Got my CPS PV solar rebate approved [Archive]

Wild Cobra

12-09-2012, 12:21 AM

You're right, it makes much more sense to support CC. He obviously should receive support for getting money back to install solar panels, whereas I as military get paid more than enough to support my wife and 2 kids and shouldn't receive so many tax credits. It makes sense that Id only be deserving of praise if I had extra money to spend on golf carts and solar panels and other things that provide rebates that you don't agree with.
You are spinning my point. I want people to wake up and see these subsidies are unnecessary.

You make a comfortable income in the military. It isn't great, but it is more than the average person makes. You are only taxed on your base pay, get a uniform allowance, separate rations, housing allowance, and usually a COLA for the location they have you based. 100% medical coverage, a pension plan, and a TSP that's comparable to a 401k.

You do not need to be treated like someone who needs subsidized. I would be offended. I was offended when I qualified for things I didn't need. It was solid evidence that we have a Robin Hood government, taking from the rich to give to the less rich, just to buy votes.

My God, they buy votes with our tax dollars!

I think we can agree that CC falls into the higher tax brackets than we do. Now maybe he has several deductions available to him, but he probably shouldn't have most that he does. I will contend he should pay a lower marginal rate, and have none, or next to no tax deductions.

Would you agree stories like his free golf like cart shows the stupidity of our tax system? I love that it's another example to expose such things.

Wild Cobra

12-09-2012, 12:23 AM

Is there anyone not paying more than their fair share that are taking advantage of these credits? Any people on welfare installing solar panels?
The panels are not the issue. The issue is it shows the stupidity of the government picking winners and losers. They are buying votes with this money, making people think they are helping. CC is an example of exposing the governments stupidity, or lack of stupidity for buying the votes.

Th'Pusher

12-09-2012, 12:54 PM

The panels are not the issue. The issue is it shows the stupidity of the government picking winners and losers. They are buying votes with this money, making people think they are helping. CC is an example of exposing the governments stupidity, or lack of stupidity for buying the votes.
So Obama was able to buy CC's vote by making tax credits for solar panels available to him? Solid logic.

Wild Cobra

12-09-2012, 04:27 PM

Is there anyone not paying more than their fair share that are taking advantage of these credits? Any people on welfare installing solar panels?
Do you realize that paying taxes only on your base pay means you pay less than your fair share by more than $2,000 annually?

Shit. You probably have more after tax money than I do.

Wild Cobra

12-09-2012, 05:04 PM

So Obama was able to buy CC's vote by making tax credits for solar panels available to him? Solid logic.
Is that the ability of your reading comprehension?

I doubt they bought his vote. However, all this money going out does persuade people to vote one way or another. It's like political commercials. It has an effect, else they wouldn't do it.

You don't think congress is spending our money out of the goodness of their hearts do you?

LnGrrrR

12-09-2012, 05:31 PM

Do you realize that paying taxes only on your base pay means you pay less than your fair share by more than $2,000 annually?

Shit. You probably have more after tax money than I do.

Tell me WC, what exactly should my "fair share" be?

Wild Cobra

12-10-2012, 03:09 AM

Tell me WC, what exactly should my "fair share" be?
Probably at least $4,500 annual to the feds. That's assuming you are the sole breadwinner. Wife work too?

LnGrrrR

12-10-2012, 03:31 AM

Probably at least $4,500 annual to the feds. That's assuming you are the sole breadwinner. Wife work too?

Nope, just me. Wife takes care of the kiddo. Might I ask how you came to this approximation?

Wild Cobra

12-10-2012, 03:47 AM

Nope, just me. Wife takes care of the kiddo. Might I ask how you came to this approximation?
In my head. Just finished calculations assuming you were E-6 with 8 years for the 2011 pay scale, 2011 1040. This shows you would have zero $$ federal tax liability after the child credit and get an additional $808 back from Earned income Credit. Crunching numbers adding only a housing allowance which I used $1280/month for leaves you with a healthy income of $4,374 monthly. Since taxes are based only on base pay, you get this extra $1,280 tax free. Anyone else would be paying 15% of that, or $2,304 in taxes on it. If it was income, it would disqualify you from EIC, meaning the net difference is $3,112. Now to make the same income after federal income tax only, you would need to make $57,500 annually, but wait... Include the increased state taxes, SS insurance, Medicare insurance, it's even more yet that you have to make to have the same net income.

I will say you pay about $3,000 less than your fair share. Not the $4,500 I said on the spot.

You probably take home as much as someone making $30/hr, but have no federal tax liability.

Have you ever taken the federal and state tax forms, and calculated how much you needed to make in a civilian job to have the same net income? When I left in 1992, I had 11 years as an E-5. My base pay was $1,430/month. I calculated I needed to make more than $18/hr. I think it was like $18.40/hr for the same net income after taxes. E-5 with 11, for 2011 was $2,947 monthly. More than double what I made in '92. My $30/hr for you might be low.

LnGrrrR

12-10-2012, 04:25 AM

In my head. Just finished calculations assuming you were E-6 with 8 years for the 2011 pay scale, 2011 1040. This shows you would have zero $$ federal tax liability after the child credit and get an additional $808 back from Earned income Credit. Crunching numbers adding only a housing allowance which I used $1280/month for leaves you with a healthy income of $4,374 monthly. Since taxes are based only on base pay, you get this extra $1,280 tax free. Anyone else would be paying 15% of that, or $2,304 in taxes on it. If it was income, it would disqualify you from EIC, meaning the net difference is $3,112. Now to make the same income after federal income tax only, you would need to make $57,500 annually, but wait... Include the increased state taxes, SS insurance, Medicare insurance, it's even more yet that you have to make to have the same net income.

I will say you pay about $3,000 less than your fair share. Not the $4,500 I said on the spot.

You probably take home as much as someone making $30/hr, but have no federal tax liability.

Have you ever taken the federal and state tax forms, and calculated how much you needed to make in a civilian job to have the same net income? When I left in 1992, I had 11 years as an E-5. My base pay was $1,430/month. I calculated I needed to make more than $18/hr. I think it was like $18.40/hr for the same net income after taxes. E-5 with 11, for 2011 was $2,947 monthly. More than double what I made in '92. My $30/hr for you might be low.

FWIW, I don't pay state tax (from NH), and I've been in 13+ years. You could check out the housing allowance/COLA for Honolulu (it's roughly 2300 IIRC, I live onbase.)

Of course, the problem with taxing these allowances (BAH, BAS, COLA) is that it changes from place to place. BAH for an E6 in San Antonio is roughly 1300 a month. SHould I pay more in taxes because I move to a higher-costed area?

I haven't done the civilian comparison in a while, mostly because I plan on doing the full twenty years.

FYI, here's the new pay scale: http://www.navycs.com/2013-military-pay-chart.html

E-6 with over 12 years is 3495, which jumps to 3556 a month at 14 years.

As for $30 an hour.... well, there's a lot of weeks I work longer than 40 hours. :lol

Wild Cobra

12-10-2012, 04:35 AM

Of course, the problem with taxing these allowances (BAH, BAS, COLA) is that it changes from place to place. BAH for an E6 in San Antonio is roughly 1300 a month. SHould I pay more in taxes because I move to a higher-costed area?

I think it would be better to address this problem by paying an area COLA, etc, as required, and tax it. Even if allowances are not taxed, should be used as income to test for EIC. You should not qualify for EIC. It's a slap in the face to people who have less net income than you, and don't qualify. You should feel insulted. It's also an indication of just how fucked up our tax system really is.

Maybe military personnel shouldn't get the nominal standard deduction, but should file itemized deductions. When you take the rent out of the equation, it seldom is as much as the $11,600 allotted for a married couple.

Wild Cobra

12-10-2012, 04:43 AM

As for $30 an hour.... well, there's a lot of weeks I work longer than 40 hours. :lol
I was probably on duty 50+hrs a week as well, but most full time jobs here in the real world will just be 40 hrs.

I don't think most people realize how well the military actually pays. Then you get these single kids that think they are getting paid so little. E-1 is $1,516 monthly for 2013, and they effectively get to spend most of that. No food, rent,or utilities to pay for.

I can't believe how many times I heard new soldiers cry for how little they got paid, while not having to shell out a dime.

Wild Cobra

12-10-2012, 05:11 AM

Regardless, I'm a little envious. At times I wish I stayed in the military. They did away with my job field, and I was already an E-5 for 6 years. We had a standing joke for my MOS that you didn't make E-6 till someone died or retired. Nobody left this great job field after making E-5. Anyway, when the cold war ended, they turned my MOS over to civilian contract. I could have changed my MOS, but nothing available was appealing to me. I took the $28k+ separation bonus they offered. It was a slap in the face returning to the real world. I selected my job field because the same job when I joined in '81 was a $50k annual job in the civilian world. When I got out in '92, it was a $25k annual job. Technology advanced so far, qualified electronic troubleshooters were no longer needed. It went to "red light on circuit board means replace board." My component level repair ability was obsolete. It took me until June '94 to find a decent paying job, then by 3 years I doubled my income by proving myself and advanced.

