[thinkcontext]

> Utility-scale solar power projects like this are just more corporate welfare boondoggles.

Rooftop residential is 2x+ times as expensive as utility scale. Lazard's well regarded annual Levelized Cost of Energy survey puts the range for utility scale at $24 - $96 MWH vs $117 - $282 for residential rooftop.

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost...

[titzer]

> Rooftop residential is 2x+ times as expensive as utility scale.

This may be true, but a residential install does eventually pay for itself in 5-10 years, and after that, effectively free power. So it's cheaper and better for consumers.

How does that work? Oh yeah, it's because they don't have to pay for the maintenance of the entire distribution network plus the profits of utility companies.

[pfdietz]

If a residential install pays for itself, it's because it's gaming the details of the rate structure. That is, it lets the consumer avoid paying for much of their electricity at the full retail price, while still deriving benefit from the distribution infrastructure those retail prices are supposed to pay for. This is neither honest nor sustainable.

[glenstein]

> That is, it lets the consumer avoid paying for much of their electricity at the full retail price

Much like growing my own vegetables is "gaming" the marking by letting me "avoid paying the full retail price."

This presumes that grid operators are preemptively entitled to dollars out of the pockets of anyone within range of the grid regardless of whether they need it, which is utility propaganda that they use to fight the development of residential power in state legislatures across the country.

[pfdietz]

Physical objects like vegetables have much more inherent storage (especially when canned or frozen). Also, the consumer is typically responsible for the last mile. This is unlike a grid connection, where you have a wire running to your home sized for the maximum you might consume at any moment, not the average. Because solar is correlated among consumers, the distribution network still has to be sized for what they might occasionally consume, not their average consumption. Also, the power sources on the grid have to be there for these occasional peaks. If vegetables aren't available? You eat something else.

If enough people get solar, rate structures will change to be less based on kWh consumed and more based on what you have the right to call on, even if you don't consume it. This is similar to large industrial rates.

[taylodl]

What you are doing by opting out of the grid is raising the price of electricity for poor people. That's an aspect of electrical energy that's rarely talked about. The current model of the grid providing power to everyone only works because everyone is buying power from the grid.

[titzer]

> for poor people

Well, I don't get how only poor people would be targeted, but to inject data into the picture:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-u-s-elec...

That suggests that all of the distribution, maintenance, and administrative costs are on the order of 2-3 centers per kWh, which is about 1/8th of the cost of a kWh. So I'm going to soft disagree on that point. Besides, we could further decentralize with small modular nuclear reactors (think neighborhood to small town to even small city scale) and cut out a ton of grid cost.

[taylodl]

> Besides, we could further decentralize with small modular nuclear reactors (think neighborhood to small town to even small city scale) and cut out a ton of grid cost.

Yes, we could. But you know and I know we're not so let's stop kidding ourselves. Nuclear is off the table in the US for the foreseeable future.

[thinkcontext]

> This may be true

So you are admitting its not a corporate boondoggle?

> but a residential install does eventually pay for itself in 5-10 years, and after that, effectively free power.

LCOE amortizes over the life of the system so that its an apples to apples comparison.

> So it's cheaper and better for consumers.

Its cheaper for the homeowner. Its likely more expensive for the other ratepayers, especially if there is net metering or RPS. They have to spend more on storage or flexible generation to combat the duck curve and have to make up for the fixed costs that net metering is not covering plus buy solar generation at the retail rate instead of wholesale. And its not a good deal for the taxpayer who is paying for a third of the system price since they are getting less carbon reduction per dollar than they would with utility scale.

That last one combined with RPS has really gotten on my nerves lately. My city I've seen several panel installations done on the north side of a gabled roof. That's such a horrible deal for tax payers.

[kelnos]

Sure, but that's only free power during the day, when the sun is shining.

If you want "free" power at night (and on cloudy days), you also need battery storage, which can double your initial cost. And the batteries don't last 25+ years like the solar panels do; you may even have to replace them before your break-even point.

If you don't have battery storage, you're still relying on the grid at night, and relying on selling excess power back to the grid during the day in order to zero out your power bill. So you're still making use of the distribution network that someone has to pay to be maintained.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> it's because they don't have to pay for the maintenance of the entire distribution network

How is that going to be paid for?

[olyjohn]

Right you just have to pay for maintenance of all of your own equipment.

[adventured]

And we should actually be doing both.

For exactly the same reason we should subsidize the cost of nuclear energy to ensure a sustained ~25-40% nuclear base, we should subsidize solar locally (rooftop et al.) and utility scale.

The answer isn't either or, it's all of the above.

[peter422]

Also I’d assume the people who physically install rooftop solar are different than the people doing utility scale projects.

We should be doing both!

[cpleppert]

Lazard's LCOE metric is absolute nonsense. Besides ignoring intermittency and the variability of renewable generation it uses an incredibly unrealistic cost of capital comparison that favors capital intensive renewables. Rooftop solar would look better if the cost of building a massive utility scale solar farm had to funded at realistic corporate discount rates.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

IIUC, levelized cost of energy DOES NOT include transmission costs: https://www.re-explorer.org/re-data-explorer/cost-of-energy/...

Adding in transmission costs would make non-rooftop solar 2x+ more expensive...

[pfdietz]

Rooftop solar is still taking advantage of that transmission and distribution; the consumer with their own solar is just not paying their fair share of the cost of that infrastructure.