56 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
56 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Big Solar Fight Breaks Out Between Utilities, Homeowners

by Joe Mobley
41 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
An Arizona utility that generates and distributes electric power in one of the country's sun-drenched areas has asked the state's Corporation Commission for assistance in its fight with homeowners who have installed their own solar power panels, typically on house rooftops.

Tucson Electric Power Co. asked the agency, which sets utility rates, to let it double its basic monthly service charge for residential customers, from $10 to $20 per month, as well as assess new fees, penalties, and charges on rooftop solar customers. A study done by the utility says that customers with solar panels, on average, shift $67 a month in costs to non-solar customers because they pay less for grid upkeep.
...

A short, interesting discussion,

Big Solar Fight Breaks Out Between Utilities, Homeowners | Fox Business


Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author AprilCT
    I suppose this was to be expected. It's not such a different scenario from where states got gasoline tax revenue, and now with more efficient vehicles, consumers are paying higher taxes and fees to make up for it. That the electric utilities jump on this bandwagon is no surprise.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10380768].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Here in the Houston area, our gas price at a large Shell garage is an amazing $1.95. It's getting to where it will not be cost effective to extract the stuff. However, the utility companies and the oil industry are not short of money currently. There will always be a demand for energy and this wont last forever.

      They should use there money to diversify to greener alternatives and different products if there core product is not in such demand. Not try and impose fees on enterprising people who are doing it for themselves, saving money and inadvertently helping the environment.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10380783].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    A fight was inevitable when a rent-seeking monopoly suddenly comes up against a disruptive technology.

    This type of battle is being played out in a number of industries, a prime example being old media (radio.TV, newspapers) v new media.

    Those businesses that don't adapt to change will perish.

    In the case of personal solar power generation v utilities, utilities will lose. Time for them to invest in production of solar panels and storage capacity so they can still make money in the future.

    It's a certainty that no-one will mourn their passing if they fail to adapt.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10380829].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The sick part is that they always claim the rich make SOOOO much but the BIG winner in the end is the GOVERNMENT!

    Look at that tax they added in LA for the earthquake in 1994! Did they EVER get rid of it? What of the tax for payphones! Did they EVER get rid of that? And what of that tax on businesses that they said would never go over 10% and that they would get rid of? OHHHHHHHHHyeah, they renamed it, caused a lot of grief, and now MOST must pay. It is called an income tax, even though it can exceed what you are promised which now almost always exceeds your income!

    YEAH, they will end up charging ANYONE that has a piece of property for this. BTW people pay a LOT for "improved property". and one part of that is ELECTRICAL!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10382604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
    This is 2015, almost 2016, and this fight is 30+ years in the making.
    Renewables are coming, like it or not.
    Higher fees on everything are coming, like it or not.
    Because there is money to be made.

    And if homeowners are not already selling their own extra energy back
    to utility companies, they probably got their sense of economics and
    personal finance from public school.

    Sometimes I don't know what annoys me more!?
    The wolves' lack of anything resembling community and moral responsibility?
    Or the sheep and their utter ignorance of how the world works around them?
    (And through them, and over them.)
    Signature

    The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

    ...A tachyon enters a bar.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10382634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
      There should not be a fight.

      The homeowner is their customer. It's not their responsibility to pay for the power companies grid.

      The power company is on a power trip. They need a good slap, so they remember who their customers are.

      Patrick
      Signature
      Free eBook =>
      The Secret To Success In Any Business
      Yes, Any Business!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10382649].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by MikeTucker View Post

      This is 2015, almost 2016, and this fight is 30+ years in the making.
      Renewables are coming, like it or not.
      Higher fees on everything are coming, like it or not.
      Because there is money to be made.

      And if homeowners are not already selling their own extra energy back
      to utility companies, they probably got their sense of economics and
      personal finance from public school.

      Sometimes I don't know what annoys me more!?
      The wolves' lack of anything resembling community and moral responsibility?
      Or the sheep and their utter ignorance of how the world works around them?
      (And through them, and over them.)

      Not every place allows for home owners to sell electricity back to the grid. And where it is an option, the grid tie (I think it's called) is usually the most expensive element in an off-grid system.


      Even though I'm as pro renewable energy as anyone, I don't believe any energy company should be forced to buy energy from anyone.