Still, I was no fan of qualifying for EIC when I did get it in the military. Base housing was nice and spacious, never worried about money until it was squandered on expensive trivial things. I felt insulted that my family qualified for EIC.

For future reference, I say you have no "skin in the game." You have no federal tax liability. I believe you are part of the 47% that doesn't care if other people's taxes increase, because it does not affect you.

How would you feel about these credits, rebates, etc. if you actually paid federal income tax?

Winehole23

12-10-2012, 10:12 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xphckWM_QvY/UHEU25rCueI/AAAAAAAAJJU/kqnsLZE4Njc/s1600/john+stewart+moochers+quote.jpg

boutons_deux

12-10-2012, 10:15 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xphckWM_QvY/UHEU25rCueI/AAAAAAAAJJU/kqnsLZE4Njc/s1600/john+stewart+moochers+quote.jpg

How Google Used Tax Havens To Avoid $2 Billion In Taxes Worldwide (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1307661/google-tax-havens-world/)

Google Inc. (GOOG) avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company, almost double the total from three years before, filings show.
By legally funneling profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, Google cut its overall tax rate almost in half. The amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 percent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011.

The increase in Google’s revenues routed to Bermuda, disclosed in a Nov. 21 filing by a subsidiary in the Netherlands, could fuel the outrage spreading across Europe and in the U.S. over corporate tax dodging. Governments in France, the U.K., Italy and Australia are probing Google’s tax avoidance as they seek to boost revenue during economic doldrums.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1307661/google-tax-havens-world/ (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1307661/google-tax-havens-world/)

CosmicCowboy

12-10-2012, 10:51 AM

How Google Used Tax Havens To Avoid $2 Billion In Taxes Worldwide (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1307661/google-tax-havens-world/)

Google Inc. (GOOG) avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company, almost double the total from three years before, filings show.
By legally funneling profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, Google cut its overall tax rate almost in half. The amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 percent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011.

The increase in Google’s revenues routed to Bermuda, disclosed in a Nov. 21 filing by a subsidiary in the Netherlands, could fuel the outrage spreading across Europe and in the U.S. over corporate tax dodging. Governments in France, the U.K., Italy and Australia are probing Google’s tax avoidance as they seek to boost revenue during economic doldrums.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1307661/google-tax-havens-world/ (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1307661/google-tax-havens-world/)

Boutons, you really are an ignorant fuck sometimes. Google is a worldwide company that earns income and pays taxes worldwide. They set up their overseas business's in a zero tax country like the Bahamas because they are paying taxes in the other countries they earned the income in...german taxes in germany, french taxes in france, russian taxes in russia, etc. They wouldn't and shouldn't owe US income taxes on these overseas profits that they already paid taxes on where they earned the money.

TeyshaBlue

12-10-2012, 11:15 AM

That's the type of biting analysis you get from thinkprogress.borg

boutons_deux

12-10-2012, 11:54 AM

Seems like foreign profits in foreign countries are NOT being taxed, not fully or not at all, but transferred by Google to no-tax Bermuda.

Then there is the decades old scam of eg Google charging their foreign subsidiaries, esp in low/no tax countries, exorbitant fees so Google US tax is lowered and funds are transferred to low/no tax countries.

That's the type of biting analysis you get from TB :lol

TeyshaBlue

12-10-2012, 11:57 AM

They're already paying taxes in foreign countries, dumbass.

LnGrrrR

12-10-2012, 12:03 PM

How would you feel about these credits, rebates, etc. if you actually paid federal income tax?

Hard to tell for certain, but I'd probably still be a fan. I'm a fan of downsizing the military, even though I'm in. (Then again, I don't have much to worry about I think, as cyberwarfare is still going strong.)

I was actually eligible for welfare (due to that same base pay trick), but I didn't take it because I did think I was already compensated enough, and left the money in the till for those who need it. And frankly, I think I'd rather make $100K a year and pay taxes than make $50K-ish and not. :lol

boutons_deux

12-10-2012, 01:09 PM

Corporate Profits Skyrocket While Corporate Taxes Plummet (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1308981/chart-corporate-profits-skyrocket-while-corporate-taxes-plummet/)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/corporateprofitsuptaxesdown.png

Corporate profits are currently at an all-time high (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/03/1270541/corporate-profits-wages-record/) (while worker wages as a percentage of the economy have plummeted to record lows). But despite those sky-high profits, corporate income tax revenue is projected to be just 1.5 percent of GDP this year (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals), below the recent average and far below the amount raised by the tax just a few decades ago.

As the Century Foundation noted in this chart, the corporate income tax, as a share of total government revenue, used to track reasonably well with corporate profits. But in the last decade, the two have become decoupled (http://tcf.org/blogs/botc/2012/11/meet-dirty-dozen-tax-break-1-export-tax-incentives/):

As the Century Foundation’s Benjamin Landy explained, “In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for about one third of of all federal tax revenue. But, over the years, U.S. multinationals have devised increasingly complex tax avoidance schemes (http://tcf.org/blogs/botc/2012/11/meet-dirty-dozen-tax-break-1-export-tax-incentives/), far beyond the ability of the IRS to credibly monitor or enforce. Although the corporate tax rate was also lowered significantly in 1986, tax avoidance is one of primary reasons why corporate taxes supply less than 9 percent of federal revenues today.”

Between 2008 and 2011, dozens of multinational corporations paid no corporate income tax at all (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/), despite making billions in profits. In 2011, the effective tax rate paid by American corporations fell to 12.1 percent (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418171/corporate-taxes-40-year-low/), a forty-year low.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1308981/chart-corporate-profits-skyrocket-while-corporate-taxes-plummet/

Human-Americans get thoroughly fucked by Corporate-Americans.

boutons_deux

12-10-2012, 03:28 PM

It’s the Simpson-Bowles Personal Profit Tour: Making Money Off the U.S. Debt
In an earlier study of the Fix-the-Debt corporations, the Institute for Policy Studies found the publicly held companies – at that time 63 – stood to gain $134 billion (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/reports/ceo-campaign-to-fix-the-debt)if Congress approved their demand for a territorial tax system exempting offshore profits from American taxes.

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/leowgerard/its-simpson-bowles-personal-profit-tour-making-money-us-debt

re-patrioted profits are taxed.

Famous example was the $305B offshore than dubya/dickhead allowed to be re-patrioted at 5% tax rate in return for (BigPharma) job creation. A total sham, as BigPharma pocketed the profits and laid of 10Ks employees.

SnakeBoy

12-11-2012, 02:48 AM

I don't think most people realize how well the military actually pays. Then you get these single kids that think they are getting paid so little. E-1 is $1,516 monthly for 2013, and they effectively get to spend most of that. No food, rent,or utilities to pay for.

That's only $50 a day, sure you get free food and housing but I don't think you fully realize the nightly alcohol expenses when your a single kid and stuck in a shithole like Wichita Falls. I don't remember what I got paid back when I was stuck there but my credit cards were maxed when I left.

Wild Cobra

12-11-2012, 03:29 AM

That's only $50 a day, sure you get free food and housing but I don't think you fully realize the nightly alcohol expenses when your a single kid and stuck in a shithole like Wichita Falls. I don't remember what I got paid back when I was stuck there but my credit cards were maxed when I left.
LOL...

Seriously...
I hope you are joking, because that is pretty sad to send that much time in bars.

Winehole23

12-11-2012, 04:26 AM

coping mechanism. do you still like beer and weed, WC?

Wild Cobra

12-11-2012, 04:30 AM

coping mechanism. do you still like beer and weed, WC?
Really?

Every day though?

There is this one bar (http://pub181.com/) I go to shoot pool every now and then. A few beers, good dinner, and pool, and I probably spend only $30.

boutons_deux

12-11-2012, 11:39 AM

U.S. Installs Record Amount Of Solar So Far In 2012: Analyst Calls It The ‘Opening Act’ For Q4 Boom (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/11/1314671/us-installs-record-amount-of-solar-so-far-in-2012-analyst-calls-it-the-opening-act-for-q4-boom/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/q3-2012-report-figure.png

Mitt Romney made a rather odd statement (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/10/401222/romney-lying-about-solar-industry/)about solar. (Yes, we’re still talking about Romney).

