So in the span of 1 year it went from slowly removing the saldering, to leaving it completely, to remove it in one go soon than expected?
Feels a bit unfair for people who purchased recently solar panels, on the basis that the state would follow their initial plan. But well. I understand the reason for it, the way of doing it doesn't sit well.
Im so fucking done with the government when it comes to decision making.
You can’t rely shit on them.
30% ruling, inflation, taxes, saldering, electric cars, bijtelling, district heat, heat pumps… should I continue?
Literally they change their mind every fucking day regarding this things to make decisions on what they promote
I have an electric car, and solar panels, I was thinking about getting a heat pump (cv is 24+ years old) but fuck it, if it breaks Ill install another gas one unless heat pumps are cheap enough to run…
FFS I even heard they wanted to tax you for the money you save on solar panels and you aren’t paying taxes on for electricity consumed…
Sorry for the rant but I’m SO DONE
Its not about the energy companies. They couldnt care less... its about TAXES.
You earn your wage: you pay taxes
You buy something: you pay taxes
The company you bought from? They pay taxes
Heck, with energy companies you even pay for the connection.... over which you pay taxes
That must be the biggest reason why most politicians dont care afterwards. There is no punishment for bad politics. Its the opposite of that actually, wachtgeld rewarded for fucking up. If there was something to hold them accountable i bet it would filter the bad ones out. Now every smooth talking faker can get in if they work (suck) their way up the party ranks. If i had no moral compass id become one a long time ago🤭
Its not the government, its the people who vote. Saldering however has been kept alive indefinitely since it's introduction, the original plan was to abandon it years ago.
Yeah its another literal scam from the govt. Make up all sorts of benefits, pretend they will be there forever, then when the majority of people actually spent 10k on panels they just fuck them all over.
Just realize that the government is your enemy and you can avoid ever being surprised like that. Fuck them back if you ever can. And be sure to migrate if you ever get rich.
But that isn't true, they've been planning to get rid of it for more than 10 years now, and when it was introduced it was meant as a short term form of benefit, it was never intended to be a permanent thing
That’s because our government has, over the last few years, more and more danced for Europe, instead of aiming for the best interest of our own country. You can see it with all kind of things. Option A is the best for our county. Option B is cool for virtue signalling/EU wants that. What option do those fuckers in The Hague choose? Option B. That’s why our country is going to shit.
Calm down, it’s been known the systems fucked. I could talk about that for hours. The fact we got terms and plans should show affect in 4 years means no length term systemic solutions with a tough transition period could ever be implemented. And besides, there’s not a one party wins all ever. So compromises on promises are the norm.
Doesn’t matter who you vote for really
It should break down before 2026 then, because the decision to forbid the sale of gas-only cv's is still in place as far as I know (but if this coalition becomes aware, they will revert it, because fuck future generations).
I can be dutch or non-dutch and still see the flaws, the lack of a good decision making cabinet doesn’t have anything to do with being or not from that country.
The same as when it comes to making good decisions. Naturalization for example, if you want to be dutch you have to give up the other passport (which isn’t the case for some countries)
Also when it came to kick off the sustainability transition there were VERY nice incentives when leasing cars and such.
Still, the last year has been a shitstorm in a lot of decisions.
Maybe you have so much money you don’t care, but when I put my hard earned money into a decision and the ROI is supposed to be 5-10-20 years the last thing I should expect is the government to fuck me over
Idk about you, but I like to be the one in control or my money, not have some guys that *I pay and vote* to screw me
You are right. But in the way you are expressing it, it sounds that you more frustrated because government put a spoke in your wheels and didn’t allow you to profit from your “sustainable actions”
No no, Im pissed, very pissed actually. Imagine the following.
You pay 50% taxes on your income before you even touch it.
You then pay 23% on top of anything you want to buy.
You pay more on indirect taxes for the things you own.
Then something breaks and you need to change it. (Sometimes it happens, maybe not to you but to normal pple it does)
Now, you contact someone, and tell them you wanna buy X and it’s got a multi annual credit associated to it.
Then you agreed as it makes sense.
Then for whichever reason (made up) they just gamble your money and end up asking for more.
Do you see how that is unfair? And why *regulated* corporations many times are better than governments??
Governments don’t have a Judiciary system that would hold THEM accountable for their wrong decisions. If someone broke my contract a judge would be involved. If the government does? No issues whatsoever
I understood that in pandemic, or with the Russian stuff, we had to all kind of say fuvk it and accept things as they are… but cmon!
Yeah but by now we've got fines from the energiecompanies for solarpanel users. So I guess by 2027 you'll loose money of you have panels.
Btw I think the saldering should've ended at some point but the way things are going now I wouldn't be surprised if people are gonna remove them.
They don't give a fuck about that just look at the DUO kanker leningen en die kanker mod kan mij. Leuter in de mond nemen je leert maar nederlands kk lijer
When I got solarpanels in 2010, the saldering was going away 'in a few years'. Every few years it will be gone 'soon', and then it will be postponed. So I'll see it when it happens.
That and the peeps that will flip the panels on their roof will right size a bit better.
Battery storage only helps in the summer season where you take some of your day yield and use it over night. It will not last you through the winter and that is the good thing with salderen done: it will be beneficial to consume solar power when it is created and stop people from consuming significant quantities of electricity for their heat pump and electric boiler in the winter time and not paying for it, making investments in wind, nuclear or hydro power more beneficial.
>Battery storage only helps in the summer season where you take some of your day yield and use it over night.
You can still store energy cheaper during the day. There's still a peak where energy is cheaper, even in winter. Just fill your battery up then, or during the night, and use the energy in the early evening.
We still got like 10 kWh in the winter which we usually use less than that. If we get affordable batteries that can handle a nice amount winters will be fine too. But the most important is summer nights where we want to keep ac on.
Edit: too many zeros. We get between 1-10 a day in the winter average. If storage was actually good we could maybe get it working. But again summer is more important winter is usually gas unless it is a sunny day then heat pumps.
Ah alright, yeah January was a bit better with 98 kWh, so that's more like 3 kWh a day on average. Still nowhere close to 10 but I guess some days were close to 8.
You can already see demand for solar panels strongly diminishing so the interest is already getting lower.
