> Whoa cowboy. With net metering we have an additional source of resources for
> the monopoly that controls electricity in a given region. And its generated at
> the point of use, reducing distribution cost. If they're too stupid to figure out
> how to use new technology and load balance, they should be obligated to
> figure it out or rescind their monopoly.
> "Its well known" that you make shit up. There are many different scenarios and
> some are not conducive to solar. However in my state (high coal usage), my
> rooftop solar panels are currently cheaper today than coal generated
> electricity. They'll generate back the power that it took to make them within
> a year or two and over 20 years I'm looking at an 8-10% ROI. How is eliminating
> coal power to a house for less money not cost effective?
Is that "less expensive" with or without massive subsidies? Gee it must be a nice racket;
1) produce 15% of the power you need
2) sell it to the utility for 8 times the market rate
3) buy back 100% of you power needs at market rate
In Ontario... http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
By the end of 2013, Ontario household power rates will be the second-highest in North America (after PEI), and they will continue to accelerate while they level off in most other jurisdictions. Even more alarming for Ontario's economic competitiveness, businesses and industrial customers will be hit by almost $12-billion in additional costs over the same period.
Such is the legacy of the provincial government's 2009 decision to establish feed-in rates, ranging from 44.5 cents to 80.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for solar power, and 13.5 cents/kWh for wind power. These solar feed-in rates average 11 times the 5.6 cents/kWh paid for nuclear-generated power, and 18 times the 3.5 cents/kWh for hydro-generated power. The wind-power rates are more than twice as high as nuclear, and four times those of hydro.