nashwan.. I see the article is old. they are still buying back power.
Yes, they changed the scheme again. The new scheme meant the power companies had to pay $2.5 per installed watt, or 39c per kw/h generated, for the first 10 mw. That drops to $2.2 for the next 14mw or so installed, then $1.9 for the next 18mw, and so on.
Latest claims from the industry are that $2.2 isn't enough, and sales are dropping sharply. Expect the government to change the scheme, increasing the subsidy, yet again. How else can the governor claim to be "green", other than spending other people's money on gesture politics?
They already are making out in that they don't buy back electrical once you reach zero... they get it for free at that point.
That's after they have paid the installation subsidies, of course. But the point is that very few people generate enough to give them a truly zero electricity bill.
also.. they knew the rules when they grabbed the power. they knew they would be regulated.
Oh, they don't mind too much. They don't have to pay, after all. The consumers have to pay. The people who buy electricity have to pay to cover the costs of buying solar at up to 50c per kw/h, when the power company can buy power from a coal or gas plant at 3 - 4c per kw/h.
also.. you are talking about one type of system.. there are others that use backup that will make you independent. not even hooked to the grid.
Which cost a lot more again, because you have to store a lot of power. Storing the 10 - 20 kw/h you generate in a day isn't cheap, especially as the batteries have to be able to provide up to 10 kw or so at a time.
What you are saying is that since.. in 1970... it took the whole floor of a skyscraper in a clean room to build and run a computer that could do a simple accounting program... that it would never be possible for citizens to have private computers... least not in the near future.. not to mention cell phones.
Computers aren't a suitable example. Computers have become more powerful by continuously shrinking the size of the components. That means the same size chip can contain millions more components, and costs no more to manufacture.
Solar panels don't work like that. They have an external input (the sun) that can't be changed, so shrinking the components won't work. You could come up with a new way to make them more efficient, but they haven't improved much in decades, and not for want of trying.
When I sell my home for an obscene profit and move away from all the crap... I will put in a stand alone system and a backup generator. I will have a well and septic. I know that I will be better off.
Look in to the figures before you do. Remember that a subsidy promised today might be taken away tomorrow.
The systems drop in price every year
Costs of solar installations have actually been increasing slightly for the last few years (minus subsidies)
your power bill is double what it was 10 years ago
Mine isn't. It's actually a bit lower now in real terms than it was 10 years ago. It would be even lower if I didn't have to pay subsidies for wind farms.
your sewer and water in kalifornia can run $300 a month. It will only go higher as the greens use more junk science to tax and control.
You mean as the greens force you to subsidise uneconomic power generation systems, like solar? Yes, I agree. Without solar power, electricity bills would be lower in California. A few people, those who have got the biggest subsidies, would be worse off, but the vast majority would save money.
The phone company said pretty much what PG&E is saying now but.. now it is singing a different tune with all you can eat long distance and internet and all sorts of competition
Again it's a different principle. Telephones do not need much power. Telephone companies can use ever smaller, cheaper machines to transmit more and more calls. Using the phone costs almost nothing, most of the cost is in maintaining the lines.
Power isn't the same. You could miniaturise your TV, and watch a screen the size of a postage stamp, but people actually want larger screens, which use more power than older TVs. You could miniaturise your fridge, but then your food wouldn't fit in it.
SMUD is the other power company near PG&E and they are giving out even more subsidies and doing well.
They're owned by the local government, aren't they? Of course they are doing well, they charge what they want. They charge enough to cover the cost of the solar subsidies they give out.
PG&E has kept it's programs and is still functioning.
Of course it will function. All the commercial power companies have to offer the same subsidies, so they all pass the costs on to the customers. The state can set any level of subsidy they like, PGE will be fine because it's their customers that have to pay.
Here's another article that sets it out more clearly than I can:
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/summers_20060213.shtmlThe California Public Utilities Commission recently voted to approve a 10-year, $3 billion subsidy program for individuals and businesses that install solar panels on their roofs. The money will come from—guess who?—you. There will be a surcharge on consumers' gas and electricity bills that is expected to cost a typical family about $13 a year.
If solar technology is expected to be efficient and affordable in 10 years, why are gas and electricity customers getting soaked to the tune of $3 billion in the meantime?
Right now, there is a reason people do not use solar panels in larger numbers. The cost is prohibitively high—solar energy is the most expensive form of renewable energy—and simply not worth it. This may change in time as solar and other renewable technologies improve. When it becomes economical and prudent for people to switch to renewable energy, they will.
It is not the proper function of government to "encourage" inefficient or unsupported technologies or products (or efficient ones, for that matter). The sun tax amounts to little more than a wasteful and unnecessary giveaway to a politically-favored industry—at the expense of gas and electricity customers across the state.
Californians already pay some of the highest utility rates in the country and can add $13 per year to those bills now. PUC Commissioner Brown asked, "At what point are our rates too high to add a multi-billion [dollar] subsidy program?"
Like I said, amazing to see you arguing
for higher taxes to support green subsidies.