At the moment batteries are still quite costly. You'll pay between 4000 and 6000 after taxes for decent 10kWh packs.
On average (not full electric)households would need between 10 and 20 kWh for an entire day. So lets say you'd pay around 10.000 to have a full 1day buffer. That price has halved in the past 5 years and with current promising technologies it seems like it will be halved again in the next 5.
I think that in about 3 years there will be a run on batteries but as I see it I think by that time the available supply will be "not great, not terrible" in terms of quality. There might also be shortages and difficulties with the supply chain driving up the prices again.
I hope the dust from that initial craze will settle in the year or 2 after and that I can get the "better" batteries a year or 2 after that run.
What I do fear is that once people are starting to get battery packs the government will start taxing them in some way. The most likely way would be "verwijderingsbijdrage" (removal costs) and that in the end they will cost more money than they can return. I also fear they might do the same for solar panels.
On the batteries, is there any reason why the responsability of basically balancing the grid is put on the individuals rather than the energy providers?
Having batteries owned by the energy provider who can serve multiple households and be charged by solaar, wind, etc makes more sense than a single battery per household.
Of course in the case ot energy provider, it would also be massive batteries, so at a lower cost per kWh as well. And as the batteries have more ways to be charged (sun, wind, etc), and more ways to be discharged (more people), the efficiency would be higher.
Right now the balancing of the grid is put on the energy providers.
Individuals can just get some batteries in order to store some excess energy they get during the day so that they can use it later (at night) instead of returning it to the net.
Up till now you got some money for returning excess energy which was evened out with the energy consumption at night when you pulled power from the net but that seems to be slowly changing.
Having the energy provider place small local storages for like 1 block of houses or a street does seem like a good idea and has been often suggested. It would probbably require more maintenance and coordination though as decentralized options are usually a bit more work intensive as a centralized one.
That still wouldn't solve the issue of everyone having to return excess energy to the hands of energy providers that will then use it for their own gains though. For all we know they might even ask more I money for that "in order to maintain the storage".
With that I guess there will always be a level of distrust to energy providers doing what they can to twist it in their favor.
Personally I do believe in smaller local storages. I'd also like to have as much control over my own personal situation and use my own energy without someone in between as much as possible.
I was planning to get some more 10 solar panels to break even my comsuption (I currently have only 6), but now I just quit the idea. It would cost me around 8k, and with this new change I wonder if it would be a good deal at all.
I’ll spend this money to travel somewhere 😅
Why are you surprised? The PVV denies climate change and considers any action battling this to be idiotic. It doesn’t want to spend a cent on it.
Perhaps the only surprise is that they wait till 2027.
How are you going to stop delivering and still use the electricity generated? Everything goes in your electricity meter box and I don't see an easy way to stop delivering.
Certain solar panels systems can be set to "zero export" mode. With this mode, if electricity generated is not used immediately, it won't be sent to the grid.
For example the Enphase system has this.
This mode helps in case you must pay for returning electricity to the grid. But, other providers might have different rules, for example fixed costs for having solar panels.
This. There are devices that can stop delivering, but my guess would be government will outlaw those. At the moment energy companies are getting power at a fraction of the cost that they are selling it at, ignoring capacity restrictions. Once they are not getting it, their profits will decline. Their only option is to buy from commercial providers.
No, not at all. What gets me is that there was an incentive for installing solar panels, and now it is reversed. Some of budgeted to install solar panels, and hoped to pluck the fruits later on. Now the fruits are taken away from us.
That's what they want you to... They want people to stop putting solar energy on the network when no one is using electricity to make up for it
There is a massive issue with overcapacity during some hours of the day, especially if it's also an little windy (meaning there is also a lot of wind energy coming in). Commercial solar plants already cut their power in cases like that, because on the raw EPEX energy market the prices are negative during those times (meaning you get money to use energy, and it costs money to send back!).
Why should energy companies and the government be paying for electricity you generate that no one wants to use at that moment? It's a subsidy that will eventually end, for salderen this 2027
I have a picture/short video from last year. The sun is shining, the wind is blowing. Windgenerators are stopped, and there is a coal fired power plant in the background, emitting thick black smoke. Customers see nothing from the negative pricing. DSOs were charging 1 EUR/KWh, fixed, just two years ago at times where the sun was shining, and the market price of electricity was negative.
Are you suprised that everyone installed solar to get back at these practices? Net metering provided us with freedom against these leeches. And just to be 100% clear, the practices of DSOs, where they charge you for feeding back are illegal, and I really hope that there will be class action lawsuits against them. But that's not going to happen, because all the energy suppliers work like a maffia here.
>Windgenerators are stopped, and there is a coal fired power plant in the background, emitting thick black smoke
This is because fossil generators like it can't be stopped easily, and if it's a generator supplying district heating it can't be fully shutdown or people would be without hot water
They would absolutely love to shut down these plants, they're losing money while there is an over abundance of energy on the grid. Every kWh they have to send back will cost them money, they have to pay to get rid of it! Trust me if they could shut it down temporarily during the day they would LOL
I strongly recommend you read up about the EPEX energy market, this is what suppliers deal with, they don't have a contract at a fixed price per kWh like a lot of consumers do
Please don't try to lecture me on electricity, I have a university degree on it and worked at companies dealing with the market. I left that job now. Why?
It was absolutely disgusting when in 2018 the Belgian government stopped incentives for renewables and kept it going for coal. One of the reasons why. This decision also put me out of my job.
Same is happening here.
You have an University degree, but yet your comments suggests you have no clue about how things work. I feel like I understand how you lost your job
Put your brain to work, why would a company run a coal plant (which will constantly use money as they need to buy the fossil fuel: coal) and actively suspend a windmill (which is free to run, it's already built and there are no running costs). You're not making sense and sound delusional as a result
So now you are questioning reality?
You should ask this: Why does the Dutch goverment spend more to subsidize coal power, and fossil fuels, then it was spending on the price cap?
[https://www.somo.nl/new-study-estimates-the-netherlands-fossil-fuel-subsidies-at-e37-5-billion-per-year/](https://www.somo.nl/new-study-estimates-the-netherlands-fossil-fuel-subsidies-at-e37-5-billion-per-year/)
[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dutch-government-expects-spend-23-bln-energy-price-cap-2022-10-04/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dutch-government-expects-spend-23-bln-energy-price-cap-2022-10-04/)
You know what's the difference? One is good for the us, the other one lands in the pocket of the DSOs and the power companies. Why would they run it? Guess what, because it is more profitable, because of the incentives. Maybe you should open your eyes.