“When other solar companies saw Solyndra get $530 million from the government, investors pulled back in that industry,” he said. “So instead of encouraging solar development, the Obama administration hurt it.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/11/1314671/us-installs-record-amount-of-solar-so-far-in-2012-analyst-calls-it-the-opening-act-for-q4-boom/

Bishop Gecko! :lol :lol :lol

What Bishop Gecko said he WOULD HAVE DONE is stop all wind and solar subsidies, tax breaks, incentives. THAT'S HURT.

Wild Cobra

12-11-2012, 04:27 PM

CosmicCowboy

12-11-2012, 04:35 PM

in this case WC is right. What private investor wants to compete head to head with the US government that obviously has a bottomless checkbook?

boutons_deux

12-11-2012, 05:12 PM

"Time and time again, when the government interferes, it is nothing but bad in the end."

you mean as in Iraq? Viet Nam?

govt investment over the decades has produced huge returns.

You assholes pick Solyndra, as part of the Fox/Repug hate and slander machine's talking points, to prove that govt is ALWAYS bad and can NEVER produce anything good.

Wild Cobra

12-11-2012, 05:16 PM

ShazBot...

Have any good examples?

boutons_deux

12-11-2012, 05:19 PM

ShazBot...

Have any good examples?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206591&p=6236484#post6236484

CosmicCowboy

12-13-2012, 05:08 PM

installing panels today

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/4734/steakssolar005.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/steakssolar005.jpg/)

TeyshaBlue

12-13-2012, 05:20 PM

*stalking mode engaged*

Wild Cobra

12-13-2012, 05:22 PM

You just took the bull by the horns, didn't you!

ElNono

12-13-2012, 06:41 PM

CC, you have a PM...

CosmicCowboy

12-13-2012, 08:38 PM

CC, you have a PM...

Thanks! PM returned!

LnGrrrR

12-13-2012, 11:03 PM

Nice looking home CC. :tu

Th'Pusher

12-13-2012, 11:21 PM

I know there is no sun in the photo for WC to triangulate an exact location, but I'm wondering if he can at least tell me what neighborhood CC lives in based on the information provided.

Wild Cobra

12-14-2012, 03:23 AM

I know there is no sun in the photo for WC to triangulate an exact location, but I'm wondering if he can at least tell me what neighborhood CC lives in based on the information provided.
It's obvious you didn't understand what lead me to being able to find that one residence. I would try to educate you, but I think my hands would cramp up over the keyboard, typing so long.

Wild Cobra

12-14-2012, 03:24 AM

Nice looking home CC. :tu
Yes, I agree.

Wild Cobra

12-14-2012, 04:49 AM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206591&p=6236484#post6236484
Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

CosmicCowboy

12-14-2012, 08:09 AM

Nice looking home CC. :tu

Thanks. It was an abandoned hulk when I bought it. The original part was a 100 yr.+ old ranch house when I bought it and I remodeled/added on over the years. Did a lot of the work myself.

Sportcamper

12-14-2012, 10:29 AM

Nice house, stonework & roof…I did a shake to composition conversion a while back & was told that the metal roofs were delicate to walk on…Is that true? Now lest see a picture of the barn with cable HDTV…

CosmicCowboy

12-14-2012, 01:10 PM

boutons_deux

12-26-2012, 11:56 AM

Why Solar Installations Cost More in the U.S. than in Germany

A new report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory points to specific areas where costs could be lowered.

http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/high.cost_.solar_.chart1_.png

http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/high.cost_.solar_.chart2_.png

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509196/why-solar-installations-cost-more-in-the-us-than-in-germany/ (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509196/why-solar-installations-cost-more-in-the-us-than-in-germany/)

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 11:58 AM

Your chart is fucked.

I paid $3.60 a watt gross.

After CPS rebate and tax credit cost was a little over $1 net.

boutons_deux

12-26-2012, 12:14 PM

Your chart is fucked.

I paid $3.60 a watt gross.

After CPS rebate and tax credit cost was a little over $1 net.

Go bitch at MIT, they're an incompetent bunch of losers

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 12:24 PM

Go bitch at MIT, they're an incompetent bunch of losers

You said it, not me.

Could be another academic with an agenda?

boutons_deux

12-26-2012, 01:23 PM

You said it, not me.

Could be another academic with an agenda?

could be that CC thinks his single experience applies to the entire US solar panel industry

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 01:35 PM

could be that CC thinks his single experience applies to the entire US solar panel industry

:lmao, Boo, I refuted your post with hard, verifiable numbers. I took the bids and wrote the checks. I really don't think these solar companies gave me special pricing just because I'm handsome, intelligent, and hung like a horse.

Wild Cobra

12-26-2012, 04:43 PM

Shazbot doesn't know when to quit.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 04:47 PM

You said it, not me.

Could be another academic with an agenda?

You are aware that San Antonio and CPS is pretty damn avante garde in terms of solar subsidies right?

Then there is the whole issue of what entails a mean value.

Critical thinking gets in the way of blanket denials of anything you don't want to believe though.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 04:50 PM

You are aware that San Antonio and CPS is pretty damn avante garde in terms of solar subsidies right?

Then there is the whole issue of what entails a mean value.

Critical thinking gets in the way of blanket denials of anything you don't want to believe though.

:lmao at you and your "critical thinking"

What part of THE GROSS PRICE INCLUDING TAX WAS $3.60 A WATT didn't your fucking peabrain understand? That was BEFORE the CPS rebate.

DMC

12-27-2012, 11:33 AM

:lmao, Boo, I refuted your post with hard, verifiable numbers. I took the bids and wrote the checks. I really don't think these solar companies gave me special pricing just because I'm handsome, intelligent, and hung like a horse.

I'd feel pretty comfortable betting on it in fact. :)

Wild Cobra

12-29-2012, 08:03 PM

:lmao, Boo, I refuted your post with hard, verifiable numbers. I took the bids and wrote the checks. I really don't think these solar companies gave me special pricing just because I'm handsome, intelligent, and hung like a horse.
No, they did it just to make Shazbot and Troll look bad.

TDMVPDPOY

12-29-2012, 08:10 PM

are these panels immune from hail?

CosmicCowboy

12-29-2012, 10:58 PM

are these panels immune from hail?

Immune? It depends. Warranty says they will withstand 1" hail hitting at terminal velocity at 90 degree angle with no damage. Anything bigger than that would beat the fuck out of my roof anyway.

boutons_deux

12-30-2012, 03:31 AM

:lmao, Boo, I refuted your post with hard, verifiable numbers. I took the bids and wrote the checks. I really don't think these solar companies gave me special pricing just because I'm handsome, intelligent, and hung like a horse.

And you think your SINGLE set of numbers totally destroys MIT's country-wide survey?

z0sa

12-30-2012, 05:43 AM

installing panels today

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/4734/steakssolar005.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/steakssolar005.jpg/)

Let's hope it brightens up? :)

PS is that the famous money tree?

TDMVPDPOY

12-30-2012, 11:37 AM

u got a nice looking house there man,u going to fill it all out with panels or what? then start installing roller shutters for ur windows and start planting the seeds; 2 harvest season per year is good money...

Sportcamper

02-20-2013, 04:56 PM

Honda Gives Free Solar Installations

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/honda-gives-free-home-solar-installations-202159693--abc-news-savings-and-investment.html

spursncowboys

02-21-2013, 06:58 PM

:lmao, Boo, I refuted your post with hard, verifiable numbers. I took the bids and wrote the checks. I really don't think these solar companies gave me special pricing just because I'm handsome, intelligent, and hung like a horse.
http://miniaturehorses-cruzmountain.com/images/einstein-mini.jpg 10-1 that the dog's is bigger

CosmicCowboy

02-22-2013, 10:41 AM

http://miniaturehorses-cruzmountain.com/images/einstein-mini.jpg 10-1 that the dog's is bigger

Especially since that looks like a little mare.

sjacquemotte

02-22-2013, 07:03 PM

Yeah it was a joke.

CosmicCowboy

02-25-2013, 01:10 PM

Yeah it was a joke.

Gosh, you are just too smart for us Einstein.

Wild Cobra

02-25-2013, 09:09 PM

CC...

I would suggest paying someone to take thermal photos of your panels to spot any weak or defective cells now, and again before the warranty expires.

Blake

02-25-2013, 09:17 PM

installing panels today

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/4734/steakssolar005.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/steakssolar005.jpg/)

Flag lot

Spurstro

04-10-2013, 09:57 AM

CPS Energy proposes slashing a solar power incentive http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/CPS-Energy-proposes-slashing-a-solar-power-4422428.php

boutons_deux

04-10-2013, 10:07 AM

Probably coming to San Antonio:

http://kutnews.org/post/how-much-would-you-pay-under-austin-energy%E2%80%99s-new-rate-plan

boutons_deux

04-10-2013, 10:19 AM

a guy who is proposing a solar system for my house says there's some talk for Austin (metro city, not state govt) about implementing a feed in tariff of $0.12/Kwh, that he thinks CPS may follow. I can't find a link.