      In response to Joe's OP:


      Higher fees make little sense in the long term, as the costs of solar panels are falling fast with prices now under a $1 per watt. This means a typical US home only needs to spend $3000 on solar panels to power their homes.


      Of course, there are other expenses involved in addition to just the solar panels, and other misc. factors. However, there are also ways to cut back on the energy needed to power a home and be more efficient.


      Requiring people that don't need a service to pay money to lower the costs for those that do is a faulty premise...and any business model that's raising prices to "compete" with another business model where prices are lowering is doomed to failure.


      I would suggest that the energy companies look into things like leasing solar systems to residences (link Elon Musk is doing) and/or creating "micro" energy companies where they create industrial solar systems for apartment buildings, office buildings, etc., and sell the energy generated and not the systems.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10382697].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeTucker
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Not every place allows for home owners to sell electricity back to the grid.
        I didn't know that? I knew there was a reason we kept you around.
        Signature

        The bartender says: "We don't serve faster-than-light particles here."

        ...A tachyon enters a bar.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383905].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Very few people understand that our electricity is extremely outdated and is actually a very vile pollutant. If our power companies think that their customers are their servants -- perhaps a few class action lawsuits on them for serving us severely polluted electricity will bring them back to reality and make them STFU. They had too much fun giving lucrative bonuses, whining for subsidies, and playing the profiteer game to upgrade their systems. Sucks to be them.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10382713].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      The homeowner is their customer. It's not their responsibility to pay for the power companies grid.
      Not always the case. In some areas of the country, the electric companies are 'cooperatives' and these are controled by those 'customers' who use the power.


      Rates are often sliding scale with a higher cost per KWH for lower users and price breaks for those using higher quantity/business/indutrial.


      It doesn't have to be a problem - but power companies may need to adjust their rate/pricing policies. Homeowners hooked into the power grid may have to adjust their expectations, too.


      If you are 'off the grid' you should pay nothing. However, if you want to have the public or local electric grid to serve as your 'go to' emergency or periodic backup power...you may have to pay a premium fee for that use. I can understand companies chaging a 'hookup' fee that is a base fee for power. ....






      You can bash the power companies all you want - they provide what YOU need. They aren't the enemy. If some had their way - we would use no coal and no oil - and we would shut down greedy power companies. They don't stop to think what life would be like without the electricity they complain about.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Your comfort zone is where your dreams go to die.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383740].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
        it's so different here - we get incentives from our provincial government to go solar - there are grid-tie options or not - personally I would go completely off-grid and use alternative back-up methods so that I would never have to rely on any utility company ever again.
        Signature
        ---------------
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383780].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

          it's so different here - we get incentives from our provincial government to go solar - there are grid-tie options or not - personally I would go completely off-grid and use alternative back-up methods so that I would never have to rely on any utility company ever again.
          There are incentives here too, at least there were...I think there's still incentives? IIRC, they were up to 30% of the cost of solar installation, as well as incentives for wind and geo thermal.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383886].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        You can bash the power companies all you want - they provide what YOU need. They aren't the enemy. If some had their way - we would use no coal and no oil - and we would shut down greedy power companies. They don't stop to think what life would be like without the electricity they complain about.
        Not true at all. We "need" coal and oil now only because we haven't fully committed to better sources of energy yet. IMO, we should have converted a while back, with a plan similar to the Marshall plan. Yes, it's that important.


        And those that think coal and oil are so great, don't want to factor in the other expenses associated with carbon based fuels, like heath problems, pollution to air and water systems, military expenses, etc. Coal and oil users should take personal responsibility and pay for the damage they cause to our health and environment. Not to mention, the tax breaks Big Oil gets despite being the most profitable industry in the history of mankind. Once these expenses are factored in, green energy becomes an even better deal.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10383891].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Not true at all. We "need" coal and oil now only because we haven't fully committed to better sources of energy yet. IMO, we should have converted a while back, with a plan similar to the Marshall plan. Yes, it's that important.


          And those that think coal and oil are so great, don't want to factor in the other expenses associated with carbon based fuels, like heath problems, pollution to air and water systems, military expenses, etc.

