OT Yes the creep keeps rising and you cannot stop it

Page 1 of 4  
As more homes generate their own power, typically with the help of state or federal subsidies, they're buying less electricity from traditional utilities.
Jeopardizing Grid PG&E Corp., California's biggest, has said this jeopardizes the power grid because there's less revenue to maintain the infrastructure. In response, utilities are raising rates, a burden that's a slightly heavier burden for people without solar power. In California they may eventually pass on as much as $1.3billion in annual costs to customers who don't have panels.
As I have said time and again in the past, Changing your source of power only does that, you are going to pay one way or another for what you use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hell, when the cost of swimming pool chemicals and private schools rises for upper management, ya gotta make it up somewhere.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/2013 8:37 AM, Swingman wrote:

Government is not going to allow a huge source of taxable income go away with out raising taxes. You pay one way or another.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/13 9:12 AM, Leon wrote:

I've been following Solar Power progress for some time now. The weak link is still storage. My cost can be zero from sun-up to sun-down, but we'll need power the rest of the day for years to come. That guaranteed power will come at a cost.
When storage is so cheap the overnight backup isn't needed, and a generator (I'm thinking natural gas, not gasoline) can kick in after the 5th cloudy day, the grid might no longer be needed. That point is still decades away and yes, there's a struggle with taxes trying balance things out. But, tax the non-solar home and drive up their cost, and you'll push them to solar even faster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/2013 10:12 AM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:

The problem with a back up generator is that even with natural gas the cost of running it will pretty much offset the savings. My sister and a neighbor have whole house back up generators and the expense to generate electricity with the generator is around 25~30 cents per kWh. We pay about 9 cents per kWh from the utility.

You also have to keep in mind that the government is heavily reliant on energy tax dollars. While taxing the non solar home to persuade them to go solar or what ever, when that is accomplished every one will eventually will be taxed for their own generation of energy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/16/2013 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:

utility taxes and fees are $18-19/month.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/13 1:33 PM, Leon wrote:

Understood. So, forget local generators.
There will be a balance where the power companies are providing overnight service. They will scale down a bit as that demand won't ever be as high as daytime peak demand was.
My only point is that there will be an equilibrium, that even if solar cost were zero (the absurd extreme) that bridging the gap would take another level of effort, another cost curve or service.
To your numbers - I'm guessing the overnight is less than 1/3 or less of daily usage. So paying 3X to bridge that gap seems absurd. If it were less than 2X, or if the gap were just 1/6 daily power, the story changes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/2013 1:56 PM, JoeTaxpayer wrote:

For those few individuals it will become cheaper.
Until the balance is upset. We as a society are not going to be able to not pay for our energy whether we reduce the cost to produce it or not. The government will see to that.
Right now the government subsidies that encourage you to go solar cost the rest of us more.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If we don't pay for it our great grand kids will.
Basically changing for the sake of changing is not letting the free market thrive, it creates a false economy. Oil is what people want, it is the least expensive fuel to use and probably better for the environment than all the caustic batteries that are going to have to be dealt with some time in the future.
For the individual the alternative fuels are good but not for the society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/2013 5:35 PM, Leon wrote:

+1
"Mr Peabody's coal train done hauled it away."
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is *almost* what has happened in UK over the past few years and continues unimpeded. Solar & wind power energy production. Developed at huge costs with outputs varying from little to Foxtrot Alpha. We don't have the rays that CA enjoys and it is rare that the breeze is of the right flavour to enable wind farms to operate at any efficiency. Meanwhile, bill paying energy consumers subsidise the green revolution. Big Time. One good thing about a revolution, it always goes full circle. Up there /\ /\ /\ is quoted 'We pay about 9 cents per kWh from the utility'. I'm currently paying 15.5 pence per kWh. That's sterling not $USD. On top of that we have tax @ 20% and CCL (Climate Change Levy, cough/choke/splutter). So I reckon we are paying more than double than you guys. If that is not enough to deter you from rushing to UK, the weather is p*** poor and the beer is room temp.[1]
I really like this group. Knowledgeable folk telling it like it is. Good luck to all, Nick.
[1] Mild in summer, bitter in winter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/16/2013 3:35 PM, Leon wrote:

the forms of various tax credits and almost no charges for taking oil that is on what could be reasonably argued as land belonging to all of us, but also in the hidden costs of environmental and health degradation. Oil is not cheap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/21/2013 9:42 AM, scritch wrote:

Never said that oil was cheap, I mentioned that it is cheaper than the so called environmentally friendly energy sources.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure, you're right, but that doesn't for one minute mean that the search for environmentally friendly and sustainable energy sources shouldn't continue. And, it's also possible that the current flock of those so called environmentally friendly energy sources might well eventually turn into true environmentally friendly energy sources.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agree that we should continue too look, there might be a better solution in the future. But now oil is king and will be for decades to come. Right now however oil is considerably more environmentally friendly than it has been in the past and compared to batteries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd argue the ethics of that comment. There maybe more stringent controls on oil harvesting, but when you get disasters on the scale of the gulf coast oil spill, the description of "environmentally friendly" is completely out there.
Running oil rigs in our oceans is a more screwed up act than I could ever imagine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As opposed to dealing with nuclear waste? Do you think Russia or Japan would agree?

It sounds screwed up until you realize that the ocean oozes more oil naturally than any oil spill on any given day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who mentioned nuclear waste? Certainly not me. Yes, I know, the vast bulk of the world runs on oil and nuclear generated electricity.
And, just because the US hasn't experience any all encompassing nuclear accidents lately, it's sheer arrogance to even think that it couldn't happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States#List_of_accidents_and_incidents

So, that means we should just go blithely ahead without any concern as to how we might be adding to the pollution quotient? In addition, those natural oozes are not man made either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did not mean to indicate that oil spills are not a disaster of a particular size, only to point out that disasters of nuclear flavor are a problem that never goes away. Nuclear is sold as clean and friendly. Basically all forms of friendly energy comes with its own baggage when something does not go as planned. But put into perspective how much each actually is used and how much energy it actually generates and oil looks better when the problems surface for each type of disaster.

Three Mile Island. And nuclear disasters relatively last for ever.

No, we should look for alternatives but so far none are better than oil.
In addition,

Precisely! Our man made ocean disasters don't compare to what nature produces, and nature takes care of those on its own.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote:

<snip>

The Koch brothers have got to love you.
They have at least one person who buys the crap they try to spread around.
Wonder how many so called "dirty" batteries are required to equal the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico?
Oil has been "cheap" because it is heavily subsidized, easy to get and has not been required to clean up the pollution it creates.
There is no question that electric vehicles are the future; however, in the near turn, natural gas will be the fuel that transitions from oil powered to electric powered vehicles.
Oil and coal are both on stage for their final performances.
The king is dead, long live the king.
Here in SoCal, Nissan has introduced an electric vehicle and seems to be enjoying some success.
50 years ago, the Japanese invaded the SoCal auto market and had more than modest success.
Are we poised for a repeat performance?
Time will tell.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
An Update:
Seems a new Nissan dealer in the SF Bay area accepted delivery of about 28 Nissan Leaf (Plug-in-electric) cars the first of the month (09/01/13) and have sold 24 units thru Friday (09/20/13).
They have more on order.
Guess there is a demand after all.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.