That would, of course, combined with higher rates and time-of-day rates, greatly decrease the payback time for a solar panel system.

Anybody hear of TX asshole Repug reps and senators pushing solar hard for sun-drenched TX?

CosmicCowboy

04-10-2013, 10:20 AM

Well, at least I'll have my system paid off by then...

The roughly 1,000 residential customers with solar systems installed or installations in the works would be allowed to remain under the net-metering arrangement until 2023.

boutons_deux

05-05-2013, 10:43 AM

The Incredible Shrinking Cost of Solar Energy Drives Mega-Projects around the World (http://www.juancole.com/2013/05/incredible-shrinking-projects.html)

http://www.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/Screen_Shot_2013-02-04_at_11.47.04_AM.png

http://www.juancole.com/2013/05/incredible-shrinking-projects.html

The Reckoning

05-05-2013, 07:55 PM

but what happens when the sun dies?

boutons_deux

05-09-2013, 08:23 PM

CPS backs away from plan to slash solar incentive

CPS Energy announced Thursday that is backing away from its proposal to slash a key subsidy for customers with solar power systems in the wake of protests from affected customers and local solar installers.

The city-owned utility said it would delay making changes to its net-metering program for a year while it works with local solar customers and installers to come up with an “equitable solution.”

“We've heard the industry's concerns on a number of issues,” Cris Eugster, CPS Energy's executive vice president and chief strategy and technology officer, said in a statement made on the utility's blog. “We're looking forward to working with them on a program that will allow for a viable rooftop solar industry, while at the same time being fair to all customers.”

Solar San Antonio executive director Lanny Sinkin declared victory in a statement released to the Express-News on Thursday morning.

“Now the real work begins of choosing a group, setting an agenda, and conducting productive discussions,” said Sinkin, who serves as the de facto spokesman for local solar installers and CPS' solar customers.

However, CPS spokeswoman Lisa Lewis reiterated the utility's desire to reduce the payout it gives to solar customers for their electricity generation.

“We are going to walk away from this process with something that is different from what we're doing today,” she said. “We don't know what we're going to end up with.”

Under the current “net-metering” program, customers with solar power systems are allowed to count each kilowatt of solar energy they produce against each kilowatt of energy they consume from the grid, sometimes zeroing out their CPS Energy bills.

However, the utility says the arrangement is unsustainable because it means that solar customers aren't paying their fair share to help maintain the utility's infrastructure: its wires, poles and substations.

It proposed replacing the net-metering program with “SunCredit” — a system that would credit solar customers a fixed amount for each kilowatt of solar energy they produced. Under the new system, the solar energy would be worth a little more than half of what it was worth under “net-metering.”

About 1,000 CPS customers eventually would have been affected by the program, although some would have been phased in.

Under the proposal, existing solar customers and those who turned in their paperwork to install a solar system before April 27 would be grandfathered in the net-metering program until 2023. Solar installers and solar customers protested, and the utility pushed the deadline back to May 31.

As the protests continued, the utility announced another concession: Customers with solar systems or those who met the May deadline would be allowed to remain in the net-metering program for the life of their solar systems.
The latest announcement comes six days after the utility held a contentious public meeting to seek feedback on the proposal.

http://mobile.mysa.com/mysa/db_283104/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=wXQOcrb2&full=true#display

boutons_deux

08-09-2013, 04:30 AM

Conservatives never miss a chance fuck people everywhere to please BigCarbon.

In Australia:

WA solar shocker could be foretaste of an Abbott government (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/wa-solar-shocker-could-be-foretaste-of-an-abbott-government-65081)

The Conservative government in Western Australia has stunned solar households in the state and industry bodies after announcing that it would retrospectively slash the feed in tariff that it had introduced in 2010.
In another potential foretaste of the treatment of renewable energy sources by a federal Coalition government, WA said the 40c/kWh export tariff from around 75,000 households would be cut to 30c, and then to 20c next year. The decision was announced in a few lines of the state budget, delivered on Thursday afternoon.

Its decision to make a retrospective cut follows a similar move by the O’Farrell Coalition government in NSW in 2011. That decision was overturned after a huge backlash. It is yet to be seen whether solar households in WA will fight the decision with a similar determination.

However, while the NSW Coalition acted to correct what it saw as bad policy making by a Labor government predecessor, the WA Coalition’s position is all its own work. It was the LNP government that introduced the tariff in August, 2010, after entering a bidding war with Labor in the state election campaign.

The LNP was warned by industry bodies at the time that the tariff was too generous and a sliding scale would be more appropriate, but it ignored the advice and ploughed ahead anyway, and eventually lost control of the scheme before closing it to new applicants less than a year later after it had soared above the initial 150MW cap.

The decision raises fears that further retrospective policy action could be taken. Since the premium feed-in-tariff ended, another 65,000 households have added rooftop solar in the state, seeking to offset the soaring cost of grid electricity.

There has been speculation – so far denied – that the state government is considering a “bi-directional” tariff, which would mean that households would have to pay the grid operator to put solar back into the grid. A similar decision was taken by the cash-strapped government in Spain recently at the urging of its influential fossil fuel lobby.

Numerous industry bodies spoke of the “sovereign risk” that was created by the decision, be it for residential or even large scale developers, and the potential for further rule changes after an investment is made – and all for the sake of saving an estimated $50 million. The issue of sovereign risk is an important one for investors and developers, because the fear of sudden and retrospective policy changes, usually raises the cost of capital – adding to the cost of a project.

The state-owned network operators have been complaining about solar and its impact on the grid – there is currently 310MW of rooftop solar in the state – accounting for up to 10 per cent of generation at certain hours on sunny days.

But unlike Vector, the network operator in the New Zealand city of Auckland, which is encouraging customers to install solar and battery storage (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/culture-shock-network-offers-solar-storage-leases-to-customers-91569)because it can reduce network costs and investments, (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/future-grid-networks-focus-on-solar-storage-for-consumers-66152) the installation of battery storage in areas controlled by Western Power is not allowed.

WA’s newly appointed Energy Minister is Dr Mike Nahan, a former head of the notoriously anti-renewable conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. He recently expressed surprise at the rapid take-up of rooftop solar by the state’s households – and was quoted as saying that 2,000 households were applying to install solar each week (although official data suggests it is 2,500 a month)

He said recently solar PV is ”actually putting downward pressure on electricity costs” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-15/changes-to-power-bills-might-mean-increases/4821556)because people were using less power and generating electricity themselves, and causing less electricity to be generated from coal. But at the same time he warned of further tariff changes to try and recover some of those costs. He flagged a possible interest in fixed charges to households as one answer.

The LNP government has not been an enthusiastic adopter of renewable energy – particularly large scale. WA has made it clear that it believes it has enough fossil fuel capacity in the state and is not encouraging any new large scale wind or solar farm, despite the state’s excellent resources. On the opening of the Greenough River solar farm last year, the Premier said he hoped that the renewable energy target, which provides the primary incentive for such projects, would be removed.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/wa-solar-shocker-could-be-foretaste-of-an-abbott-government-65081

nasty stuff, BigCarbon and the assholes who run BigCarbon, just like in USA

boutons_deux

08-09-2013, 01:55 PM

The fact is, solar has been one of the nation's fastest growing industries (http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data) for the past several years, now supporting more than 100,000 jobs at 5,600 companies operating in every state in the nation. With the rate of utility solar installations more than doubling since 2012, the United States is now on track to add another 4,400 megawatts of photovoltaic power in 2013.

All of which has been noted with considerable alarm by some electric utilities. A recent report (http://www.eei.org/ourissues/finance/Documents/disruptivechallenges.pdf) distributed by the Edison Electric Institute, the industry's main trade group, for instance, calls the growth of small-scale solar systems the "largest near-term threat" to the industry and warns of a disruption to the industry similar to the one wrought by cell phones on the landline telephone industry.

Next up: Arizona

In a number of states recently, utilities have sought to fight back by charging extra fees to customers with rooftop solar panels. Moves to change so-called net metering arrangements were notably beaten back (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/net-metering-setbacks-for-utilities-in-idaho-and-louisiana/148738/) this spring in both Louisiana and Idaho -- hardly states known for liberal politics or environmental activism.

The latest battleground (http://blog.ucsusa.org/arizona-dont-turn-out-the-lights-on-solar-power-184) is Arizona, where the state's largest electric utility -- Arizona Public Service Company -- has similarly asked regulators to raise electric rates for residential customers who install solar photovoltaic systems at their homes.

Jacobs notes that the populist nature of rooftop solar power seems to be causing a paradigm shift in many people's political perspective. "Instead of being forced to buy power from a monopoly, people now have a real option to go buy rooftop solar panels as they would a television or a refrigerator. There's no question," he says, "that this aspect is particularly appealing to a segment of the population that prefers the free market and doesn't want utilities or government to mandate what they do."

