General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSolar switch forces utilities to shift priorities
Sitting on a rooftop, soaking up sun, the humble solar panel may not look like a threat to a multibillion-dollar industry.
But some electric utility executives say it is. They even have a name for the nightmare scenario solar could create - the "death spiral."
They fear solar's rapid spread across homes and businesses, combined with the increasing efficiency of modern buildings and appliances, could slowly erode the utilities' ability to grow. California utilities get paid based on the value of the assets they own - the transmission lines, substations and wires. As more businesses and homeowners generate their own electricity, the utilities won't need to add as many of those assets as before.
At the same time, the costs of maintaining the electricity grid might fall on fewer and fewer nonsolar utility customers. The companies could compensate by tacking on fixed monthly charges for all customers, solar and nonsolar alike. But those new charges would jack up bills, and that could prompt more people to slap panels on their roofs.
The problem will only get worse if advanced battery packs become cheap enough for home use, parked in the basement by the water heater.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Solar-switch-forces-utilities-to-shift-priorities-4929363.php
Squinch
(50,993 posts)causes cancer.
Seems like it's ripe for the "electric car syndrome" to me.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Because there is sooo much money to be made, building nuclear plants.
New ones are scheduled to be built in Great Britain, I believe. Maybe a look at the people who will make money from this as related to who owns the media might be interesting? You never really know.
No matter how poisonous and destructive Fukushima gets, the driving force here is profit.
Profit to think about building nuclear, profit to actually build nuclear, profit to "maintain" nuclear, profit to figure out which piece of the earth to poison with nuclear waste. All in addition to profit from providing electricity, which of course has the other profit points built in. And then, the all important investor class. The TPP will take care of them handsomely. Wonder if building a nuclear plant on a fault line or whatever will be pushed through anyway - because to not build stifles profits.
I imagine the next big thing for solar will be battery storage, because the power companies are going to start charging a lot more for access to the grid, so they can maintain and increase profits while not actually generating the electricity. Cool, because looks like they are entrenched and will get away with it.
I have even seen articles that carefully explain that we can't replace nuclear with solar or wind or wave energy because the return on investment is not nearly as great.
Sickening, literally and emotionally.
The profit motive is not just for nuclear, as your excellent OP illustrates.
msongs
(67,436 posts)trying to hold on to the past . a non profit entity would have little problem adjusting to solar
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Having the infrastructure of the grid funded by the government resolves the "problem" of how to generate adequate profits from energy distribution. Of course that type of "socialism" would inevitably lead to the end of civilization as we know it. I say bring it on.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)slowing development, and raising the entry fee to solar power for all these decades?
Like so many other things we haven't thought through since arriving in the 21st century, this centrally controlled power and profit model we are dominated by was developed in the 19th century by men that developed the parasitic some-are-more-equal-than-others system of institutionalized theft.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)WHEN THE Commerce Department slapped tariffs on Chinese solar panels last year, industry analysts had good reason to worry that it would spark a costly and counterproductive trade war. Now, in another example of why tariffs and other trade barriers should be imposed with extreme caution, their fears are being borne out. In retaliation for last years penalties, the Chinese government has begun enforcing tariffs of its own on American polysilicon, an ingredient in solar panel manufacturing.
U.S. polysilicon makers account for about a quarter of the international market, much of their product shipped to China. Or at least that was the case last year. In the beginning of 2013, Michigan-based Hemlock Semiconductor announced that it was firing hundreds of workers, perhaps for good, partially in anticipation of the trade restrictions that have just been phased in. Upon hearing that the Chinese government would punish U.S. firms, stocks of non-U.S. polysilicon makers soared. Tariffs on both sides, meanwhile, promise to push up the price of solar equipment in the United States.
Backers of the U.S. decision to penalize Chinese solar panel imports last year argue that China is the one to blame for all of this. And they have a point. State support for Chinas solar industry led to an explosion of manufacturing in the country, which then flooded the world with cut-rate panels. China ended up dominating solar panel production, making about two-thirds of the globes supply.
But finding the right response is harder than mustering resentment at Chinese trade practices. Its hard to know how much the Chinese state subsidizes its solar-panel industry. And, as the plight of the United States polysilicon makers helps show, retaliatory tariffs bring complicated trade-offs that cant be ignored. If the U.S. solar industry depended on panel production, then tariff-backers might have had a better case that the exercise has been worthwhile. Yet the recent explosion in the U.S. solar industry has centered not on panel manufacturing, but on domestic installation and maintenance. That, in turn, was partially fueled by access to cheap Chinese equipment which the tariff policy views as a problem to solve
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-12/opinions/41330381_1_u-s-tariffs-polysilicon-chinese-trade-practices
US confirms tariffs on China's solar industry
The United States hit China with tariffs as high as 250 percent on Wednesday for selling solar cells below fair value, while also imposing a separate 16 percent tariff to counteract Chinese subsidies to its solar firms.
The final ruling on the tariffs, which are slightly higher than preliminary ones set by the administration in May, follows a Commerce Department investigation on Chinese trade practices. Though Commerce can begin collecting those duties, the U.S. International Trade Commission must approve the tariffs by Nov. 23 for them to stand.
Commerce said China has sold solar cells in the U.S. anywhere from 18 to 250 percent below fair value. The investigation also determined China has unfairly and directly subsidized between 15 and 16 percent of its solar cell exporters costs.
For most of the Chinese firms that sell solar cells or panels in the U.S., the tariffs will range between 34 and 47 percent.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/261363-us-hits-china-with-solar-tariffs
The administration imposed tariffs for cheap subsidized Chinese solar, the utilities and gas industry approve.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)in and put the small, entrepreneurial companies out of business. Ultimately, it will be a choice through the utility, as the government will give them funds.
For the average user, who likely has to be the property owner, the initial cost of solar energy is still quite high and out of reach, with a long ROI, especially if there are utility charges along with it.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Utilities that distribute electricity are separate from generation.
They will have to modify their networks to collect, store, and redistributed power as well as distribute power from the generation companies.
The resulting networks will be more complicated and require more investment, hence higher charges to customers, than simple distribution networks.
Local storage using batteries is something hobbyists like to do, but it is uneconomic compared with, for example, pumped storage or grid-scale batteries.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)8-10 households or a blocks worth that build a central battery storage.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Something like GE Durathon batteries may be applicable. http://geenergystorage.com/backup