Won't someone please think of the poor power companies???!!! Folks, that's not how the market works, that's how capitalists work when they have an excuse. "oooh, some of my established customers aren't ordering power now, guess I'll slow down expansion because my customer base isn't growing as fast jack the price because you idiots will blame people with solar panels instead of me."
Wealth people own homes that are large. People that are not wealthy own small homes. There is a big difference in energy consumption between the two.
All I am saying is that it would be less polarizing if CA had chosen to use energy consumption rather than income because energy consumption and wealth is highly correlated.
There might have been less pushback. Also, basing it on energy consumption provides incentives to reduce consumption.
I fear "We don't have the technology yet." implies a level of inevitability that isn't justified. There are a lot more dead ends than there are viable paths.
Note too that land and water are renewable resources. Admitted, arable land and fresh water is more useful for growing people food--but that's economics again. But if we get desperate enough, there's always saltwater marine plants: https://www.scientificameri... .
More generally, carbon-neutral is not to be sneezed at. If we can get to the point where we're not ADDING to atmospheric carbon, the usual carbon-sequestration processes will only take a few centuries to undo most of the atmospheric changes. (On that timescale, the ocean sucks it up; it eventually ends up as benthic ooze.)
we would have to put them into the garage next to the hot water tank basically. I'm not a huge fan of having a bunch of chemical batteries in my house in a really hot environment.
We aren't in Cali, but we just got rooftop solar installed yesterday.
Every appliance, including heat, is electric. This (solar) effectively makes the house net zero. We should actually generate a small surplus. (Frigging utilities in Utah don't have to pay if you generate more than you use though.).
We are out in the sticks. Power goes out 4 or 5 times a year, often for many hours. We put in enough battery that we could run everything for about 20 hours. (If we refrain from using the heat pump and the clothes dryer we can run for at least several days).
It wasn't cheap. The ROI period is something like 18 years. So we won't ever really break even. We did it because its a good thing to do.
Electricity rates are not flat. The price charged per KW increases as usage increases. That is a progressive pricing system. It can be made even more so if the higher rates are increased.
The original panel is still in place and is for 60W which now runs as a subpanel off a 100W panel that was added when the AC was put in, from the looks of things, likely in the '70s. Since there are only two breakers in the 100W panel it wouldn't be that terrible to remove it and go up to 150W or 200W. Running the power cables into the house would be hard though. The existing cables run in the attic and seem to have been installed before the roof was built. The rafters come down onto that exterior wall and it becomes a very narrow space with sharp nails sticking down everywhere - I can't get within 4 ft of that junction.
Considering how SC Gas screwed everybody on the cost of gas this year we probably would have come out ahead with a propane tank - even if it had to be shipped from out of state. CA also has insanely high gasoline prices, mostly because the refineries mysteriously have outages and maintenance which is always timed perfectly to jack up the prices. The market is obviously rigged (CA actually pumps a lot of oil and gas), and now the Democrats are going to pretend to do something about it after ignoring it for decades:
Personally I think the only way for CA citizens to avoid the price gouging on carbon fuels is to go all electric. I fantasize about SC Gas's bankruptcy. Unfortunately, "going all electric" is very much a fantasy for most people who live here.
I get it!!! If we had an economically efficient controllable photosynthesis we could EAT THE CORN instead of waiting for the damn BERRIES to get ripe!!!
How can you take advantage of those poor people making only $200,000 a year (a mere $16,000/month) or so by making them pay an extra $42/month for electricity?HENGGHH?
The part about solar that I don't understand is that the monthly bills might be low, but then you get walloped with an annual $1000 bill from PG&E because "reasons." This is what happened to some people I know who bought a house with built-in solar about 3 years ago.
Won't someone please think of the poor power companies???!!! Folks, that's not how the market works, that's how capitalists work when they have an excuse. "oooh, some of my established customers aren't ordering power now, guess I'll slow down expansion because my customer base isn't growing as fast jack the price because you idiots will blame people with solar panels instead of me."
Wealth people own homes that are large. People that are not wealthy own small homes. There is a big difference in energy consumption between the two.
All I am saying is that it would be less polarizing if CA had chosen to use energy consumption rather than income because energy consumption and wealth is highly correlated.
There might have been less pushback. Also, basing it on energy consumption provides incentives to reduce consumption.
I fear "We don't have the technology yet." implies a level of inevitability that isn't justified. There are a lot more dead ends than there are viable paths.
Note too that land and water are renewable resources. Admitted, arable land and fresh water is more useful for growing people food--but that's economics again. But if we get desperate enough, there's always saltwater marine plants: https://www.scientificameri... .
More generally, carbon-neutral is not to be sneezed at. If we can get to the point where we're not ADDING to atmospheric carbon, the usual carbon-sequestration processes will only take a few centuries to undo most of the atmospheric changes. (On that timescale, the ocean sucks it up; it eventually ends up as benthic ooze.)
what I really like about this deal is that you don't have to worry about batteries in your house.
we would have to put them into the garage next to the hot water tank basically. I'm not a huge fan of having a bunch of chemical batteries in my house in a really hot environment.
Article about California, USA.Photo from België.
We aren't in Cali, but we just got rooftop solar installed yesterday.
Every appliance, including heat, is electric. This (solar) effectively makes the house net zero. We should actually generate a small surplus. (Frigging utilities in Utah don't have to pay if you generate more than you use though.).
We are out in the sticks. Power goes out 4 or 5 times a year, often for many hours. We put in enough battery that we could run everything for about 20 hours. (If we refrain from using the heat pump and the clothes dryer we can run for at least several days).
It wasn't cheap. The ROI period is something like 18 years. So we won't ever really break even. We did it because its a good thing to do.
Electricity rates are not flat. The price charged per KW increases as usage increases. That is a progressive pricing system. It can be made even more so if the higher rates are increased.
The original panel is still in place and is for 60W which now runs as a subpanel off a 100W panel that was added when the AC was put in, from the looks of things, likely in the '70s. Since there are only two breakers in the 100W panel it wouldn't be that terrible to remove it and go up to 150W or 200W. Running the power cables into the house would be hard though. The existing cables run in the attic and seem to have been installed before the roof was built. The rafters come down onto that exterior wall and it becomes a very narrow space with sharp nails sticking down everywhere - I can't get within 4 ft of that junction.
Considering how SC Gas screwed everybody on the cost of gas this year we probably would have come out ahead with a propane tank - even if it had to be shipped from out of state. CA also has insanely high gasoline prices, mostly because the refineries mysteriously have outages and maintenance which is always timed perfectly to jack up the prices. The market is obviously rigged (CA actually pumps a lot of oil and gas), and now the Democrats are going to pretend to do something about it after ignoring it for decades:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023...
Personally I think the only way for CA citizens to avoid the price gouging on carbon fuels is to go all electric. I fantasize about SC Gas's bankruptcy. Unfortunately, "going all electric" is very much a fantasy for most people who live here.
I get it!!! If we had an economically efficient controllable photosynthesis we could EAT THE CORN instead of waiting for the damn BERRIES to get ripe!!!
Ta, Dok. Reading Ministry on my commute.
I'm happy to pay more.Now can we get rid of the private utility companies, California? They really, really suck.
How can you take advantage of those poor people making only $200,000 a year (a mere $16,000/month) or so by making them pay an extra $42/month for electricity?HENGGHH?
The part about solar that I don't understand is that the monthly bills might be low, but then you get walloped with an annual $1000 bill from PG&E because "reasons." This is what happened to some people I know who bought a house with built-in solar about 3 years ago.
It's called "privatize the profits, socialize the losses."
How come the Brits always get the good news first?