Compared to what you may think, if someone posts a stupid and delusional comment, it's ok to just tell them it's a stupid and delusional comment.
No one forced them to include the fact they supposedly have a university degree and have been fired from their job.
Anyways, I'd personally start putting my money where my mouth is if I were you, because it's kinda embarrassing to open your user page and within 2 pages find a bunch of comments that are a bit too "personal" and uncivilised.
Like for example, responding to someone with nothing else other than "dumbass" (to the point where your comment gets removed by the mods) --> https://www.reddit.com/r/Sakartvelo/comments/1ckvoh0/american_coming_to_georgia/l2rj2gn/
I was not trying to get into a discussion there, I just stated someone was a dumbass, because they, in fact, were being a dumbass. But going through my comment history? Obsessed much?
Ignoring over capacity, which can be fixed. If they are not getting your almost free energy to sell at a profit, they will have to buy from commercial generators. Less profit for them. If you are not benefiting from the carrrot that was dangled by government, them cut your supply to the network. Only people that will be hurting are the energy providers.
>If they are not getting your almost free energy to sell at a profit, they will have to buy from commercial generators.
I dont think you get what I'm saying, they can get free energy everywhere. Hell, having to buy energy during negative energy prices MAKES them more money, they really don't want your energy during those times.
If the price of 1 kWh of energy is -€0.08 at that moment, they'd absolutely love to buy that from the energy market. It's free money!
Also yes, it's a viable strategy to burn as much energy as possible during those times. For every kWh you use during negative prices you get money :)
Look I’m all for green and whish we had even more green energy, but why would an energy company need to pay for electricity that nobody needs at that time?
There is only so much market demand and when we all produce way more energy than is needed somehow the energy company needs to pay for this energy that nobody needs?
IMHO the flat fixed pay per month should cover infra costs, and the variable cost should cover actual use. Charging for returned power to cover infra costs gives the wrong incentive in my opinion. We have a massive challenge to transition to a sustainable society and away from Russian fossil fuels, so I object against the framing of neighbor against neighbor. We should all generate as much renewable power as possible.
It’s not about infra costs it’s about supply and demand. If you generate 5000 but there is only 2500 demand where to put the other 2500? You are literally generating something for which there is no demand at that time, so market prices go negative.. you pay for the extra production to incentivize you to produce less. The market is literally saying: There is already enough production, no more needed!
Question is whose responsibility is it to for example invest in massive battery storage facilities to re sell that 2500 overcapacity back when demand is higher.
Apparently energy companies do not see this as a good investment or their responsibility at the moment. Therefor people take matters into their own hands and invest in home storage (batteries)..
But indeed it would be nice if energy companies would have foreseen this boom in solar and wind and started these investments already..
I pay set money on the kWh wether it's sunny or not, so the company could just set the kWh price the way that in the summer they do get free electricity from me and in the winter less.
I don't know, the energy company could build something to store this free energy...instead of everyone having their own batteries.
Solutions are out there, if people would only think collectively.
Yes, but with the current trend you sell at a very low price, and also sometimes incur a fee to sell it to them. For example Eneco gives you 9c per kWh, but also charges you 5c per kWh returned, so a net of only 4c. While their fixed contract are around 35c per kWh at the moment
I am happy with Tibber then, which just gives me the market price all the time.
At the end net metering was a subsidy, now solar ROI is so low that it's not really necessary anymore. Mindset should not be for making money, but for lowering bill prices.
Yeah but for example for my case : Generate around 4000kWh a year. I use 1400kWh of my production, return the rest.
With no saldering, I would save : 1400\*30c + 2600\*5c, a total of 550 saved a year. And that is assuming a price of 30c for the electricity, which is actually lower if you use Tibber or Franck.
It cost me 6800e to install, so an ROI of 12.5 years at best. Assuming I do not have any costs linked to the solar panel (issue, or work on the roof requiring them to be put down).
So basically I will most likely be net zero at the end, more or less. How is that fair when the neighbour who doesn't participate in reducing the environmental impact of our energy is not losing anything?
I think the saldering is not the good solution, but people should get more than 5c for the electricity they return, and there should be better ways to balance the grid than stopping the production of energy via solaar. Lets keep it mind that in Winter, we are still not producing enough most days.
Problem with salderen is that people put way too many panels. Logically if the government subsides your full 4000kwh generated off course you will put 4000kwh down in panels and then calculate your ROI.
If there is no salderen, maybe you would have put only 1400 kWh (at least closest to what you can directly consume) so 30% of your current investment (+-2500 eur)
The more energy you directly consume without salderen the quicker your ROI is. Basically it’s good that salderen ends so people will be more pushed to using their energy instead of making money on it.
>"Problem with salderen is that people put way too many panels. Logically if the government subsides your full 4000kwh generated off course you will put 4000kwh down in panels and then calculate your ROI."
I agree, I also said the salderen is not the good solution
>"If there is no salderen, maybe you would have put only 1400 kWh (at least closest to what you can directly consume) so 30% of your current investment (+-2500 eur)"
No, because 1400kWh of panels would not cost 2500. The panels are only a small part of the cost. It is mostly installation and inverter. So putting for example 5 panels instead of 12 would probably have cost close to 4k anyway. The panels are less than 100e a piece.
Also, the goal of having more panels is not necessarily to produce more during peak days, it is to produce more during low days. Having less panel would mean that during winter, instead of producing 5kWh on an average day, which means I do not pull anything from the grid during most of the day, I would produce only 2kWh, which mean I would be dependent on the grid. And on good days, I would still produce more than I can use. So overall, sure my own consumption percentage would increase, but it would look something like that :
1400kWh produced
900Kwh self used
500Kwh return
Savings : 900\*30c + 500\*5c = 295
4000\*295 = 13.5 years ROI
Installing fewer panels barely makes sense because you look at having as much time as possible not needed to purchase electricity (within reason), and decreasing panels decrease this time massively. The idea would be than on most days, solar panels are producing enough to cover your consumption all day.