          Coal and oil users should take personal responsibility and pay for the damage they cause to our health and environment. Not to mention, the tax breaks Big Oil gets despite being the most profitable industry in the history of mankind.

          Once these expenses are factored in, green energy becomes an even better deal.

          You said it Kurt.

          Folks need to get with the program.

          Going green would be a smart play and could easily be a big driver of a robust 21st century economy. Hopefully there's a humane way to phase out/transition all the regular folks whose livelihood depends on oil.
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384002].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            You said it Kurt.

            Folks need to get with the program.

            Going green would be a smart play and could easily be a big driver of a robust 21st century economy. Hopefully there's a humane way to phase out/transition all the regular folks whose livelihood depends on oil.
            Building wind turbines seems like a much better job than working in a coal mine and dealing with black lung to me. I know I'd rather be outside than in a mine.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384010].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Building wind turbines seems like a much better job than working in a coal mine and dealing with black lung to me. I know I'd rather be outside than in a mine.
              Same here and one of my grandfathers succumbed to the black lung. (may he rest in peace)
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384014].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                Kurt -


                Not arguing for big oil or coal - but wanting to use "alternatives" must transition into USING alternatives. We aren't there yet. Until we can power the country without oil, coal and power grids....we can't just close them down.


                Here's one problem - most who have active solar are those with the money to install it. Even with the huge tax deals from the govt, it's not cheap. If they are not paying premiums to have access to the grid when needed - doesn't that mean lower income people will be paying more because the richer folks can afford the new technology?
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
                ***
                Your comfort zone is where your dreams go to die.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384182].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  Not arguing for big oil or coal - but wanting to use "alternatives" must transition into USING alternatives. We aren't there yet. Until we can power the country without oil, coal and power grids....we can't just close them down.
                  And therein lies the problem. The utitlities should be the biggest investors in renewables. They should be the ones building solar panels and wind turbines and every other form of clean energy to power the grids.

                  It makes sound commercial sense for them to get free energy rather than having to buy coal, oil and gas when the price of these commodities goes up and down like a yo-yo.

                  THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES MAKING THE TRANSITION!

                  There was a thread recently about how Kodak (remember them?) actually invented digital photography. Instead of developing that they decided to stick with their tried and true (up to that point) business model of selling rolls of film. The result, they don't exist anymore.

                  If utilities don't lead the charge to renewables, they will be the next Kodak.
                  Signature
                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384222].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  Kurt -


                  Not arguing for big oil or coal - but wanting to use "alternatives" must transition into USING alternatives. We aren't there yet. Until we can power the country without oil, coal and power grids....we can't just close them down.

                  I don't recall anyone suggest we close down the grid before we have other systems in place. Instead, I believe it's really a case of many of us wanting more urgency in getting the alternatives up and running, THEN close down the carbon based energy companies, or at least cut back greatly on the need for them.

                  Here's one problem - most who have active solar are those with the money to install it. Even with the huge tax deals from the govt, it's not cheap. If they are not paying premiums to have access to the grid when needed - doesn't that mean lower income people will be paying more because the richer folks can afford the new technology?
                  Which is why I suggested energy companies building micro energy installations, where they create systems for apartment buildings, office buildings, retail shopping malls, neighborhoods, etc., and sell the energy created and not the installations themselves.


                  Actually, it doesn't have to be just the major energy companies that build the micro power plants. Let's not forget that in most areas energy companies are monopolies and customers don't have a lot of choice. Micro power plants could give people a choice and make pricing competitive.
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384398].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Same here and one of my grandfathers succumbed to the black lung. (may he rest in peace)
                I bring up the tangible costs of carbon based fuels often, and how the price doesn't include things like health and military related costs.


                But the more important costs are really intangible, like how much is the value of the years of life your grandfather lost, as well as his loss to all his loved ones because he worked in a coal mine? What value do we put on that?
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384411].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Actually - we don't need these companies at all -- the only reason we still are using outdated energy is because of the pull those utilities have with gov. They've been suppressing new energies whenever and however possible to suppress them.

    While it's true that some companies are co-op -- most of the country's power sources are not. They have a monopoly they protect..........and are now bleeding people of more than they can afford. We need to allow the alternatives to be instated. Period.

