You said - The truely conservative view would be to allow the free market to apply to residential roof top solar and other means to generate electricty at the point of use.
Riiight, because solar is so economical and reliable. Got your Volt yet? Perhaps you could put panels on that too to augment its feeble power train.
I assume you live in SoCal. I used to, got smart and left. You on the other hand, remain and actually echo the lefty mantras regarding nuke power.
ENJOY your summer of paying more for electricity while it is actually available there.
Anti-nuke people DESERVE all the rates they pay, all the electricity shortages they get.
ALL technology entails risk. But that risk is evaluated versus the benefits. Nuke is a power source that generates large benefits, with a risk that, over time, hasa diminished. Case in point, SONGS 1. Too old to retrofit, now it is gone. Units 2 and 3 are fine, will be shown to be so. But regardless of fitness for use, I’m sure there will be protests, unending hearings, etc.
You should show you are not willing to support such risk-filled ventures like electricity production and get off the grid. But you know, even fabricating solar panels has risks. Oh, the hugh-manatee of it all.
With all due respect, that is not a very thinking reply. I mean, I jump in to conversations like that also. I understand the larger issue you are speaking to.
But, on the subject of roof top solar, I am looking out my window right now at three homes that have solar panels. All three neighbors said if they were allowed to be paid for the electricity they generate, they could receive a check at the end of the year. Instead they just put up massive Christmas light displays.
Let's get into this in a bit more detail. Explain to me your objection to a residential homeowner being paid for the electricity they generate and put into the grid. Let's stick to that simple proposition. I think we agree on the larger political conversation.