The solar industry is propped up by regulations that deny utility companies the ability to refuse electricity they don't need from either distributed or utility-scale sources. The guarantee that every KWh generated by a solar source will be bought - at a premium - is what convinces investors to back them, but that same regulation increases consumer costs since at times of over-production the utility is running non-solar power plants that can't be spun down as needed, and simultaneously buying unneeded solar power at a premium.
The moment power companies can refuse to buy unneeded solar power is the moment the solar industry stops growing, and electricity prices will start coming down.
Factor in subsidies for manufacturing plants, subsidies for construction/installation of panels, etc. and solar energy in America lives in a special, politically-built protected market.
Before anyone goes off on 'oil industry subsidies' - I've never heard of the gov't cutting a check to cover half the cost of an oil refinery or offering loan guarantees on oil rigs, and the gov't certainly doesn't guarantee oil companies that every gallon of fuel they bring to market will find a buyer at a guaranteed price.
You need simply follow the money to understand why that will never happen.
Power utilities are required to buy every KWh generated by solar panels at a premium price regardless of their need (or lack thereof) for the electricity, if a solar plant owner reduces the solar power they generate, they are the ones losing money - why would they choose to do that unless they are going to be compensated for the electricity they choose not to produce?
Is the profitability of the Arizona utility the reason Californians built solar plants?
The California utility was forced to buy the electricity from solar plant owners, that raises, not lowers, California consumer electricity costs - is that the reason Californians built the solar plants?
The California utility was forced to pay the Arizona utility to take the excess solar electricity, that raises, not lowers, California consumer electricity costs - is that the reason Californians built the solar plants?
According to my critics, I guess the answer is 'Yes'.
As for the Enron references, it's important to remember the abuses Enron heaped on the California consumers was ONLY possible because California passed laws and implemented regulations that enabled those abuses, no other state suffered similar abuses.
Pay a premium for electricity today for electricity you don't need today, then invest in a storage mechanism to store that electricity until it's needed tomorrow?
CA utility paid premium for solar electricity it didn't need, then had to pay someone to take it to avoid damaging (overload) it's power grid. Sounds like a problem to me. This is a situation that occurred 14 out of the 31 days in March, so it is becoming more commonplace.
As solar deployments expand in California, and these 'excess' electricity days become more common, will that drive electric costs up or down for California consumers? I think it will drive costs up, and I think that's a problem.
Also, when there is to much sun solar plants can be disconnected and just not feed the grid.
Wow.
Most solar plants (either domestic, built on private residences, or commercial) are private, and were built to generate profits for the owner based on the premium price utilities - by law - are required to pay for every KWh they feed into the grid.
Every KWh that CA utility paid someone to take was paid for at a premium. California utilities had to pay a premium for electricity it couldn't use, then had to pay someone to take that excess to save their power grid from damaging overload.
...on those 14 days in March, electricity customers paid exactly the same price for electricity as they did the other 17 days in March, so how did that help the consumers in California?
Likewise, customers in the state that got 'free' electricity from California also paid exactly the same rate for electricity every day in March.
So I ask, who benefitted from all that 'free' excess solar electricity? I can tell you who suffered because of all that 'free' excess solar electricity, every consumer of electricity in California, because the utility company is required, by law, to pay a premium price for every solar generated KWh fed into their grid, whether they need it or not, whether or not they can resell it.
Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the incident is related to Trump's travel ban, the incident stirred fears among international tech workers, who fear they'll miss out on work and research opportunities if they're not allowed to travel to the US.
Employees of US companies are exempt from the trump travel ban.
Mozilla doesn't think the denial was based on Trumps travel ban.
Despite those two facts, the narrative is trump's travel ban caused him to not be able to travel to US?! Based on what? Oh, based on foreigners bring afraid that being in a foreign land they might miss an opportunity in the US?
It really would have been nice if this story would have included WHY Mozilla does think he was denied entry, but heck, that would limit the trump bashing...
I'd be happy if we could just get gov't out of the 'paying half the cost of every solar install in the US' business, and stop forcing my electrical supplier to pay a premium for unneeded electricity that homeowners solar panels generate...
Yet green tech is where all the new jobs and growth is.
