[piotr1212]

I live in a large apartment building in the Netherlands, during the last home owners association meeting we discussed installing solar panels. The problem is the huge uncertainty the government creates. At the moment it is allowed to just deduct the amount of power you create from the amount you use and pay for the remainder. This way the government does not collect energy tax on the energy you create from your solar, thus they treat this as a subsidy. They announced that this subsidy will end by 2023, it is not clear how things will be after that time. Most of the home owners agreed that the risk they will change it into a regulation that will be (financially) bad for us is too large so we are not installing them until there is more clear.

But even then, the government changes at least every 4 years, how am I supposed to make a long term investment - (solar takes about 10 years for return on investment around here, with current regulation) - if I don't know if I will be screwed by the next administration? Especially now that the support for the "climate change denial party" is growing.

[pjc50]

Ouch - being taxed for energy generated cleanly on your own panels is a dire insult and against any kind of sustainability.

At least in the UK, the solar subsidies were set in stone for 20 years at the time of installation; so even though new solar would get little subsidy I'm still getting the rates from five years ago when I installed my system.

[krageon]

You would not be taxed for generated energy. Imagine that the cost for you to buy one kWh is ~20 cents. Currently, when you push power back into the grid you get 20 cents back from the power company. The government makes this so. However, the power company actually only really needs to bill you about 4-6 cents (depending on which one you ask). The rest is taxation. This means that after the government stops subsidising panels, you would just get 4-6 cents back per kWh.

Of course this makes the value proposition for moving power into the grid much worse, but it changes precisely nothing for power that you use from your panels (you are still getting 20 cents worth of power from a panel that has already been paid for by you).

For this reason it is best to rely on the subsidy as little as possible and maximise the power you use directly from the panel, either by changing your habits or by storing the power for later (in a battery). Sadly using batteries adds additional costs to this picture and is not currently worth it at all, even without subsidies.

[piotr1212]

> subsidies were set in stone for 20 years

How does that work? A new government can change the law and decide otherwise, well at least that is what they do here.

[krageon]

In civilised countries when the government makes a promise they by and large stand by it.

[pjc50]

Well, it was explicitly promised at the time, and has survived a couple of changes of government. It may be a quasi-contractual agreement, I'm not sure.

[krageon]

The amount of years it takes for solar to pay for itself is not set in stone. The ten year prognosis is extremely conservative and frequently untrue, especially if you start to load most of your power-heavy operations (washing, dishes, etc) into the daytime when the generated power is sufficient to support those things.

Given that there is not yet (as far as I'm aware) a tax on kWh used entirely from solar panels (ie not coming from or going into the net, but taken directly from panel generation) it should not matter very much whether or not the government decides to subsidise you. Do not count on a solar panel installation company to make such complicated calculations for you, they are most busy with either sowing unrest about government regulations or (more likely) giving you a fair-weather calculation that involves subsidies forever.

[piotr1212]

You are correct that if you use your energy before it gets on the grid you are fine.

But that is quite hard for most people to accomplish, most people are not at home during daytime when the panels generate most. The time my washing machine actually consumes energy warming up the water is relatively short.

The largest part of the power consumption of my home owners association is spent on lighting, the other part on the elevator which is most of the time just idling and peaks when someone uses it.

Batteries are inefficient and still expensive. You could warm up a boiler for hot water during day but I think that is done more efficiently with a heat collector instead of pv->electricity->heat. You can warm up your house, but you have to have very good insulation otherwise most energy is lost by the time you get home.

Anyway, in practice the change in policy can have a huge effect in return on investment time.

[JoeAltmaier]

Silicon Valley is coincidentally a place where home-time and solar-peak kind of coincide. My brother's solar panels peak in the late afternoon all summer, when he's programmed the air conditioning to come on.

[piotr1212]

As European I wonder if you really need a/c in Silicon Valley? I've never been there but from weather averages it seems that the climate is comparable with Paris where a/c's are absolutely not common. Even in more southern cities like Barcelona many people don't use a/c.

[krageon]

If you want to get very technical it is questionable whether or not you really need air conditioning anywhere. It's a luxury item and if you view it as such it's not surprising that people in SV have it - it's already a super high CoL place, might as well install some extra perks.

[Scoundreller]

Agreed. For environments with A/C, solar is very well correlated with demand.

[AtlasBarfed]

Why buy a car? Why leave the house? Why get a job? Why rent an apartment?

Anything can happen in 4 years.

Do you want to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?

[piotr1212]

> Why buy a car?

To get to my job.

> Why leave the house?

To get to my job.

> Why get a job?

So I can buy food and I won't starve.

> Why rent an apartment?

No clue, renting does not make sense to me, I bought.

> Anything can happen in 4 years.

Yes and you have to take that into account, make a risk analysis, think about the consequences and decided if it is worth it. Especially for long term investments. The chance my government will change the subsidy is certain (already announced), the consequences still unknown but they can turn out really bad. The chance they will turn out bad is large now that the two climate skeptic parties + the party that chooses economy over climate have a majority in the polls.

> Do you want to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?

Most people just don't have the money to spend on a problem which will not affect them for the next 10 years, unless it will benefit them.

[perfunctory]

> Most people just don't have the money to spend on a problem which will not affect them for the next 10 years, unless it will benefit them.

With all due respect, the parent did not ask about the "most people". The question was about you.

[piotr1212]

As I wrote, I live in a large apartment building with a large hoa. I just cannot put panels on the roof myself, the hoa needs to agree.

Our plan was to use the maintenance fund to fund the panels. Money from the fund is not needed for the next 10 years, when the bitumen roof will need to be replaced. By that time the panels should have returned on its investment. Now let's say the laws will change and the panels will not return their investment, then all of a sudden everyone needs to put in a few k for replacing the roof, which, most of my fellow residents don't have.

About me: If I would have to choice to buy panels which will not return on it's investment, I'd probably spend the money on an electric car, solar thermal collector, heat pump, insulation, shower heat ex-changer or anything else which has a better roi.

[ollie87]

A climate change denial party in the NETHERLANDS OF ALL PLACES?!

Wow, I hope they like being under water.

[krageon]

It is a strategic denial. The Dutch government is (and has always been) as underhanded as possible when it can bring them profits. In this case the profits are in ignoring what is right and exploiting everyone else, a tradition that they have embraced for a very long time.

[piotr1212]

Unfortunately, we are one of the worst performing countries on the co2 reductions within Europe. Even coal loving Poland and "poor" countries like Romania outperform us.

[benj111]

The Dutch are quite good at dealing with that though, or else they'd already be underwater.