The FAQ is not a part of the contract. The "General Terms and Conditions" are - they're included by reference - the FAQ isn't.
There are 3 rules:
get it in writing
get it in writing
get it in writing
A FAQ or a printout from a web site isn't going to stand up in court against the actual terms of the contract. Again, why isn't it mentioned in the contract? Simple - because its not part of the contract.
"it seems to me that anyone with a mortgage is going to have a ton of laywers on their side saying seeya to your proposed scam. There is no lein involved. This is a rental not a lease or a sale.
Actually, its a long-term lease, not a rental. Read the contract.
Its the same deal as leasing a car - you try to get out of the lease early, then you have to pay a penalty. That's why the contract mentions the specific penalty - including but not limited to the rental for the full term of the contract.
So if and when they demand ther 25 years of fees as liquidated damages, and you haven't got $50,000, they'll be quite able to throw you into bankruptcy. Your house goes bye-bye...
Again, if its so easy to cancel, why doesn't the contract spell it out? Because its a scam ???
Please read the contract again - the "approval" is not the approval by the client of the designs, but the approval by the company of the client's "application". The money is due when the company gives the customer the design - which can be years before its installed.
No contract for the plant exists. Public hearings are required for zoning changes, and anything that large would attract a lot of attention. Like municipal zoning change requests... which are public.
The investors being scammed are the future investors - "look, we have this huge order backlog - lend us money for the plant" - as well as anyone foolish enough to sign up for this sight unseen.
The clause about owing the 25 years rental in one shot is for any default - which includes not paying the $500 when the "design plans" are submitted to the client. This would make a nice scam - give the client plans, then when they refuse to pay the deposit because the delivery date is years off, they're in default - collect $40,000.00 (and if they don't pay it, seize their home).
Read 7.2 again. It doesn't say the customer has any approval or veto on the design:
A Security Deposit is required of the Customer upon approval of the REnU's
engineering design. The Security Deposit is $500 for all REnU systems with
a nameplate capacity of 5 KWp DC or less, and for REnU systems with a
nameplate capacity larger than 5 KWp DC it is $500 plus 10 cents per Wp
DC for every Wp DC greater than 5 KWp DC. This Security Deposit and any
interest is maintained by Provider and will be applied against the recovery cost
of a REnU in the event of Customer cancellation or Provider termination of
the Rental because of Customer's failure to pay or for some other breach on
Customer's part. Upon completion of this Agreement, and after final rent and
other charges are paid in full, the Security Deposit will be completely returned
with interest. Interest will be based upon the 1-year U.S. Treasury Note. Inter-
est will be compounded
It's the company that approves the design - not the customer; after all, its the company that has to approve the design (drawn up by either their workers or a 3rd party contractor), then give it, along with a billl for $500, to the customer.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the "termination options"
http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?p=svc_h_ter Nowhere is there an option for the customer to terminate the agreement if "they don't approve the design". Nowhere! Quite the contrary. Once they've been "approved", they're stuck.
If the customer could cancel the agreement after their "application" has been accepted, why not say it somewhere on the site? They don't.
Again, they don't have a factory, nor do they even have a site for it; they don't have the money, and their contracts are designed to mislead. Sorry, but it doesn't pass the "smell test".
Yeah, and those "ignorant" "religious zealots" formed the most powerful nation in the world. The nation from which came electricity, the lightbulb, the phonograph, most of the technology found in modern computers, etc.. not bad for some "ignorant" "religious zealots":)
The history of electricity goes back more than two thousand years, to the time the Ancient Greeks discovered that rubbing fur on amber caused an attraction between the two. In the year 1600, English physician William Gilbert conned the term electric, from the Greek elektron, to identify the force that certain substances exert when rubbed against each other.
The first incandescent electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist.
Boolean logic was named after George Boole, an English mathematician at University College Cork who first defined an algebraic system of logic in the mid 19th century.
The first computers used tubes - and the first tubes were made by a German, Heinrich Geissler - the Geissler tube, created using his mercury pump this was the first good evacuated (of air) vacuum tube later modified by Sir William Crookes.
