Slashdot Mirror
California Is Giving Away Free Solar Panels To Its Poorest Residents
MikeChino writes: Oakland-based non-profit GRID Alternatives is giving away 1,600 free solar panels to California's poorest residents by the year 2016. The initiative was introduced by Senator Kevin de León and launched with funds gathered under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GCRF), the state's cap-and-trade program. SFGate reports: "Kianté London used the program to put panels on his three-bedroom North Richmond home, which he shares with two sons and a daughter. 'It helps me and my family a great deal to have low-cost energy, because these energy prices are really expensive,' said London, 46, whose solar array was installed this week. 'And I wanted to do my part. It’s clean, green energy.' London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it on his income as a merchant seaman — roughly $70,000 per year. Even leasing programs offered by such companies as SolarCity and Sunrun were too expensive, he said. The new program, in contrast, paid the entire up-front cost of his array."
by taking money from other people... that isn't free.
>> initiative...launched with funds gathered under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GCRF), the state's cap-and-trade program ...and you wonder why California has no money for the basics.
>> London had wanted a solar array for years, but couldn’t afford it...
And I'd like a pony. Please Santa?
(Come to think of it, a good 10% the readership of this site probably REALLY does want a pony.)
...right now California has subsidies to people who have solar panels; any power they don't use during the day is sold 'back to the grid' at retail prices; hence, many of the wealthy have virtually no electric bill for their 10,000 square foot homes while those who can't afford the few thousand dollar lease initiation costs pay full prices.
So, if this what I consider to be unfair state subsidizing of solar panels is going to happen, and it is for now, I'm okay with some people having their burden relieved because right now the subsidies only help those who don't need it.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
You need a roof on a home to mount solar panels. Not an apartment, a home.
Have you seen housing prices in California? My house cost $389,000 in 2002 and it's only 750 square feet.
So, how do the "poorest residents" own a home?
First off, $70k isn't poor. Not even in California. Can people afford to put a solar array on their house with $70k income? No. But that doesn't mean they are poor.
Second: Truly poor people don't own homes. Middle class and upper class own homes. Poor people rent. Renters have no choice where their power comes from.
Third: The solar panels are usually the cheapest part of adding a power source to your home. The transfer switch, batteries and inverter are the bulk of the cost.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Actually, the poorest residents are not getting these panels. The poorest residents rent, not own. Now its nice that a few poor homeowners will get some of their power bill paid for them. But its really insignificant when it comes to actual renewable generation.
The amount they will save is overstated. Cal residential rates average about 15cents/kwh, a 2.5KWH panel would need about 17.8 cents per kwh to save them $818 in the first year. They also assume power rates increase for stating the total 30 year savings of $22K, but don't talk about who covers insurance/damage/maintenance, etc. How will the lucky few be selected? Who pays for panel removal/replacement when the roof needs repairs?
If you take the 14.7 million and divide by 1600, you get >$9K per system. What solar company is benefiting from selling these at such a high cost?
"Poorest residents"
:|
"three-bedroom home"
$70k in no way puts you in the "poorest residents" category in California. That income places him at the very top of the third quintile, above the median state income, which is around $60k.
Yes, I have always loved the concept of my paying more taxes so other people could have for free the things I can't afford for myself.
The state giveth, the state taketh, all hail the state!
And who do you suppose pays extra for the things those companies make? You know so they can pay for his FREE solar panels.
Yes, I have always loved the concept of my paying more taxes so other people could have for free the things I can't afford for myself.
Share your wealth or they will share their poverty.
The more money people have, the less they tend to do for the poor. If it worked the other way around, you wouldn't be whinging now.
It's a shame the middle class won't band together and come after the rich, but those poor idiot fucks won't realize that they have a better chance to win the lottery than to actually work their way into the upper echelons of society. They still think they're going to be the ones looking down their noses at someone else someday.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well no one is forcing him to live in one of the most expensive areas in the world (assuming it actually is). I make less than 15k per year after taxes and I don't really consider myself poor. In the country I'm living in now the average income is about $250 per month or about $3000 USD per year. In Laos most people make about $1200 per year. In Cuba the average person makes less than $200 per year. No I did not miss a zero there. I don't see myself as poor.
But I guess making nearly $6000 per month is poor now. I've never made more than $2000 per month at any point in my entire life. I can't imagine what kind of job is worth paying someone that much. There are prostitutes who make much less than that. So is someone who makes $200,000 per year poor if they live in an expensive area of Manhattan and pay like 10000 per month in rent? That would be a very odd use of the word 'poor'.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
As a Californian making $10-$15K/year, excuse me if I don't think we need to donate charity handouts to people making $70K, which by the way is well above the median income.
As a Californian making $10-15k/year, you will be paying fuck-all in taxes. Depending on where you live, you may well be receiving back services whose cost is well in excess of what you're paying in.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're earning 500% the average income for the country in which you live, no shit you don't consider yourself poor. Your entire point is nonsense, of course you have to consider location when defining what 'poor' is. I don't care that someone earning $5k in another country can live like a king or not, someone earning $5k in the UK is poor.
Your inability to consider what is worth paying people decent money for says a lot more about your ignorance than anything else.