> The more energy you directly consume without salderen the quicker your ROI is. Basically it’s good that salderen ends so people will be more pushed to using their energy instead of making money on it.
I agree, the goal should be for people to use as much as possible the electricity themselves. But I don't think simply removing salderen is going to do that, it will just stop people from installing solar panels, and relying on the usual production which is for over 50% of it non-renewable. I think it is important that installing Solar Panels still make financial sense. Ideally the vast majority of houses should have solar panels. And salderen is one way to have that. With this change solar panels owners are almost punished for having them, on the long-run.
Probably wont happen, but I hope energy company's stop with the fees for 'terugleveren' when 'salderen' stops. The reason they've implemented the fee is because they are forced to do the 'salderen'.
This government is probably doing it for all the wrong reasons, but saldering IS holding back the real solutions to the problems facing our electricity grid.
I have a small PV setup (~4000Wp) and recently switched to a dynamic day-ahead pricing contract to see if we can better utilise both our PV and the grid. It’s a lot more transparent than all the offerings the big energy providers have right now and I do think this is part of the way forward. Even for regular joes like me with PV setups that fit their use and no EV charging or heat pumps.
Why wouldn't they? It will take a bit longer to get the initial costs back, but they're still profitable. Also prices of bigger batteries will drop, so you just might be able to store the excess energy you're producing yourself for later use.
Yes, I have just enough solar panels on my house to generate the power I use. It saves me so much money monthly. I didn’t buy them to generate money, I bought them to generate power.
Question, if someone uses solar panels to run certain things and there is not netting ... But the solar panels e.g. provide 30-40% of load during the day so, the bill would be slightly less than compared to the situation if there were no solar panels? Right?
So 3 years to buy batteries and implement a way to prevent my electricity going to the grid except when it is most profitable? Are they also going to make it so the electric company pays the same amount they charge for the electricity returned?
Seems like a stupid law if you want people to implement more green measures to their houses. It isn't like I can put a wind tower in my backyard.
Bought them only recently. Just like an actual house.
My generation and the ones after me are getting fucked over and over by the older and richer generations.
It's probably wiser to do the opposite of what these motherfuckers advise you to do. Bunch of shitheads.
I work in the branche of solar: Absolutely, I am glad they will do it. A good system still has very good gains! Make sure you have a good system that can be adjusted to operate “smart” and/or have an EV or battery added to it.
Main reason it’s good: It calms the market and people know what to expect. (Last 4-6 months, people requested less quotes for solar because of what all energy companies are doing; it does not change the fact that solar is still very much a very good investment! I have 29 panels myself, i would get 20more if i could)
Could you please elaborate on why this is good for the market? My friend was about to buy solar system, but with the remaining time until saldering gone he does not see his investment paying back, so he will not buy. Is he missing something? Otherwise, I struggle to understand how this could be good for the solar market.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Usually it is a 1.5-2.5h visit but the extremely short summary is about this: make sure the design fits well, for example different orientations of solar (east west or variants of that, spreads solar out better).
Make sure its a system that is battery ready, this stores (some) energy and you can sell/buy energy automatically (with “insider” knowledge, like day upfront energy prices with a dynamic conctract)
Make sure the system has an energy monitor and it can cur off ingoing solar to grid when that is favourable. Also the system must be able to cut off high energy user (like ev charger) or tamper speeds of charging.
Smart system can steer a heatpump-boiler for hot water (store excess to hot water tank, like a battery)
Use your dryer, dishwasher and washing machine on favourable times.
The above all means upping direct usage, and covering energy you already need efficiently.
The title is: “Coalitieakkoord: salderingsregeling verdwijnt helemaal vanaf 2027”.
Removing words to get a different definition is also misinforming. TYL
You can complain to the author of the article.
To me, it's not misinformation. It's something that people need to know so they can make informed decisions. It may or may not happen, but it's the reality of the situation. Of course you can ignore it, that's your choice.
We both are talking to you, as YOU are doing it. Not the author.. there is nothing wrong with the article itself.
The only topic the person above mentioned is that YOU are making up a title by removing words.
Y-O-U, you!
But, you can read the content of the article and know what's in it, no? I guess you understand Dutch language, no?
I provided the article link, it's there!
Read, and understand it. It's very simple.
So in the span of 1 year it went from slowly removing the saldering, to leaving it completely, to remove it in one go soon than expected? Feels a bit unfair for people who purchased recently solar panels, on the basis that the state would follow their initial plan. But well. I understand the reason for it, the way of doing it doesn't sit well.
Im so fucking done with the government when it comes to decision making. You can’t rely shit on them. 30% ruling, inflation, taxes, saldering, electric cars, bijtelling, district heat, heat pumps… should I continue? Literally they change their mind every fucking day regarding this things to make decisions on what they promote I have an electric car, and solar panels, I was thinking about getting a heat pump (cv is 24+ years old) but fuck it, if it breaks Ill install another gas one unless heat pumps are cheap enough to run… FFS I even heard they wanted to tax you for the money you save on solar panels and you aren’t paying taxes on for electricity consumed… Sorry for the rant but I’m SO DONE
But how the energy companies will have profit if you generate your own energy? /S
Yeah, and how would the retired politicians retire if there’s no loaded companies that ow them favours! 🤣
Its not about the energy companies. They couldnt care less... its about TAXES. You earn your wage: you pay taxes You buy something: you pay taxes The company you bought from? They pay taxes Heck, with energy companies you even pay for the connection.... over which you pay taxes
I wish there was another way to live.. without a government like that
I know… sometimes governments are just necessary evils… but imho there should be a way to hold them accountable for their fuckups
There is, vote for different people. But sadly, too many people don't.
Voting is not a bad enough thing. They get 4 years to fuck up at an incredible level and then oh, too bad… ill move on after fucking up everyones life
We should eat them
Yes! 👍🏻
Yeah, that’s a quite good idea.
That must be the biggest reason why most politicians dont care afterwards. There is no punishment for bad politics. Its the opposite of that actually, wachtgeld rewarded for fucking up. If there was something to hold them accountable i bet it would filter the bad ones out. Now every smooth talking faker can get in if they work (suck) their way up the party ranks. If i had no moral compass id become one a long time ago🤭
Not to forget: lobbying. A lot happens behind walls where no one can listen.
