4 ms·

We’re never going to solve any existential problems with this attitude, instead we’re just all going to perish except some people will have this smug smile on t

• fleventynine 3y ago
  NEM 2.0 pays solar homeowners a rate that is far above the market rate of instantaneous power (paid via an unsustainable, regressive "tax" on non-solar households paying astronomical rates). Roof solar panels are far less economically efficient than dedicated solar installations in the desert. I agree that subsidizing solar plant construction was a good idea, but NEM 2.0 was bad policy. Poor folks don't have the capital to install solar or upgrade the insulation on their houses, and (in California) typically live in a much more hostile climate. They need to consume significant energy to live and end up paying for a significant portion of the NEM 2.0 "subsidies" as part of their power bill. Government subsidies could come from the general revenue of the state, which is mostly fed by progressive taxes (poor folks contribute much less money than rich folks). It would be better to subsidize green energy directly from general revenues.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • Affric 3y ago
    In Australia this was the case for our incentive rates for early adopters but their windows were all quite small and they started to wind up. They helped hugely with bringing the cost of installation down and also creating a positive attitude to solar panels. Sometimes giving free money to the rich means that it’s electorally popular enough that the right wing won’t roll it back when they get in.