APS Gets Approval To Stop Paying Customers For Solar Power Generation

[jimj]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

Correct, they shouldn't subsidize anything, they have no right to pick winners and losers. Welcome to freedom and liberty.

The government should not "require" anything, again... government is the problem, not the solution.

Here's the thing, the government and lobbyists have,in their infinite wisdom decided that we should all do everything in our power to reduce electricity generation via fuels. So, in order to get "Joe Homeowner" to do this the government had to offer some kind of carrot (subsidies) otherwise people would not be willing to do something that would just be a "lifestyle" (feel good) purchase as there'd be no real cost upside. Kind of like hybrid cars were/are.

So, now what does anyone think is going to happen given the only real upside (since subsidies have shrunk so much) is now going away?

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by jimj

Here's the thing, the government and lobbyists have,in their infinite wisdom decided that we should all do everything in our power to reduce electricity generation via fuels. So, in order to get "Joe Homeowner" to do this the government had to offer some kind of carrot (subsidies) otherwise people would not be willing to do something that would just be a "lifestyle" (feel good) purchase as there'd be no real cost upside. Kind of like hybrid cars were/are.

So, now what does anyone think is going to happen given the only real upside (since subsidies have shrunk so much) is now going away?

That is pretty much nonsense. If there really was a feeling that fuel use needed to go away quickly there are reasonably simple ways to do it. You could probably wipe out coal in less than 15 years. Start up 50 nuclear reactors and fill the Midwest with wind mill farms.

The utility thing is simply trying to control and limit the growth of roof top solar for the immediate future. I doubt the utilities have any doubts that it will eventually be able to penetrate but they would like to postpone and perhaps take advantage of the technology in the interim. They can implement for less than half the cost of roof top solar and would like to get that well under way...so that the cheap solar energy comes from the utility rather than the roof top.

Long term it becomes a battle as to whether the utilities can get their costs for the solar stuff low enough that they can provide cheaper to the home than the roof top guys...and they may win.

For now they are buying as much time as they can.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

That is pretty much nonsense. If there really was a feeling that fuel use needed to go away quickly there are reasonably simple ways to do it. You could probably wipe out coal in less than 15 years. Start up 50 nuclear reactors and fill the Midwest with wind mill farms.

The utility thing is simply trying to control and limit the growth of roof top solar for the immediate future. I doubt the utilities have any doubts that it will eventually be able to penetrate but they would like to postpone and perhaps take advantage of the technology in the interim. They can implement for less than half the cost of roof top solar and would like to get that well under way...so that the cheap solar energy comes from the utility rather than the roof top.

Long term it becomes a battle as to whether the utilities can get their costs for the solar stuff low enough that they can provide cheaper to the home than the roof top guys...and they may win.

For now they are buying as much time as they can.

Let me ask you, how many new reactors have been built in the last 10 years? None? You "could" do a lot of things but the powers that be (environmentalists and the current government) don't WANT nuclear, don't want coal, don't want any oil based fuels but do want supposed "green" power and they want it NOW even though it wasn't/isn't quite ready yet.
So I say again, the only way to get what they want NOW is to pay people to do it as that's the only way it makes sense to the average person.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by jimj

Let me ask you, how many new reactors have been built in the last 10 years? None? You "could" do a lot of things but the powers that be (environmentalists and the current government) don't WANT nuclear, don't want coal, don't want any oil based fuels but do want supposed "green" power and they want it NOW even though it wasn't/isn't quite ready yet.
So I say again, the only way to get what they want NOW is to pay people to do it as that's the only way it makes sense to the average person.

Again if they were after fossil fuel quickly you go nuclear. There are reactors underway but that is not the point. If the powers that be had it in their mind to do in coal they simply make a big play for nuclear and wind.

And solar is as ready as it needs to be. solar below three cents a kwh is now common in large utility arrays and it is likely cost effective to duplicate all fueled plants as the cost of the solar plants is less than the operating cost of the fueled plants. That won't wipe out coal but probably do better than cutting its use in half again.

And a major push for wind in the Midwest would also take another big piece out of coal. The big wind mills are getting better and better all the time. If pushed 200 meter or more wind mills could cover huge areas providing competitive power and without the same level of intermittentcy that plagues solar.

And you could build major electrical distribution back bones allowing the efficient shipping of large amounts of power around the country. Let you use the non fuel resources wherever available and wherever needed.

These big pushes don't exist of course. The means in fact that the move to renewables is a much lesser thing.

And the AZ thing is simply another minor skirmish in the changeover. And in the end the mechanism may well turn on the utilities. PSCs are dangerous...I would not be at all surprised to see NV turn around and go to a permissive net metering.

But we shall see.

[kell490]

I don't think nuclear will ever be built on a large scale here in the US the plants that are in development are 2 to 3 times over budget the ROI is unclear. Now with cheap natural gas there have been cases with existing plants being idled and cheap gas fired plants being built that can be remotely controlled hardly any personal onsite. I think utilities are on the way out eventually it could take 10-20 years all this fighting over net metering is just a bump in the road. Once lower cost panels, and battery storage is solved power utilities sending power all over the state on wires will be done. It's only a matter of time they are able to solve both problems no way a single utilities having to maintain 1000's miles of wire, substations will be able to compete with local power generation systems sold by 100's companies which operating cost are nothing but a website and a installer.

Read about watt bar 2 billion over budget 3 years past end date still not online > Can America Turn Its Nuclear Power Back On?

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by kell490

I don't think nuclear will ever be built on a large scale here in the US the plants that are in development are 2 to 3 times over budget the ROI is unclear. Now with cheap natural gas there have been cases with existing plants being idled and cheap gas fired plants being built that can be remotely controlled hardly any personal onsite. I think utilities are on the way out eventually it could take 10-20 years all this fighting over net metering is just a bump in the road. Once lower cost panels, and battery storage is solved power utilities sending power all over the state on wires will be done. It's only a matter of time they are able to solve both problems no way a single utilities having to maintain 1000's miles of wire, substations will be able to compete with local power generation systems sold by 100's companies which operating cost are nothing but a website and a installer.

Read about watt bar 2 billion over budget 3 years past end date still not online > Can America Turn Its Nuclear Power Back On?

I am skeptical of nuclear as well. But that is the easiest and quickest way to get rid of coal if that was the desire. And a program to do a large number of reactors could likely fix the nuclear reactors problems. After 4 or 5 they would get it down.

And big wind mills will also prove cost effective.

I don't see the grid going away. There are simply places where local generation is not going to work. The fingerprint of the area is hopeless. Manhattan is a classical example though any dense development will be about as difficult. Housing at 8 or 10 per acre or high rise does not have the room for solar. I also expect that utility class solar or storage will prove much more cost effective than home installations.

It may turn out that different situations have a different outcome. Places with good roof areas and low density go local solar while central cities and dense housing draw off the utility. Or the hybrid where net metering type hook ups predominate.

And then of course further out we may run into the hydrogen economy. And that may well work at both the home and utility level.

Should be interesting to watch how it develops.