Remember when bus driver was considered a 'green job'?
Green jobs are interesting - we pay people to train for green jobs, we provide tax incentives to hire these trainees, we subsidise the research into green technologies, we subsidize green factories, we sudsidze the purchase of green technology, and we force utility companies to pay excessively high rates for anything that spills out of the subsidized solar panels and onto the grid.
Yeah, that's the free market driving demand for green technology.
Not redirecting the tax cuts that go along with them so they benefit middle class voters instead of the top 10%.
Define 'middle class', what is the income range for 'middle class'?
When 47% of all tax filers pay no net federal income taxes, the vast majority of whom receive payments in excess of all monies previously paid in, how exactly do you target tax cuts at them?
A person keeping more of their income isn't taking money from the government - they just aren't.
Oh, and finally, the program under which the Federal government provided loan guarantees to Solyndra actually made a profit for the US government.
The 'program' was much greater than Solyndra.
Solyndra 'cost' the program over a half-billion dollars, with which they built a factory in Silicon Valley with singing robots that made very fragile, very expensive, solar panels.
Solyndra was predicted to fail by the Bush administration, then a well-placed campaign contributions later the new Obama administration rejected the prediction of their own experts that Solyndra would fail by a certain date and issued the half-billion in loan guarantees anyway. Solyndra went bankrupt almost exactly on schedule, less than a month before the obama administration's predictions.
Not quite sure how the government 'profits' from loan guarantees - please explain how that works. The loans weren't issued by the government and the interest wasn't paid to the government.
I don't care to research them, but suffice to say Trump has been covered/reported on in Time magazine, and I'm not sure if the articles cited on the fake Time cover are real, and if real were from the issue with the fake cover photo.
Finally, it's odd and embarrassing that the photos/fake covers were on the wall at some of his golf clubs, but does it, in any meaningful way, matter?
When the country is republican majority not only at the federal level, but also at the state level - the GOP controls not only the house, senate, and Oval Office but about 2/3rds of state governorships and about 2/3rds of state legislatures.
Watch how quickly 'illegal immigrant' morphs into 'immigrant' in this 'discussion', as if the two were interchangeable.
Every year the United States invites and hosts over one million legal immigrants, be they temporary H-1B visa workers, student visa holders, economic refugees,political refugees, etc. No one has any real issue with those immigrants, it's the ones that illegally cross the border, work off the books or engage in identity theft to secure work, and put increased burdens on our social, medical, and community services far in excess of any contribution to they make to the local tax base.
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago 127 An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change.
How many of those world mayors live in countries that signed on to the Paris Accord and are already committed at some level?
How many of this world cities are adopting stricter US emission targets and plan on paying third-world countries to reduce emissions 'in the future', as opposed to the lower standards their national leaders agreed to?
How many of those mayors have the ability to influence energy generation in their cities and towns?
Aside from holding a press conference and enjoying some positive publicity, what does this mean?
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago 127 An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change.
So all these mayors from around the world Have committed to comply with The Paris Accord? Big whoop! Their national leaders already committed - are they planing to meet to US goals and honor the US obligations with regard to funding 3rd-world developing nations as they continue to increase their levels of greenhouse gasses for years?
I was under the impression that beer companies want to sell a lot of beer, not 'one per' drinker...
Imagining someone grabbing a six-pack of this 'poop beer' and jumping in a row boat to go fishing - I imagine it could get 'messy' when that 6x dose of probiotic emzymes hits their digestive system...
Slashdot Mirror
The solar industry is propped up by regulations that deny utility companies the ability to refuse electricity they don't need from either distributed or utility-scale sources. The guarantee that every KWh generated by a solar source will be bought - at a premium - is what convinces investors to back them, but that same regulation increases consumer costs since at times of over-production the utility is running non-solar power plants that can't be spun down as needed, and simultaneously buying unneeded solar power at a premium.
The moment power companies can refuse to buy unneeded solar power is the moment the solar industry stops growing, and electricity prices will start coming down.
Factor in subsidies for manufacturing plants, subsidies for construction/installation of panels, etc. and solar energy in America lives in a special, politically-built protected market.