    Nevada Power is also pulling this crap on us now.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    ANOTHER thing! The government is SOOOOO happy to say "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT". Why don't THEY pay for the grid they claim they built? Did you hear about new york? They now want ALL public workers to get a minimum of $15/hour! Want to take a guess at what will happen? MY bet is that OTHERS will want raises, costs will go up, inflation will occur, and they will be back AGAIN next year saying they don't make enough! The IRONIC thing is that paying money for the grid could help lower the cost of electricity and SAVE people money, but THAT is too simple! Wire doesn't vote.
    BTW Powergrids aren't a SOURCE of power, but a way to DISTRIBUTE power. Powergrids will be used as long as people don't have the resources and area to create a surplus when they can, and store enough for when they can't. Carbon fuels are currently the MOST efficient relatively independent energy source around. That ALSO makes them one of the CHEAPEST!

    HEY, he DID say it!


    BTW I mean carbon fuels at the ATOMIC level! That includes oil, fuel, diesel, kerosene, propane, NLG. and YEP, COAL!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10384328].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    What about the real costs of shutting down coal? Shutting down oil? Whole communities - regions, even - are driven by coal or oil production and would be devastated by closing them down. How do you replace an industry? Same sort of thing happened in NE Oregon, where I grew up. Logging supported a lot of people and those who depended on it when it was politically curtailed lost everything - homes, jobs, their livelihood.

    You can sit back in the distance and talk about how this should be done, get rid of that, get rid of something else. But go talk to a log truck owner-operator who lost his truck, lost his home, who can't even feed his family because the enviro-greens won a lawsuit that shut off timber sales (then the forest burned, but that's a different story). Take a look at the town that ran on the lumber mill - deserted, populated with hopeless people, the ones who don't have the resources to leave.

    When you come up with a good solution for replacing an industry that supports whole areas, then I'll maybe get a little more on board.

    What about the cost of electricity from 'renewable energy'? I don't know of a renewable energy source that can compete with the cost of energy produced from a coal- or natural gas-fired powerplant.

    When you get the costs down so they are in line with current energy costs so that people can afford the new green energy, then maybe I'll get a little more on board.

    Getting rid of coal will get rid of black lung, a truly terrible disease especially because it is preventable. But the disease can also be eradicated (it basically was, a few years ago, but has rebounded) by stronger enforcement. And before several of you climb on your high horses, this is a type of regulation that I fully support.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385377].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      What about the real costs of shutting down coal? Shutting down oil? Whole communities - regions, even - are driven by coal or oil production and would be devastated by closing them down. How do you replace an industry? Same sort of thing happened in NE Oregon, where I grew up. Logging supported a lot of people and those who depended on it when it was politically curtailed lost everything - homes, jobs, their livelihood.

      You can sit back in the distance and talk about how this should be done, get rid of that, get rid of something else. But go talk to a log truck owner-operator who lost his truck, lost his home, who can't even feed his family because the enviro-greens won a lawsuit that shut off timber sales (then the forest burned, but that's a different story). Take a look at the town that ran on the lumber mill - deserted, populated with hopeless people, the ones who don't have the resources to leave.

      When you come up with a good solution for replacing an industry that supports whole areas, then I'll maybe get a little more on board.

      What about the cost of electricity from 'renewable energy'? I don't know of a renewable energy source that can compete with the cost of energy produced from a coal- or natural gas-fired powerplant.

      When you get the costs down so they are in line with current energy costs so that people can afford the new green energy, then maybe I'll get a little more on board.

      Getting rid of coal will get rid of black lung, a truly terrible disease especially because it is preventable. But the disease can also be eradicated (it basically was, a few years ago, but has rebounded) by stronger enforcement. And before several of you climb on your high horses, this is a type of regulation that I fully support.
      You put the people to work in other industries, such as building green energy plants. Duh.

      Basically, your argument about losing a whole industry is invalid, as a new industry will be created. People will have to make changes, just like we always have throughout history.

      What happened to the buggy whip makers when the auto industry took over? Or the whaling industry when a way to produce kerosene became inexpensive? Or the cowboy industry once trains became common?

      What will happen to the truck driving industry or the taxi industry once self driving cars and trucks take over?

      As we find better ways to do things, the old ways become obsolete.

      Adapt or die. It's the way things work in the real world.

