> Let’s put aside that this isn’t good for the end user, as it openly admits the whole point of solar is great profit, rather than savings for the end user.
The whole point of capitalism is that in a well-regulated, open, competitive market, an ecosystem of companies pursuing maximum profit drive down each other's profit margins as they compete for a limited pool of consumers. In other words, it is precisely the profit motive that creates savings for the end user.
Exactly. The same principles that apply for solar energy are already in place for natural gas and for every other form of energy and the fundamental logic of markets is that there's a price point consumers will pay that's also profitable for the company.
That didn't newly become an issue for the first time once solar entered the picture. There should be a word for this type of argument where people relitigate settled principles because they're discovering them for the first time.
> the fundamental logic of markets is that there's a price point consumers will pay that's also profitable for the company
Electricity demand is price inelastic, meaning the consumer has no direct influence on prices, and will pay practically any price (well, up to a point). In the EU, the day-ahead spot prices are published every day at 2PM CEST, and it's a bidding market driven only by suppliers. If gas price goes up by x3, total electricity price average will go up by some linear factor, because gas turbines are absolutely required for surges/peaks - at least until we have enough batteries.
I'm sorry, but somehow this manages to be the most incorrect comment in the entire thread so far, a textbook case of missing the forest for the trees.
For starters, numbers I've seen suggest something day ahead prices are something like 10% to 30% of the overall energy supply because most of it's sold outside of that context via things like regulated utility pricing, forward and futures markets which sell weeks to years ahead, and long-term bilateral contracts such as power purchase agreements. So most energy is not purchased this way over the short term.
Moreover, for goodness sake, inelasticity at the margin doesn't make something not a market, that's simply not what inelasticity means, and none of these considerations have anything to do with whether solar power in particular can be profitably offered to customers. (Again, why would it be just applying uniquely and exclusively to solar power but not other forms of energy?)
Investments of various kind occur over horizons of days, months, and years where these market dynamics unfold. Every energy source on offer whether it be solar panel, gas turbine and storage facility is financed built and dispatched based on the expectations of cost and profit. Demand is quite elastic over the horizon of months and years, and demand inelasticity is sometimes a feature of markets not something that identifies any specific phenomena that prevents solar power in particular from entering markets.
Solar power rises and falls throughout the day in a manner that conveniently aligns with actual energy consumption patterns, and its net effect on the grid is de-stressing peaking infrastructure.
So it's certainly true that there are day ahead markets but if you think the upshot of that is that it somehow means solar can't be provided at a price point affordable to consumers that simultaneously profitable to the companies providing it, well, the phrase "missing the forest for the trees" was practically invented for moments like this.
Even more generally, this applies to commodity markets. Price of potatoes is x EUR/kg, set by supply and demand. If some farmer can produce potatoes for 0.1x EUR/kg, they get to make a good profit.
Now electricity wholesale markets are an artificial construct, but it has been designed to mimic other commodity markets in that the producer on the margin sets the price.
It’s not like I’m discovering the concept for the first time.
I just think when people say things like “solar is cheaper than gas” they should say for who.
Solar is cheaper than gas for the capitalist.
And there’s no guarantee the capitalists savings will ever be passed on to the consumer.
In my market, Australia, the energy retailers are regulated to increase prices once a year. Increase prices. Never a saving for the retail customer. They’ve worked out that can skip all that messy market bullshit and just regulate annual increases.
> In my market, Australia, the energy retailers are regulated to increase prices once a year. Increase prices. Never a saving for the retail customer. They’ve worked out that can skip all that messy market bullshit and just regulate annual increases.
Have you actually read the regulation?
The AEMC said the new rules were in response to requests from Australia's energy minsters. They will:
* prevent retailers from increasing prices more than once a year
* ban excessive charges like late-payment fees for all retail contracts
* ensure all consumers are entitled to a fee-free payment method
* prohibit retail fees for vulnerable consumers
* ensure vulnerable Australians are receiving their retailer’s best offer
* prevent retailers from charging more than the standing offer price if the customer's initial offer changes or expires. This will protect customers from paying higher prices for their loyalty.
The rules to improve consumer confidence in retail energy plans will come into effect on 1 July 2026. Those that assist hardship customers take effect from 30 December 2026.
There is a difference between
A) regulation that forces a price rise once a year.
and
B) regulation that stops more than one price rise (if any) in any year.
It sounds like what you are talking about is the "Default Market Offer", aka the Australian equivalent to the "standard offer" in the United States. I cannot possibly stress this enough: nothing about the existence of the standard offer has anything to do with the relative economics of solar to other energies, so it's bizarre that you're showing up in a middle of a thread about solar power specifically, and treating a phenomenon that applies to the energy market as a whole like it's only a problem for solar.
And remember what this thread is about - Solarpunk in Africa, off the grid, which is a case that has nothing to do with regulated utility grids, so it couldn't possibly have less to do with the article that this thread is about.
You're insisting you're not discovering the concept for the first time, yet even in this comment you're still doing the same thing, treating systemic regulations that apply to energy markets writ large like they somehow only apply to solar. You wouldn't be doing that if you understood beforehand that these systemic problems had nothing to do with solar in particular, you would be doing it if you were just starting to look into solar and discovered those issues for the first time, which I what I think is happening.
The whole point of capitalism is that in a well-regulated, open, competitive market, an ecosystem of companies pursuing maximum profit drive down each other's profit margins as they compete for a limited pool of consumers. In other words, it is precisely the profit motive that creates savings for the end user.