Nikola Tesla invented the electronic logic gate.
Charles Babbage (england) invented the programmable computer.
Konrad Zuse (germany) built the first programmable computer, he used telephone relays instead of tubes.
Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, Ben Franklin didn't discover electricity... and computers were invented by and englishman and the first working one built by a german., and if you look around you'll find that Emile Berliner invented the record - the gramophone (as opposed to wax cylinders - phonographs).
"Well, converting 10 houses to solar hot water still does not do as much converting 10 to 100% PV"
For the cost of converting 10 to solar, you can convert more than 100 to solar hot water - this will generate greater energy savings, as well as greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, there are no "grid caps" on solar hot water, and you don't need the grid to "store" your hot water - just a larger tank, which also makes you more immune to power failures.
"Citizenre's anticipated cost of production is $1.53 per peak watt."
Maybe (and that's a BIG maybe) 10 years from now... whereas solar hot water is feasible TODAY.
"The contract to build the plant includes penalties for delays."
Whoever told you that is lying - there IS no contract to build any plant. These plants don't just spring into being overnight, or even in the space of a few months. Word would get around pretty quickly as to the signing of a contract. Besides, the building of a production facility on the scale envisioned would require public hearings - unless, of course, its being off-shored to an area that allows factories to be set up without concern for their impact on the environment. Even then, there's no way they can cut the manufacturing cost by 2/3 - and even if they cut it to ZERO, the other costs (installation, etc) would still make it unprofitable. Nobody works for free, especially in the building trades, and especially when each system has to be inspected before being connected to the electrical grid, so you're talking union labour rates, not "gypsy sub-contractors".
You're being scammed to do market research so someone else can soak investors. If they had the money, there is no reason not to reveal it - just tell the bank to release the account balance - this doesn't mean revealing the identity of the investors, and would shut up a lot of nay-sayers. They won't do it because they can't - neither the money nor the investors are there.
Technology that currently has one of the worst "bang for the buck" impacts on helping the environment
A company with no track history, no provable assets, no demonstrable technology (they claim to have 15 patents, but don't list any of them), and an outright lie about the "contract".
The "warranty" is crap:
Provider warrants that each item of equipment will be suitable for nor-
mal operation and use at the time of delivery.
Provider guarantees that the REnU will generate electricity at or near
its name plate capacity for the total Peak Sun Hours available to it each
day over the Term of the Agreement, adjusting only for the standard per-
formance decline over its useful life. Peak Sun Hours are the equivalent
number of hours per day when solar irradiance averages 1 kW/m2: Peak
Sun Hours are variable and are based on the geographic location of the
Contract Address. Standard performance decline is the gradual decline of
generating capability from the REnU's nameplate capacity to eighty (80%)
percent of its nameplate capacity over its warranty life.
In other words, you'd better oversize it by 25% - but then you're also paying too much for electricity generated until it declines in performance.
Here's an extra-expense tidbit from those "terms" - you have to maintain a fixed land line for the next 25 years (so much for people who, like me and my daughters, and some of my friends, all who all use our cells as our only line):
REnU data is transmitted via the telephone line and during the short trans-
mission period Customer may not be able to use the line for other purposes.
The REnU must always be directly connected to a land-based telephone line
to perform reporting duties. If it is not so connected, or if the line is not per-
forming according to Provider's requirements, Provider may suspend Service
and take action to recover the REnU.
Moving the servers doesn't solve the problem of the credit card companies not allowing their US customers to make charges.
Then there's also the problem of being arrested... if they were willing to arrest a British citizen (who ran gambling servers that were NOT in the US) who flew into the US, how much easier will it be to prosecute the higher-ups at Linden?
On the carbon front, converting 10 houses to solar hot water would cost less than 1 solar electric house, and have several times the impact, both on peak loads, and on carbon output.
Its also doable NOW. CitizenRe is pie in the sky. Their numbers don't work - there is no way that they can product photovoltaics at the price they need to any time this decade. Heck, they haven't even broken ground for a plant, so forget about producing photovoltaics at all, never mind at their price point, before the end of the decade.
