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.
Because it is not economically viable- yet. California pushing something is not going to make it so.
Consider this. There were cell phones in labs by the late 60s. By the mid 80s, they were commercially available. However, they were huge, clunky, unreliable, and very, very expensive.
But time went on and nowadays nobody remembers that because they are the status quo. And government did not have to push them to get there.
Or compact disk players. I remember when they were strictly a luxury item. Once again, the industry competed and innovated and they became something found in every home, often more than one.
Solar will get there. But California type actions will probably delay that day.
But on the same note modern electronics would not be at the state it is without NASA and DOD. Early silicon valley money was mostly government.
That's not their job. We have freedoms in this country (although CA is bent on destroying them slowly), which includes the freedom to purchase what we want.
You don't want solar panels?
Don't buy them.
You have options.
If you're in CA, buy an existing home. Or move next door to AZ, NV, OR.
Quote:
And "what is right" according to whom? The very politicians that benefit from the law?
Nope.
According to evidence. You know, that science/engineering/economics that you hate.
Guys like you raised hell in the 1960s when auto manufacturers were required to put seatbelts and other safety measures into their products.
Time marches on even without the approval of wannabe clock stoppers.
Quote:
If solar power is SO smart, economical and responsible, why does the government have to force people to install it? It's the same ridiculous argument Dems made about Obamacare - that only THEY were educated enough to know what's best for everyone.
Californians are shrieking that housing costs are out of reach of most of its citizens. Adding thousands to the purchase price of a home won't help that at all.
In Florida we have building codes that address hurricane protection. Things like high impact glass windows. Basically, its a boon to insurance companies.
I'm pretty ambivalent about the mandate, but I'm curious as to why you think this will delay improvements in the economics of solar?
Because you are now replacing innovation, competition, and incentive with the diktat of bureaucrats.
The potential benefits of solar are HUGE. As such, there is no reason to bring government diktat into the picture. I realize "doing nothing" jives with our impatience, but it is usually the best option.
Because you are now replacing innovation, competition, and incentive with the diktat of bureaucrats.
I see it going the other way. Innovation, competition and incentive are usually driven by demand, even if that demand is manufactured by diktat.
We're actually planning on building a new house in a few years. Our expectations now is that there will be a greater number of companies, products and services available as a result of this mandate.
I see it going the other way. Innovation, competition and incentive is usually driven by demand, even if that demand is manufactured by diktat.
You basically just described how the USSR approached economics. That did not work very well.
If government becomes the main demand-side determinant, then incentive is destroyed as you now have a blank check. Once incentive goes, so goes innovation and competition. Why would you innovate anything if the State is forcing people to by your product? And competition is gone because they will pick a few companies who will flourish while the others collapse. So long competition, hello stagnation.
No, a very bad choice. Full of emotion and desire, but no common sense.
You basically just described how the USSR approached economics. That did not work very well.
If government becomes the main demand-side determinant, then incentive is destroyed as you now have a blank check. Once incentive goes, so goes innovation and competition. Why would you innovate anything if the State is forcing people to by your product? And competition is gone because they will pick a few companies who will flourish while the others collapse. So long competition, hello stagnation.
No, a very bad choice. Full of emotion and desire, but no common sense.
Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with Soviet economics, but I think a differentiating dynamic would be their communal ownership of production and capital. Controlling "who can make what" is a bit different than stimulating demand. Our system allows for more competition on the supply side, which is what should keep the industry from stagnating.
Admittedly, I'm not very familiar with Soviet economics, but I think a differentiating dynamic would be their communal ownership of production and capital. Controlling "who can make what" is a bit different than stimulating demand. Our system allows for more competition on the supply side, which is what should keep the industry from stagnating.
But you are not stimulating demand. You are ordering people to purchase something. That is not demand. That is a mandate, an order, or coercion. A diktat.
The Beatles sold and continue to sell a lot of music because it is in Demand i.e. because people like it and want it- they DEMAND it.
Nobody ordered them to buy it.
Hey, I want the same thing that the California government does. Everybody does. But I have run the numbers several times re solar for my own home and it does not add up.
Someday it will, if the State stays to the side.
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.