it's not the same. Panel dumps power in the opposite direction and the grid is expected to redistribute it at the drop of the hat in order to stay within the spec, and it's not like your panel cares if there is demand for its output. Two way 'traffic' is more tricky to do than simple, tried and true push-only mode thus more hassle and cost.
ungodly rich brothers with libertarianish leanings who became favorite boogeymen of the left in the US. They are literally Hitler, any perceived problem with the US is on them.
yeah, and they should dump their dirty clunkers and start using billion teslas while they are at it....
Investing in clean stuff means opportunity cost of less bang for the buck now, which means slower growth. Guess what, they don't give a shit about later, they want growth now, just like everybody else before them.
http://www.instituteforenergyr...
make it 3.5x. Either way one source is much cheaper, much more controllable, predictable and compatible with the existing infrastructure, the other requires expensive upgrades to facilitate two way flow safely, is much more expensive, volatile, unpredictable, having max potential output outside the peak demand and requiring the baseline backup just in case. Nobody in his right mind would buy the residential solar energy in these circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
an awful lot of 'retail rate' in that table
Right, but if we continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate, our whole species may never recover from it.
pack your bags then because good luck convincing 2+ billion people in india and china to stop industrializing, and then there are 1billion people in africa who will want their piece of the action too.
what about the exotic elements that find their way into panels and wind turbine magnets? Are they infinite? Don't they require mining and processing too?
I doubt there would be much lobbying if the energy was sold back at the wholesale price and the companies were not forced to eat the whole cost of increased complexity caused by erratic nature of renewables. In some states eg in Arizona the spread is 4x and the companies are forced to buy back the this ridiculously overpriced energy they don't need, with all the hassle where to direct it in order to stay within the grid specs.
Such laws way out of line with economic reality are a pure pie in the sky bullshit and fully deserve to be lobbied against. As the adage goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
like the other dude said, these subsidies are only for well-off people who can afford the investment, the peons get thrown under the bus. If you ever complained about the divide between the haves and the have-nots, guess what - it's the same thing of privatizing the gains by the few, externalizing the costs to many.
sure, there are externalities of coal but that doesn't make solar peachy. Execution matters. These solar subsidies are not extended to the whole populace. They are not at the grid level so everybody gets to enjoy them, they are at the household level, which means their scope is localized to an already well-off people who can afford the investment. People with too much money get subsidies, then EXTERNALIZE the cost of batteries they don't need and the poor are seeing it in their bills. If you are one of people complaining about suppressed aggregate demand because the poor don't have monies, guess what - this won't help.
do you realize that main producers of energy get wholesale rates and grid resells it with a markup to pay maintenance, invest and make a profit? Grid companies DON'T WANT the solar energy from consumers if there is a much cheaper, more reliable, hassle free alternative. Laws forcing to buy unneeded energy at full retail prices are pure unadulterated economic bullshit.
Bullshit, in this they are against stupid laws trying to handwave the economic reality because "hurrr durrr green energy!!".
These subsidies for solar mean higher prices for everybody else. Solar users using 0 net energy and getting retail prices for their output are a net loss and it's not like maintenance and protecting the grid from sudden surges in panel output is free.
Think about it, they are using the grid as their personal battery for $0 which would set them back thousands of dollars otherwise, drawing and pushing energy when it's convenient. All the baseline capacity, all the gear required to stabilize erratic flow - it's all on the energy company and the solar users don't pay for it in their bills, dirty peons who can't afford teslas and panels on the roof do.
ther e is nothing wacky in it. The difference stems from the local tech level/productivity. Long story short you have it baked in the price of everything, including wages.
That also means that even exact same job with exact same productivity (eg artists) can be paid differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
care to elaborate how on earth are corporations directly responsible for hundreds of millions deaths required to beat the score of the 20th century govts?
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
