Price of solar dropped 89% in ten years
Solar now being the cheapest energy source made its rounds on Lemmy some weeks ago, if I remember correctly. I just found this graphic and felt it was worth sharing independently.
Imagine how steep that line would be if the fossil fuel lobbies hadn't been fighting it tooth and nail all these years
much more important: we'd be years ahead with storage technology.
I could be wrong but I don't think there's any evidence that the fossil fuel industry worked to suppress storage research/funding. Pretty much every IT industry has a huge interest in improving battery tech and energy storage in general, it's just that we've already hit all the low hanging fruit from a chemistry standpoint
Gotta keep prices high yo
Without saying anything about politics, environment, or source:
Why, for the love of Satan, does this graph have only 2 data points per source?
Why use a line chart 📉 for that?
This is clear bar chart territory 📊.
I know it's not ideal, but a bar chart design could either focus on the difference over time for each source, or the difference between sources at each time. This plot gives a good representation of both the differences between sources and the change in time for each source. It really drives home how far solar prices have fallen relative to other sources and in absolute terms.
It's called a slope chart and it has several benefits compared to bar charts:
I for one think this is much better than using a bar chart for this use case, as the angled arrows make it immediately obvious the information that matters the most here (the rate of change) while still keeping it contextualized (by relative positions). The bar chart version of this would inevitably look more cluttered and would not be more effective in conveying the incredible progress in solar costs.
The cost of the panels themselves doesn't seem to have gone down nearly that much.
OP's data is LCOE, which takes into account much more than $/MW. Rather importantly, expected operating liftetime is a major component (and historically THE major economic downside of PV).
IIRC, LCOE is calculated for utility-scale solar, which has seen a 500% decrease according to your chart.
Finally, Neither chart specifies, but if OP's is in constant dollars and yours isn't that would explain a lot as well.
And this shows exactly why investing in nuclear is not the answer every tech bro thinks it is. Its far cheaper to built renewable and more importantly far far far quicker.
It is AN answer, but also not the only answer. Generating and moving power around is extremely complex and just seeing "Solar cheaper per Watt" and defining it as the best in all cases is silly. If you changed the axis to be size per MWh, then you would draw a totally different conclusion.
It's really not even AN answer. It's so expensive to build them, requires hoards of highly specialised people to build and operate, takes decades to build all the while were relying on fossil fuels still until it can generate power, has a bigger carbon impact than renewables due to massive amounts of concrete used in building decommission and waste storage, is more expensive per mw, and while on average safer than most types of power plant, if something unexpected happens shit goes extremely bad.
It just has way way way too many downsides compared to wind or solar or basically any other renewable to the point its just not really worth pursuing.
I'm all for renewables but keep in mind a nuclear plant can produce 24/7 regardless of conditions while many renewables cannot. I don't see an issue with diversification here rather than pointlessly advocating for a one-size-fits-all solution.
A nuclear plant can't "produce 24/7 regardless of conditions". Obviously natural disasters affect them. Nuclear plants need water so any flooding or tsunami can affect them. They also need maintenance because they are very complicated water boilers.
They require a lot of educated people to run them, whereas a wind turbine requires a few guys to check on them sometimes. Solar just requires some dudes to brush off the panels occasionally. That can probably be automated too.
Yes diversification is important too. But that still doesn't mean nuclear is worth it.
Because it doesn't help. Renewables want to be paired with something that can easily be spun up and down as needed. Nuclear doesn't fit that model. It tends to make it worse, because cheap energy we could be getting from solar or wind has to give way to the nuclear baseload instead.
It's something of the opposite problem of the sun not shining at the same time the wind doesn't blow. At times where you have tons of both, you want to store them up for later. Nuclear forces a situation where you have to do that even more.
I'd be willing to bet that the cost of nuclear energy derived electricity is going up because most countries haven't been building new plants for the last like 50 years
Average age of a nuclear power plant in the USA: 42 years
Average age of a nuclear power plant in the EU: 31 years
Average original intended operational lifespan: 20-40 years
To put their age into perspective, the average US nuclear plant was built closer in time to the Trinity nuclear test in 1945 than to today (along with any other plant 39 years or older)
This doesn't prove that nuclear energy is bad, only that slowly degrading nuclear energy technology from decades ago is bad
Even if that's true, it's not something we can change without more than a decade of investment. Good batteries will be here before that, if not here already.
