Here's a novel idea. Instead of bitching about it, fix it. You find two poorly written questions on a test and its some kind of travesty? Look at the bright side....kids are going to have to learn to deal with people that can't express themselves, or ask stupid questions, eventually.
"Facts are facts. Solar is clean, diverse, expensive and unreliable"
You're absolutely wrong on the last two. The fucking sun rises and falls every day, that's goddamned reliable.
No, that is predicable. Reliable is when something is there and works whenever you need it. Predictable is being able to know when it is available. Solar power is only available for several hours a day, but we need power the entire day, so therefore it is not reliable. It is predictable, but only to an extent, as we can't predict when a cloud will pass over, or what the output will be next week. Solar is much more predicable than wind, and more reliable as well, I'll give it that.
Those costs are included for nuclear, at least to the extent practicable, probably not so much for coal or gas, for those I really don't know. Just more confusion that makes it hard to use those numbers at face value or without specific context. But since solar is shut down a majority of the time, that becomes a huge factor in how it is integrates and those costs are unique to solar and wind. Fossil and nuclear also shut down, but that is typically on the order of 5% of the time and can be scheduled in spring and fall so there is minimal impact on the grid.
Like I said, solar has a place in the generation mix, it just has to be managed and phased in smartly, as other energy sources are adjusted as well.
Yeah, those numbers are really hard to use to make a point because it is not clear exactly how they handle all those surrounding parameters. Are they generator lead costs or breaker costs? Are they average, best case, or worst case? Solar PV cost/MW varies widely by location, with higher costs at higher latitudes due to reduced effective solar exposure time. Fossil & nuclear costs a bit more in warmer latitudes due to cycle efficiency loss. Solar is clearly trending down in cost, that can be readily understood.
Actually, that you mentioned inrush as having anything to do with this debate proves to me you do not know what you are talking about.
Go and make up a bill of material for a solid, working, code compliant solar PV solution for your home, or get a quote on one that does not discount financial incentives, so we have a true cost, and then come back with a real argument.
I am surprised that you have not already installed such a cheap solution. What are you waiting for?
Are you making the common mistake of not including the cost of replacement generation to backup the solar and the costs of managing that generation profile?
The development of practical and cost effective local/distributed storage technology would greatly enhance the profile for solar and wind generated electricity. It would also enable the development of a truly "smart" grid. Thus far, those technologies fall short on cost and efficiency. We need to keep working on them.
It is a shame that the solar debate is guided so heavily by politics. It is a shame that APS cannot have a public discussion regarding the negative side of solar projects without being bashed by politicians and a list of anti-everything groups that have no accountability. It is shame that APS feels the need to quietly support the dissemination of this information through indirect channels, and not be forthright about it when questioned.
A key red flag in the article is the question of using 'ratepayer money'. That is a political ploy meant to inflame. The rate base is negotiated between the PUC and the utility based on a range of factors including cost of operation, capital needs and others. It also includes profit for the utility. There should be no restrictions on how the utility uses that profit. It is funny that nobody complains about money sources when APS finances an efficiency campaign. Let’s be honest, the outrage is simply the fact that the drawbacks of solar are being promulgated. Would these same politicians be outraged if this money went to a pro-solar entity? A climate exists where large utilities or other entities must publicly profess that solar is always wonderful or otherwise get labeled as money hungry evildoers.
Facts are facts. Solar is clean, diverse, expensive and unreliable. There is a fit for it in the mix. There is also a point where it causes problems for the grid that will require significant waste or expense to alleviate. Growth must be managed properly to get the maximum benefit. In most cases, we could reduce environmental impact much more per dollar by investing in energy efficiency rather than solar. Unfortunately, that approach does not produce a visible "green" trophy. Installing solar thermal water heaters would yield much better financial and environmental returns than solar PV.
Most residential solar units are installed by wealthier Americans who are taking advantage of huge tax incentives. Essentially, we are paying for much of their energy cost via our tax dollars. I find it amazing that some of the same folks who complain about the very wealthy are so willing to give them money in this manner.
