Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come this isn't on the P & OC forum? It would be red meat for the oil-loving climate Chang deniers.
News flash: I firmly believe that man-made climate change is a complete crock yet I'm still a fan of solar energy. Kind of blows your preconceptions out of the water, doesn't it?
I didn't know the sun was owned by anyone...maybe it's harder for the utility companies to be "freegougers", and they just don't like it.
Pathetic to say the least.
If you run a completely self-sufficient solar system, disconnected from the grid, with battery backup then this does not apply to you. However if your system is connected to the grid, then by definition, you are kind of a freeloader and I'm someone who supports solar power.
The issue is this, solar power is intermittent, it is not consistent, its impossible to know months out when you'll have a cloudy day, also, the biggest energy loads are from 6-9 PM on weekdays, at a time when most solar systems are inoperative with the inverter shutdown. There needs to be something to support the grid during those times, correct? The utilities have to keep their systems running as backups, regardless of renewables, so basically they aren't seeing any savings on their end but have to pay out a retail rate for electricity under net metering while they normally get their electricity at a wholesale rate.
I do think those with solar and a grid-connection should pay some additional fees, not as hefty as utilities and goofy special interests like ALEC demand, but your neighbors down the street shouldn't have to subsidize your solar panels through their higher electric costs either, that's not cool.
Unless you're house is being destroyed soon, the net gain of using solar panels and geothermal-thermal solutions will be positive. You may not be living in the home, but someone will be and during their entire time, less pollution will be released into the atmosphere. Let's stop with this short term, selfish thinking.
This is of course nonsense. Whether you do or do not install a solar panel system on your home, the utility company still has to keep their generators running, the idea that installing solar panels being good for the environment is laughable in present time. Until we have more reliable battery backup systems, installing solar on your home is irrelevant as long as the utility continues running their coal or natural gas power generation at the same rate. As mentioned before, the highest demand times are between 6-9 PM on weekdays, at a time when your solar power system is producing jack crap generally, how is having solar beneficial during those hours?
This thread is not about ethanol. But I'm not surprised you liberals bring it up like it's some super fuel.
It's not successful because people are selfish and care more about money (something of which is virtually unlimited) than the health of people.
Solar panels are always capable of generating energy as long as there's light. Just because you're in a colder (less sunny) environment doesn't mean that it doesn't help in generating energy. Even offsetting your organic energy usage by a small amount can help mitigate pollution. Any amount helps... whether it's 1% or 90%.
Unless you're completely disconnected from the grid, you aren't off-setting anything.
It's one thing using up land that would otherwise be agricultural, but attacking the public for putting the solar panels on their roofs, hence cutting their carbon footprint, in more ways than one, that's just not on. (Just think of how much of the sun's heat is not reaching the roof beneath the panel, that alone is going to cut air conditioning needs).
It's one thing using up land that would otherwise be agricultural, but attacking the public for putting the solar panels on their roofs, hence cutting their carbon footprint, in more ways than one, that's just not on. (Just think of how much of the sun's heat is not reaching the roof beneath the panel, that alone is going to cut air conditioning needs).
The issue that they bring up, admittedly to an extreme, is certainly one worth discussing. If you have solar panels on your roof, should your neighbor be held responsible for subsidizing them? Because that's the reality of the situation. If you have solar on your roof, you still need the grid to be operational, your solar power does not go back into your house but into the grid, when you pay for electricity, part of the cost per kwh includes the costs to maintaining the grid and running the various power generating systems, with solar, you still rely on those systems, yet you aren't paying for them, meaning your non-solar power having neighbors are paying your share as well as theirs.
I worked for several solar companies and the vast majority of customers were those making 6 figure incomes and above, either that or retired individuals with substantial financial assets and outstanding credit profiles. Basically, the upper middle class and the wealthy. What ends up happening is utilities jack up rates to absorb the additional costs that are created and others end up paying those costs, namely the middle class and below. So you've got people who aren't in as great of a financial position or those living in apartments who are paying more so those who already have more....can pay less. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I do support some sort of grid-access fee,if only in the name of fairness, solar can be your choice for your family and household and depending on your situation and location, it could be a very good choice but it shouldn't be one that becomes a burden for your neighbors to carry.