While Koch-funded groups like AFP are unlikely to heed the message anytime soon, there is every indication in the solar energy field that the political terrain is starting to shift dramatically.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shulman/got-science-a-green-tea-p_b_3726459.html

boutons_deux

09-04-2013, 11:36 AM

Utility Companies Launch Attack Against Rising Rooftop Solar Market (http://ecowatch.com/2013/utilities-attack-rooftop-solar-market/)

An internet web video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZOi-_sPF6s) attacks the California start-up companies that sell rooftop solar systems as the “new Solyndras,” which are spending “hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their wealthy customers.” Meantime,solar companies accuse (http://dontkillsolar.com/site/) Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest utility, of wanting to “extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in Arizona to protect its monopoly.”

Similar battles about how rooftop solar should be regulated have flared in California, Colorado, Idaho and Louisiana. And the outcome of these power struggles could have a major impact on the future of solar in the U.S.

Today’s solar industry is puny—it supplies less than one percent of the electricity in the U.S.—but its advocates say that solar is, at long last, ready to move from the fringe of the energy economy to the mainstream. Photovoltaic panel (http://ecowatch.com/2013/solar-capacity-grows-efficiency-pv-panels-increase/) prices are falling. Low-cost financing for installing rooftop solar is available. Federal and state government incentives remain generous.

Yet opposition from regulated utilities, which burn fossil fuels to produce most of their electricity, could stop a solar boom before it gets started.

Several utilities, including Arizona Public Service and Denver-based Xcel Energy, have asked their state regulators to reduce incentives or impose charges on customers who install rooftop solar; so far, at least, they aren’t making much headway. A bill in the California legislature, backed by the utility interests would add $120 a year in fees to rooftop solar customers.

But other utility companies are adopting a different strategy—they are joining forces with solar interests. NRG Energy, based in Princeton, NJ, has created a rooftop solar unit to sell systems to businesses and, eventually, homeowners. New Jersey’s PSE&G is making loans to solar customers, and Duke Energy and Edison International have invested in Clean Power Finance (http://www.cleanpowerfinance.com/), a San Francisco-based firm that has raised half a billion dollars to finance solar projects.

“The industry is divided on how to deal with the opportunity—or threat,” says Nat Kraemer, Clean Power Finance’s founder and CEO. “Some utilities are saying, how do I make money off distributed solar, as opposed to, how do I fight distributed solar.”

Distributed solar—which produces electricity outside the grid—“has become one of the more polarizing topics in the power industry, with some utilities joining the party, some doing just what is legislatively mandated and others remaining reluctant and not being true believers,” according to a new report from Citi Research, Rising Sun: Implications for U.S. Utilities. The report warns the utilities that “solar is here to stay, and very early in the growth cycle in the U.S.”

http://ecowatch.com/2013/utilities-attack-rooftop-solar-market/

Another area where unregulated "wealth extractive capitalism" is fucking over America, with for-profit electricity companies, often monopoly or near-monopoly, have the priority of enriching and protecting their investors and top mgmt rather than serving their customers.

boutons_deux

11-13-2013, 05:23 PM

Amidst Major Solar Battle, Arizona’s Largest Utility Quietly Renews ALEC Membership (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/12/2928231/arizona-utility-alec-membership/)

As hearings begin to determine the fate of Arizona’s booming solar industry, Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility, quietly renewed its membership in the corporate anti-clean energy group the American Legislative Exchange Council after publicly leaving (http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/04/12/aps-ending-alec-membership-srp-considers-doing-same/) it in 2012.

APS spokesman Jim McDonald told (http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2013/11/07/arizona-public-service-aps-quietly-rejoined-alec-american-legislative-exchange-council-months-after-publicly-leaving-in-2012/) the Arizona Capitol Times the utility pays $7,000 in membership fees and an additional $3,000 to have a seat on ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force. “ALEC is a pro-business organization. We support lots of pro-business organizations,” McDonald said. “We’re a proud member of ALEC.”

ALEC’s ‘pro-business’ backers feature a host of corporations and individuals opposed to clean energy, including numerous fossil fuel interests and the billionaire ultra-conservative Koch brothers. In 2012, the organization set its sights on clean energy and tried to repeal states’ renewable energy laws (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/08/2399121/corporations-clean-energy-standards/) and despite failing in every instance, shows no intention (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/09/2442881/alec-fossil-fuel-agenda/) of relenting.

In Arizona, Arizona Public Service is currently embroiled in a major fight over solar energy (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/01/2873071/arizona-solar-battle/) and on Wednesday the state’s energy regulator, Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), will begin hearings into how much customers should be compensated for the energy produced by solar panels installed on their homes and businesses. Solar advocates argue that if the policy, known as net metering, is altered to charge consumers more, it could deal a death-blow to their rapidly growing industry.

In addition to their ALEC membership, APS has come under fire recently after admitting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/solar-arizona-net-metering_n_4164731.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green) that it had been secretly contributing to outside nonprofits running negative ads against solar power, namely the Koch-backed group “60 Plus.”

And the ACC has its own connections to the conservative, anti-clean energy group. A Think Progress analysis (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/01/2873071/arizona-solar-battle/) found four of the five commissioners have ties to ALEC, including Commissioner Robert Burns who recently announced a probe into the APS funding of 60 Plus.

Currently 43 states and the District of Columbia have net metering policies in place to encourage the growth of technologies like rooftop solar. According to The Washington Post, the implications of Arizona’s fight (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/16/in-sunny-arizona-a-battle-over-solar-power/) extend far beyond the state’s borders: “For the solar industry, if rates consumers can charge drop to a point at which solar panels aren’t economically viable in Arizona, sales could plummet. For the utility companies, a victory in Arizona would set the ball rolling in other states where net metering rules are up for debate.”

A look at ALEC’s agenda for the December convening of its Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force shows they are well aware of the opportunity to attack net metering nationwide. The task force will consider a resolution “calling on states to update net metering policies so that anyone who uses the grid in any way — even adding energy to it — would have to pay a fixed charge or some other rate mechanism,” EcoWatch reported. (http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/06/alec-agenda-anti-renewable-energy-strategies-december-summit/)

Jason Rose, a veteran Republican consultant working for the solar industry, told The Washington Post, “If the utilities are able to upend rooftop solar in Arizona, the sunniest state, then imagine what they can do everywhere else.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/12/2928231/arizona-utility-alec-membership/

Anybody doubt that Repug TX will follow ALEC dictations of solar distrubuted solar policy in order to protect BigCoal's profits?

TDMVPDPOY

11-13-2013, 10:08 PM

politicians just protecting its big business partners, but wont embrace cleane alternative energy for the consumer, while ppl are struggling with to pay bills and shit cause of rising costs...

they hold consumers to ransom with price increases each year, yet you never hear them improve their network/infrastructure...all you hear is they are struggling or paying dividends to shareholders...fck them...

those with solar panels on their roof, should monitor their inverters recordings, the chinese ones lmao dodgy numbers

RandomGuy

11-15-2013, 12:03 PM

Well, at least I'll have my system paid off by then...

Cool.

As an investments go, it is a good one.

boutons_deux

11-16-2013, 09:28 PM

the capitalists who own Arizona ulitilty gonna screw their customers and their their money

Arizona Approves Grid-Connection Fees for Solar Rooftops

Arizona will permit the state’s largest utility to charge a monthly fee to customers who install photovoltaic panels on their roofs, in a closely watched hearing that drew about 1,000 protesters and may threaten the surging residential solar market.

The Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities in the state, agreed in a 3-to-2 vote at a meeting yesterday in Phoenix that Arizona Public Service Co. may collect about $4.90 a month from customers with solar systems.

Arizona Public is required to buy solar power from customers with rooftop panels, and the commission agreed with its argument that the policy unfairly shifts some of the utility’s costs to people without panels. Imposing a fee designed to address this issue may prompt power companies in other states to follow suit, and will discourage some people from installing new systems, according to the Sierra Club.

The “decision to add new charges to Arizona’s main rooftop solar program will stifle the growth of our clean-energy economy,” Will Greene, the organizing representative for the Sierra Club in Phoenix, said in a statement yesterday.

The fee will apply to solar systems installed or contracted after Dec. 31 and works out to 70 cents a kilowatt. A home with a typical 70-kilowatt solar system will pay $4.90 a month, and people with more panels will pay more.

Arizona Public has about 18,000 solar customers now who won’t be affected. It’s adding about 500 more a month and expects to have about 20,000 customers that won’t pay the fee for sending excess solar energy to its system.
"Falls Short’

Arizona Public had requested a fee of $50 a month or more, and the commission’s decision “falls well short of protecting the interests of the 1 million residential customers who do not have solar panels,” Chief Executive Officer Don Brandt said in a statement.

