Lower prices for solar benefit everyone...First of all it makes solar more affordable to the masses, so that they can buy them where previously they could not, it also allows them to buy energy that has a lower pollution effect on the world, which is a benefit, not to mention the costs to buy solar will drop as well, as there is not a product to process.
How do they mean higher prices for everyone else? There is no evidence to support that claim.
Solar does not typically use net 0 energy, and they do not get retail prices, they get wholesale prices, and then still have to pay retail for the energy they use at night, meaning they have to use much less energy in the evening, than during the days, to be able to have a net 0.
In addition since they only get wholesale prices the energy companies are making money off of the energy that the customers generate.
Lastly even if a customer is net 0 there is no evidence that they cost other individuals a penny.
So the person spewing the bullshit seems to be you
They are not against energy subsidies, they are against renewable, and in particular solar, subsidies. They love their own subsidies, which means the title is very correct.
but that is not what this case was about...The I smell something had already been settled, so it is not part of this case. also the tip was not anonymous in any way, that was part of the decision you keep wanting to forget about.
Everything that leads to question gives something extra scrutiny. A shop keeper reporting a person who stole from the store gives something extra scrutiny to a person who would otherwise would be no reason to stop them. Given extra scrutiny is not a reason not to pull someone over on suspicion. If you do that you make it impossible for them to question people for anything, unless the cop was a direct eye witness.
How did they have no way to evaluate it? Where was the poisonous tree? If they were ticketed for reckless driving you would have a point, but they were not, so you dont.
Except they are not forced to buy it at the cost to the buyer, so the company still makes a profit off that usage, however a better analogy would be the mom and pops that only drives like once a month, if that. So the analogy is still bad.
A lot of people turn the AC off to save energy, not realizing it costs more to cool the hot house then to keep it cool, however you are correct, that all of the rest is to blame as well.
Because they are not. If someone is not using the power they are not using the grid, therefore they are not a cost burden on you. The only cost they have off the grid is the cost to maintain their connection to the grid, which is already paid for, unless it breaks in which case they generally have to pay to have it fixed. I addition since the cost paid to them is less then the cost charged per Kw they do not even break even and will have to use less during off hours, while the electric company makes a profit off their generation.
This is so incorrect I am not sure where you are getting your information.. Electric companies have the ability to finely turn their electric generation in the matter of minutes, they can sense a peak and turn up the power from one location, or a trough and turn it down. The only issue is for those that are already running at peak, but solar helps those, not hinders, sot hat would not be an issue here.
Having worked for progress enery before duke bought them, I can tell you this is what they tell you in the training. There are 2 peak usages, one when people are waking up and turning lights/coffee makers on, and one when people get home and turn their AC on.
It is not. The problem with your analogy is that the people with the Tesla still use the roads even when they are not buying gas, where as those with solar are not using the grid when not using electricity.
There is not really that much overhead to keep you connected. Unless you are at the end of the line the line must be maintained if you are there or not, in order to reach the next customer, so that is not a cost to keep you connected. Really the cost is the connection to your home from the line, which rarely has any issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you realize that in the vast majority of places the electric company pays the wholesale price?
Lower prices for solar benefit everyone...First of all it makes solar more affordable to the masses, so that they can buy them where previously they could not, it also allows them to buy energy that has a lower pollution effect on the world, which is a benefit, not to mention the costs to buy solar will drop as well, as there is not a product to process.
depends, is 4 times the going rate more than what they charged? Please cite that.
In the vast majority of cases the subsidiaries come from the federal/state government, not the electric company...
How do they mean higher prices for everyone else? There is no evidence to support that claim.
Solar does not typically use net 0 energy, and they do not get retail prices, they get wholesale prices, and then still have to pay retail for the energy they use at night, meaning they have to use much less energy in the evening, than during the days, to be able to have a net 0.
In addition since they only get wholesale prices the energy companies are making money off of the energy that the customers generate.
Lastly even if a customer is net 0 there is no evidence that they cost other individuals a penny.
So the person spewing the bullshit seems to be you
They are not against energy subsidies, they are against renewable, and in particular solar, subsidies. They love their own subsidies, which means the title is very correct.
AGAIN it was not anonymous, and it was clearly covered in the decision.
The witness tip was not anonymous.
but that is not what this case was about...The I smell something had already been settled, so it is not part of this case. also the tip was not anonymous in any way, that was part of the decision you keep wanting to forget about.
Everything that leads to question gives something extra scrutiny. A shop keeper reporting a person who stole from the store gives something extra scrutiny to a person who would otherwise would be no reason to stop them. Given extra scrutiny is not a reason not to pull someone over on suspicion. If you do that you make it impossible for them to question people for anything, unless the cop was a direct eye witness.
Because almost all of the ones you mentioned already have deals with the ISPs?
the 4th has nothing to do with this case..This was about a pubic stop...
If they had ruled the other way it would have been a mess..
A clerk see someone stealing that is not caught on camera, police, sorry cant do anything, did not see it."
Someone witness a murder, police "sorry cant do anything did not personally witness it."
If you cannot question someone based on a witness tip most of the legal system grinds to a halt
She did give her name, it was just not entered into evidence because it was not relevant.
Then since the 911 operator had the name, and entered it into the system, you get a court order for it, problem solved.
And that would allow them to stop you, then what? They still cannot search..
How did they have no way to evaluate it? Where was the poisonous tree? If they were ticketed for reckless driving you would have a point, but they were not, so you dont.
So it wont be set in one craptastic city?
That runs contrary to reality, at least according to progress/duke while I was working for them.
Except they are not forced to buy it at the cost to the buyer, so the company still makes a profit off that usage, however a better analogy would be the mom and pops that only drives like once a month, if that. So the analogy is still bad.
A lot of people turn the AC off to save energy, not realizing it costs more to cool the hot house then to keep it cool, however you are correct, that all of the rest is to blame as well.
Because they are not. If someone is not using the power they are not using the grid, therefore they are not a cost burden on you. The only cost they have off the grid is the cost to maintain their connection to the grid, which is already paid for, unless it breaks in which case they generally have to pay to have it fixed. I addition since the cost paid to them is less then the cost charged per Kw they do not even break even and will have to use less during off hours, while the electric company makes a profit off their generation.
This is so incorrect I am not sure where you are getting your information.. Electric companies have the ability to finely turn their electric generation in the matter of minutes, they can sense a peak and turn up the power from one location, or a trough and turn it down. The only issue is for those that are already running at peak, but solar helps those, not hinders, sot hat would not be an issue here.
Having worked for progress enery before duke bought them, I can tell you this is what they tell you in the training. There are 2 peak usages, one when people are waking up and turning lights/coffee makers on, and one when people get home and turn their AC on.
It is not. The problem with your analogy is that the people with the Tesla still use the roads even when they are not buying gas, where as those with solar are not using the grid when not using electricity.
There is not really that much overhead to keep you connected. Unless you are at the end of the line the line must be maintained if you are there or not, in order to reach the next customer, so that is not a cost to keep you connected. Really the cost is the connection to your home from the line, which rarely has any issues.