The issue that they bring up, admittedly to an extreme, is certainly one worth discussing. If you have solar panels on your roof, should your neighbor be held responsible for subsidizing them? Because that's the reality of the situation. If you have solar on your roof, you still need the grid to be operational, your solar power does not go back into your house but into the grid, when you pay for electricity, part of the cost per kwh includes the costs to maintaining the grid and running the various power generating systems, with solar, you still rely on those systems, yet you aren't paying for them, meaning your non-solar power having neighbors are paying your share as well as theirs.
I worked for several solar companies and the vast majority of customers were those making 6 figure incomes and above, either that or retired individuals with substantial financial assets and outstanding credit profiles. Basically, the upper middle class and the wealthy. What ends up happening is utilities jack up rates to absorb the additional costs that are created and others end up paying those costs, namely the middle class and below. So you've got people who aren't in as great of a financial position or those living in apartments who are paying more so those who already have more....can pay less. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I do support some sort of grid-access fee,if only in the name of fairness, solar can be your choice for your family and household and depending on your situation and location, it could be a very good choice but it shouldn't be one that becomes a burden for your neighbors to carry.
Maybe just cut the subsidy of free use to the network, but I'd not have thought charging for helping with energy generation to be acceptable.
Maybe just cut the subsidy of free use to the network, but I'd not have thought charging for helping with energy generation to be acceptable.
It isn't really "helping." If you run a store and sell an item for $2.50, would a wholesaler charging you $2.50 for that same item while lounging around in your office at all hours be considered "helping?" You don't make any extra money whatsoever in the transaction and in the end, it actually ends up costing you money.
If a utility company can purchase electricity for roughly $0.03-$0.04 a kilowatt hour but have to compensate you $0.18 per kilowatt hour during peak times, with no allowance for the costs of maintaining and updating the grid, how can they sustain that system long-term without raising rates?
Also, between the most critical hours of 6-9 PM on weekdays, when power use is at its highest, there's very little to no power being provided by solar power so utilities still have to continue to run their systems at full blast, meaning no savings to them, at the end of the month, they end up losing money on solar customers, meaning that when they go before the corporation commission or state utility regulatory board, they're going to include those losses in any rate hike proposal which will more adversely affect those without solar and of lower income than anyone else.
So once more, where is the justification for forcing those with lower incomes to subsidize the upper middle class and wealthy?
I do support a fair-use fee, nothing punitive or extreme, but enough to cover maintenance of the grid which solar users still rely on but generally don't pay for. If the grid goes down, we all lose power, whether you have solar or not, why should only some of the population pay for maintaining it? Make it something like $10-15 a month and that should cover it pretty well for most utilities. Once more, if you have an off-grid solar system and do not rely on the grid whatsoever, these fees should not apply to you because you are essentially being self-sufficient for your power needs.
This thread is not about ethanol. But I'm not surprised you liberals bring it up like it's some super fuel.
It's not successful because people are selfish and care more about money (something of which is virtually unlimited) than the health of people.
Solar panels are always capable of generating energy as long as there's light. Just because you're in a colder (less sunny) environment doesn't mean that it doesn't help in generating energy. Even offsetting your organic energy usage by a small amount can help mitigate pollution. Any amount helps... whether it's 1% or 90%.
Look, my average electric bill for a 2440 sq ft house is around 125 a month. If you really think you can convince me to spend upwards of 20k of MY money to shave a cool 12.00 off my electric bill you must surely realize how illogical that is.
I also have a lot of tall trees here (keeps us cool in the summer) I'd have to cut down further adding to the cost and hurting precious mother Earth in the process.
Solar is a bad choice for many Americans, until YOU start paying for other peoples solar conversion I cannot take you very seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