Solar has a place in our energy mix. Solar also has its drawbacks, and its OK to talk about them. Or is it an outrage?
They promised us that the money would be collected federally, and returned to the states, with the states cutting all of their sales taxes/stamp duty/other crap. As you might imagine, the federal government used their new power to put pressure on the states, so the states couldn't afford to get rid of all their taxes and we're left with a big mess. I don't have any hopes that the US would do better...
That is a very interesting comment, and a very good point. I never thought about that, but it would almost certainly be a huge problem in the US as well. It would have to be collected at the state level. Thanks
NC Headphones are king! The only question is if you can wear them while the attendant is giving the pre-flight lecture. I'll give them that 1 minute, that is it.
The theory, as it goes, is that if you do away with income and corporate taxes, the price of an individual item would drop by some amount before that 20% or more sales tax is added..
No, the theory actually includes that, but I did fail to mention it.
Some worry about the lower income folks paying more than they are now, but that would be easy to remedy with refunds, exemptions, or other means. A bigger challenge I think would be to deal with out of country purchases, and things that are used f or incentives, whereas before you would get tax break, under flat sales tax, you would almost have to finance things the government wanted to incentive.
The greatest challenge might simply be an orderly transition. That itself would be a pretty big mess. Take mortgage deductions for example, how would the market be impacted if that all of the sudden was to disappear? House prices are not likely to be adjusted. Some complex approach would probably be dreamed up to phase it out, which defeats the desired 'simplicity' of the FST. For that reason alone, I don't see it happening. But I think it could work and could be done in a manner that is progressive. For one it would eliminate huge loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of.
So, based on the size of the US economy and the US governments, you like the idea of a 20-25% sales tax? Because that's what it would take to pay the various government's bills....
No opinion here........The theory, as it goes, is that if you do away with income and corporate taxes, the price of an individual item would drop by some amount before that 20% or more sales tax is added. So if, for example, 20% of the 'delivery cost' of an item is due to corporate and income taxes, and you added 20% sales tax, the end cost would be the same. I think most would predict that the item would probably wind up costing some amount more to the consumer. Some folks would have more money to spend since they are no longer paying income taxes, so folks are not paying any now, so they would be burdened more.
Its an interesting thing to analyze, but it is almost impossible to assess the end impact because our present system is so convoluted. I do find it interesting that a lot of posts in this thread mix income and sales taxes without making clear distinction which one they are talking about, and the property taxes have not even entered the discussion, which is also a key tax source for the states.
I agree 100% that sales taxes are inversely progressive as a percent of income. I don't agree that there is nothing fair about sales tax. In the sense that everyone pays the same tax for the same purchase, they are completely fair. Progressive taxes are necessary and I believe they are good in proper balance, but it really doesn't have much to do with "fair". I don't like the term 'fair' because it means different things to different folks. Most people agree 'fair' is good.
Regardless of how you feel about disclosure requirements, do you think the FCC Chairman should have the power to decide how and when they are implemented? That should be left to congress, the FCC chair should be a-political, IMHO.
FWIW, some donors, no matter what their affiliation, like to be kept anonymous because there are idiots out there that harass them, threaten their families, etc, and some folks want that disclosure for that very reason.
I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he was the only one to show any concern that this appointee might use his power for political purposes. Considering the choice, its not a stretch, whether you agree with his position or not. And to be fair, Neither Obama or any other senator, Democratic or Republican "had any problems with this cable industry lobbyist guy being appointed head of the FCC" either.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a novel idea. Instead of bitching about it, fix it. You find two poorly written questions on a test and its some kind of travesty? Look at the bright side....kids are going to have to learn to deal with people that can't express themselves, or ask stupid questions, eventually.
Time zones are an evil scheme intended to divide humanity and ensure some groups are always behind.
Just make sure we do away with DST after the autumn change.
"Facts are facts. Solar is clean, diverse, expensive and unreliable"
You're absolutely wrong on the last two. The fucking sun rises and falls every day, that's goddamned reliable.