The company was pleased the commission “determined that net metering creates a cost shift,” Brandt said. Arizona Public is a unit of Phoenix-based Pinnacle West Capital Corp. (PNW)

Arizona is one of 43 states that require utilities to buy solar power from customers under a policy called net metering. This lowers the monthly power bills for people with solar systems and reduces revenue for the power companies. Arizona Public argued that the policy forces it to raise rates on all customers to cover the fixed costs of maintaining the grid.

The utility spent $3.7 million to promote its argument, compared with about $330,000 spent by the solar industry, according to documents filed with the commission.

“If you were going to save 15 bucks, now all things being equal, you’d save 10 bucks,” he said in an interview today. “Is ten bucks enough still to entice customers? If the answer is no, then it eats into SolarCity’s business.”

Other States

The utility industry has been closely watching the Arizona case, which may lay the groundwork for similar fees in other states. California, the biggest solar state, approved legislation in September that would let regulators approve fees of as much as $10 a month for customers with solar power.

“There are a number of state commissions currently reviewing outdated and unsustainable net metering policies,” Tom Kuhn, president of the utility trade group Edison Electric Institute, said in a statement. “The commission recognized that current net metering policies unfairly shift costs from solar homes to non-solar homes.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-11-15/arizona-regulators-impose-power-grid-fees-for-solar-roofs.html

protecting their non-solar customres? :lol

BIG LIE

it's all about denying if not killing distributed solar so it doesn't hurt their business model. Very sinister when the centralize electric utility is a for-profit private operation feeding profits to capitalists.

This will spur the installation of local energy storage so people will disconnect from the rip-off grid completely. HUGE boost for battery or other storage technologies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-11-15/arizona-regulators-impose-power-grid-fees-for-solar-roofs.html

boutons_deux

01-07-2014, 06:53 AM

China Withdraws Support For 75% Of Solar Equipment Manufacturers

A recent order by the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has sounded the death knell for about 75% of the country’s solar panel and related component manufacturers. The ministry has released a list of 134 companies which will be eligible to receive credit support from financial institutions.

The companies which failed to be recognised by the ministry as being eligible for state support will not be able to request refunds of export tariffs and neither will these companies be able to participate in local deals to supply components to set-up power plants.

This ‘cleaning up’ of the Chinese solar equipment manufacturing sector (http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/China-hands-death-sentence-to-75-of-solar-cell-makers) may trigger massive consolidation as the unsupported companies could look to larger companies for absorption. Consolidation may actually bring good results for the Chinese solar components manufacturing sector.

?http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/06/china-withdraws-support-75-solar-equipment-manufacturers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

boutons_deux

01-07-2014, 06:56 AM

Wall Street Suddenly Loves Solar, Just In Time For New Solar Cell Efficiency Breakthrough

Over the weekend, the New York Times noted that the solar power “craze” is partly responsible for Wall Street’s recent good times. The Times used the example of solar giant SolarCity, which has seen a sevenfold increase in its share price to $59.27 since it went public, but this could just be starters for the US solar industry. An international research team based at North Carolina State University has come up with a simple way to increase the efficiency of organic solar cells by more than 30 percent, leading to lower costs and a much bigger market.

That’s great news for companies like SolarCity (http://www.solarcity.com/). The company – another brainchild of Tesla creator Elon Musk (http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/08/solar-powered-ev-chargers-keep-solarcity-one-step-ahead-pack/) – packages and installs solar systems, so it’s not subject to the kind of downward global pricing pressures that doomed US manufacturers like Solyndra.

In fact, down works good for SolarCity’s business model. Solar cells account for about half the cost of a fully installed and connected solar system, so a major drop in the cost of solar cells will have a significant impact on overall costs. That gives SolarCity and other solar packagers another opportunity to offer their systems at more competitive prices, and nudge conventional fuels out of the market.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/06/wall-street-suddenly-loves-solar-just-time-new-solar-cell-efficiency-breakthrough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

A New Solar Cell Efficiency Breakthroughhttp://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/06/wall-street-suddenly-loves-solar-just-time-new-solar-cell-efficiency-breakthrough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

TDMVPDPOY

01-07-2014, 07:07 AM

u k now whats funny today

solar vs green coal energy

i dont believe in greener coal energy cause at the end of the day its still fkn coal going through the same process, no such thing as clean energy from coal, no matter what bullshit they want to spin, you they charge you extra for green coal energy when clearly the benefits is not much....fooling the customer...

solar is much cheaper if they can decrease capital start up costs...

boutons_deux

01-07-2014, 07:11 AM

solar is much cheaper if they can decrease capital start up costs...

the panels have declined so much that the "soft costs" (labor, etc) are much bigger and more resistant to cost reduction.

and of course the big obstacle is the centralized electric utilities fighting distributed generation, and buying politicians to block distributed solar.

Wild Cobra

01-07-2014, 01:32 PM

boutons_deux

01-07-2014, 01:38 PM

Once you have a final product, solar is clean.

However...

Do you know what it takes to make them?

not this shit again.

Wild Cobra

01-07-2014, 02:33 PM

not this shit again.
At least my shit doesn't sting like yours does...

CosmicCowboy

01-07-2014, 06:07 PM

At least my shit doesn't sting like yours does...

Hmmmm. How exactly do you know his shit stings?

Wild Cobra

01-07-2014, 06:16 PM

Hmmmm. How exactly do you know his shit stings?
Ouch...

I walked into that one...

CosmicCowboy

01-07-2014, 06:18 PM

sorry...couldn't resist that slow pitch.

Wild Cobra

01-07-2014, 06:27 PM

sorry...couldn't resist that slow pitch.

Don't blame you. I often do the same. And for the record, I meant the normal phrase with "stink" instead of "sting."

For some reason I often flip my k's and g's. Probably from when I was learning Korean.

TDMVPDPOY

01-16-2014, 09:34 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

01-16-2014, 10:05 PM

Don't blame you. I often do the same. And for the record, I meant the normal phrase with "stink" instead of "sting."

For some reason I often flip my k's and g's. Probably from when I was learning Korean.

What if it's because of your learning disability?

CosmicCowboy

01-17-2014, 07:42 AM

CosmicCowboy

how much u getting per kw back from the power companies into the grid?

fkn clowns down here have decreased it to 6cents, dont want fkn consumers to be power generators cutting their gold goose...

It's dollar for dollar. Whatever the going charge per KW is = the credit. It averages about $100 a month off my utility bill.

RandomGuy

01-17-2014, 09:48 AM

Your chart is fucked.

I paid $3.60 a watt gross.

After CPS rebate and tax credit cost was a little over $1 net.

So...

$1/watt net

8KW

$8000 final cost to you? and average $100/month return?

If I may ask. The numbers interest me, as I have been mulling over doing green consulting for a while.

CosmicCowboy

01-17-2014, 11:16 AM

So...

$1/watt net

8KW

$8000 final cost to you? and average $100/month return?

If I may ask. The numbers interest me, as I have been mulling over doing green consulting for a while.

My final cost was around $9000.

Not a bad investment to buy a 20+ year $100 a month tax free income stream that rises as utility rates (up about 5% this year alone) rise.

boutons_deux

01-17-2014, 05:47 PM

Are Solar Panels Facing the Wrong Direction?When the data was normalized for a 5.5-kilowatt system, the panels turned to the west generated nearly 50 percent more electricity during peak demand hours than did their southern-facing counterparts.

http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/west-south-pv-panels.jpg

Homes with west-facing systems also produced slightly more electricity, with those panels producing 37 percent of total daily electricity use, compared to 35 percent for the south-facing panels.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/are-solar-panels-facing-the-wrong-direction

SnakeBoy

01-17-2014, 05:59 PM

My final cost was around $9000.

Not a bad investment to buy a 20+ year $100 a month tax free income stream that rises as utility rates (up about 5% this year alone) rise.

How long to break even?

CosmicCowboy

01-17-2014, 06:46 PM

How long to break even?

Approximately 9 years.

TDMVPDPOY

01-17-2014, 11:47 PM

Approximately 9 years.

doesnt make a difference if you add more panels right?

100bucks per month, quarterly bills are around 300 minimum anyway...so ur fkn break even or living on ur own generated power...

u have a basement or enclave in the backyard? u know what to do right....hotwire and start growing ur own shit

boutons_deux

02-17-2014, 02:31 PM

More Solar Workers in US than Coal Miners, and Solar doesn’t Poison Drinking Water

By the end of 2013, the number of workers in the solar energy industry in the US had grown to 143,000. (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/California-has-a-third-of-the-nation-s-solar-5223811.php) About a third of them are in California, followed by Arizona, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
the wind power industry (http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2013/08/15/wind-powers-record-growth-blows-across-u-s/) employed another 80,000 or so workers directly, and many more in transportation of components, etc.

