3 ms·

Sure. So what is the benefit here? Will this protect the city against solar storms somehow? I haven't heard of such a thing and it looks like these people are l

by roenxi 1y ago

Sure. So what is the benefit here? Will this protect the city against solar storms somehow? I haven't heard of such a thing and it looks like these people are living in low income houses that could potentially be given 2x as much money at no cost to taxpayers. This looks like lending for non-commercial project; there are guaranteed to be better uses of the money than this scheme even if it is going to end up as welfare. They could even end up with more money for these people and still get solar panels installed by deferring the purchase for 10 years. A much better alternative plan is ban coal, wait until electricity prices jump so high that the panels generate a 5-8% rate of return, then install them. Which is a terrible plan, but better than what they seem to be doing here based on one admittedly rather detail-light sentence.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Will this protect the city against solar storms somehow? When did this become a factor?! > better alternative plan is ban coal In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned.
- roenxi 1y ago
  > When did this become a factor?! Spivak's comment justified pump installations because of positive externalities. Which is a good justification; but as far as I know nothing similar exists for $150 million of spend on solar panels. Is there a benefit here I can't see? Do these panels protect against storms or something? > In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned. Possibly. It is still a better plan than what the article suggests. Buying these panels looks like a mistake from all the angles I can think of. If Pennsylvania's legislature has the numbers and view that it worth making uneconomic decisions for these households there isn't a good reason to leave the non-renewable sources of power operating. In the converse, if they don't have the number or the view then they just shouldn't be making uneconomic spending decisions when they could give the people involved the money as welfare, but more of it. This appears superficially like it is an unprincipled position that creates no particular benefits but in a wasteful way. Maybe it isn't, but if it isn't it'd be helpful if someone outlined why not.

by roenxi 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Will this protect the city against solar storms somehow? When did this become a factor?! > better alternative plan is ban coal In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned.

roenxi 1y ago
> When did this become a factor?! Spivak's comment justified pump installations because of positive externalities. Which is a good justification; but as far as I know nothing similar exists for $150 million of spend on solar panels. Is there a benefit here I can't see? Do these panels protect against storms or something? > In Pennsylvania? This is how you get solar banned. Possibly. It is still a better plan than what the article suggests. Buying these panels looks like a mistake from all the angles I can think of. If Pennsylvania's legislature has the numbers and view that it worth making uneconomic decisions for these households there isn't a good reason to leave the non-renewable sources of power operating. In the converse, if they don't have the number or the view then they just shouldn't be making uneconomic spending decisions when they could give the people involved the money as welfare, but more of it. This appears superficially like it is an unprincipled position that creates no particular benefits but in a wasteful way. Maybe it isn't, but if it isn't it'd be helpful if someone outlined why not.