Sabine Hossenfelder — German particle physicist— finally gets it. Solar is only "cheap" if you don't count (1) the cost of intermittency, (2) the cost for a whole new system of transmission lines and (3) the cost for storage at nightime, on cloudy or windless days.
We have rooftop solar on our house here in Hong Kong. So we’re “doing our bit” right? Well, only kind of…
We get paid a "Feed in Tariff". Which is: our solar-generated electricity goes back to the Power Company (China Light and Power) through the grid.
CLP pays us for that by a cheque each month, assuming what we use each month is less than the solar power we put back into the grid. Since we've had these rooftop panels, in 2022, we've got monthly cheques.
Why? Because we always put in more power back to the grid than we use from CLP. But also because the power we use is cheaper than the power we put back into the grid via the FiT.
Why? Because CLP pays us more per Kwh of electricity ($HK5 per Kwh) than we pay them for the grid power they give us ($HK1 per Kwh). Quite a subsidy!
Why? Because the Hong Kong government requires CLP to do so.
Why? Because the Hong Kong government has made commitments per the Paris Climate Accord to do so, for the sake of bringing down CO2 emissions.
Therefore the more rooftop solar we have in Hong Kong the "better" we are. Even though it makes no sense.
Here's the crazy thing: Here in Hong Kong we already have very low CO2 emissions, of around 4 Tonnes per capita. Australia is 15 T/capita -- despite massive attempts to move to renewables-only electricity -- as is the US. The world average is around 7T/capita. So, we're already doing pretty well, with our mix of Nuclear and Natural Gas. But for the sake of virtue signalling (that's all I think it is), our government has committed to using taxpayer money to subsidise people like us, rich people, to install rooftop solar, by taking money away from the poor people. This policy is deeply regressive.
ADDED: Why do I say “virtue signalling” for our Hong Kong government? Because we are not a good place for solar and wind. Both need large amounts of land. Around 400 to600 times the amount needed for the same amount of electricity produced by nuclear or natural gas. We are, as the world knows, a Vertical City. Land is at a premium. It makes little sense, or difference, to install solar on a 50-storey building. People like us, who have a house, on which we can put solar panels, are the rich people. The government subsidises us rich people by transferring wealth to us by taxing all the rest of not-as-rich folks. That’s the very definition of “regressive” and is usually a big no-no to the progressive left. Just not when it comes to anything to do with renewables…
Solar subsidies take from the poor and give to the rich. In our case the ROI on installing rooftop solar is a guaranteed 25% pa. This is crazy. But of course we do it, when it's free money on the table. But I'm also free to feel bad about it, on behalf of our government and to think that there's lots of the renewables issue that's a scam similar to our rooftop solar one.
One of the biggest is our governments around the world, Australia in particular, banging on about "how cheap" solar is. Not really so. We know this CEO the fact that electricity bill have gone up. Even after some of the cost has been subsided — and hidden — by the government
Here endeth the rant.