Before anyone goes off on 'oil industry subsidies' - I've never heard of the gov't cutting a check to cover half the cost of an oil refinery or offering loan guarantees on oil rigs, and the gov't certainly doesn't guarantee oil companies that every gallon of fuel they bring to market will find a buyer at a guaranteed price.
You need simply follow the money to understand why that will never happen.
Power utilities are required to buy every KWh generated by solar panels at a premium price regardless of their need (or lack thereof) for the electricity, if a solar plant owner reduces the solar power they generate, they are the ones losing money - why would they choose to do that unless they are going to be compensated for the electricity they choose not to produce?
If you went to engineering school, you would know these things
FTFY
Is the profitability of the Arizona utility the reason Californians built solar plants?
The California utility was forced to buy the electricity from solar plant owners, that raises, not lowers, California consumer electricity costs - is that the reason Californians built the solar plants?
The California utility was forced to pay the Arizona utility to take the excess solar electricity, that raises, not lowers, California consumer electricity costs - is that the reason Californians built the solar plants?
According to my critics, I guess the answer is 'Yes'.
As for the Enron references, it's important to remember the abuses Enron heaped on the California consumers was ONLY possible because California passed laws and implemented regulations that enabled those abuses, no other state suffered similar abuses.
It's a problem until there's a storage solution.
So the long-term plan is:
Pay a premium for electricity today for electricity you don't need today, then invest in a storage mechanism to store that electricity until it's needed tomorrow?
CA utility paid premium for solar electricity it didn't need, then had to pay someone to take it to avoid damaging (overload) it's power grid. Sounds like a problem to me. This is a situation that occurred 14 out of the 31 days in March, so it is becoming more commonplace.
As solar deployments expand in California, and these 'excess' electricity days become more common, will that drive electric costs up or down for California consumers? I think it will drive costs up, and I think that's a problem.
Also, when there is to much sun solar plants can be disconnected and just not feed the grid.
Wow.
Most solar plants (either domestic, built on private residences, or commercial) are private, and were built to generate profits for the owner based on the premium price utilities - by law - are required to pay for every KWh they feed into the grid.
Every KWh that CA utility paid someone to take was paid for at a premium. California utilities had to pay a premium for electricity it couldn't use, then had to pay someone to take that excess to save their power grid from damaging overload.
...on those 14 days in March, electricity customers paid exactly the same price for electricity as they did the other 17 days in March, so how did that help the consumers in California?
Likewise, customers in the state that got 'free' electricity from California also paid exactly the same rate for electricity every day in March.
So I ask, who benefitted from all that 'free' excess solar electricity? I can tell you who suffered because of all that 'free' excess solar electricity, every consumer of electricity in California, because the utility company is required, by law, to pay a premium price for every solar generated KWh fed into their grid, whether they need it or not, whether or not they can resell it.
He's white, from Sweden, and likely not a refugee - how does this involve Trump's Travel ban?
Seriously, Trump Derangement Syndrome is rampant on this site...
Daniel Stenberg Appears to be Swedish, does not appear to be a refugee seeking asylum, why would he get caught in Trump's travel ban?
Interesting to note that no mention is made of his nationality, ethnicity, or religion...
Although Mozilla doesn't believe that the incident is related to Trump's travel ban, the incident stirred fears among international tech workers, who fear they'll miss out on work and research opportunities if they're not allowed to travel to the US.
Employees of US companies are exempt from the trump travel ban.
Mozilla doesn't think the denial was based on Trumps travel ban.
Despite those two facts, the narrative is trump's travel ban caused him to not be able to travel to US?! Based on what? Oh, based on foreigners bring afraid that being in a foreign land they might miss an opportunity in the US?
It really would have been nice if this story would have included WHY Mozilla does think he was denied entry, but heck, that would limit the trump bashing...
I'd be happy if we could just get gov't out of the 'paying half the cost of every solar install in the US' business, and stop forcing my electrical supplier to pay a premium for unneeded electricity that homeowners solar panels generate...
Yet green tech is where all the new jobs and growth is.
Remember when bus driver was considered a 'green job'?