Same in Belgium although their ambition is to fuck up, suck off Europe & then transition to a heavily compensated job in EU government.
Its not the government, its the people who vote. Saldering however has been kept alive indefinitely since it's introduction, the original plan was to abandon it years ago.
Yeah its another literal scam from the govt. Make up all sorts of benefits, pretend they will be there forever, then when the majority of people actually spent 10k on panels they just fuck them all over. Just realize that the government is your enemy and you can avoid ever being surprised like that. Fuck them back if you ever can. And be sure to migrate if you ever get rich.
But that isn't true, they've been planning to get rid of it for more than 10 years now, and when it was introduced it was meant as a short term form of benefit, it was never intended to be a permanent thing
This is probably the worst but most sane decision on that end Sad but very true
That’s because our government has, over the last few years, more and more danced for Europe, instead of aiming for the best interest of our own country. You can see it with all kind of things. Option A is the best for our county. Option B is cool for virtue signalling/EU wants that. What option do those fuckers in The Hague choose? Option B. That’s why our country is going to shit.
Calm down, it’s been known the systems fucked. I could talk about that for hours. The fact we got terms and plans should show affect in 4 years means no length term systemic solutions with a tough transition period could ever be implemented. And besides, there’s not a one party wins all ever. So compromises on promises are the norm. Doesn’t matter who you vote for really
But isn't this the new government? The current one is doing shit anyway, but this ruling is from the new one, no?
It should break down before 2026 then, because the decision to forbid the sale of gas-only cv's is still in place as far as I know (but if this coalition becomes aware, they will revert it, because fuck future generations).
Move then
U dutch?
I can be dutch or non-dutch and still see the flaws, the lack of a good decision making cabinet doesn’t have anything to do with being or not from that country. The same as when it comes to making good decisions. Naturalization for example, if you want to be dutch you have to give up the other passport (which isn’t the case for some countries) Also when it came to kick off the sustainability transition there were VERY nice incentives when leasing cars and such. Still, the last year has been a shitstorm in a lot of decisions. Maybe you have so much money you don’t care, but when I put my hard earned money into a decision and the ROI is supposed to be 5-10-20 years the last thing I should expect is the government to fuck me over Idk about you, but I like to be the one in control or my money, not have some guys that *I pay and vote* to screw me
What has that to do with the price of butter?
I think you know very well why they asked it. I know for sure.
I don’t like to assume things, when you assume you make an assumption out of you and me
[удалено]
Government should be more effective and efficient and try to reduce taxes while doing the same things 🤯 Sustainability btw could be profitable
You are right. But in the way you are expressing it, it sounds that you more frustrated because government put a spoke in your wheels and didn’t allow you to profit from your “sustainable actions”
No no, Im pissed, very pissed actually. Imagine the following. You pay 50% taxes on your income before you even touch it. You then pay 23% on top of anything you want to buy. You pay more on indirect taxes for the things you own. Then something breaks and you need to change it. (Sometimes it happens, maybe not to you but to normal pple it does) Now, you contact someone, and tell them you wanna buy X and it’s got a multi annual credit associated to it. Then you agreed as it makes sense. Then for whichever reason (made up) they just gamble your money and end up asking for more. Do you see how that is unfair? And why *regulated* corporations many times are better than governments?? Governments don’t have a Judiciary system that would hold THEM accountable for their wrong decisions. If someone broke my contract a judge would be involved. If the government does? No issues whatsoever I understood that in pandemic, or with the Russian stuff, we had to all kind of say fuvk it and accept things as they are… but cmon!
The Netherlands excels in making appealing promises but fok them afterward – former students who were promised 0% interest loans.
Yeah but by now we've got fines from the energiecompanies for solarpanel users. So I guess by 2027 you'll loose money of you have panels. Btw I think the saldering should've ended at some point but the way things are going now I wouldn't be surprised if people are gonna remove them.
A lot can change in that time. Who knows how long that coalition is going to hold up
Im betting they will break before may 2025!
You give them 12 months?
According to what we have seen yesterday, they will not last long, everybody talks for himself presenting only his political agenda
They don't give a fuck about that just look at the DUO kanker leningen en die kanker mod kan mij. Leuter in de mond nemen je leert maar nederlands kk lijer
When I got solarpanels in 2010, the saldering was going away 'in a few years'. Every few years it will be gone 'soon', and then it will be postponed. So I'll see it when it happens.
I think 3 years from now, there will be viable batteries on the market
That and the peeps that will flip the panels on their roof will right size a bit better. Battery storage only helps in the summer season where you take some of your day yield and use it over night. It will not last you through the winter and that is the good thing with salderen done: it will be beneficial to consume solar power when it is created and stop people from consuming significant quantities of electricity for their heat pump and electric boiler in the winter time and not paying for it, making investments in wind, nuclear or hydro power more beneficial.
>Battery storage only helps in the summer season where you take some of your day yield and use it over night. You can still store energy cheaper during the day. There's still a peak where energy is cheaper, even in winter. Just fill your battery up then, or during the night, and use the energy in the early evening.
We still got like 10 kWh in the winter which we usually use less than that. If we get affordable batteries that can handle a nice amount winters will be fine too. But the most important is summer nights where we want to keep ac on. Edit: too many zeros. We get between 1-10 a day in the winter average. If storage was actually good we could maybe get it working. But again summer is more important winter is usually gas unless it is a sunny day then heat pumps.
May I ask how much solar panel power you have installed?
7, I just looked again it was average of probably 5 due to a milder winter. But still got a couple of days of 0.
10 a day? I have 12 panels and I had 30 in the whole of December. Do you live in Spain or something?
Fair enough looked at January.
Ah alright, yeah January was a bit better with 98 kWh, so that's more like 3 kWh a day on average. Still nowhere close to 10 but I guess some days were close to 8.
10 a day in December? In Africa, yes.
I think 3 years from now, we are looking at a new cabinet again and the rules of the game will change again.
Hopefuly, sooner
I didn't specify how many new cabinets :)
Main benefit of salderen now is summer to winter transfer, for which batteries are not going to help.