The reason we don't build nuclear power plants anymore (including small modular), is because they're insanely expensive, produce only a small amount of power compared to you can produce with renewables, and always come with cost overruns. Nuclear power is the techsploitation of of tbe 60's and 70's. Most governments look at the economics now and realize they can do solar plus storage for a fraction of the immediate and long term cost.
No it doesn't. Cheap solar is great but even if it was $0, you'd still need some other tech to provide electricity when the sun is down. So it's either gas, batteries, nuclear, etc. but you can't just use solar alone.
And until batteries get good enough, nuclear is the cleanest option we have.
Bro do you know how power storage works
Diversifying our energy needs in case of a crisis isn't a bad idea, but we do need to prioritize renewable energy.
The problem right now is that we need to find better ways to turn renewable energy into stable, reliable power. The power production problem is highly dependent on balancing power generation and demand, and any excess energy must be stored, used, or wasted.
The main benefit of gas/coal/etc. is that we can (almost) always control the output to a close margin based off of demand projections, which are typically updated every 15 minutes. That being said, the drawbacks of using this form of generation are obvious and need to be addressed.
For renewables like solar and wind, we can't always predict the output, so in the larger scale of power balance, we need to supplement it with something that can make up for fluctuations in generation. In the current system, this is from conventional sources.
The goal is to implement a robust energy storage system, ideally one that can hold a huge amount of excess renewable power during the day (largely due to solar), and reliable output that power when it is needed (higher demand at night). I would love to see the day where our nation is fully powered by renewables, and I'm super happy to see that there have been pushes to build up renewables, but the target scenario relies on big advancements in storage.
I would suggest anyone who is interested in what I said to look up "california duck curve solar" for some reading on what challenges solar overgen presents in bright and sunny states.
All that being said... we can do it! I sincerely hope we reach a point where we can phase out dirty generation across the globe, but it will take a lot of time and effort.
source: taking several power systems courses as part of my EE degree
The whole base load situation is largely over hyped, as a diverse and slightly overbuilt network of renewable would compensate for fluctuations with minimal storage needed. Iirc you would just need 118% capacity with a 2 hour storage buffer to achieve stability rates on par with a traditional grid. And nuclears small footprint actually hinders it when filling a base load requirement, as nuclear provides a lot of power at a single location, but if you want to base load a national grid you want a little power at lots of locations. (Which can be argued that SMRs will fill that role, but that's a whole other argument)
Yeah, solar + wind + highly connected grids can go a long way to balance loads and make up for the intermittent nature of wind and solar.
Also every bit of atomic energy we use now humans have to pay for for centuries to keep the waste safe
Normally these guys are all about passive income and buying over subscriptions and things like this but if your actions lead to generations having to pay for it suddenly it's not as bad...
Pay for centuries to keep it safe? We literally just throw it in an old mine shaft and fill it with concrete, it's really not that monetarily or resource intensive
The folks that work at the nuke plant around here have this really cute saying. They say working there is like playing "Hide and seek for a grand a week" (it's an old saying so needs adjusting for inflation) Then they like to say "the cost of labour has no impact on the cost of electricity"
They also like to shit on wind power.
I'm not sure it's tech bros falling for the nuclear lie, it's rather the wannabe rich invest boys in my experience.
The same people falling for NFTs
No it doesn't.
The price of solar can't continue on this trend forever. There's a point of diminishing returns.
Yes and no, the progress of solar array technology continues unabated, with multiple areas of research that are beginning to reach commercial applications. Module conversion efficiencies now are in the 20% range, but heterojunction cells, or Gallium Arsenide, or Perovskites, or any number of other possible advancements could easily put efficiencies up into the 30% range.
That being said, the price of the solar modules themselves has already shunk to a small piece of the cost to build a solar array, with the bulk of the costs now being the support structures, wiring, electrical equipment, labor, development, etc. And those costs aren't going to decline, they'd still be there even if the solar panels themselves were free, so they effectively set a floor to the cost reductions we're seeing.
I can see that critical thinking isn't your strong suit, but I'm willing to comment it out with you instead of just down voting.