Green jobs are interesting - we pay people to train for green jobs, we provide tax incentives to hire these trainees, we subsidise the research into green technologies, we subsidize green factories, we sudsidze the purchase of green technology, and we force utility companies to pay excessively high rates for anything that spills out of the subsidized solar panels and onto the grid.
Yeah, that's the free market driving demand for green technology.
Not redirecting the tax cuts that go along with them so they benefit middle class voters instead of the top 10%.
Define 'middle class', what is the income range for 'middle class'?
When 47% of all tax filers pay no net federal income taxes, the vast majority of whom receive payments in excess of all monies previously paid in, how exactly do you target tax cuts at them?
A person keeping more of their income isn't taking money from the government - they just aren't.
the US military uses 1/4 million barrels of oil a day protecting "freedom"
Citation please.
World oil production is 96 million barrels/day
You ignore the countries that said they would also backout of the Paris Accord unless they get the monies promised them.
Oh, and finally, the program under which the Federal government provided loan guarantees to Solyndra actually made a profit for the US government.
The 'program' was much greater than Solyndra.
Solyndra 'cost' the program over a half-billion dollars, with which they built a factory in Silicon Valley with singing robots that made very fragile, very expensive, solar panels.
Solyndra was predicted to fail by the Bush administration, then a well-placed campaign contributions later the new Obama administration rejected the prediction of their own experts that Solyndra would fail by a certain date and issued the half-billion in loan guarantees anyway. Solyndra went bankrupt almost exactly on schedule, less than a month before the obama administration's predictions.
Not quite sure how the government 'profits' from loan guarantees - please explain how that works. The loans weren't issued by the government and the interest wasn't paid to the government.
2. I have also never faked a Time magazine with myself on the cover and put it on the wall at work, and neither has anyone I know
If you google "put yourself on time magazine cover" (no quotes) you get dozens of websites that allow you to do just that, for any number of magazines... this isn't some fringe thing Trump invented.
I don't care to research them, but suffice to say Trump has been covered/reported on in Time magazine, and I'm not sure if the articles cited on the fake Time cover are real, and if real were from the issue with the fake cover photo.
Finally, it's odd and embarrassing that the photos/fake covers were on the wall at some of his golf clubs, but does it, in any meaningful way, matter?
When the country is republican majority not only at the federal level, but also at the state level - the GOP controls not only the house, senate, and Oval Office but about 2/3rds of state governorships and about 2/3rds of state legislatures.
Democrats barely control their own party.
Watch how quickly 'illegal immigrant' morphs into 'immigrant' in this 'discussion', as if the two were interchangeable.
Every year the United States invites and hosts over one million legal immigrants, be they temporary H-1B visa workers, student visa holders, economic refugees,political refugees, etc. No one has any real issue with those immigrants, it's the ones that illegally cross the border, work off the books or engage in identity theft to secure work, and put increased burdens on our social, medical, and community services far in excess of any contribution to they make to the local tax base.
Why do you think you're entitled to a job just because you crossed the border illegally to get here?
FTFY
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change.
How many of those world mayors live in countries that signed on to the Paris Accord and are already committed at some level?
How many of this world cities are adopting stricter US emission targets and plan on paying third-world countries to reduce emissions 'in the future', as opposed to the lower standards their national leaders agreed to?
How many of those mayors have the ability to influence energy generation in their cities and towns?
Aside from holding a press conference and enjoying some positive publicity, what does this mean?
Re-read the summary - these are world mayors, not just US.
Mayors of 7,400 Cities Vow To Meet Obama's Climate Commitments
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago 127
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Mayors of more than 7,400 cities across the world have vowed that Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord will spur greater local efforts to combat climate change.
So all these mayors from around the world Have committed to comply with The Paris Accord? Big whoop! Their national leaders already committed - are they planing to meet to US goals and honor the US obligations with regard to funding 3rd-world developing nations as they continue to increase their levels of greenhouse gasses for years?
I was under the impression that beer companies want to sell a lot of beer, not 'one per' drinker...
Imagining someone grabbing a six-pack of this 'poop beer' and jumping in a row boat to go fishing - I imagine it could get 'messy' when that 6x dose of probiotic emzymes hits their digestive system...