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."
1600 solar panels have shown up at local pawn shops.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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?
I've been buying solar panel units here in Seattle that are placed on public buildings through our Seattle City Light program, since my townhouse faces north, and it works even if I sell the house and buy another one somewhere in Seattle (costs about $150 per unit, due to large scale installations that drop the costs).
As to poor people using solar panels, some cities way up here give homeless veterans Tiny Houses (250 sq ft) with solar panels on their roofs so they don't have to camp outside.
Adapt. Cause emissions don't care about your excuses, and change is now.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No way, man. He can only afford a new iPhone every other year! That's bordering the poverty line.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
Wow, merchant seamen make 50%+ more than the VB coder positions I see in emails
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"
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.
It warms my heart, however, to see the money I must pay for the tax on air putting panels on the homes of other people.
Did you RTFA? I'm going to assume not, so here's the link again
The program is paid for by cap-and-trade - namely, companies creating environmental waste, not you, are the ones paying for his solar panels. There are plenty of reasons to complain about the CA government misappropriating the tax money you personally give them, but this is not one of them.
The utility generates at wholesale prices, and then they are forced to buy it back at retail prices.
I would argue that that their wholesale prices are subsidized as they don't pay the indirect costs of pollution.
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.'"
The submitter used the word "poorest", which seems chosen rather... poorly. The SFGate article uses the somewhat less extreme term "low income", but toward the end it is also more specific about the criteria: "To qualify, applicants must live in a neighborhood designated as disadvantaged by the state. They must own their homes and make no more than 80 percent of their community’s median household income." The provider, GRID Alternatives, promises "to make renewable energy technology and job training accessible to underserved communities", which seems more in line with what is actually going on.
So, one view of this is that this is a program to direct cap-and-trade money (generally collected to be used specifically for environmentally beneficial projects) into areas of the state that wouldn't get it otherwise. It uses donated equipment and labor as well as the C&T funding, so it's not at all tax funded. Besides helping recipients in the targeted areas get cheaper power, it is possibly reducing overall electricity demand in a green way (though this is debatable, given the limits of solar power as a baseload source).
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.
Fewer seamen suffer from PTSD than VB coders.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News