Skip to main content

View Diary: Koch, ALEC and giant utility company about to derail Arizona's private solar industry (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Man, we desperately need a better Congress. (25+ / 0-)

    There needs to be a national law that allows net metering and selling of surplus electricity.  Even if it is sold at 20 to 30% below the retail electricity price solar will continue to grow rapidly.

    Tipped and recced.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 10:38:47 AM PST

    •  Yep. Greenhouse tax, renewable portfolio standard (5+ / 0-)

      If Congress enacted a greenhouse tax or renewable portfolio standard, the utility company would knock on your door and offer to pay you for the privilege of putting solar panels on your roof.

      Renewable portfolio standard: every power provider must generate (or buy from another provider) X% green power. Every year, X gets higher.

      Both could be done at the state level, of course, while waiting for Congress to get its GOP head out of its filibustering ass.

      "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

      by HeyMikey on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 12:19:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, I'm not sure the power companies... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, slothlax

      ...have a problem with this part:

      Even if it is sold at 20 to 30% below the retail electricity price solar will continue to grow rapidly.
      The APS claims the regulated price they have to buy the excess power is well above the market cost of power from other sources.
      •  they are lying. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:


      •  How to Lie with Statistics 101 (0+ / 0-)

        Solar PV power is not the cheapest power in the market. That would be hydro. But solar is far cheaper than spot power from peaking plants, mostly running on natural gas during a fairly small fraction of the day, and running well below capacity even when they are on.

        One of the things that should be taught in business school much more than it is is that single-factor analysis (such as maximizing short-term revenue regardless of costs or risks or customer or employee satisfaction or the rules of accounting, among other things) is by definition wrong. The question is not what each component costs. The question starts with what the system costs in relation to the benefits it produces to various stakeholders, which parts of that cost can be reduced without increasing others by even more, and how the benefits are distributed. It does not by any means end there.

        The question, if you wish to get off a mountain and go North from there, is not whether you can go downhill by always going North. In general, you can't. It is usually what is the most effective path downhill, possibly around the base of the mountain, and then North. The most effective path downhill is frequently in the direction of steepest descent, although certainly not when going over a cliff or into a crevasse, that is, when safety or stability is a concern. Maybe you have to take a switchback path, changing direction frequently, but averaging in the direction of steepest descent. Maybe you are trying to aim for a pass between the next set of mountains over. There are other possibilities.

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Fri Nov 15, 2013 at 02:47:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site