for months and agree that you can't possibly store enough energy in chemical batteries to cover it all. However, demand peaks by definition occur only for short periods, and shaving those peaks reduces the need for grid infrastructure compared to what you would need otherwise.
        nomel 3y ago
        > reduces the need for grid infrastructure Maybe I'm misreading this, but the infrastructure couldn't be reduced. Battery storage acts as a filter, allowing you to optimize the transition for both sides of the duck curve [1], but reducing infrastructure, as in removing plants, can't be done somewhere that can have its power generation halved by a passing tropical storm. If you're saying "reduce dirty power", then yes. :) As a side note, here's some interesting graphs I just found: California: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/California-daily-power-generation-accumulation-curves-and-demand-curve-313-Mechanisms_fig2_346482723 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/California-daily-power-g... Germany: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Germany-daily-power-generation-accumulation-curves-and-demand-curve-323-Mechanisms-to_fig3_346482723 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Germany-daily-power-gene... Everything is so flat in Germany! Including demand!
rgmerk 3y ago
Subsidies were historically very important in getting the industry established. Today, while there are still some subsidies available the unsubsidised costs are so low it makes financial sense even without them.

Is it cheaper in Australia because it’s publicly subsidized? From what I understand in the states the only reason it’s even remotely affordable is because it’s already subsidized.

epistasis 3y ago

No, not at all. The reason it's expensive in the US is all regulatory, and because of the ever changing patchwork of utility rules that make it economical or not to attach your own generation to the grid. Last I heard, roughly 30% of the cost of solar in the US is spent merely on customer acquisition. Because the only forms that survive are those that swoop in when there's a window of economic plausibility for solar to work for homeowners, before the utility in a particular small area changes their mind and buys off the regulators to make it cost infeasible for homeowners to generate. There's a huge advantage to the grid of having generation be more local: more than half of energy costs are transmission and distribution, and these are costs that utilities can reliable charge a profit for, so they try to make these costs as high as possible. When customers install their own solar, this reduces the peak daytime need for T&D, and the grid is sized for peak usage. So everyone would be better off with far more local solar, except for the utility.

dalyons 3y ago
But Australia has private grids too, so everything you say about utilities would also be true there. No?
- rgmerk 3y ago
  Utilities don’t particularly like rooftop solar here either, but a combination of factors has meant that their efforts to stop rooftop solar have been less successful. Now, the constituency of people with solar panels on their roofs is so large that it will be very politically difficult for the industry to turn back the clock.
- epistasis 3y ago
  The rules are far more uniform. In addition to more consistency from the utilities, there's also far more consistency with building codes and permitting. In the US, every little municipality does their own damn thing, on their own timeline, with whatever quirks exists within a small bureaucracy ruled by politicians elected by people that rarer even know their names. Having more uniform rules across states and regions would reduce a lot of the overhead of installing residential solar.
kalleboo 3y ago
> this reduces the peak daytime need for T&D, and the grid is sized for peak usage Where I'm from, peak usage is on cold, dark, winter days. So there are no savings to the grid from locally generated solar as they still have to be fully dimensioned for a large load. If the billing was honest, people with solar+local battery would have $0 bills throughout most of the year and then January hits and they get a $3000 bill for using the grid over the coldest, darkest 3 days. I'm all for solar - every marginal reduction of fossil fuels used is a big win. We just have to be honest about the costs and challenges.
- rgmerk 3y ago
  While the solar may be of relatively little use at that time a battery would still help shift the load around and reduce peak demands on the grid. V2G would also really help in this scenario because of the sheer size of EV batteries. If you’re using them as home storage batteries once or twice a year it’s probably not going to hurt the lifespan too much.
  - nomel 3y ago
    > If you’re using them as home storage batteries once or twice a year it’s probably not going to hurt the lifespan too much. For much of the world, the dim days of winter are much longer than a few days. Storage couldn't work for these places. Taking clean energy from distance places would be required.
    - rgmerk 3y ago
      Yes and no. Yes, I get that winter lasts for months and agree that you can't possibly store enough energy in chemical batteries to cover it all. However, demand peaks by definition occur only for short periods, and shaving those peaks reduces the need for grid infrastructure compared to what you would need otherwise.
      - nomel 3y ago
        > reduces the need for grid infrastructure Maybe I'm misreading this, but the infrastructure couldn't be reduced. Battery storage acts as a filter, allowing you to optimize the transition for both sides of the duck curve [1], but reducing infrastructure, as in removing plants, can't be done somewhere that can have its power generation halved by a passing tropical storm. If you're saying "reduce dirty power", then yes. :) As a side note, here's some interesting graphs I just found: California: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/California-daily-power-generation-accumulation-curves-and-demand-curve-313-Mechanisms_fig2_346482723 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/California-daily-power-g... Germany: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Germany-daily-power-generation-accumulation-curves-and-demand-curve-323-Mechanisms-to_fig3_346482723 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Germany-daily-power-gene... Everything is so flat in Germany! Including demand!

rgmerk 3y ago

Subsidies were historically very important in getting the industry established. Today, while there are still some subsidies available the unsubsidised costs are so low it makes financial sense even without them.