Slashdot Mirror
The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
Lucas123 writes: Distributed rooftop solar is a threat not only to fossil fuel power generation, but also to the profits of monopolistic model of utilities. While the overall amount of electrical capacity represented by distributed solar power remains miniscule for now, it's quickly becoming one of leading sources of new energy deployment. As adoption grows, fossil fuel interests and utilities are succeeding in pushing anti-net metering legislation, which places surcharges on customers who deploy rooftop solar power and sell unused power back to their utility through the power grid. Other state legislation is aimed at reducing tax credits for households or businesses installing solar or allows utilities to buy back unused power at a reduced rate, while reselling it at the full retail price.
The only problem is that the next guy is just as corrupt, if not more so.
No, the problem is that he and the corrupt party are constantly rewarded with reelection. The voters have to work the system and be as active as the lobbyists, not just show up every two years. Why I am being modded down for stating this, I do not understand, aside from an ulterior motive on the moderator's part.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
During daytime, buy cheap power from all those rooftop solar installations.
This is exactly what net metering doesn't allow. It makes no sense to require power companies to
buy power from rooftop installations at retail.
This setup is excellent for using/storing solar power.
Indeed, it's good. But how do you propose for the power companies to pay the £425 million, in 1984 pounds, when they're facing declining revenues because people aren't buying their power anymore? (BTW, did you mean Dinorwig?)
If it shakes down that people can sell solar electricity for $.10/kwh, but have to buy electricity(solar and other) for $.20, then the power company has the resources to do things like build and operate more pumped storage stations. Don't forget that companies will build pumped storage where it makes the most sense - IE lowest cost for the power/energy, first. So if we need 100 Dinorwigs to meet demand, the last is going to cost a lot more than the first, because it'll require much more earth moving and construction.
I don't read AC A human right
My scheme for taking care of the pollution issue is quite different than the EPA's 'cap & grandfather'.
Mine is simple: Rate the pollutants in terms of harm. IE Mercury into the environment costs $10M/ton. Charge any company that emits Mercury ~$11M/ton, and call it a day. Same with other pollutants. CO2 might 'only' be $.10/ton, but it'd add up quickly.
I don't read AC A human right
Net metering is just another subsidy for solar, and it is already well known that solar subsidies are one of the least cost effective methods to compact climate change. We could reduce CO2 emissions by ten times as much if the money was spent on attic insulation or LED lighting, and a hundred times as much if it was spent on contraceptives for third world women.
Whoa cowboy. With net metering we have an additional source of resources for the monopoly that controls electricity in a given region. And its generated at the point of use, reducing distribution cost. If they're too stupid to figure out how to use new technology and load balance, they should be obligated to figure it out or rescind their monopoly.
"Its well known" that you make shit up. There are many different scenarios and some are not conducive to solar. However in my state (high coal usage), my rooftop solar panels are currently cheaper today than coal generated electricity. They'll generate back the power that it took to make them within a year or two and over 20 years I'm looking at an 8-10% ROI. How is eliminating coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
I'm with you that insulation and LEDs are the way to go but even I think 10x is optimistic (back to: you're making shit up). I also agree contraception should be ubiquitous and lower population is an excellent way to fix most of the problems in the world today, but start in the US. A lower class american consumes orders of magnitude more resources than most Africans, Indians, and rural Chinese.
I have yet to see an example of "the XXXXX industry" acting in the interests of anyone but themselves. Benefits to outside parties are pretty much always coincidence.