If the price of solar is already the lowest -and still dropping- then how is the most expensive option that takes about a decade to implement a better option for right now? This apparent point of diminishing returns is only beginning to manifest in even lower prices than this 2019 chart. And this diminishing returns point is only in the cost of the panels dropping; they are still getting better in technology and improving efficiency while maintaining low prices. If your argument is "solar can't continue on this trend forever" -no one expects anything to consistently drop almost 90% every decade. Of course it will level out. And when it does, it will STILL be the cheapest option.
Dang, it's almost like it was worth all the research money the government crammed into it in the long run, unlike what my dad said to me a million times.
The installation just keeps getting higher. Now to add onto mine I need a load of additional equipment that was not required when my first lot of enphase inverters was installed. Also what was quoted for the labour and materials that are not the panels and inverters has almost tripled in 4 years. Have to get the roof sorted before I go ahead with it and the higher output panels and inverters mean that I would get about another 1.5kw in the same space compared to my first installation.
Rooftop solar is the most expensive way to do it. The graph above is for utility scale systems. Roofs are always custom jobs and they're priced accordingly. Utility scale uses racks that are all the same for an entire field.
If rooftop was priced alone on the chart in OP, it's be around the price of nuclear.
To ballpark some numbers on the contractor side, I charge about $100/hr to install it now - 4 years ago that might have been $60/hr.
Sweet, now get the panels and installation cheaper so I can afford to put it on my house
We had a solar salesman come by once and told us he could lower our electricity bill the same amount as it would cost us to install the solar panels.
I knew there was something up with this but I decided to let him continue to talk anyways. He does this whole presentation with solar panels and how great they are for a good 30 minutes.
Finally we get to the money part and he keeps emphasizing that they will lower my electricity bill so the cost of them will be made up there. I push him for the total cost of them plus installation and I about died.
$30,000?!?? They literally wanted me to pay for these for 30 years. As long as my mortgage! Aaaaah!!!!
I had a few come over and I was already in the market for solar so I entertained them for a minute. I told them "OK, give me some invoices for your other customers so I know what you charge. Black out the names, I dont care - I just want the prices of your services and materials". These idiots would not stop calling me or coming over to my house for months. I kept telling them "Unless you give me actual, real world dollar amounts, I won't consider it".
Those solar sales guys are worse than used car salesmen.
Similar here, got a quote from a company that wanted $45,000 to only cut my bill in half. Said my roof having so many levels due to being a 1.5 story made it hard to install and get good coverage. Guess I get to just burn coal power then because that price is ridiculous
That's about 10 times the price it costs to have a full system installed in other parts of the USA.
I put in a small solar backup power system myself for $1500. It's not enough to power HVAC or any big appliances but it is enough that I can have my fridge, freezer, TV, and Internet going off the grid whenever there's a power outage.
Further lowering panel cost isn't going to significantly cut that price. Cost of labor is the major part of that.
People always focus on rooftop solar, but it's horribly expensive compared to a field of panels. The economics of scale will almost certainly keep it that way.
What we should be looking at is community solar, where neighborhoods invest in a solar field together.
I've always thought that in the neighborhoods where everyone lives in townhomes and mini apartments a shared multi floor parkade with solar and maybe also wind on top should be a thing. Even if the solar is just covering the parkade's power usage.
Pretty clearly shows why there’s no future for nuclear power.
Even for filling gaps in renewables, peaker plants are getting cheaper and don’t take 15 years to build.
This is always a weird take to me because it always ignores the fact that nuclear has been screwed continuously for decades. If any other tecbology, renewable energy or not, had the same public and private blockers did it would also have no future.
it always ignores the fact that nuclear has been screwed continuously for decades
On the contrary: I'd say it implicitly relies on that fact, which is why the argument that it takes 15 years to build is valid. Because nuclear has been screwed, there's no pipeline of under-construction plants coming online any sooner than that.
It may not be fair that nuclear's been screwed, but that doesn't change history. The only thing that matters is what's better when construction is starting in 2023.
This.
And it is always a question how they calculated handling of nuclear waste.
There are options, we can use coal and natural gas for on demand power to fill the gaps in renewables, we don't have to quit all at once. New ideas for energy storage and comming around, some of them might be useful for small towns, others for remote places.
there is very very very little nuclear waste.this is complete handwringing. it can be buried and forgotten.
Bigger issue is the carbon costs and pay back periods. Nuclear (unless you've got sources otherwise stating) is green in it's planning phase but not as often in execution. A shit ton of concrete is used, and the plants rarely operate at the capacity they are expected to (or have in the past). Open to revision but that's my current understanding.
