6 ms·

> California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it.

> California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc. No thanks. Then some other org controls the power I can get from those panels, can corrupt officials to raise my rates unnecessarily, charge me higher rates for generation facilities that may not be needed except to juice shareholder returns (Duke Energy collected over a billion dollars for a nuclear power plant they'll never build in Florida, and they are under no obligation to return those funds to ratepayers). This is not uncommon. NV Energy in Nevada, Duke and FPL in Florida, utility coalitions in Kentucky and Arizona have all fought against distributed generation, the list goes on. Rooftop/distributed solar is a hedge against utility shenanigans, and with how quickly rooftop solar pays itself back (under 10 years in over half the US states while rolling the cost into a long term fixed rate loan product, ie your mortgage), it's insane we don't mandate its installation in more places on new/retrofit construction [1]. Disclosure: I own a 10kw solar install on my roof. I’m biased and opinionated. [1] https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg (NREL US Solar Potential Map) [+] https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg (Rate of return on cash invested by state)
- bahmboo 9y ago
  Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. If you are grid tie you are subject to whatever rate they will pay you for your power and charge you for power.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Storage will only get cheaper, it's only a matter of how quickly [1] [2]. Based on historical renewable generation and storage rapid cost declines, you will be able to be self sufficient faster than utilities will be able to put you over the barrel by moving peak pricing away from the solar "duck curve" [3]. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Storage 2017) [2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries-below-200kwh-by-2019-will-drive-rapid-storage-uptake-finds-ihs-markit/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries... (Lithium-ion batteries below $200/kWh by 2019 will drive rapid storage uptake, finds IHS Markit) [3] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...
    - zaarn 9y ago
      Storage doesn't matter if the solar panels on your roof cannot cover your average power consumption, if they don't you need someone to supply power externally.
      - zaroth 9y ago
        Just because you may need to supplement your supply doesn’t mean “storage doesn’t matter.” With storage you need less supply and you can supplement your supply when rates are lowest.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    >Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. You can be "off grid" by throwing a switch.
    - amluto 9y ago
      Very few inverters will do this.
stevenwoo 9y ago
Electricity is not a public utility in California, so wouldn't that solution require the four(?) private utilities in California to raise prices or sell bonds to purchase land/build a solar power plant?
jayd16 9y ago
Not so obvious. Prop 13 puts a cap on property taxes.
pkaye 9y ago
> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install... Why why just new homes. Instead tax all electricity consumers on their bills to pay for the solar farms.
- lsc 9y ago
  This is how California works; privilege old residents over the new. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is very clearly what California voters want. The idea is that we have these massive boom/bust cycles (that seem to trend upwards) and we want to ensure that those who are already here benefit from the boom times, even at the cost of making things rather harder for the newcomers. The interesting thing is that... a lot of the older service people I've talked to, barbers, uber drivers, etc... own homes around here that they bought when it was cheap. because of these rules, sure, they can't eat out everyday, but they can continue to live around here, should they so choose, on very small wages. I think that our rent control and our prop 13 and other favoring of existing residents does in part subsidize our service industry; in some ways, I think it's why services around here just aren't as expensive as you would expect, when you consider how much more expensive rent is here (and programers are here) vs. the rest of the country. I personally think that the economy would be better overall if we just built a lot and then raised the costs of the output of locally produced services in line with rent, e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages. But, I do think it's important to understand the majority California view.
  - analognoise 9y ago
    "e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages." ...wait, what?
    - lsc 9y ago
      by the same percentage as, perhaps? Both are intensely local, and while local tech industry wages have been increasing pretty dramatically over the last decade, I think that service industry wages have stagnated, as have prices. I think the economy would be better off if we had the same degree of inflation in the service sector as we have in the tech sector. Just my opinion, of course, and I understand it's an unpopular one.
Consultant32452 9y ago
Avoid that altogether and tax energy production equal to the economic cost of its damage. Redistribute the funds gathered to all citizens since they're the ones impacted by the damage. Buy solar panels, pay the steep tax, take whatever steps work for you, where you live, etc.
- zdragnar 9y ago
  So rich people hardly notice the difference, and pensioners die of heat stroke because they can't afford air conditioning?
  - eternauta3k 9y ago
    Tax energy according to its externalities. Then fix the resulting poverty by redistributing money according to the standard of living you want to ensure. Do not mix both policies.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Pensioners receive a check from the tax funds just like everyone else. Assuming pensioners use less electricity than average, they will receive a net benefit. Corporations using a lot of electricity get the same sized tax dividend check the pensioner gets, so it's a net loss for them. The wealthy subsidize the poor under this system. It functions alot like ubi actually.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      Pensioners tend to use more power than younger residents which is why inflation in power costs hurts them proportionally more.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        They don't use more than factories, big box retailers, large corporate offices, data centers, families with children, etc. As long as they're less than the average, they get a net benefit.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install the equivalent panels in some field, where they're cheaper and easier to service, where they can be positioned for optimal sunlight, etc. No thanks. Then some other org controls the power I can get from those panels, can corrupt officials to raise my rates unnecessarily, charge me higher rates for generation facilities that may not be needed except to juice shareholder returns (Duke Energy collected over a billion dollars for a nuclear power plant they'll never build in Florida, and they are under no obligation to return those funds to ratepayers). This is not uncommon. NV Energy in Nevada, Duke and FPL in Florida, utility coalitions in Kentucky and Arizona have all fought against distributed generation, the list goes on. Rooftop/distributed solar is a hedge against utility shenanigans, and with how quickly rooftop solar pays itself back (under 10 years in over half the US states while rolling the cost into a long term fixed rate loan product, ie your mortgage), it's insane we don't mandate its installation in more places on new/retrofit construction [1]. Disclosure: I own a 10kw solar install on my roof. I’m biased and opinionated. [1] https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ug2R3Jl.jpg (NREL US Solar Potential Map) [+] https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg https://i.imgur.com/c86gWxh.jpg (Rate of return on cash invested by state)