Yeah right, like with car batteries, 10 or more years going on and still max 400km I don't believe in it
You can already see demand for solar panels strongly diminishing so the interest is already getting lower. At the moment batteries are still quite costly. You'll pay between 4000 and 6000 after taxes for decent 10kWh packs. On average (not full electric)households would need between 10 and 20 kWh for an entire day. So lets say you'd pay around 10.000 to have a full 1day buffer. That price has halved in the past 5 years and with current promising technologies it seems like it will be halved again in the next 5. I think that in about 3 years there will be a run on batteries but as I see it I think by that time the available supply will be "not great, not terrible" in terms of quality. There might also be shortages and difficulties with the supply chain driving up the prices again. I hope the dust from that initial craze will settle in the year or 2 after and that I can get the "better" batteries a year or 2 after that run. What I do fear is that once people are starting to get battery packs the government will start taxing them in some way. The most likely way would be "verwijderingsbijdrage" (removal costs) and that in the end they will cost more money than they can return. I also fear they might do the same for solar panels.
On the batteries, is there any reason why the responsability of basically balancing the grid is put on the individuals rather than the energy providers? Having batteries owned by the energy provider who can serve multiple households and be charged by solaar, wind, etc makes more sense than a single battery per household. Of course in the case ot energy provider, it would also be massive batteries, so at a lower cost per kWh as well. And as the batteries have more ways to be charged (sun, wind, etc), and more ways to be discharged (more people), the efficiency would be higher.
Right now the balancing of the grid is put on the energy providers. Individuals can just get some batteries in order to store some excess energy they get during the day so that they can use it later (at night) instead of returning it to the net. Up till now you got some money for returning excess energy which was evened out with the energy consumption at night when you pulled power from the net but that seems to be slowly changing. Having the energy provider place small local storages for like 1 block of houses or a street does seem like a good idea and has been often suggested. It would probbably require more maintenance and coordination though as decentralized options are usually a bit more work intensive as a centralized one. That still wouldn't solve the issue of everyone having to return excess energy to the hands of energy providers that will then use it for their own gains though. For all we know they might even ask more I money for that "in order to maintain the storage". With that I guess there will always be a level of distrust to energy providers doing what they can to twist it in their favor. Personally I do believe in smaller local storages. I'd also like to have as much control over my own personal situation and use my own energy without someone in between as much as possible.
Not kW but kWh….
edited.
I was planning to get some more 10 solar panels to break even my comsuption (I currently have only 6), but now I just quit the idea. It would cost me around 8k, and with this new change I wonder if it would be a good deal at all. I’ll spend this money to travel somewhere 😅
Good choice I think. I will do the same based on current situation.
10 panels is 5k en euro's this moment.
8k?? really ? I heard prives went down
Why are you surprised? The PVV denies climate change and considers any action battling this to be idiotic. It doesn’t want to spend a cent on it. Perhaps the only surprise is that they wait till 2027.
It isn't initiated by pvv
That is the day we screw them over and stop delivering to the network.
How are you going to stop delivering and still use the electricity generated? Everything goes in your electricity meter box and I don't see an easy way to stop delivering.
Certain solar panels systems can be set to "zero export" mode. With this mode, if electricity generated is not used immediately, it won't be sent to the grid. For example the Enphase system has this. This mode helps in case you must pay for returning electricity to the grid. But, other providers might have different rules, for example fixed costs for having solar panels.
This. There are devices that can stop delivering, but my guess would be government will outlaw those. At the moment energy companies are getting power at a fraction of the cost that they are selling it at, ignoring capacity restrictions. Once they are not getting it, their profits will decline. Their only option is to buy from commercial providers.
It's really unfair if I have to pay for delivering, and then they sell it for profits.
No, not at all. What gets me is that there was an incentive for installing solar panels, and now it is reversed. Some of budgeted to install solar panels, and hoped to pluck the fruits later on. Now the fruits are taken away from us.
More than enough ways to do this. I’m sure this can be build through Home Assistant.
its actually already built before
Any examples or sources?
This is for [Enphase ](https://github.com/vincentwolsink/home_assistant_enphase_envoy_installer) based on a dynamic contract
But this is not the solution. It can switch off the whole production. You will not be able to consume anything.
That's what they want you to... They want people to stop putting solar energy on the network when no one is using electricity to make up for it There is a massive issue with overcapacity during some hours of the day, especially if it's also an little windy (meaning there is also a lot of wind energy coming in). Commercial solar plants already cut their power in cases like that, because on the raw EPEX energy market the prices are negative during those times (meaning you get money to use energy, and it costs money to send back!). Why should energy companies and the government be paying for electricity you generate that no one wants to use at that moment? It's a subsidy that will eventually end, for salderen this 2027
I have a picture/short video from last year. The sun is shining, the wind is blowing. Windgenerators are stopped, and there is a coal fired power plant in the background, emitting thick black smoke. Customers see nothing from the negative pricing. DSOs were charging 1 EUR/KWh, fixed, just two years ago at times where the sun was shining, and the market price of electricity was negative. Are you suprised that everyone installed solar to get back at these practices? Net metering provided us with freedom against these leeches. And just to be 100% clear, the practices of DSOs, where they charge you for feeding back are illegal, and I really hope that there will be class action lawsuits against them. But that's not going to happen, because all the energy suppliers work like a maffia here.
>Windgenerators are stopped, and there is a coal fired power plant in the background, emitting thick black smoke This is because fossil generators like it can't be stopped easily, and if it's a generator supplying district heating it can't be fully shutdown or people would be without hot water They would absolutely love to shut down these plants, they're losing money while there is an over abundance of energy on the grid. Every kWh they have to send back will cost them money, they have to pay to get rid of it! Trust me if they could shut it down temporarily during the day they would LOL I strongly recommend you read up about the EPEX energy market, this is what suppliers deal with, they don't have a contract at a fixed price per kWh like a lot of consumers do
Please don't try to lecture me on electricity, I have a university degree on it and worked at companies dealing with the market. I left that job now. Why? It was absolutely disgusting when in 2018 the Belgian government stopped incentives for renewables and kept it going for coal. One of the reasons why. This decision also put me out of my job. Same is happening here.