      Black lung is only one example of the heath issues caused by carbon fuels. There's a number of health related issues caused by polluting our air. I simply gave one example out of a plethora of other health related issues. No need to cherry pick from only one health issue to try to "prove" a point.

      I already addressed your question about the cost of electricity from coal and oil. You refuse to factor in the health and military costs, or the subsidy Big Oil gets in the form of lower taxes than the renewable energy industry has to pay.

      Answer my question: Why does Big Oil, the most profitable industry in the history of mankind, get a tax break that any other industry doesn't get?

      Do a Google search for:
      health costs of carbon fuels

      Actually do some research. The reports aren't all from left wing sources, many sources such as Forbes are conservative.

      You'll find that even in places like the Rust Belt, which isn't the best area for sun and wind power, the savings in health costs far outweighs any added expense from green energy, and this expense doesn't factor in intangibles such as longer life and a much better life style from not being sick. How much is that worth?

      Factor in the real costs of carbon, then we'll talk about how expensive solar and wind are (not) when compared to oil and coal. And this is only the REAL costs and doesn't include the INTANGIBLE costs, which seems that many people don't quite comprehend.


      It's foolish to believe that the only costs associated with carbon fuels is production. Start taking personal responsibility and start paying for the heath costs associated with your addiction to carbon fuels instead of having a sense of entitlement that you can pollute the air other people breath and not have to pay for it so you can have a low energy bill.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385429].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        You put the people to work in other industries, such as building green energy plants. Duh.
        LOL - you're going to build a green energy plant in Appalachia, Virginia, or Somerset, Colorado? Or are you just going to ship everyone somewhere else, lock, stock, and barrel? Or are you just going to sit back and say, "Tough tittie. We won, you lost. Adapt or die."

        Pretty sure I know which.

        Basically, your argument about losing a whole industry is invalid, as a new industry will be created. People will have to make changes, just like we always have throughout history.
        Tell that to Elgin and Imbler, Oregon. Just stand back or bring armed guards when you tell them you're a greenie.

        What happened to the buggy whip makers when the auto industry took over? Or the whaling industry when a way to produce kerosene became inexpensive? Or the cowboy industry once trains became common?
        Whole towns weren't involved in making buggy whips, at least as far as I know. Whaling went away over time. Cowboys are still around, but now they drive 4-wheelers. That isn't what we're talking about here, as you well know. This isn't change dictated by markets.


        What will happen to the truck driving industry or the taxi industry once self driving cars and trucks take over?

        As we find better ways to do things, the old ways become obsolete.
        The become obsolete over time, not overnight. People have a chance to adapt.

        Adapt or die. It's the way things work in the real world.
        Quite the smug answer, when the hardship involves someone else. Have you no compassion?

        Black lung is only one example of the heath issues caused by carbon fuels. There's a number of health related issues caused by polluting our air. I simply gave one example out of a plethora of other health related issues. No need to cherry pick from only one health issue to try to "prove" a point.
        I wasn't cherry-picking. I brought it up because TL mentioned it, and pointed out that it could be (and had been, for a time) eradicated by cleaning up air in the mines.

        I already addressed your question about the cost of electricity from coal and oil. You refuse to factor in the health and military costs, or the subsidy Big Oil gets in the form of lower taxes than the renewable energy industry has to pay.
        That's pie-in-the-sky crap. Think that'll make any difference to the family who is close to the poverty line and sees their electricity bill double?

        Answer my question: Why does Big Oil, the most profitable industry in the history of mankind, get a tax break that any other industry doesn't get?
        Industry and business in general shouldn't be paying any taxes at all. The public pays it anyway in the form of higher prices. Stop taxing business and increase personal taxes so people can really see how much they're paying.

        Do a Google search for:
        health costs of carbon fuels

        Actually do some research. The reports aren't all from left wing sources, many sources such as Forbes are conservative.

        You'll find that even in places like the Rust Belt, which isn't the best area for sun and wind power, the savings in health costs far outweighs any added expense from green energy, and this expense doesn't factor in intangibles such as longer life and a much better life style from not being sick. How much is that worth?
        Not much, when your electricity gets shut off because you can't pay for it.

