Lately, I’ve come across more and more people saying they won’t install solar panels — or worse, that they’re switching them off — because of the so-called feed-in penalty. And honestly, that frustrates me.

Not because I think everyone must have solar panels. But because this one change — a small adjustment in how feed-in energy is compensated — is being treated as if it wipes out the entire value of going solar. It doesn’t. Not even close.

I believe the feed-in tariff is not only reasonable — it’s necessary. And I say that as someone who generates their own energy, pays the fee, and still saves a significant amount. So let’s break this down properly.

What Happened After Everyone Went Solar

Let’s be clear: the growth of solar energy has been a massive win. It’s decentralized, clean, and scalable. Over a million rooftops in the Netherlands now have solar panels — and that’s something we should celebrate.

But with rapid adoption came side effects. Our energy infrastructure wasn’t built for so many micro-generators all pushing power back to the grid — especially not at the same time. On sunny afternoons, the grid becomes overloaded, forcing energy suppliers to push down prices or even pay to offload excess supply. Meanwhile, when the sun sets, gas-fired power plants have to ramp back up — quickly, and often inefficiently.

This volatility creates costs: balancing the grid, activating backup capacity, maintaining infrastructure that wasn’t designed for this kind of two-way traffic.

And here’s the catch: for a long time, those costs were shared by everyone — even by people who don’t have solar panels.

People with panels saved money (or even made money), while people without panels — often renters or lower-income households — paid the full share of grid costs through their energy bills.

That’s not fair. And it’s not sustainable.

The feed-in compensation scheme we have today is an attempt to address that. It’s not a punishment — it’s a price signal. A way to make sure that those who contribute to grid instability also share in the cost of keeping the system running.

It’s Not a Penalty — It’s Perspective

When the feed-in compensation changed, many people were quick to call it a penalty. I get the emotion — suddenly your expected returns look different on paper. But let’s look at what it really means.

In my case, I generated 2625 kWh of solar energy in 2024.

  • I used 1138 kWh directly myself.
  • I returned 1486 kWh to the grid.
  • And I still had to import 2150 kWh — down from my usual 3300 kWh before going solar.

Before the new scheme, my monthly energy cost was around €85. With panels and full net metering, I expected it to drop to about €5/month. After the feed-in adjustment, I had estimated €28/month — but the actual result? €14/month. That’s still €71/month in savings, or €852/year.

My solar setup cost €3600 in 2023 — at a time when panels were still more expensive than today. Even with the new rules, that return is strong. And that’s with no battery. The ability to offset grid usage with self-consumption is where the real value lies — and that hasn’t changed.

Let’s be clear: every kilowatt-hour you generate and use yourself is still worth the full retail price + taxes — currently around €0.326/kWh. That means those 1138 kWh I used directly saved me over €370 last year. No subsidies. No tricks. Just clean, local, used-on-the-spot power.

Now imagine I’d had a battery. The simulation shows that:

  • I’d have used 2262 kWh of my own solar
  • Returned just 363 kWh
  • And imported only ~1027 kWh from the grid

Under current Vattenfall rates, that would bring my monthly cost down to about €9, with minimal feed-in fees — because I wouldn’t be pushing excess energy back to the grid at the wrong time. I’d be using what I made. That’s balance — both ecologically and economically.

And that’s the point: the “losses” people worry about aren’t really losses. They’re just smaller gains. Solar is still smart. But now, smart means looking beyond just the panels. It means thinking in systems: consumption, timing, storage, weather, seasons.

That might not sound sexy to everyone, but it’s how we move forward. In other countries, subsidies aren’t focused on feed-in — they’re tied to installation, or even battery pairing. That’s where we should be heading, too.

Because in the end, the real win isn’t financial. It’s natural balance. It’s using what we have wisely. And it’s doing more with what we already make.

Let’s Stop Chasing Euros and Start Thinking Smarter

Somewhere along the way, solar became all about euro signs. People saw panels as a money machine — and the goal shifted from reducing your footprint to maximizing your feed-in return. Massive overproduction, no storage, and zero regard for grid impact. That mindset didn’t just distort the purpose of solar — it shifted the costs onto those who couldn’t afford to participate.

And that’s the part we should talk about.

We need to stop treating energy like a game of short-term gain. The real power of solar lies in producing what you need, using it wisely, and minimizing waste — not in dumping megawatts back into a stressed grid and calling it a success.

The smartest thing we can do right now isn’t to protest a small adjustment in feed-in compensation. It’s to reflect. To make better decisions. To think not just about what we gain, but how we all move forward.

And that future? It’s in balance and storage — not more production. We’re already seeing a surge in battery adoption, and rightly so. If we want to move away from gas and dirty backup power, we need to store what we generate. That’s how we build something resilient, clean, and fair.

So no, don’t turn off your panels.

Turn off the mindset that solar is about profit — and turn on the one that sees it as a tool for energy freedom, system stability, and shared progress.