Together, wind and solar energy workers far outnumber all the estimated workers in coal mining, coal transportation, and coal plant operation. Solar installation jobs alone outnumber seasonally adjusted full-time jobs in coal mining by a substantial margin.

In contrast to the rapidly growing solar and wind sectors, 151 coal mines were idled in the second half of 2013 (http://voices.mydesert.com/2013/09/12/us-coal-mine-closings-gain-acceleration-as-2013-progresses-and-2014-lurks/), with a loss of 2600 mining jobs.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/16-5

and if WA state blocks the coal export terminals, BigCoal will be really screwed.

boutons_deux

03-31-2014, 01:32 PM

How a progressive BLUE state moves forward, compared to fucked up Repug red state TX that protects its centralized, corporate electric providers.

California Grandfathers Existing Solar Arrays In, Rates Won’t Change For 20 Years

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has ruled that existing rooftop solar arrays can keep selling electricity to the grid at current rates for 20 years.http://i0.wp.com/www.theecoreport.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif?w=900

This applies to all customers (http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M089/K245/89245777.PDF) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company.

The CPUC’s decision was unanimous and in line with what Governor Jerry Brown intended when he signed Assembly Bill 327 into law.

At that time, Governor Brown wrote (http://www.theecoreport.com/green-blogs/area/usa/california/governor-bown-signs-ab-327/), “As the CPUC considers rules regarding grandfathering of net meter customers, I expect the Commission to ensure that customers who took service under net metering prior to reaching the statutory net metering cap on or before July 1, 2017, are protected under those rules for the expected life of their systems.”

The rules for California’s next Net Metering Policy (NEM 2.0) have not yet been decided upon, but must be finalized by December 2015.

“There will be an unprecedented surge of demand for solar power after today’s hearing, so it’s impossible to predict when the cap will be hit,” said Daniel Sullivan, president and founder of Sullivan Solar Power, “It is clearly in the best interest for property owners to go solar now, locking in 20 years of protections.”

“At Baker Electric Solar we’re pleased with the CPUC recent ruling that ensures that existing solar customers are guaranteed the current net energy metering (NEM 1.0) benefits,” said Keith Randhahn, Operations Manager at Baker Electric Solar. “Establishing a grandfathering deadline will also motivate homeowners who haven’t yet considered going solar to step up and investigate the advantages of becoming a renewable energy producer sooner than later.

“We fully support CALSEIA’s efforts to work with the CPUC as NEM 2.0 is developed and hope it will provide similar guarantees to the next generation of solar adopters. The new definition of net metering should be based on the entire value chain associated with solar power adoption. Solar benefits extend beyond the cost savings for the consumer and the benefit to the utility of distributed grid power. Value can be given to the less tangible environmental benefits as well as the economic benefits of job creation.”

“This is good news for existing customers and those signing through 2016,” said Martin Learn of Home Energy Systems. “Commissioner Peavey did not bow to other commissioners who wanted to reduce the grandfathering period. The vote was ultimately 4/0, because newly appointed commissioner Picker was in Germany and was able to remain off the record on this.

Future votes on even more important points may or may not go the way of the solar industry. Stay tuned, and express your opinion by letters, faxes, emails, and petitions, even in person in San Francisco or Sacramento. Utilities believe they are going to win the war even if we win a battle or two. They have plenty of experience influencing lawmakers and regulators.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/31/california-grandfathers-existing-solar-arrays-rates-wont-change-20-years/#bIBS1KQdYpgx4mdD.99

Wild Cobra

03-31-2014, 01:34 PM

Is that progress, or suppression?

As the rates go higher, "current rates" will have less value!

boutons_deux

03-31-2014, 01:36 PM

Is that progress, or suppression?

As the rates go higher, "current rates" will have less value!

yep, not clear if "current rates" has some kind of inflation, or other increase.

But the mo is clearly with distributed solar and against the PUC, so I expect it will get better in later rounds.

boutons_deux

03-31-2014, 02:38 PM

... while red states kill, cut renewable energy targets

Ohio Senate Republicans Launch Attack On State’s Renewable Energy Law (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/31/3420880/ohio-republicans-attack-renewable-law/)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/31/3420880/ohio-republicans-attack-renewable-law/

Wild Cobra

03-31-2014, 02:43 PM

boutons_deux

03-31-2014, 02:55 PM

Good.

Until alternate forms of energy are cost effective, this is a wise move.

but $10Bs of tax expenditures for BigOil, $Ts going back many decades, is ok.

Wild Cobra

03-31-2014, 03:23 PM

but $10Bs of tax expenditures for BigOil, $Ts going back many decades, is ok.
I didn't say or imply that now did I? I have repeatedly said I am against subsidies. How costly is green energy to the public without subsidies?

You don't need to try to prove to us any longer how stupid you are with ASSumptions. We already know.

boutons_deux

04-16-2014, 03:25 PM

Okie Repugs help centalized utilities obstruct distributed solar/wind with a secret, silent, non-debated item slipped into unrelated law.

Oklahoma Will Charge Customers Who Install Their Own Solar Panels (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/)

Oklahoma residents who produce their own energy through solar panels or small wind turbines on their property will now be charged an additional fee, the result of a new bill passed by the state legislature and expected to be signed into law by Gov. Mary Fallin (R).

On Monday, S.B. 1456 passed (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-house-passes-solar-surcharge-bill/article/3955378) the state House 83-5 after no debate.

The measure creates a new class of customers: those who install distributed power generation systems like solar panels or small wind turbines on their property and sell the excess energy back to the grid. While those with systems already installed won’t be affected, the new class of customers will now be charged a monthly fee — a shift that happened quickly and caught many in the state off guard.

“We knew nothing about it and all of a sudden it’s attached to some other bill,” Ctaci Gary, owner of Sun City Oklahoma, told ThinkProgress. “It just appeared out of nowhere.”

“We’re not anti-solar or anti-wind or trying to slow this down, we’re just trying to keep it fair,” Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. spokeswoman Kathleen O’Shea told the Oklahoman. “We’ve been studying this trend. We know it’s coming, and we want to get ahead of it.”

( :lol iow, we hate competition from distributed energy sources, so we obstruct barriers to block challenges to our monopoly)

Oklahoma “could be the first complete defeat for solar advocates in their fight against utility efforts to recover costs lost to DG [distributed generation] use,” writes (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/oklahoma-ends-solars-win-streak-against-utilities/251927/) Utility Dive.

Net metering survived attacks in Colorado (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/rooftop-solar-and-net-metering-win-a-big-decision-in-colorado) and Kansas (http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/03/21/compromise-may-help-preserve-net-metering-in-kansas/) and Vermont (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/03/vermont-boosts-solar-by-nearly-quadrupling-net-metering-cap/) recently increased its policy in a bipartisan effort. Last year, Arizona added what amounts to a $5 per month surcharge for solar customers, a move that was widely seen as a compromise, particularly after ALEC and other Koch-backed groups (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/01/2873071/arizona-solar-battle/) got involved.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/)

boutons_deux

04-24-2014, 02:18 PM

Solar Power Grows 400 Percent in Only 4 Years

Since 2010, EIA said, U.S. solar capacity increased 418 percent from 2,326 megawatts, accounting for 0.2 percent of total U.S. electric generation, to today's 12,057 MW, or 1.13 percent of U.S. generation.

More than half of that additional capacity — 5,251 MW -- has been installed by home and business owners participating in utility net metering programs that allow owners of solar systems to sell excess capacity back to their local utility at retail rates, according to EIA.

California has the largest net metered solar capacity, with 38 percent of the U.S. total, but Eastern states such as Massachusetts and New Jersey also have significant amounts of net metered solar energy, the agency said.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-power-grows-400-percent-in-only-4-years/?&WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20140424

and super-sunny/snow-free Texas, specifically SA CPS, has really no effective policies about FIT/PPA for promoting/rewarding distributed solar, as TX Repug protect their centralized electric utilities from competition.

TeyshaBlue

04-24-2014, 03:20 PM

https://sites.google.com/site/anatomyofglobalclimatechangevj/data-and-analysis
This may be why Tx is so heavy into wind. It's, by far, cheaper and more efficient than solar today.

One wind turbine generated the same amount of electricity per kWh as about 48704 solar panels. To manufacture and maintain 48704 solar panels, 28,126,560 kWh must be consumed. It took 23,822,339 kWh more to produce 48704 solar panels than it takes to produce one wind turbine.

When comparing the amount of CO2 released per kWh during a wind turbine and solar panel's life cycle, the wind turbine produced 4.64 grams of CO2/1kWh while the solar panel produced 70 grams of CO2/1kWh. This means the wind turbine released less CO2 than the solar panel to the atmosphere.