They are a massive upfront carbon cost and only become carbon neutral or negative relative to fossil fuels 20+ years down the line.
I think that's too simplistic of a view. Part of the high cost of nuclear is because of the somewhat niche use. As with everything, economies of scale makes things cheaper. Supporting one nuclear plant with specialized labor, parts, fuel, etc is much more expensive then supporting 100 plants, per Watt.
I can't say more plants would drastically reduce costs. But it would definitely help.
The source article actually talks about this and measured data suggests nuclear cost actually went up, despite more capacity being built.
This is the first time, I've read this anywhere. More sources/studies would be really important. And there is lots of interpretations to be had on the why, but assuming the article isn't completely off the mark, that's cold, hard data suggesting that your (perfectly reasonable) assumption is actually wrong, after all.
This chart is worthless, so it doesn't show anything. Like 2 data points for this? Seriously? And there was a pandemic and a war since then...
my bill has gone up 89%
Well the electric exec's kid needs a third Ferrari to go with the third Lamborghini they got last year! You're not gonna be so heartless as to deprive a 32 year old child of their birthday wish are you?
I just installed a 9.3 kW system with individual microinverters under each panel for grid stability and it is absolutely amazing how much you can power all day without threatening a massive bill at the end of the month. I still import power at night, but the power companies usually have agreements where you get credits for all wattage exported to the grid to cover your imported power at night, because both parties win in that contract.
Do you mind sharing what price one can expect for an install that size (or similar)? I’ve been wanting to install a system like that on my house for a couple years. Now that prices on hardware are more affordable it’s becoming very tempting. I’d love to do it myself.
It depends, $180/mo for 25 years is the agreement and it's directly connected to the grid both ways which required additional work from the power company to inspect and approve. I think given the projections it was rated for about 25,000 kWh per year * 25 years (approaching 85% efficiency after 30 years), which is a good amount of total production for my needs. Edit: it's worth considering what $180/mo will look like in 5 to 20 years.. it will probably be significantly cheaper compared to other power sources because it's generated locally.
AUS here, I just got a 10kw system installed last month, cost 9.5k AUD for everything. So far monitoring the generation, I'll be getting paid next time the bill comes around :)
Well, looking at these prices here listed seems like solar in US is really costly for some reason? I have a 9.8kWp system in europe, installed a year or two ago, and it cost me 12k euros. Out of that, I'll get 2ke back in tax rebates, so 1ke for 1kwp.
During summertime, I get 1500kWh approx in a month. I have one AC unit and two electric cars, and a 24U server rack, and can live without electricity bills some months.
Get 800kwh to 1mwh a month depending on sun coverage. Cost me 23k paid in full.
I hate that PGE got rid of the import.
Thanks, China.
And Germany!
Is this just the cost per raw Watt produced?
Is it a fair comparison vs conventional fuel-based power (coal/nuclear)?
Ie: if you wanted to build a plant capable of producing continuously, 24 hours a day, you would need some multiple of solar panels to produce an excess during daylight, and storage.
Not that drastic drops in solar costs aren’t bad, just what would the cost-per-watt be if you had to power an average city on just solar for a year?
Look at the subtitle on the chart, it's levelized cost over the generator's lifetime. So not including storage for any intermittent source like solar or wind
And not including the financing cost of buying up an this upfront.
I'm buying 36kWh solar array and it will be home made diy, used.parts and maximum jank and don't paid upfront because that's the only way it makes economic sense and that's hoping it works for more than 7 years (break even point at my insolation level and and grid price (8.8$cad/kWh) and it only works with net metering)
Well you'll never get a "fair" comparison, because the environmental effects are never properly priced into the consumer price.
It's frustrating seeing a graph showing the price of electricity going down while my utility prices go up. Does this take into account infrastructure cost?
Yeah energy prices have gone through the roof but apparently it's cheaper in every way except nuclear - and we don't even have nuclear around here
The data stops in 2019. It's completely outdated. The world is in chaos since covid. But anti nuke propagandists don't care much about these "details".
Hi, I'm a human being, not an "anti nuke propagandist". I just checked, if there's newer data, and well, there is, but no one seems to have formatted that in a way yet, which you or me would be willing to digest.
