Not disputing the problems exist, this isn't new: Australia has had this problem for years, the socialised costs of distributed power injection have to be met: it is a more complex network.
Also, the primary drive to install PV probably remains cost reduction to an electricity consumer, not the profit side of selling electricity. The problem has been magnified by risk side mechanisms like loans based on a model of income, and the loan period. Selling electricity into supply means accepting all the liabilities of supply, not just free money from Sunshine.
Some of this is supply company games to get back income lost from the drop in consumption, that's why fixed/standing charges are going up everywhere. But some of this is also the burden of balancing out demand and supply in a network originally built before PV on rooftops was there.
The inducement to uptake of domestic PV probably has done its job. Time to grandfather some of it in, and reduce the incentives in a curve. This is an example of what happens when the curve changes without notice maybe?
I'm a quiet slow advocate for small half shipping container sized battery packs every 200 houses or so (in Australia) with forward capital loans amoritised over the local connection charges.
There are a few examples in the wild already.
From both a network and a OSHA PoV it's robust, the fire dangers are concentrated and professionally managed, outages are localised and contained, excess can be routed into the grid, shortfall can be drawn down, etc.
Supply companies need to be restructed into grid connection and management companies .. this transition may take a decade or so.
I'm not a fan of the market model for utility functions and it probably shows. That said, I think your idea is good. It would improve resilience in the system. The problem right now is that community battery funds are dangled in front of the public without the "cui bono" being stated: it's the supply companies which benefit mainly, especially in the income side.
> While feed-in charges have stabilized somewhat in recent months, they are expected to increase further. Adding to the pressure, the Dutch government plans to end the popular net metering scheme in 2027. This program currently allows households to offset their solar energy production against their annual energy bill.
Net metering? Who could have envisioned that an impossibly* generous subsidy scheme could not be sustained indefinitely, at scale?
*Assume that Sinterklass is not providing and maintaining the national electrical grid.
Also, the primary drive to install PV probably remains cost reduction to an electricity consumer, not the profit side of selling electricity. The problem has been magnified by risk side mechanisms like loans based on a model of income, and the loan period. Selling electricity into supply means accepting all the liabilities of supply, not just free money from Sunshine.
Some of this is supply company games to get back income lost from the drop in consumption, that's why fixed/standing charges are going up everywhere. But some of this is also the burden of balancing out demand and supply in a network originally built before PV on rooftops was there.
The inducement to uptake of domestic PV probably has done its job. Time to grandfather some of it in, and reduce the incentives in a curve. This is an example of what happens when the curve changes without notice maybe?