bahmboo 9y ago
Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. If you are grid tie you are subject to whatever rate they will pay you for your power and charge you for power.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Storage will only get cheaper, it's only a matter of how quickly [1] [2]. Based on historical renewable generation and storage rapid cost declines, you will be able to be self sufficient faster than utilities will be able to put you over the barrel by moving peak pricing away from the solar "duck curve" [3]. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage-2017/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-storage... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Storage 2017) [2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries-below-200kwh-by-2019-will-drive-rapid-storage-uptake-finds-ihs-markit/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/08/03/lithium-ion-batteries... (Lithium-ion batteries below $200/kWh by 2019 will drive rapid storage uptake, finds IHS Markit) [3] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-how-address-over-generation-solar-energy https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/confronting-duck-curve-...
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Storage doesn't matter if the solar panels on your roof cannot cover your average power consumption, if they don't you need someone to supply power externally.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      Just because you may need to supplement your supply doesn’t mean “storage doesn’t matter.” With storage you need less supply and you can supplement your supply when rates are lowest.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >Only if you are off grid are you insulated from the power companies. You can be "off grid" by throwing a switch.
  - amluto 9y ago
    Very few inverters will do this.

stevenwoo 9y ago

Electricity is not a public utility in California, so wouldn't that solution require the four(?) private utilities in California to raise prices or sell bonds to purchase land/build a solar power plant?

jayd16 9y ago

Not so obvious. Prop 13 puts a cap on property taxes.

pkaye 9y ago

> You're missing the obvious alternative, which is that Cali could instead tax new homes the amount required to install... Why why just new homes. Instead tax all electricity consumers on their bills to pay for the solar farms.

lsc 9y ago
This is how California works; privilege old residents over the new. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is very clearly what California voters want. The idea is that we have these massive boom/bust cycles (that seem to trend upwards) and we want to ensure that those who are already here benefit from the boom times, even at the cost of making things rather harder for the newcomers. The interesting thing is that... a lot of the older service people I've talked to, barbers, uber drivers, etc... own homes around here that they bought when it was cheap. because of these rules, sure, they can't eat out everyday, but they can continue to live around here, should they so choose, on very small wages. I think that our rent control and our prop 13 and other favoring of existing residents does in part subsidize our service industry; in some ways, I think it's why services around here just aren't as expensive as you would expect, when you consider how much more expensive rent is here (and programers are here) vs. the rest of the country. I personally think that the economy would be better overall if we just built a lot and then raised the costs of the output of locally produced services in line with rent, e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages. But, I do think it's important to understand the majority California view.
- analognoise 9y ago
  "e.g. raised service wages in line with programmer wages." ...wait, what?
  - lsc 9y ago
    by the same percentage as, perhaps? Both are intensely local, and while local tech industry wages have been increasing pretty dramatically over the last decade, I think that service industry wages have stagnated, as have prices. I think the economy would be better off if we had the same degree of inflation in the service sector as we have in the tech sector. Just my opinion, of course, and I understand it's an unpopular one.

Consultant32452 9y ago

Avoid that altogether and tax energy production equal to the economic cost of its damage. Redistribute the funds gathered to all citizens since they're the ones impacted by the damage. Buy solar panels, pay the steep tax, take whatever steps work for you, where you live, etc.

zdragnar 9y ago
So rich people hardly notice the difference, and pensioners die of heat stroke because they can't afford air conditioning?
- eternauta3k 9y ago
  Tax energy according to its externalities. Then fix the resulting poverty by redistributing money according to the standard of living you want to ensure. Do not mix both policies.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Pensioners receive a check from the tax funds just like everyone else. Assuming pensioners use less electricity than average, they will receive a net benefit. Corporations using a lot of electricity get the same sized tax dividend check the pensioner gets, so it's a net loss for them. The wealthy subsidize the poor under this system. It functions alot like ubi actually.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Pensioners tend to use more power than younger residents which is why inflation in power costs hurts them proportionally more.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      They don't use more than factories, big box retailers, large corporate offices, data centers, families with children, etc. As long as they're less than the average, they get a net benefit.