Since that much is obvious, and also that if they can eventually produce cheap photovoltaics, anyone else will be able to, the only possible benefits are to either soak investors, or 5 to 10 years from now hold people to the contracts they've signed, rather than let the competition in.
Either way, since the numbers and logic don't add up, its like the old saying... "if its too good to be true..."
Why not go for the "sure thing" - instead of spending time convincing people that maybe some day they'll get a solar panel array, hook up with a local solar hot water manufacturer, see what subsidies are available, and make yourself some money NOW and have an impact on the environment NOW and get people to save NOW...
"Well the thing is, people tend to use more energy during work. And, as it happens, people have a habit of working when the Sun is up. "
Totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. People use more energy *in the home* when they're at home - and they're mostly at home during the evenings, nights, and weekends.
"and it is for no more money spent whereas your plan requires scraping some new money together first"
YOur plan is basically like a lease on a car - you pay all the depreciation without any of the benefits of ownership - and you still need to have good enough credit. Building a solar water heater can be done for a few grand - if you can't come up with that over the course of a year, its time to get out of being a home-owner, because the first minor repair bill will sink you. I mean, really - is this targeted to the sub-prime market? The people with ARMs and no-doc or "stated income" mortgages, who are mostly looking at being reposessed in the next 3 years, who can't come up with a couple of grand in order to save $30 a month?
Also, in several areas, solar water is being subsidized as well - and it gives a much greater paybak per dollar spent than photovoltaics ever will.
Plus, with the feds getting into the whole "you can't gamble on the intarweb", they either have to shut the virtual casinos down, or completely decouple Linden$ from the real world.
I don't live in the States.
You don't have to - the servers are there, and if the feds say "no refund or exchange of Linden$" the credit card companies will do as they're told, same as the rest of the online gambling sites.
The panels increase the taxable assessment, but the homeowner gets no benefits (no tax deductions for capital purchased, no $ from reselling, etc. - so they're better off without it, as tax-wise, its a money sink) They're far better off to own. The homeowner gets all the disadvantages, and none of the advantages.
"Well, highest demand actually happens in the summer"
Depends on where you live.
Also, as I pointed out, hot evenings will generate a huge load - AC, TVs, PCs, meals, hot water - the environmentally sane thing to do is to get rid of the "low-hanging fruit" - the hot water bill - much more bang for the dollar, and much more impact on the environment for every dollar spent.
... and every time someone tries to cash out any significant amount, the value drops several 100 percent - there's no real float, no "market makers". Plus, with the feds getting into the whole "you can't gamble on the intarweb", they either have to shut the virtual casinos down, or completely decouple Linden$ from the real world.
... and of course, the language lacks a "redeemLindenDollarsForRealMoney()" function.
Even Linden Labs now admits (after the taxman commeth... and the online gambling investigators...) that Linden$$$ are just play tokens, with no relation to real-world currency.
"Solar power produces most near times of highest demand"
Nope. Even during sunny days, it contributes ZERO AT NIGHT. Do you expect people to turn off their AC (summer), heat (winter), fridge, lighting, TV (most people watch most tv at night - that's why its called "prime time"), computers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, hot water, etc... Peak demand in the winter is at night - the time when solar contributes nothing at all.
As for NJ and caps, they'll either put the cap back, or do peak-rate billing. Anyting else is economically unfair to those who aren't using solar, and since the majority are non-solar, you can guess which way the wind blows...
Also, there are a few other flaws in the CitizenRe scheme:
If you do it yourself, you get to claim all the deductions, plus you get any increase in value for your home when you resell. You also get to keep any rebates, and the end-of-term (usually 25 years) bonus from the grid operator - which can be substantial.
You're still going to be hit with any increased municipal valuation/tax for the assessed value of your home, since the installation is "permanent" - removal is a major operation, and the unit is hard-wired into the home's electrical system.
The increased assessment could more than offset any saving, depending on the tax rate. Having to pay muni taxes on CitizenRe's property is going to suck big time...
