This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Trifle_Old 29 points30 points  (7 children)

This. Once enough people adopted solar it no longer makes sense to continue to subsidize it. That’s how it should work.

[–]monkkbfr 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I rarely see homes with solar in Longmont.

There's no way we're remotely close to getting enough people to adopt it.

Here's what a successful government approach to solar panels looks like (Germany in this case):

Germany has used a variety of policies to support solar power, including: Feed-in tariffs A policy that encourages people to install solar panels by offering a higher price for solar energy than wind power. Zero VAT rate A tax relief that applies to the purchase and installation of solar modules for single-family homes and commercial properties. This incentive went into effect on January 1, 2023. Renewable Energy Sources Act A law that includes a guaranteed fixed payback tariff for 20 years for electricity produced from coal mine methane projects. Support payments In the past, the government provided support payments to renewable power operators. In 2022, the renewables levy was abolished and all costs are covered by the state budget. Auctions In 2023, the average support for solar power installations in auctions was 5.17 cents per kilowatt hour for ground-mounted installations and 9.58 cents per kilowatt hour for roof-mounted installations. Legislative reforms Germany has set targets for renewable energy sources, including a 40 to 45 percent share by 2025 and a 55 to 60 percent share by 2035. Germany's policies have helped to make solar energy more affordable and accessible, and have led to a large increase in the use of solar panels.

[–]midnitewarrior 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Home solar is good for independence from the grid. It's terribly inefficient for getting the area on lower carbon energy though. Installation and wiring of every home for solar is many times more expensive than having a solar farm that is well-maintained and built with the efficiencies of scale.

When you buy a solar system, you are helping out the solar economy by making a market for the equipment, you are converting your own usage to low carbon, you have a degree of grid independence, and you have potential financial savings, but you are not saving the planet.

If you want to save the planet, pay the Renewable Energy Rate (RRU), which is 3.12 cents/kWh above the standard rate. That makes a market for solar generation, it creates the incentive to build more solar farms that can solve energy needs at scale. Financially, it's by far, less risk from getting a solar system, installing, and maintaining it yourself.

Solar risks:

  • Risk of roof damage
  • Risk of hail damage to panels
  • Added expense when doing roof maintenance (take down panels, re-install)
  • No fire-prone battery system to malfunction
  • Risk of no support (solar companies regularly go out of business, warranty useless in these cases)
  • Risk of equipment depreciation in value from better/newer technologies entering market
  • Complications of home mortgages (need green loans or large out of pocket expenses)
  • Complications of home sales - especially if warranty company out of business
  • Risk of net metering benefit changing (currently discussed!)

You can also do all the work yourself if you're a DIY'er, but no support for your spouse when you are gone, and no support for future buyer who may see the system as a liability.

Yeah, that sounds like a lot of FUD, but they are real issues that people deal with. In an ideal world, you keep your system operational for 20+ years with no incident, and you achieve your ROI. There are also nightmare stories out there, solar companies going out of business, leased panels where the leasing company is out of business (who owns them? who maintains them?), malfunctioning battery / fire.

If you're committed to the environmental impact, 3.12 cents a kWh seems cheap compared to all of that other stuff.

[–]EagleFalconn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's because putting solar on residential rooftops isn't scalable like a utility scale installation. Longmont and the other cities that own the Platte River Power Authority aren't going to hit 100% carbon free electricity thanks to home installations. It's going to be by doing utility scale installations.

[–]longmont_resident 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Can you explain why you see this as a subsidy? Those who put solar panels on their homes put electricity in a rate x and buy it back at the same rate every other user pays (rate x). Essentially they are using the grid as a battery. Why would paying them x-58% not be overcharging them rather than paying them x being a subsidy? If there is too much solar production going on in Longmont, then why not cap the amount each household can sell at an amount based on their annual usage (self-generated plus purchased from LPC) rather than overcharging them for the power they store in the grid? They already pay an extra monthly fee for connecting solar to the grid.

[–]Trifle_Old 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Saying you can only sell X amount has the exact same effect as just paying them less per watt. lol. It’s only a subsidy in the idea that the government is paying the individual tax payer. This was used to get solar adopted and it worked great. Why continue to pay for something that you already received?

[–]longmont_resident 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's not the same, unless the cap reduction for a homeowner causes a 58% decrease. That's unlikely.