4 ms·
An energy economist on why it's a bad idea: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180509.pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecwei
by tlb 9y ago
An energy economist on why it's a bad idea: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180509.pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste/cecweisenmiller180.... Basically, rooftop solar is less capital-efficient than large solar or wind farms, so we can save more carbon/$ by doing grid-scale generation.
- slg 9y agoI don't know enough about the energy market to weigh in on this proposal, but that response is the epitome of the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is presenting a false choice. Getting something like this approved is much easier politically than large solar and wind farms. Sometimes the politically expedient solution is the proper choice over the ideal but politically unrealistic solution.
- Matticus_Rex 9y agoPolitically expedient but dramatically inefficient and less effective is... still dramatically inefficient and less effective. The idea that it's clear that this is "good" relies on a bunch of assumptions about carbon costs that haven't been made. It's not sufficient to say "fossil fuels are bad, solar is good," because then you make stupidly inefficient decisions that limit your overall capacity to tackle the big problem.
- slg 9y agoThe problem is that "dramatically inefficient and less effective" is relative. People are comparing it to some scenario that is simply not going to happen like the state funding large solar and wind farms. Once again, I don't know whether this proposal is good or not. I just think it is a mistake to to oppose proposals that move us in the right direction solely because they don't move us in that direction quick enough or far enough.
- Matticus_Rex 9y agoI'm thankful that state funding for large solar and wind farms is not going to happen, because there's little that could guarantee a worse or less efficient long-term result. As long as carbon costs can't be priced into the market, the solutions are going to be short-sighted, politically motivated/maintained, and inefficient.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago> Sometimes the politically expedient solution is the proper choice over the ideal but politically unrealistic solution. Why wouldn't that always be the case? What's different about this case where this expedient choice is proper but other's aren't?
- slg 9y agoWe should be unwilling to compromise on certain issues. Civil rights is one that many people would point to that should not be compromised. It is one reason why Hillary Clinton was criticized by progressives during the 2016 campaign for previously being against gay marriage and pro civil unions. That was the politically expedient position at the time, but it was also a compromise of morals.
- RivieraKid 9y agoThis should be obvious to anyone knowing anything about economics. It boggles my mind that a progressive (aka smart legislators) country like CA would produce such an obviously bad policy.
- jpao79 9y agoThere is an aspect of this that is not just strictly about carbon/$ and/or carbon/watthr. There is an aspect of creating a viable alternative in California to the 'charge what you feel like monopoly that leads to annual increases even as costs to produce go down': https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/08/pge-customers-face-higher-monthly-bills-during-early-2018/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/08/pge-customers-face-hi...