CitizenRe won't do it until its economically viable anyway, so anyone signing up is going to have to wait anyway. Why not wait, find other areas to save money and cause less pollution (driving slowe, car-pooling, moving closer to work, telecommuting, getting rid of all SUVs in the town core, use public transit, turn off your monitors when not in use instead of running a screensaver or seti@home/folding@home, etc.?)
Instead of solar electric, why not solar hot water - cheaper to set up (you can even do-it-yourself), and the payoff is immediate. If you build your own on the cheap, the payback period is less than 5 years, with NO subsidy. After that, its pure profit. Usin photovoltaics to generate electricity to run a hot water heater is stupid, a waste of resources, very inefficient, etc.
Well, if you paid $250 for something originally, why not declare the $50 you made selling it on ebay a few years later, and getting a $200 capital loss? Plus being able to declare your internet connection, computer, etc. as business expenses.
Actually, as solar becomes more pervasive, states like New Jersey will be under pressure from utilities to impose caps. Otherwise, people using solar are being subsidised by everyone else, as the need fr peak capacity will still be there, and peak is always expensive, and solar will mean higher variance in peak demand (on cloudy cold days). Utilities always try to keep the highest-cost sources off-line for as long as possible, so the peak draw that solar customers will be using will be generated from the highest-cost sources - for example, gas turbines.
What you'll end up seeing is a dual cost structure - peak rates several times the cost of regular rates - for solar customers who use the grid as their "battery backup."
Actually, its more like "what if you woke and found a strange and bloated woman in your bed, and she was irrational, unpredictable, and dangerous... and also a control freak? That's Vista for you."
Sexual fantasies over Microsoft Windows? This guy REALLY needs to get out more...
Go to the utility's regulations instead. A lot of them only give you credit at "average producer cost" - half or less - so that for every kw you feed them, you only get credit to buy 1/2 kw back.
Also, most utilities have a "net meter cap" - and Califorinia's hitting theirs this year. They're not obligated to give any credit for any power over the cap.
Thirdly, they also may not allow credits to be carried forward from one bill to the next.
These were all pitfalls I found after 15 minutes of googling and reading the utlity's regs.
Net metering has a cap. Once more than a very miniscule number of users are using net metering, the "rebate" stops.
This is why you pay for all the electricity generated - even that which exceeds the cap at some future date. Think of it - once the utility cap is hit, you don't receive any more "credits", but you're still paying for the electricity generated, plus you no longer have credits for cloudy days...
Pacific Gas & Electric is about to hit its net-metering cap - yet it's reluctant to support raising the cap without getting a reduction in the amount it credits customers for solar power.
The most likely scenario is you'll receive only the wholesale, not retail, "credit"
PG&E maintains that the retail payments result in the vast majority of its customers, who do not have photovoltaic systems, subsidizing solar energy, said Paul Moreno, company spokesperson.
"This is something the Legislature needs to look at," said Moreno. As solar energy is set to make a major leap under the state initiative, he said, those subsidies will become increasingly unfair if PG&E continues to pay the average retail rate of 13 cents/kWh for electricity from the photovoltaic systems. Instead, he said, the company should pay the same amount it typically pays generators for power under a "gen-to-gen" rate, which is half the retail rate.
So under your agreement you'd be charged retail by Citizenr for all the electricity you generate, but only getting credit for half with the utility. In other words, once the cap kicks in, you're paying a surcharge of 50% for the "privilege".
This whole scam is predicated on a non-existent manufacturing plant reducing manufacturing costs by 2/3. If you had a process that was so great, why not just manufacture the panels and sell them to everyone at a 100% markp and STILL be the cheapest?
This also depends on subsidies for installation, etc. You can get the same subsidies by installing your own system - and then YOU get the subsidy - not them.
Its a scam to get investors to put up $$$ by showing overflowing order books.
You can't agree to "sign away" your statutory rights. Just like you can't "agree" to be a slave, or to sell your kids as sex toys to Michael Jackson, or to be an actor in a "snuff film."
Slashdot Mirror
The FAQ is not a part of the contract. The "General Terms and Conditions" are - they're included by reference - the FAQ isn't.