Personally, my impression has been that the solar industry was one of the industries that was pretty much completely unaffected by COVID, so I felt this graph was still perfectly relevant.
But even if it were strongly affected, I do not see why our technological progress in manufacturing, that we had in 2019, should evaporate with COVID.
There is inflation and a rise in natural catastrophes, but I feel like those would affect nuclear and others roughly proportional.
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/lcoe-for-offshore-wind-now-on-par-with-coal-bnef/amp/
Covid actually had almost no impact on the prices and they continued to level off a little lower. The surprising one is the onshore wind remaining on par with solar and continues to drop (albeit slowely).
Government subsidies work for getting new technologies out of the prototype stage and into practical deployment. Solar and wind are both good demonstrations.
Cool…but where’s offshore wind?
I want a battery in my house big enough for me to lose power for 2 days and still cook with electric stove and have hot water from water heater.
That is my dream for every house. To be able to have a stable power well from some kind of battery fed by a solar + grid sharing. To be able to offer extra power to a neighbor if they need it for a project or a party or help however.
I don't want to be energy isolated from the grid. I want to be energy insulated and be of the grid.
Just pointing out that the grid is paid for by your electric bill, roughly half of what you pay is for delivery (paying to maintain the equipment needed to deliver you that energy), the other half is for supply (paying the power plant that generated the energy). So even if you and all your neighbors are energy independent you'll still be on the hook for at least half your bill, or they'll have to recoup it in taxes or something.
Not saying that's a bad thing, just clarifying a common misconception that going solar should not mean you eliminate your electric bill. In fact many places where solar does offset 100% of your electric bill are ending up with the rich owning solar and the poor paying to maintain the grid for them.
There is this vision for the future, where people can use the battery in their electric car (or a separately bought battery) to store power, either produced by their own cheap solar or from the grid during over-production. And then some software could sell that energy back into the grid at night or during high demand.
If that becomes a reality, we might have it at least so that if a chunk of the grid gets cut off for a bit, it can actually tide that over.
This isn't so much a vision for the future, as it's an option right now.
I can't wait until work puts in car chargers- Top off the battery for free during the day, come home and sell that juice back to the grid, baby!
Hydrogen is the answer for that, cost about 100k today hopefully those cost will decline fast
The problem with Hydrogen, is that its not efficient (fuel cells apparently are only 40-60% efficient). In contrast, batteries are 90% or more efficient (and improving)
So, you'd be wasting 50% of the power generated, and wasting fresh water too.. Thats all assuming too that the additional minerals in the water won't cause extra issues either.
Battery costs keep dropping, and the technology keeps improving rapidly.
If they can get the efficiency much higher, maybe.. It also might make sense for long range cars (at the moment) due to energy density
But, in practice, companies like BP and traditional gas companies are the main ones who benefit from a hydrogen economy. Because they can use non-renewable to undercut everyone
I know it's basically a physical impossibility but here hoping to another 89% in the next 10 years (compared to today)
I wish hydroelectricity was there.
What happened to Nuclear option?
The Cold War is over, man.
This guy gets it.
Huge up front costs.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
"On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future...."
"World Nuclear Association published Nuclear Power Economics and Project Structuring in early 2017. The report notes that the economics of new nuclear plants are heavily influenced by their capital cost, which accounts for at least 60% of their LCOE. Interest charges and the construction period are important variables for determining the overall cost of capital. The escalation of nuclear capital costs in some countries, more apparent than real given the paucity of new reactor construction in OECD countries and the introduction of new designs, has peaked in the opinion of the International Energy Agency (IEA). In countries where continuous development programmes have been maintained, capital costs have been contained and, in the case of South Korea, even reduced. Over the last 15 years global median construction periods have fallen. Once a nuclear plant has been constructed, the production cost of electricity is low and predictably stable."
TLDR: If you weren't already on the nuke train when it was going, the upfront costs are too much to make it worth it this late in the game. You are better off just getting solar/wind + battery. If you already invested in nuke, then you are good to keep updating them.
snuffed out by big oil who co-opted anti nuclear weapons protestors to take out their competition
Are the renewables including cost of storage in this graphic? Batteries are a lot more needed with wind and solar since they aren't always available.
Also, I'd imagine nuclear would enjoy a similar level of success if there were more countries willing to invest in nuclear.