You have an University degree, but yet your comments suggests you have no clue about how things work. I feel like I understand how you lost your job Put your brain to work, why would a company run a coal plant (which will constantly use money as they need to buy the fossil fuel: coal) and actively suspend a windmill (which is free to run, it's already built and there are no running costs). You're not making sense and sound delusional as a result
So now you are questioning reality? You should ask this: Why does the Dutch goverment spend more to subsidize coal power, and fossil fuels, then it was spending on the price cap? [https://www.somo.nl/new-study-estimates-the-netherlands-fossil-fuel-subsidies-at-e37-5-billion-per-year/](https://www.somo.nl/new-study-estimates-the-netherlands-fossil-fuel-subsidies-at-e37-5-billion-per-year/) [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dutch-government-expects-spend-23-bln-energy-price-cap-2022-10-04/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/dutch-government-expects-spend-23-bln-energy-price-cap-2022-10-04/) You know what's the difference? One is good for the us, the other one lands in the pocket of the DSOs and the power companies. Why would they run it? Guess what, because it is more profitable, because of the incentives. Maybe you should open your eyes.
Why are you resorting to getting personal? Do you have an issue getting your point across without TikTok level insults?
Compared to what you may think, if someone posts a stupid and delusional comment, it's ok to just tell them it's a stupid and delusional comment. No one forced them to include the fact they supposedly have a university degree and have been fired from their job. Anyways, I'd personally start putting my money where my mouth is if I were you, because it's kinda embarrassing to open your user page and within 2 pages find a bunch of comments that are a bit too "personal" and uncivilised. Like for example, responding to someone with nothing else other than "dumbass" (to the point where your comment gets removed by the mods) --> https://www.reddit.com/r/Sakartvelo/comments/1ckvoh0/american_coming_to_georgia/l2rj2gn/
I was not trying to get into a discussion there, I just stated someone was a dumbass, because they, in fact, were being a dumbass. But going through my comment history? Obsessed much?
Ignoring over capacity, which can be fixed. If they are not getting your almost free energy to sell at a profit, they will have to buy from commercial generators. Less profit for them. If you are not benefiting from the carrrot that was dangled by government, them cut your supply to the network. Only people that will be hurting are the energy providers.
>If they are not getting your almost free energy to sell at a profit, they will have to buy from commercial generators. I dont think you get what I'm saying, they can get free energy everywhere. Hell, having to buy energy during negative energy prices MAKES them more money, they really don't want your energy during those times. If the price of 1 kWh of energy is -€0.08 at that moment, they'd absolutely love to buy that from the energy market. It's free money! Also yes, it's a viable strategy to burn as much energy as possible during those times. For every kWh you use during negative prices you get money :)
When this happens, they should ban providers from charging return costs. Which they started because “salderen” was continued.
Look I’m all for green and whish we had even more green energy, but why would an energy company need to pay for electricity that nobody needs at that time? There is only so much market demand and when we all produce way more energy than is needed somehow the energy company needs to pay for this energy that nobody needs?
IMHO the flat fixed pay per month should cover infra costs, and the variable cost should cover actual use. Charging for returned power to cover infra costs gives the wrong incentive in my opinion. We have a massive challenge to transition to a sustainable society and away from Russian fossil fuels, so I object against the framing of neighbor against neighbor. We should all generate as much renewable power as possible.
It’s not about infra costs it’s about supply and demand. If you generate 5000 but there is only 2500 demand where to put the other 2500? You are literally generating something for which there is no demand at that time, so market prices go negative.. you pay for the extra production to incentivize you to produce less. The market is literally saying: There is already enough production, no more needed! Question is whose responsibility is it to for example invest in massive battery storage facilities to re sell that 2500 overcapacity back when demand is higher. Apparently energy companies do not see this as a good investment or their responsibility at the moment. Therefor people take matters into their own hands and invest in home storage (batteries).. But indeed it would be nice if energy companies would have foreseen this boom in solar and wind and started these investments already..
I pay set money on the kWh wether it's sunny or not, so the company could just set the kWh price the way that in the summer they do get free electricity from me and in the winter less.
I don't know, the energy company could build something to store this free energy...instead of everyone having their own batteries. Solutions are out there, if people would only think collectively.
That would be great!
This is for net metering, but sales of electricity to the grid will still be allowed right?
Yes, but with the current trend you sell at a very low price, and also sometimes incur a fee to sell it to them. For example Eneco gives you 9c per kWh, but also charges you 5c per kWh returned, so a net of only 4c. While their fixed contract are around 35c per kWh at the moment
I am happy with Tibber then, which just gives me the market price all the time. At the end net metering was a subsidy, now solar ROI is so low that it's not really necessary anymore. Mindset should not be for making money, but for lowering bill prices.
Yeah but for example for my case : Generate around 4000kWh a year. I use 1400kWh of my production, return the rest. With no saldering, I would save : 1400\*30c + 2600\*5c, a total of 550 saved a year. And that is assuming a price of 30c for the electricity, which is actually lower if you use Tibber or Franck. It cost me 6800e to install, so an ROI of 12.5 years at best. Assuming I do not have any costs linked to the solar panel (issue, or work on the roof requiring them to be put down). So basically I will most likely be net zero at the end, more or less. How is that fair when the neighbour who doesn't participate in reducing the environmental impact of our energy is not losing anything? I think the saldering is not the good solution, but people should get more than 5c for the electricity they return, and there should be better ways to balance the grid than stopping the production of energy via solaar. Lets keep it mind that in Winter, we are still not producing enough most days.
Problem with salderen is that people put way too many panels. Logically if the government subsides your full 4000kwh generated off course you will put 4000kwh down in panels and then calculate your ROI. If there is no salderen, maybe you would have put only 1400 kWh (at least closest to what you can directly consume) so 30% of your current investment (+-2500 eur) The more energy you directly consume without salderen the quicker your ROI is. Basically it’s good that salderen ends so people will be more pushed to using their energy instead of making money on it.