No, that is predicable. Reliable is when something is there and works whenever you need it. Predictable is being able to know when it is available. Solar power is only available for several hours a day, but we need power the entire day, so therefore it is not reliable. It is predictable, but only to an extent, as we can't predict when a cloud will pass over, or what the output will be next week. Solar is much more predicable than wind, and more reliable as well, I'll give it that.
But he wasn't wearing Google Glass or texting, so there was really no need to pull him over.
I just want to know how he got past all those idiots plodding along in the left lane.
Sorry, I don't see any actual costs listed in your response. Interesting video though. Are you using solar power to make all that light?
As soon as you stop repeating all the stupid stuff I did when I was in my 20s, I'll get off your back. (jk)
Those costs are included for nuclear, at least to the extent practicable, probably not so much for coal or gas, for those I really don't know. Just more confusion that makes it hard to use those numbers at face value or without specific context. But since solar is shut down a majority of the time, that becomes a huge factor in how it is integrates and those costs are unique to solar and wind. Fossil and nuclear also shut down, but that is typically on the order of 5% of the time and can be scheduled in spring and fall so there is minimal impact on the grid.
Like I said, solar has a place in the generation mix, it just has to be managed and phased in smartly, as other energy sources are adjusted as well.
Yeah, those numbers are really hard to use to make a point because it is not clear exactly how they handle all those surrounding parameters. Are they generator lead costs or breaker costs? Are they average, best case, or worst case? Solar PV cost/MW varies widely by location, with higher costs at higher latitudes due to reduced effective solar exposure time. Fossil & nuclear costs a bit more in warmer latitudes due to cycle efficiency loss. Solar is clearly trending down in cost, that can be readily understood.
the tax incentives involved are a small portion of the total install cost.
Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) = 30% of total cost. No small portion by any means.
Actually, that you mentioned inrush as having anything to do with this debate proves to me you do not know what you are talking about.
Go and make up a bill of material for a solid, working, code compliant solar PV solution for your home, or get a quote on one that does not discount financial incentives, so we have a true cost, and then come back with a real argument.
I am surprised that you have not already installed such a cheap solution. What are you waiting for?
The trick is not just producing a lot of power. The trick doing is doing it consistently, at low cost, and when you need it.
Are you making the common mistake of not including the cost of replacement generation to backup the solar and the costs of managing that generation profile?
The development of practical and cost effective local/distributed storage technology would greatly enhance the profile for solar and wind generated electricity. It would also enable the development of a truly "smart" grid. Thus far, those technologies fall short on cost and efficiency. We need to keep working on them.
It is a shame that the solar debate is guided so heavily by politics. It is a shame that APS cannot have a public discussion regarding the negative side of solar projects without being bashed by politicians and a list of anti-everything groups that have no accountability. It is shame that APS feels the need to quietly support the dissemination of this information through indirect channels, and not be forthright about it when questioned.
A key red flag in the article is the question of using 'ratepayer money'. That is a political ploy meant to inflame. The rate base is negotiated between the PUC and the utility based on a range of factors including cost of operation, capital needs and others. It also includes profit for the utility. There should be no restrictions on how the utility uses that profit. It is funny that nobody complains about money sources when APS finances an efficiency campaign. Let’s be honest, the outrage is simply the fact that the drawbacks of solar are being promulgated. Would these same politicians be outraged if this money went to a pro-solar entity? A climate exists where large utilities or other entities must publicly profess that solar is always wonderful or otherwise get labeled as money hungry evildoers.
Facts are facts. Solar is clean, diverse, expensive and unreliable. There is a fit for it in the mix. There is also a point where it causes problems for the grid that will require significant waste or expense to alleviate. Growth must be managed properly to get the maximum benefit. In most cases, we could reduce environmental impact much more per dollar by investing in energy efficiency rather than solar. Unfortunately, that approach does not produce a visible "green" trophy. Installing solar thermal water heaters would yield much better financial and environmental returns than solar PV.
