It is their choice to decide who can see their content. If they choose to block a not insignificant portion of internet users, it is their choice. Of course, since the page will not be of use to as large a portion of the internet user space as other sites that don't block firefox, perhaps search engines like google should lower the rankings of their site so that they aren't directing users to pages that won't load. In fact, this sounds a little bit like cloaking - they have one page that is returned for the search engine, and a different page for humans using certain web browsers.
I installed solar panels on my house in California three years. My system is grid connected (through Southern California Edison), and my "net metering agreement" did not require that I switch to time of use metering. My system is 3.5Kw, and I generate about 5.5 MWh per year. My power bill runs at about $20 per year (this is the cost of the "basic" charge for connection to the grid. There is more information on my system at http://solar.hmtech.info./
The net metering agreements are set up (if you do so as a consumer instead of as a real producer) so that your power use is netted over the course of the year. If you generate more dollars (it is the dollars that are netted, not the KWh) than you consume, the utility keeps the difference. If you generate less, then you pay the difference. My net use in KWh ends up around zero.
I live on the west side of LA, where it doesn't get very hot. If I were to switch to time of use metering (which is my choice, not mandatory) I would generate more of a credit than I consume at night. Since SCE keeps the difference, that would really only make a difference to me if I consumed more power at night then I do (which I keep low through conservation).
The possible problem that others may be facing is that if they are in a hotter climate, and run air conditioning every day, then they have larger consumption during the day. I only had to run my air conditioner three days last year, and my air conditioner draws 6 KWh - i.e. if I did this everyday, I would be a net consumer of power during the day. Personally, I chose not to do time of use metering because the "basic" charge for a smarter meter is higher. Since excess generation does not credit against the basic charge (only the power charge), it would have made my yearly cost about $20 per year higher.
I do not know if new "net metering agreements" are requiring time of use metering, but Edison has been rolling out their new smart metering system ahead of schedule in some areas, and I think that they may be starting to impose such requirements independent of whether one has solar power. They have proposed a rate structure for time of use metering that that I think they intend to eventually convert all users to, as their smart metering is rolled out to more locations.
Responding to a comment about whether solar power increases the assessed value for property taxes in California: while many imrpovements will (though they don't trigger a new assessment, they just add to the assessed value), solar power installation is specifically exempted, so it will not increase the assessed value for tax purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
It is their choice to decide who can see their content. If they choose to block a not insignificant portion of internet users, it is their choice. Of course, since the page will not be of use to as large a portion of the internet user space as other sites that don't block firefox, perhaps search engines like google should lower the rankings of their site so that they aren't directing users to pages that won't load. In fact, this sounds a little bit like cloaking - they have one page that is returned for the search engine, and a different page for humans using certain web browsers.
The net metering agreements are set up (if you do so as a consumer instead of as a real producer) so that your power use is netted over the course of the year. If you generate more dollars (it is the dollars that are netted, not the KWh) than you consume, the utility keeps the difference. If you generate less, then you pay the difference. My net use in KWh ends up around zero.
I live on the west side of LA, where it doesn't get very hot. If I were to switch to time of use metering (which is my choice, not mandatory) I would generate more of a credit than I consume at night. Since SCE keeps the difference, that would really only make a difference to me if I consumed more power at night then I do (which I keep low through conservation).
The possible problem that others may be facing is that if they are in a hotter climate, and run air conditioning every day, then they have larger consumption during the day. I only had to run my air conditioner three days last year, and my air conditioner draws 6 KWh - i.e. if I did this everyday, I would be a net consumer of power during the day. Personally, I chose not to do time of use metering because the "basic" charge for a smarter meter is higher. Since excess generation does not credit against the basic charge (only the power charge), it would have made my yearly cost about $20 per year higher.
I do not know if new "net metering agreements" are requiring time of use metering, but Edison has been rolling out their new smart metering system ahead of schedule in some areas, and I think that they may be starting to impose such requirements independent of whether one has solar power. They have proposed a rate structure for time of use metering that that I think they intend to eventually convert all users to, as their smart metering is rolled out to more locations.
Responding to a comment about whether solar power increases the assessed value for property taxes in California: while many imrpovements will (though they don't trigger a new assessment, they just add to the assessed value), solar power installation is specifically exempted, so it will not increase the assessed value for tax purposes.