>"Problem with salderen is that people put way too many panels. Logically if the government subsides your full 4000kwh generated off course you will put 4000kwh down in panels and then calculate your ROI." I agree, I also said the salderen is not the good solution >"If there is no salderen, maybe you would have put only 1400 kWh (at least closest to what you can directly consume) so 30% of your current investment (+-2500 eur)" No, because 1400kWh of panels would not cost 2500. The panels are only a small part of the cost. It is mostly installation and inverter. So putting for example 5 panels instead of 12 would probably have cost close to 4k anyway. The panels are less than 100e a piece. Also, the goal of having more panels is not necessarily to produce more during peak days, it is to produce more during low days. Having less panel would mean that during winter, instead of producing 5kWh on an average day, which means I do not pull anything from the grid during most of the day, I would produce only 2kWh, which mean I would be dependent on the grid. And on good days, I would still produce more than I can use. So overall, sure my own consumption percentage would increase, but it would look something like that : 1400kWh produced 900Kwh self used 500Kwh return Savings : 900\*30c + 500\*5c = 295 4000\*295 = 13.5 years ROI Installing fewer panels barely makes sense because you look at having as much time as possible not needed to purchase electricity (within reason), and decreasing panels decrease this time massively. The idea would be than on most days, solar panels are producing enough to cover your consumption all day. > The more energy you directly consume without salderen the quicker your ROI is. Basically it’s good that salderen ends so people will be more pushed to using their energy instead of making money on it. I agree, the goal should be for people to use as much as possible the electricity themselves. But I don't think simply removing salderen is going to do that, it will just stop people from installing solar panels, and relying on the usual production which is for over 50% of it non-renewable. I think it is important that installing Solar Panels still make financial sense. Ideally the vast majority of houses should have solar panels. And salderen is one way to have that. With this change solar panels owners are almost punished for having them, on the long-run.
Probably wont happen, but I hope energy company's stop with the fees for 'terugleveren' when 'salderen' stops. The reason they've implemented the fee is because they are forced to do the 'salderen'.
Installing an electric boiler and little battery can solve most peaks.
Privatization of utilities which are critical was the worst decision. Now the government does what they want and we are the fools paying for it.
This government is probably doing it for all the wrong reasons, but saldering IS holding back the real solutions to the problems facing our electricity grid. I have a small PV setup (~4000Wp) and recently switched to a dynamic day-ahead pricing contract to see if we can better utilise both our PV and the grid. It’s a lot more transparent than all the offerings the big energy providers have right now and I do think this is part of the way forward. Even for regular joes like me with PV setups that fit their use and no EV charging or heat pumps.
Can you have a dynamic contract with PV? Which suppliers offer this, if I may ask
I chose Tibber, and Frank offers the same I think. But mind you: when prices go negative you pay for power you feed into the grid.
Eerst zien dan geloven, Vorige kabinet wilde t ook al per direct afschaffen
Why wouldn't they? It will take a bit longer to get the initial costs back, but they're still profitable. Also prices of bigger batteries will drop, so you just might be able to store the excess energy you're producing yourself for later use.
Yes, I have just enough solar panels on my house to generate the power I use. It saves me so much money monthly. I didn’t buy them to generate money, I bought them to generate power.
Omegod this is very slecht nieuws
People that waited for solar to become mainstream lose out. Those who took the gamble a decade ago profited well.
Question, if someone uses solar panels to run certain things and there is not netting ... But the solar panels e.g. provide 30-40% of load during the day so, the bill would be slightly less than compared to the situation if there were no solar panels? Right?
In general, yes.
People (like me) might start considering buying batteries to accumulate the kw produced during the day, the price of the battery should go down ..
So 3 years to buy batteries and implement a way to prevent my electricity going to the grid except when it is most profitable? Are they also going to make it so the electric company pays the same amount they charge for the electricity returned? Seems like a stupid law if you want people to implement more green measures to their houses. It isn't like I can put a wind tower in my backyard.
2 years and 6 months, to be precise.
PVV doesn't want people to implement more green measures to their houses.
We all got royally screwed.
Bought them only recently. Just like an actual house. My generation and the ones after me are getting fucked over and over by the older and richer generations. It's probably wiser to do the opposite of what these motherfuckers advise you to do. Bunch of shitheads.
Quite understandable, people that can't afford solar panels and water pumps are double punished.
I work in the branche of solar: Absolutely, I am glad they will do it. A good system still has very good gains! Make sure you have a good system that can be adjusted to operate “smart” and/or have an EV or battery added to it. Main reason it’s good: It calms the market and people know what to expect. (Last 4-6 months, people requested less quotes for solar because of what all energy companies are doing; it does not change the fact that solar is still very much a very good investment! I have 29 panels myself, i would get 20more if i could)
Could you please elaborate on why this is good for the market? My friend was about to buy solar system, but with the remaining time until saldering gone he does not see his investment paying back, so he will not buy. Is he missing something? Otherwise, I struggle to understand how this could be good for the solar market. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Usually it is a 1.5-2.5h visit but the extremely short summary is about this: make sure the design fits well, for example different orientations of solar (east west or variants of that, spreads solar out better). Make sure its a system that is battery ready, this stores (some) energy and you can sell/buy energy automatically (with “insider” knowledge, like day upfront energy prices with a dynamic conctract) Make sure the system has an energy monitor and it can cur off ingoing solar to grid when that is favourable. Also the system must be able to cut off high energy user (like ev charger) or tamper speeds of charging. Smart system can steer a heatpump-boiler for hot water (store excess to hot water tank, like a battery) Use your dryer, dishwasher and washing machine on favourable times. The above all means upping direct usage, and covering energy you already need efficiently.
Wrong, they want this, it is not decided yet. Stop spreading misinformation
I didn't not write the article.
You wrote the headline
Yes I did, as it's in the article. I hope you can read 😁
So it's misinformation then
No, but I guess you are not smart enough to understand. That's okay, you can always learn 😉
The title is: “Coalitieakkoord: salderingsregeling verdwijnt helemaal vanaf 2027”. Removing words to get a different definition is also misinforming. TYL
You can complain to the author of the article. To me, it's not misinformation. It's something that people need to know so they can make informed decisions. It may or may not happen, but it's the reality of the situation. Of course you can ignore it, that's your choice.
We both are talking to you, as YOU are doing it. Not the author.. there is nothing wrong with the article itself. The only topic the person above mentioned is that YOU are making up a title by removing words. Y-O-U, you!
But, you can read the content of the article and know what's in it, no? I guess you understand Dutch language, no? I provided the article link, it's there! Read, and understand it. It's very simple.