4 ms·

No, they're selling their roof real estate to improve the capacity for the whole grid. That's why they're receiving money, although you choose to think of as a

No, they're selling their roof real estate to improve the capacity for the whole grid. That's why they're receiving money, although you choose to think of as a subsidy. The great expense was the acquisition of said real estate. This money spend does benefit everyone (even me, on the other side of the planet), because it improves the climate change situation, and locals in particular, because it doesn't require using lots of land to do it. That land can be used for something else useful to you.

_carbyau_ 6y ago
I never said not to do anything at all. I just want the action to be different. So you'd still get your climate change benefit - which I want too! Maybe it works differently where you are but nothing is sold here. No paperwork changes hands regarding property ownership. At any point, if the homeowner wants to throw the roof solar out, they can. They are getting a subsidy. The subsidy makes the solar panel vs energy costs deal work out. It was ultimately to spur the solar panel industry - which I agree benefits everyone in the general global warming sense. But in the global sense it doesn't matter whether that is via a thousand homeowners or a single power station. As for the land? :-) Australia has plenty of that. We're amongst the lowest population density on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... Go full fantasy and we have arid land for enough solar panels to power everyone on the planet - twice over! That fantasy ignores many realities. It is a terrible idea in a practical sense. But it makes the point - we've got space for solar panels for one or two solar power stations for our local populace. My point is that benefitting everyone a bit more equally rather than significantly the homeowners would be nice.

_carbyau_ 6y ago

I never said not to do anything at all. I just want the action to be different. So you'd still get your climate change benefit - which I want too! Maybe it works differently where you are but nothing is sold here. No paperwork changes hands regarding property ownership. At any point, if the homeowner wants to throw the roof solar out, they can. They are getting a subsidy. The subsidy makes the solar panel vs energy costs deal work out. It was ultimately to spur the solar panel industry - which I agree benefits everyone in the general global warming sense. But in the global sense it doesn't matter whether that is via a thousand homeowners or a single power station. As for the land? :-) Australia has plenty of that. We're amongst the lowest population density on the planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen... Go full fantasy and we have arid land for enough solar panels to power everyone on the planet - twice over! That fantasy ignores many realities. It is a terrible idea in a practical sense. But it makes the point - we've got space for solar panels for one or two solar power stations for our local populace. My point is that benefitting everyone a bit more equally rather than significantly the homeowners would be nice.