As far as I understand the description at the top of the image, no, storage is not included. But if production costs are insanely low, that of course does leave plenty room for storage or redundancy. In particular, personally I believe the costs will continue on a logarithmic drop and we're at the steep part of that, so even if it really is not the case today, I do expect solar production + storage to become cheaper in a not too distant future.
Also, as another graphic from the source article illustrates, battery costs are rapidly dropping, too:
They are aren't. This is anti nuclear propaganda. It's a waste of screen place. The data is outdated and completely manipulated.
So, what did you want me to do? Post the same graph, but black out the nuclear line, so no one can see it going upwards? I do find that data point interesting, too, but I would have posted this, even if it was just the solar dropping as it does.
Let’s add in the cost of batteries as their own thing, because they can be charged from anything and are far cheaper than other sources promoted as covering for gaps in renewables.
Let’s add in the cost of batteries as their own thing
I don't know if this is a fair thing to do. Yes, we could charge it from any other source, but we aren't (intentionally) overgenerating power from sources like coal, gas, etc. Thus, the need for implementing that storage largely depends on renewables.
I also feel like factoring out the costs of storage implementation leaves more gaps for combustion generation supporters to criticize renewables. I would rather be honest about the upfront costs and instead emphasize the long term benefits of renewables, both in cost and cleanliness.
Price of onshore wind is about as low as solar.
I'd like to add wind to my solar eventually. Multi-modal makes a lot of sense to me. Pretty sure my solar installers don't do that and I have no idea who does do that...if anyone. I'll investigate someday.
There is no home wind power industry because unlike solar, wind power is only cheap when you go big.
To be fair home solar is also not $89 for a Mwh. Least not here.
Oh man, If I was inclined to dox myself online I'd have a guy for you. A local construction company here has a green energy side company and they do both public and private installations of wind and solar, from large owners of open land, to farmers, to even residential. Hopefully theres something near you like that.
Unfortunate that DMs don't work very well here in the fediverse.
It's wild to me that 19% difference between the drop of on shore wind and solar to the same price point is massive, like that extra 19% drop in solar is quite literally more than half of the solar previous cost, about $230.
It doesn't matter how cheap solar is. Fossil fuels are still more profitable, because once a fossil fuel plant is built, it needs fossil fuel to run. You can't do the same with sunlight. We literally cannot shift away from fossil fuels under the current profit driven model.
More profitable for fossil fuel companies, sure. And they will lobby to stay in business.
But no one needs fossil fuel companies. If you can sell 1 MWh power, that's a fixed amount of income. If you have less costs to cover (what the graphic shows), then that's more profit for you.
I'm speaking from an American perspective, but what you're describing is part of the problem. Power companies are legally not allowed to make a profit from selling electricity here. They make a profit from the government giving them money to expand their services (this model was developed following world war 2 to encourage post war growth).
Again, under America's current model, solar is not profitable, especially not for large corporations.
The price of electricity produced is an interesting metric to look at but can be very misguiding alone without more data around it.
It like comparing the price of rain water compared to well water.
The same way that solar is cheaper than nuclear, rain water is much cheaper than well water, you just need a roof with a gutter to get rain water.
Does it means that we should stop using wells and rely only on rain water and use water only when it rains ? Or do we also want to have tanks, do we need a backup for when the tanks are empty ? ...
Yeah, there may be situations/regions where even the cheapest solar isn't good enough. But at some point, the cost difference does become an oppressive argument. Even at that price in 2019 already, you can use around 75% of your money to build storage or redundancy in multiple regions / with alternative renewables.
And this trend of cost reduction for solar will very likely continue, even if it might start levelling off at some point.
Gas peaker? I hardly know her!
Unless you’re in California, where the second highest utility rates in the US exists and solar benefits are being capped by the state.
13% utility increase next year, a 95% increase in utility costs since 2014!
Then there's California where NEM 3.0 makes it less than worth while to install or upgrade your existing solar installation.
There's a lot more nuance to this than most people will admit.
Net metering is 100% unsustainable, when renewables become a big enough chunk of the grid generation mix, they often generate when no one needs the power. Forcing the grid to accept that power and even pay the homeowner a premium for it is a perverse incentive. Effectively what it does is allow solar array owners to avoid paying to maintain a grid they still use, and since the rich trend to go solar first, the poor are left holding the bag to maintain the grid for everyone.
Data stops in 2019. It's completely outdated. Good try.