        Factor in the real costs of carbon, then we'll talk about how expensive solar and wind are (not) when compared to oil and coal. And this is only the REAL costs and doesn't include the INTANGIBLE costs, which seems that many people don't quite comprehend.
        The REAL cost is what your neighbor writes a check for every month.

        It's foolish to believe that the only costs associated with carbon fuels is production. Start taking personal responsibility and start paying for the heath costs associated with your addiction to carbon fuels instead of having a sense of entitlement that you can pollute the air other people breath and not have to pay for it so you can have a low energy bill.
        Do you generate your own electricity? Do you drive anywhere? Fly? Do you use hot water? Do you shear your own sheep and make your own clothes? Did you build your house out of mud or maybe live in a hole in the ground? Are your shoes made of leather from a cow you raised and butchered or are they plastic?

        The holier-than-thou crap that comes from the green fanatics just disgusts me. When you are completely 'green' then you'll have a podium to preach from. Until then, you're just the pot calling the kettle black, spouting green crap with no comprehension of the true cost in human terms of what you want your wonderful government goonies to force on other people.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385872].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Steve, how about, we change our ways ASAP or the human race die's out within a 100 years. Cant put it much plainer than that.

          Makes your short term concerns look rather silly.
          Signature

          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385893].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Steve, how about, we change our ways ASAP or the human race die's out within a 100 years. Cant put it much plainer than that.

            Rather makes your short term concerns look rather silly.
            Chicken Little is running right beside you.
            Signature

            The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

            Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385900].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      What about the real costs of shutting down coal? Shutting down oil? Whole communities - regions, even - are driven by coal or oil production and would be devastated by closing them down.
      What happened to whole communities, regions even, that relied on lead mining? Asbestos? What happened to Detroit when the car companies moved production overseas?

      All of those shutdowns happened pretty much overnight. The fossil fuel industry was put on notice with the Kyoto Protocol in 1992. In other words they've had 23 years so far to adapt. There's no point in crying foul now.

      Adapt or perish. The market in action.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385440].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        What happened to whole communities, regions even, that relied on lead mining? Asbestos? What happened to Detroit when the car companies moved production overseas?

        All of those shutdowns happened pretty much overnight. The fossil fuel industry was put on notice with the Kyoto Protocol in 1992. In other words they've had 23 years so far to adapt. There's no point in crying foul now.

        Adapt or perish. The market in action.
        Detroit is a wasteland. Been there lately?

        This isn't the 'market in action'. The market isn't dictating these changes.

        Lead is still used and mined, as is asbestos.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385822].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      What about the real costs of shutting down coal? Shutting down oil? Whole communities - regions, even - are driven by coal or oil production and would be devastated by closing them down. How do you replace an industry? Same sort of thing happened in NE Oregon, where I grew up. Logging supported a lot of people and those who depended on it when it was politically curtailed lost everything - homes, jobs, their livelihood.
      Seriously? You think we'd completely shut down because we exchanged sources? What about the people needed to build the windmills - the solar panels, to install them, to maintenance them, to transport them?

      Industries have come and gone since society first began. This is the same argument that a lot of industries use that wouldn't actually shut down jobs. What if we switched to hemp again instead of chemical based product? Would we go broke? No - we'd have to build new plants to support the new industry. Dow and Dupont might suffer and even close - but jobs would not - and if so at all, it would be a temporary problem.

      The sole reason we don't have clean, eco-friendly energy in mass use today is because the power companies don't want to give up their own industry. It's time to change, though, and if they don't want to adjust to what we need now - then they need to become extinct. Period.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385843].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Seriously? You think we'd completely shut down because we exchanged sources? What about the people needed to build the windmills - the solar panels, to install them, to maintenance them, to transport them?

        Industries have come and gone since society first began. This is the same argument that a lot of industries use that wouldn't actually shut down jobs. What if we switched to hemp again instead of chemical based product? Would we go broke? No - we'd have to build new plants to support the new industry. Dow and Dupont might suffer and even close - but jobs would not - and if so at all, it would be a temporary problem.

        The sole reason we don't have clean, eco-friendly energy in mass use today is because the power companies don't want to give up their own industry. It's time to change, though, and if they don't want to adjust to what we need now - then they need to become extinct. Period.
        I didn't say we'd shut down from changing sources. I want the people who so glibly proclaim "adapt or die" to tell that to the face of a family who is barely making ends meet when their electricity bill triples and they have to choose between paying the bill or eating.