There are 3 rules:
A FAQ or a printout from a web site isn't going to stand up in court against the actual terms of the contract. Again, why isn't it mentioned in the contract? Simple - because its not part of the contract.
"it seems to me that anyone with a mortgage is going to have a ton of laywers on their side saying seeya to your proposed scam. There is no lein involved. This is a rental not a lease or a sale.
Actually, its a long-term lease, not a rental. Read the contract.
Its the same deal as leasing a car - you try to get out of the lease early, then you have to pay a penalty. That's why the contract mentions the specific penalty - including but not limited to the rental for the full term of the contract.
So if and when they demand ther 25 years of fees as liquidated damages, and you haven't got $50,000, they'll be quite able to throw you into bankruptcy. Your house goes bye-bye ...
Again, if its so easy to cancel, why doesn't the contract spell it out? Because its a scam ???
Great quotes - I like this one:
Please read the contract again - the "approval" is not the approval by the client of the designs, but the approval by the company of the client's "application". The money is due when the company gives the customer the design - which can be years before its installed.
No contract for the plant exists. Public hearings are required for zoning changes, and anything that large would attract a lot of attention. Like municipal zoning change requests ... which are public.
The investors being scammed are the future investors - "look, we have this huge order backlog - lend us money for the plant" - as well as anyone foolish enough to sign up for this sight unseen.
The clause about owing the 25 years rental in one shot is for any default - which includes not paying the $500 when the "design plans" are submitted to the client. This would make a nice scam - give the client plans, then when they refuse to pay the deposit because the delivery date is years off, they're in default - collect $40,000.00 (and if they don't pay it, seize their home).
Read 7.2 again. It doesn't say the customer has any approval or veto on the design:
It's the company that approves the design - not the customer; after all, its the company that has to approve the design (drawn up by either their workers or a 3rd party contractor), then give it, along with a billl for $500, to the customer.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the "termination options"
http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?p=svc_h_ter
Nowhere is there an option for the customer to terminate the agreement if "they don't approve the design". Nowhere! Quite the contrary. Once they've been "approved", they're stuck.
If the customer could cancel the agreement after their "application" has been accepted, why not say it somewhere on the site? They don't.
Again, they don't have a factory, nor do they even have a site for it; they don't have the money, and their contracts are designed to mislead. Sorry, but it doesn't pass the "smell test".
Thomas Edison didn't invent the light bulb, Ben Franklin didn't discover electricity ... and computers were invented by and englishman and the first working one built by a german., and if you look around you'll find that Emile Berliner invented the record - the gramophone (as opposed to wax cylinders - phonographs).
"Well, converting 10 houses to solar hot water still does not do as much converting 10 to 100% PV"
For the cost of converting 10 to solar, you can convert more than 100 to solar hot water - this will generate greater energy savings, as well as greater impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, there are no "grid caps" on solar hot water, and you don't need the grid to "store" your hot water - just a larger tank, which also makes you more immune to power failures.
"Citizenre's anticipated cost of production is $1.53 per peak watt."
Maybe (and that's a BIG maybe) 10 years from now ... whereas solar hot water is feasible TODAY.
"The contract to build the plant includes penalties for delays."
Whoever told you that is lying - there IS no contract to build any plant. These plants don't just spring into being overnight, or even in the space of a few months. Word would get around pretty quickly as to the signing of a contract. Besides, the building of a production facility on the scale envisioned would require public hearings - unless, of course, its being off-shored to an area that allows factories to be set up without concern for their impact on the environment. Even then, there's no way they can cut the manufacturing cost by 2/3 - and even if they cut it to ZERO, the other costs (installation, etc) would still make it unprofitable. Nobody works for free, especially in the building trades, and especially when each system has to be inspected before being connected to the electrical grid, so you're talking union labour rates, not "gypsy sub-contractors".
You're being scammed to do market research so someone else can soak investors. If they had the money, there is no reason not to reveal it - just tell the bank to release the account balance - this doesn't mean revealing the identity of the investors, and would shut up a lot of nay-sayers. They won't do it because they can't - neither the money nor the investors are there.
The "warranty" is crap:
In other words, you'd better oversize it by 25% - but then you're also paying too much for electricity generated until it declines in performance.
