Posted on 06/09/2006 11:24:32 AM PDT by calcowgirl
you can't have an unlimited subsidy..
But.. But.. But..
It's for the children..
California Energy Commission spokeswoman Claudia Chandler is also optimistic about the future of solar power in California.
"I think everybody's very aware of how costly conventional energy is," Chandler said, citing the high natural gas prices right now. "When you look at the options out there, what are the alternatives?"
--
Oh Claudia,, sweetie!
It's called
Nuclear ..
But Roger Denault, owner of Solar Technologies, ... said the fact that nonsolar users subsidize solar power is not an issue because around 85 percent of people in California approve the use of solar power.
"If that's a real concern, then let some public interest group, some citizen group, raise that argument. Given the public good, our opinion is that they ought not to have a limit at all" ...
SAVE THE SUN!!!
Just raise the cap and let the utility pay for what it purchases.
Typical govt welfare program. Too many folks sign up for the freebies so what's the answer? More freebies! Meanwhile, market distortions take place and somewhere down the road when Kali doesn't have a reliable electric grid because real energy companies aren't willing to invest, then have the state interfere, the sheeple will rise up and blame---The energy companies!
So have the meter run "backwards" at wholesale rate, and "forwards" at retail rate. It's not rocket science.
Adelman and his wife looked into putting solar panels on their home in the mid-1990s but found it too expensive. The net metering law, which passed in 1995, helped photovoltaic systems become practical.
Practical? PRACTICAL? NO, Idiot! It isn't practical or YOU would pay for it. Instead you expect NON-users to subsidize your folly.
Another expert at spending OPM (Other People's Money)
That is actually a very good point that they cannot buy your power at retail. So change the way you measure the total energy flow and credit the outgoing at wholesale and keep the incoming retail retail the same. Just redesign the flow meter, it can't be that hard.
But if they only credit at the wholesale rate, it no longer becomes cost effective to the user. Hence, they just want more subsidies.
In other words, as long as solar power is paid for by someone else, it's affordable.
Thanks
"So have the meter run "backwards" at wholesale rate, and "forwards" at retail rate."
But then it wouldn't be a subsidy (take from that have and give to those that don't) and the enviros would file a suit within 10 minutes!
I'd tell you what I really think of the "enviros", but the mods would just yank my post ...
For an idea on presepective, 136 MW represents one mid sized gas turbine that could be set up on a lot no bigger than the average home lot and probably costs less than $30 million installed. If the average home system costs $25,000, the investment for the same amount of solar electricity is over $3 billion.
No it just becomes less cost effective.
Max rebate = payback in 8 years
No rebate = payback in 13 years.
Some rebate = payback somewhere in the middle.
Buy the parts and do it yourself will greatly lower the cost.
Labor is a significant part of the cost and it ain't rocket science.
Great point. The biggest real advantage to solar is when you are isolated from the grid in your mountian hide-a-way.
$3 Billion sounds familiar:
$2.9 Billion Solar Roofs Program Proposed For California Environment California ^ | December 13, 2005 Posted on 12/13/2005 5:25:39 PM PST by calcowgirl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.