Most residential solar units are installed by wealthier Americans who are taking advantage of huge tax incentives. Essentially, we are paying for much of their energy cost via our tax dollars. I find it amazing that some of the same folks who complain about the very wealthy are so willing to give them money in this manner.
Solar has a place in our energy mix. Solar also has its drawbacks, and its OK to talk about them. Or is it an outrage?
They promised us that the money would be collected federally, and returned to the states, with the states cutting all of their sales taxes/stamp duty/other crap. As you might imagine, the federal government used their new power to put pressure on the states, so the states couldn't afford to get rid of all their taxes and we're left with a big mess. I don't have any hopes that the US would do better...
That is a very interesting comment, and a very good point. I never thought about that, but it would almost certainly be a huge problem in the US as well. It would have to be collected at the state level. Thanks
Oh, I forgot to mention that a FST would also likely spur a large amount of black market sales.
PS: Sorry, I quoted the wrong sentence above.
NC Headphones are king! The only question is if you can wear them while the attendant is giving the pre-flight lecture. I'll give them that 1 minute, that is it.
The theory, as it goes, is that if you do away with income and corporate taxes, the price of an individual item would drop by some amount before that 20% or more sales tax is added..
No, the theory actually includes that, but I did fail to mention it.
Some worry about the lower income folks paying more than they are now, but that would be easy to remedy with refunds, exemptions, or other means. A bigger challenge I think would be to deal with out of country purchases, and things that are used f or incentives, whereas before you would get tax break, under flat sales tax, you would almost have to finance things the government wanted to incentive.
The greatest challenge might simply be an orderly transition. That itself would be a pretty big mess. Take mortgage deductions for example, how would the market be impacted if that all of the sudden was to disappear? House prices are not likely to be adjusted. Some complex approach would probably be dreamed up to phase it out, which defeats the desired 'simplicity' of the FST. For that reason alone, I don't see it happening. But I think it could work and could be done in a manner that is progressive. For one it would eliminate huge loopholes that only the wealthy can take advantage of.
So, based on the size of the US economy and the US governments, you like the idea of a 20-25% sales tax? Because that's what it would take to pay the various government's bills... .
No opinion here........The theory, as it goes, is that if you do away with income and corporate taxes, the price of an individual item would drop by some amount before that 20% or more sales tax is added. So if, for example, 20% of the 'delivery cost' of an item is due to corporate and income taxes, and you added 20% sales tax, the end cost would be the same. I think most would predict that the item would probably wind up costing some amount more to the consumer. Some folks would have more money to spend since they are no longer paying income taxes, so folks are not paying any now, so they would be burdened more.
Its an interesting thing to analyze, but it is almost impossible to assess the end impact because our present system is so convoluted. I do find it interesting that a lot of posts in this thread mix income and sales taxes without making clear distinction which one they are talking about, and the property taxes have not even entered the discussion, which is also a key tax source for the states.
There is nothing fair about a sales tax.
I agree 100% that sales taxes are inversely progressive as a percent of income. I don't agree that there is nothing fair about sales tax. In the sense that everyone pays the same tax for the same purchase, they are completely fair. Progressive taxes are necessary and I believe they are good in proper balance, but it really doesn't have much to do with "fair". I don't like the term 'fair' because it means different things to different folks. Most people agree 'fair' is good.
In the US, we just buy our products & services via venues like Amazon and simply forget about those troublesome taxes.
Regardless of how you feel about disclosure requirements, do you think the FCC Chairman should have the power to decide how and when they are implemented? That should be left to congress, the FCC chair should be a-political, IMHO.
FWIW, some donors, no matter what their affiliation, like to be kept anonymous because there are idiots out there that harass them, threaten their families, etc, and some folks want that disclosure for that very reason.
I'm not a fan of Cruz, but he was the only one to show any concern that this appointee might use his power for political purposes. Considering the choice, its not a stretch, whether you agree with his position or not. And to be fair, Neither Obama or any other senator, Democratic or Republican "had any problems with this cable industry lobbyist guy being appointed head of the FCC" either.