Here's an extra-expense tidbit from those "terms" - you have to maintain a fixed land line for the next 25 years (so much for people who, like me and my daughters, and some of my friends, all who all use our cells as our only line):
What's the "hidden
Moving the servers doesn't solve the problem of the credit card companies not allowing their US customers to make charges.
Then there's also the problem of being arrested ... if they were willing to arrest a British citizen (who ran gambling servers that were NOT in the US) who flew into the US, how much easier will it be to prosecute the higher-ups at Linden?
Actually, both are correct, in the same way that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.
Its just that, after a while, people dropped the "... but I'd REALLY have to work at it" because, well, they couldn't care less ... :-)
On the carbon front, converting 10 houses to solar hot water would cost less than 1 solar electric house, and have several times the impact, both on peak loads, and on carbon output.
Its also doable NOW. CitizenRe is pie in the sky. Their numbers don't work - there is no way that they can product photovoltaics at the price they need to any time this decade. Heck, they haven't even broken ground for a plant, so forget about producing photovoltaics at all, never mind at their price point, before the end of the decade.
Since that much is obvious, and also that if they can eventually produce cheap photovoltaics, anyone else will be able to, the only possible benefits are to either soak investors, or 5 to 10 years from now hold people to the contracts they've signed, rather than let the competition in.
Either way, since the numbers and logic don't add up, its like the old saying ... "if its too good to be true ..."
Why not go for the "sure thing" - instead of spending time convincing people that maybe some day they'll get a solar panel array, hook up with a local solar hot water manufacturer, see what subsidies are available, and make yourself some money NOW and have an impact on the environment NOW and get people to save NOW ...
Just a thought ... :-)
"Well the thing is, people tend to use more energy during work. And, as it happens, people have a habit of working when the Sun is up. "
Totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. People use more energy *in the home* when they're at home - and they're mostly at home during the evenings, nights, and weekends.
"and it is for no more money spent whereas your plan requires scraping some new money together first"
YOur plan is basically like a lease on a car - you pay all the depreciation without any of the benefits of ownership - and you still need to have good enough credit. Building a solar water heater can be done for a few grand - if you can't come up with that over the course of a year, its time to get out of being a home-owner, because the first minor repair bill will sink you. I mean, really - is this targeted to the sub-prime market? The people with ARMs and no-doc or "stated income" mortgages, who are mostly looking at being reposessed in the next 3 years, who can't come up with a couple of grand in order to save $30 a month?
Also, in several areas, solar water is being subsidized as well - and it gives a much greater paybak per dollar spent than photovoltaics ever will.
You don't have to - the servers are there, and if the feds say "no refund or exchange of Linden$" the credit card companies will do as they're told, same as the rest of the online gambling sites.
Funny how they don't give the death penalty for attempted suicide ...
The panels increase the taxable assessment, but the homeowner gets no benefits (no tax deductions for capital purchased, no $ from reselling, etc. - so they're better off without it, as tax-wise, its a money sink) They're far better off to own. The homeowner gets all the disadvantages, and none of the advantages.
"Well, highest demand actually happens in the summer"
Depends on where you live.
Also, as I pointed out, hot evenings will generate a huge load - AC, TVs, PCs, meals, hot water - the environmentally sane thing to do is to get rid of the "low-hanging fruit" - the hot water bill - much more bang for the dollar, and much more impact on the environment for every dollar spent.
Even Linden Labs now admits (after the taxman commeth ... and the online gambling investigators ...) that Linden$$$ are just play tokens, with no relation to real-world currency.
"Solar power produces most near times of highest demand"
Nope. Even during sunny days, it contributes ZERO AT NIGHT. Do you expect people to turn off their AC (summer), heat (winter), fridge, lighting, TV (most people watch most tv at night - that's why its called "prime time"), computers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, hot water, etc ... Peak demand in the winter is at night - the time when solar contributes nothing at all.
As for NJ and caps, they'll either put the cap back, or do peak-rate billing. Anyting else is economically unfair to those who aren't using solar, and since the majority are non-solar, you can guess which way the wind blows ...