        I don't disagree that some of the reason there hasn't been a lot of change is because of entrenched monopolies in the power industries. But the main factor has been cost.

        I know you've been in eastern Oregon and on the coast. Do those deserted towns look like they've gone to work building windmills or solar panels?

        I don't care if hemp replaced nylon and if Dow or DuPont disappeared because they didn't see the writing on the wall. But that won't happen overnight and yes, some people will be affected, but they will have had some time to adapt.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385897].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

          I didn't say we'd shut down from changing sources. I want the people who so glibly proclaim "adapt or die" to tell that to the face of a family who is barely making ends meet when their electricity bill triples and they have to choose between paying the bill or eating.

          I don't disagree that some of the reason there hasn't been a lot of change is because of entrenched monopolies in the power industries. But the main factor has been cost.

          I know you've been in eastern Oregon and on the coast. Do those deserted towns look like they've gone to work building windmills or solar panels?

          I don't care if hemp replaced nylon and if Dow or DuPont disappeared because they didn't see the writing on the wall. But that won't happen overnight and yes, some people will be affected, but they will have had some time to adapt.
          It's way too late to worry about people having to choose between paying bills and eating. We've been there now for quite some time. The same monopolies that want those bills hiked fully support low wages for workers. I'm not sure how they think that works, but I do know that pricing people out of utilities isn't going to help them make more money without the snowball effect of having to price more out of them as well.

          And yeah - I've been in rural areas, small towns all across the N west. Some are changing over - some aren't. Depends on the money in the area. Goldendale WA is nothing but one huge windmill field now and one is being constructed almost right across the river (Gorge) from in it OR. Anyone with a wood stove or fireplace outside of burn restriction areas are now using them to heat with - sometimes to do some cooking as well. Others supplement some with gas powered generators -- especially since our power companies can't keep the power going in a storm. Ours was out for 9 hours Monday night.

          We're already to the point that when it gets real cold, people freeze to death. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385937].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Just for clarification, I am not saying that coal and oil powered electricity shouldn't go away or that they need to be kept around for the sole purpose of keeping people working or that they don't represent a certain danger. Of course they should, and shouldn't, and do.

    Whaling went away because kerosene was cheaper. The horse and buggy went away because automobiles were better at the job of moving people and goods around.

    Go to Idaho Power and tell them you'll sell them electricity cheaper than the Bonneville Power Administration and they'd switch in a heartbeat, unless government wouldn't let them.

    I just want the eco-weenies to acknowledge the real human cost of what they want done instead of glibly proclaiming, "adapt or die" and letting the chips fall.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10385927].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I have been for going to photovoltaic.(Now often just called solar, but solar means MANY things), for about 40 YEARS! At the time, everyone seemed to LAUGH at the prospect, though solar then often meant the more mechanical solar/thermal, which I always thought was dumb. But it DOES require OTHER technologies, and more realestate and open area. All this tends to mean you need money, and time to transition as well as high capacity storage methods, or an efficient power generation system.

    As for moving to other technologies? Windmills are out! You need a good proper area, and they can hurt wildlife. ALSO, there is competition. Solar is out, for the same reason. MST of the advantages the US could have were tied to external resources, and skills and techniques, and the US has basically spread this around. Does the US really have any internal benefit that it can export without competition anymore? BTW Windmills were vary popular in western europe, and they will likely stick with their own. CHINA apparently has more resources, and now has the technology to build photovoltaic cells.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10386331].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Very few people understand that our electricity is extremely outdated and is actually a very vile pollutant. .
      I'm all for solar, but do I dare bring this up?
      Danger: Solar Panels Can Be Hazardous to Your Health | CleanTechnica

      And so who do you think is really going to benefit?

      The pharmaceutical companies of course with their drugs to treat all us when the big C gets us.

      (bet you all didn't see that coming out of left field.)
      Signature

      "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10386411].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Jill Carpenter View Post

        I'm all for solar, but do I dare bring this up?
        Danger: Solar Panels Can Be Hazardous to Your Health | CleanTechnica

        And so who do you think is really going to benefit?

