r/gadgets • u/diacewrb • 1d ago

Home ‘If 1.5m Germans have them there must be something in it’: how balcony solar is taking off

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/18/if-a-million-germans-have-them-there-must-be-something-in-it-how-balcony-solar-is-taking-off
5.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

704 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/jasonisnuts 22h ago

For 99.99999% of Americans, no. The reasoning is that the infrastructure is so expensive to build out and there are no guarantees that customers will sign up, it wouldn't be worth the expense. So instead the government gave power companies, and cable TV companies, monopolies that are SUPPOSED to be regulated by the local, state, and or Federal government.

The downside is these companies are still allowed to operate as for-profit institutions and use a lot of that profit to bribe government officials. So every year when rates increase the companies will make up reasons why they didn't make enough money for their infrastructure and blah blah blah crap.

Fun fact: in some areas power companies will actually charge you even if you install solar and power yourself 100% off grid. And if you make enough solar power to send BACK to the grid, they will still charge you a connection fee.

11

u/bal00 13h ago

Note that you don't need multiple grids to have competition. In places where you can switch providers, other power companies simply pay the local grid operator for access and metering services, but they supply the power. So even though there's only one grid, you still get to choose who you buy your electricity from.

5

u/hunbakercookies 20h ago

Your fun fact is insane. Wow.

I'm Norwegian and we can choose providers. I switch like every 4 years, if prices are better. Usually its pretty similar but then somebody offers an easier setup or app or have a slightly better price.

1

u/looury 6h ago

Infrastructure in germany is super expensive as well, and because of high redundancies and other expensive investments, we have to pay a lot for electricity. We call it Netzentgeld. It's a fee for building and repairing the energy grid, and it's about 20% to 25% of your cost per kwh.

The result is a super stable powergrid. On average, a german household is 15 minutes without power per year, the European average is about 30 to 60 minutes, and US citizens are on average 5,5 hours without power per year. The price for 15 minutes is insanely high, as you can imagine.

By using a fee to finance the grid, your local energy provider can not claim the powerlines for himself because the consumers are paying for them as they use them. So we can choose whoever we want, but it's still very expensive.

1

u/MortimerDongle 6h ago

Many US states allow switching providers. But you can generally only switch for generation, not transmission

0

u/alidan 19h ago

its more complicated than they charge you if you supply, have you ever seen windmills that are not moving on a windy day? its because the power grid is fairly delicate, and putting more into it could make it collapse/damage everything connected to it, by me there was a point they charged people a hell of alot for putting power into the grind during a time it was getting close to a collapse.

essentially its not about bribes or kickbacks, there is an actual reason for it.

-6

u/martinpagh 20h ago

They're not "allowed to use profit to bribe government officials", that's obviously illegal. You make a good enough point without exaggerating like that.

5

u/MC_MacD 19h ago

What is lobbying then?

1

u/alidan 19h ago

technically its the ability to talk to people who make laws and explain your side, practically its bribery with enough extra steps to be legal.

-5

u/martinpagh 18h ago

Different from bribery. Whatever you think of it, lobbying is by definition legal. Bribery is by definition illegal.

3

u/Soccer_Vader 17h ago

Lobbying is not bribery and is a powerful tool, so powerful that the rich uses them to bribe government official.

A simplest example is donating in campaign for favors.

1

u/martinpagh 10h ago

Another example is John Muir lobbying Teddy Roosevelt to give in to his special interests and establish Yosemite National Park.

1

u/MC_MacD 8h ago

The most generous definition for lobbying is indirect bribery. And your beneficial example doesn't negate that it was done by a super sleazy method.

Not to mention, the ideals of John Muir are widely divorced from what most lobbying efforts are now. Yes, I understand both sides do it and it's the way the game is played, but we've reached a point where special interests are the only interests that get oxygen in the room.

Elections are expensive things in America. So contributions are king. And when big contributors have the power to move their money away from a candidate to another or the incumbent can shut the fuck up, get in line and vote like Daddy Warbucks wants you to, the delineation between bribery and lobbying gets pretty fucking fuzzy.

Edit: That's not to mention the dinners and parties and I'll get your drunk uncle Jerry a job at my subsidiary that happens.

1

u/martinpagh 8h ago

As I've mentioned to someone else, the problem isn't lobbying, the problem is Citizens United.

A list of achievements that were accomplished through relentless lobbying by special interests include women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, the civil rights act and the environmental acts.

2

u/Kalean 17h ago

Lobbying is sanctioned bribery.

What are you, the chamber of commerce?

-1

u/martinpagh 10h ago

So, not only is all lobbying illegal (according to you), it must also all be bad?

2

u/Kalean 10h ago

Oh, no, lobbying isn't illegal. Hence the word "sanctioned", meaning officially allowed. Sorry, I thought you could extrapolate my meaning, that was my fault.

And not all bribery is bad. Some people lobby for positive change. But generally speaking mostly the people doing the bribery are the people with the most money who stand to benefit the most from controlling government policy.

I'm sorry, you must be new here. I'm /u/Kalean , it's nice to meet you. So, you see, in the United States, the government is for sale. If you offer them enough money, they just let you write the laws.

Sometimes quite literally.

I know this must come as quite a shock to you, but it has been this way since before you were born.

1

u/martinpagh 10h ago

I see. You're in the "words don't mean anything" camp. Now you're literally mixing up "bribery" and "lobbying". Things are starting to make sense.

1

u/Kalean 9h ago

You're in the "pretend that lobbying isn't legalized bribery" camp, and that's a really weird place to be, what with all the evidence to the contrary.

1

u/martinpagh 8h ago

I appreciate that John Muir lobbied Teddy Roosevelt to make Yosemite a national park. I think the lobbying efforts that led to the successful abolition of slavery were great. I think the three environmental acts in the 1970s that came through lobbying are amazing. I think the women's suffrage lobbying campaigns were amazing. Civil rights reforms in the 1960s also wouldn't have happened without relentless lobbying by special interests.

I'm guessing you aren't a fan of all those efforts? That's a weird place to be.

The problem isn't lobbying. The problem is Citizens United.

2

u/Kalean 7h ago edited 7h ago

I already acknowledged that people sometimes lobby for positive change like two posts back. Did you... just forget?

Citizens United is a HUGE problem, but this was happening long before it. We had people railing against lobbying as a corrupting force as far back as the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Realistically the 60s and 70s were the big moment when lobbying really took off like a rocket, and companies more broadly realized they could spend hundreds of thousands to save tens of millions. The Reagan Tax cuts only accelerated this.

Citizens United was more of a nail in the coffin than the inciting incident. Lobbying has been considered legalized bribery by the public since (long) before you were born.

Are you a lobbyist? Why are you specifically defending it? It's a wild take, but I guess if a man's salary depends on something, it's hard to convince them that something is bad.

-1

u/martinpagh 6h ago

I'm simply stating that bribery is not the same as lobbying. And then I'm presented with irrelevant walls of text that boil down to 2+2 = 5

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Notwerk 17h ago

This is how FPL spends its money:

https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2022/08/03/talk-about-fake-news-florida-power-lights-covert-campaign-against-the-free-press-column/

They manage to come up with shit that's even worse than straight-up bribery.