Also, there are a few other flaws in the CitizenRe scheme:
The increased assessment could more than offset any saving, depending on the tax rate. Having to pay muni taxes on CitizenRe's property is going to suck big time ...
CitizenRe won't do it until its economically viable anyway, so anyone signing up is going to have to wait anyway. Why not wait, find other areas to save money and cause less pollution (driving slowe, car-pooling, moving closer to work, telecommuting, getting rid of all SUVs in the town core, use public transit, turn off your monitors when not in use instead of running a screensaver or seti@home/folding@home, etc.?)
Instead of solar electric, why not solar hot water - cheaper to set up (you can even do-it-yourself), and the payoff is immediate. If you build your own on the cheap, the payback period is less than 5 years, with NO subsidy. After that, its pure profit. Usin photovoltaics to generate electricity to run a hot water heater is stupid, a waste of resources, very inefficient, etc.
Well, if you paid $250 for something originally, why not declare the $50 you made selling it on ebay a few years later, and getting a $200 capital loss? Plus being able to declare your internet connection, computer, etc. as business expenses.
Actually, as solar becomes more pervasive, states like New Jersey will be under pressure from utilities to impose caps. Otherwise, people using solar are being subsidised by everyone else, as the need fr peak capacity will still be there, and peak is always expensive, and solar will mean higher variance in peak demand (on cloudy cold days). Utilities always try to keep the highest-cost sources off-line for as long as possible, so the peak draw that solar customers will be using will be generated from the highest-cost sources - for example, gas turbines.
What you'll end up seeing is a dual cost structure - peak rates several times the cost of regular rates - for solar customers who use the grid as their "battery backup."
New Jersey is the exception, not the rule.
Here's the list of individual utilities and their policies - some are limited to the first 25 customers.
"Personally, I like my women like I like my coffee ... ground up and in the freezer."
Hans Reiser, they letting you have a comptuter nowadays?
Actually, its more like "what if you woke and found a strange and bloated woman in your bed, and she was irrational, unpredictable, and dangerous... and also a control freak? That's Vista for you."
Sexual fantasies over Microsoft Windows? This guy REALLY needs to get out more ...
Not very good if a bunch of files get deleted, and then the cron job just makes a new image of the now-empty home directory ... :-(
If people are too lazy to even back up their stuff to a usb key, why not sell them on the idea for convenience and portability?
Heck, the way usb key prices are falling, they might even make a half-decent short-term archive medium ..
Go to the utility's regulations instead. A lot of them only give you credit at "average producer cost" - half or less - so that for every kw you feed them, you only get credit to buy 1/2 kw back.
Also, most utilities have a "net meter cap" - and Califorinia's hitting theirs this year. They're not obligated to give any credit for any power over the cap.
Thirdly, they also may not allow credits to be carried forward from one bill to the next.
These were all pitfalls I found after 15 minutes of googling and reading the utlity's regs.
Its a scam.
One thing CitizenRe doesn't mention is that the utility buys powr from you at half price - or less!
Also not mentioned is the "net meter cap" - which PG&E is hitting this year - after which the utility doesn't have to pay squat.
Also, many utilities won't let you carry a surplus of credits forward to the next month.
Taking all these into account, there is no way to break even under CitizenRe's scenario - the consumer is on the hook for all the bills.
This is why you pay for all the electricity generated - even that which exceeds the cap at some future date. Think of it - once the utility cap is hit, you don't receive any more "credits", but you're still paying for the electricity generated, plus you no longer have credits for cloudy days...
Some areas are already at their cap
The most likely scenario is you'll receive only the wholesale, not retail, "credit"
So under your agreement you'd be charged retail by Citizenr for all the electricity you generate, but only getting credit for half with the utility. In other words, once the cap kicks in, you're paying a surcharge of 50% for the "privilege".
Its a scam to get investors to put up $$$ by showing overflowing order books.
You can't agree to "sign away" your statutory rights. Just like you can't "agree" to be a slave, or to sell your kids as sex toys to Michael Jackson, or to be an actor in a "snuff film."