        The pharmaceutical companies of course with their drugs to treat all us when the big C gets us.

        (bet you all didn't see that coming out of left field.)
        Unfortunately, electric in the US is also extremely polluted and is a major health risk on it's own -- now companies want to use "smart meters" and those things are just completely toxic.

        Some time, someone is going to allow us to have the power sources that have no side effects. However - they're going to probably think up other ways to take our money first.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10387607].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Unfortunately, electric in the US is also extremely polluted and is a major health risk on it's own -- now companies want to use "smart meters" and those things are just completely toxic.

          Some time, someone is going to allow us to have the power sources that have no side effects. However - they're going to probably think up other ways to take our money first.
          I took a class once that covered politics, and one thing the "instructor" did was have various party representatives over to tell us their plans, etc....

          ONE party. I THINK it was the green party but I might be wrong, was talking about their plans for "SOLAR ENERGY". I put quotes around it because this is the most ABSURD name for what their plans were! The PLAN was to send up SATELLITES, and have THEM collect the solar power because it is supposedly more efficient, and BEAM it down to earth via MICROWAVE, and have a building receive it and SELL it at a lower cost to customers!

          LUDICROUS!

          1. Sending the satellites up would be EXPENSIVE, and a LOT of hassle!
          2. The increased efficiency is MINOR!
          3. MOST of the power would be needed to keep the satellite up, etc...
          4. Using microwaves is VERY inefficient! There goes the efficiency benefit, that was already eradicated by the maintenance need.
          5. Do you know how many solar cells would be needed to power just ONE home? At 100% efficiency with NO waste, it could take over a DOZEN large satellites to power ONE home! After all, there ARE SPACE, WEIGHT, SIZE constraints! And the larger the satellite the more likely it will get damaged.
          6. Do you have ANY idea how much microwave energy is around us? Harmonics from MANY things, satellite phones, cell phones, high end cordless phones, base units, some radio transceivers, radar, WIFI , Satellite TV, CABLE TV(YEP, they go to SATELLITE for a lot of service!), the new body scanners, MRI, etc... just to name a FEW!!!!!

          The ONLY "benefit" I saw was using a buzz word to sell a stupid idea.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10388597].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Unfortunately, electric in the US is also extremely polluted and is a major health risk on it's own -- now companies want to use "smart meters" and those things are just completely toxic.

          Some time, someone is going to allow us to have the power sources that have no side effects. However - they're going to probably think up other ways to take our money first.
          I'm a little at a loss - how can electricity be 'polluted'? And what is 'toxic' about smart meters?
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10388871].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            I'm a little at a loss - how can electricity be 'polluted'? And what is 'toxic' about smart meters?
            As for the "smart meters" there is concern over the RF radiation they give off. Not sure on the electricity being polluted.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10388923].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              As for the "smart meters" there is concern over the RF radiation they give off. Not sure on the electricity being polluted.
              unfortunately we were forced to change to smart meters here - there has and will continue to be an uproar about those meters
              Signature
              ---------------
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10390375].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            I'm a little at a loss - how can electricity be 'polluted'? And what is 'toxic' about smart meters?
            I THINK she is trying to say that the electricity is generated and often generated through a dirty technology. Electricity seems SOOOOOOOO clean, and as an END product, it IS, but the OTHER end may be INCREDIBLY dirty!

            ALSO, there is a LOT of EMR given off for MILES AND MILES in every direction.

            BTW there IS ELECTRICAL pollution! THAT is also virtually a GIVEN! VOLTAGE can vary by perhaps 20-50 volts in either direction(in the US), and there can be all sorts of electrical noise. Some companies pay THOUSANDS or even TENS of thousands of dollars for electrical regulators and conditioners. That used to be almost the RULE with computers. I don't know about IBM in this regard, but DEC insisted on first hooking a device to your power to validate that it was clean enough. It was tested for days or weeks. If you failed, they INSISTED that you get a conditioner.

            Early computers had HUGE capacitors, and internal regulators in special power supplies called switching power supplies, to provide cleaner power. NOW, capacitors are better, and wattage requirements are lower, and things aren't so obvious but, if you look closely, they still do a lot of stuff to ride out the noise.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10389425].message }}

Trending Topics