Energy balance is the amount of time needed to pay back the energy consumed. The lower the pay back time, the sooner the machine* starts producing energy that is renewable. The wind turbine took only 6.6 months to repay its energy balance while the solar panel took 3.2 years. Because the turbine took less time to repay its energy balance, the turbine can then profit from the energy generated after its payment.

Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is used to compare the quantity of energy supplied to the quantity of energy used in supply process. The higher the ratio, the less energy is consumed in producing the energy. The wind turbine's EROI is approximately 36.5 :1 while solar energy has a EROI of 5:1. We can deduce that that the wind turbines return more energy for a certain amount of energy invested.*

boutons_deux

04-24-2014, 03:50 PM

TeyshaBlue

04-24-2014, 04:15 PM

And you can put solar in Ms more rooftops than there are suitable wind turbine sites.

You would pretty much have to with a 1:48,704 production defficiency. :lol

boutons_deux

04-24-2014, 04:30 PM

eROI is not why ALEC, BigCarbon, conservatives, Edison Electric Inst, Republicans are trying to stop rooftop solar and kill renewable energy mandates.

boutons_deux

04-27-2014, 07:51 AM

You would pretty much have to with a 1:48,704 production defficiency. :lol

BigCarbon and nukes would be a lot more expensive if we could force them to pay all the $Ts in external costs they dump people + environment.

eg, BP got off extremely cheap adding more poison to the Gulf + coast already poisoned by BigOil.

http://media.npr.org/news/graphics/2010/04/gr_coal_mining_deaths_300.gif

boutons_deux

04-27-2014, 08:49 AM

Koch Brothers And ALEC Expand Fight On Clean Energy Users (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/25/3430835/clean-energy-solar-koch-alec/)

The right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an influential lobbying group composed of Republican politicians and big businesses, is in the middle of the state- and local-level clean energy disputes that are currently evolving almost as quickly as the solar and wind technologies themselves. ALEC, known for advancing corporate interests, is aligned with the Koch brothers in the current heated exchange — how to make distributed solar power look bad.

Solar power is growing rapidly across the U.S., with capacity up an astounding (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/24/3430258/us-solar-capacity-418-percent/) 418 percent in the last four years alone. This has given rise to two primary policy-level debates:

how much renewable power utilities are required to use, known as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and

figuring out the logistics of net metering, which guarantees homeowners or businesses with solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the power grid.

The Los Angeles times has recently been reporting (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420,0,2718030,full.story#axzz2zZQ9z37Z) out a story about how the Koch brothers are trying to roll back these solar initiatives across the country:

“The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation’s largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.”

ALEC, which has referred (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/02/3110731/california-rooftop-solar-2013/) to homeowners with their own solar panels as “freeriders on the system,” is deeply involved in both combating renewable energy mandates and modeling legislation that targets net metering.

Last year alone (https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ALEC-Coordinates-New-Attacks-on-Renewables-Mandates), ALEC pushed more than 70 bills in 37 states that would have impeded clean energy growth. While ALEC was highly unsuccessful (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/05/3022271/alec-solar-clean-energy-freeriders/) at actually passing anti-clean energy bills it advanced at the state level last year, a newdocument (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12457/revealed-alec%E2%80%99s-2014-attacks-environment) obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy reveals the intensity that ALEC is bringing to 2014 in its anti-environmental efforts — which include not just stifling clean energy, but opposing EPA coal regulations related to public health, promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, and working toward industry-friendly fracking rules.

The spreadsheet from March, 2014 lays out 131 bills that ALEC is tracking — even though ALEC has claimed (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/01/12372/ALEC_Denials_of_Bill_Tracking) that it doesn’t track its model legislation. According to analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy, eleven of the bills attempt to amend net metering laws. Currently 43 states and the District of Columbia have (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/05/3022271/alec-solar-clean-energy-freeriders/) net metering policies. Thirty-one of the bills relate to renewable energy production, with 29 states and the District of Columbia currently employing some form of RPS.

“An entire section was devoted to tracking renewable energy legislation, which suggests that this is still a top priority for ALEC in 2014 following their near total failure in 2013,” Nick Surgey, Director of Research for the Center for Media and Democracy, told ThinkProgress. “The number of bills in this document shows that, as toxic a brand as ALEC is becoming, it is still highly effective at getting the big polluters agenda introduced in the states.”

One example of this comes in Arizona, where the Los Angeles Times reports (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420,0,2718030,full.story#axzz2zZQ9z37Z) “a tangle of secret donors and operatives with ties to ALEC and the Kochs invested millions to persuade state regulators to impose a monthly fee of $50 to $100 on net-metering customers.”

While ALEC might be doing the dirty work on clean energy, the fossil fuel industry is the one calling the shots, and filling the coffers. This is what makes it so cynical for ALEC to claim to be defending the free market while at the same time trying to punish solar users who have found a way to economically generate clean energy and provide some of it back to the market.

Solar suppressors like ALEC recently claimed victory in Oklahoma, where Gov. Mary Fallin signed into law a bill that would allow (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/) utilities to charge customers who generate electricity from solar panels or small wind turbines. When Gov. Fallin signed the bill she also issued an executive order, an unusual move that few expected, that emphasized the importance of renewable energy in her Oklahoma First Energy Plan. According to Politifact, Fallin told (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/24/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-unleashes-oklahomas-sun-tax-misses-c/) state agencies to implement the bill in accordance with her energy plan, “which promotes wind and solar power as important forms of clean energy,” and for the commission to “consider the use of all available alternatives, including other rate reforms such as increased use of time-of-use rates, minimum bills, and demand charges.”

The bill lets electric utilities apply to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to establish a higher base customer charge for users of rooftop solar or small wind turbines. While the executive order isn’t binding, it guides the Corporate Commission, made up of statewide elected officials, with what to do.

“This has been on top of ALEC’s to-do list all year long, a likely result of the utility and fossil fuel corporations that are members of ALEC,” Matt Kasper, energy research assistant at the Center for American Progress, told ThinkProgress about the Oklahoma bill.

“When the Oklahoma utility companies do request the fee, all stakeholders should be called to the table for a transparent conversation. Hopefully the Oklahoma Corporation Commission will recognize the true value of customer-generated power.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/25/3430835/clean-energy-solar-koch-alec/

TDMVPDPOY

04-27-2014, 11:16 PM

there was an article down here last week, about ppl without solar are subsidizing ppl with solar to the tune of $400 a year....

since the suppliers cant make money out of ppl with solar, so they go and make up excuses increasing ppls bills without solar...

the suppliers down here are a bunch of dogs anyway, the country has enough coal to supply for 1000 years, but we are paying through the roof just to have electricity...

they never wanted solar, let alone the whole country to go green with solar...cause it kills their revenue, i look at those supplying companies, most of their share prices are around above $10 per

boutons_deux

04-28-2014, 06:11 AM

Fossil fuels face $30 trillion losses from climate, renewables (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/28-trillion-11465)

The global fossil fuel industry faces a loss of $US28 trillion ($A30.2 trillion) in revenues over the next two decades, if the world takes action to address climate change, cleans up pollution and moves to decarbonise the global energy system.

The assessment, made by leading European broking house Kepler Chevreux, underlines what’s at stake for the fossil fuel industry from a push to cleaner fuels and concerted efforts to reduce emissions, and helps explain the enormous push back from the oil and coal industries in particular against such policies.

The Kepler Chevreux report, led by Paris-based analyst Mark Lewis, a former head of Deutsche Bank’s carbon and energy team, says the oil industry has most to lose, with the potential loss of $US19.3 trillion in revenues from 2015 to 2035. The coal industry stands to lose $US4.9 trillion, while the gas industry $US4 trillion.

The latter two markets have particular implications for Australia, which is among the world’s largest exporters of LNG and thermal coal.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/28-trillion-11465

I see the AU conservatives are as hell bent as US/CA conservatives on killing renewables and promoting BigCarbon.

Wild Cobra

04-28-2014, 06:28 AM

Fossil fuels face $30 trillion losses from climate, renewables (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/28-trillion-11465)The global fossil fuel industry faces a loss of $US28 trillion ($A30.2 trillion) in revenues over the next two decades, if the world takes action to address climate change, cleans up pollution and moves to decarbonise the global energy system.
The assessment, made by leading European broking house Kepler Chevreux, underlines what’s at stake for the fossil fuel industry from a push to cleaner fuels and concerted efforts to reduce emissions, and helps explain the enormous push back from the oil and coal industries in particular against such policies.
The Kepler Chevreux report, led by Paris-based analyst Mark Lewis, a former head of Deutsche Bank’s carbon and energy team, says the oil industry has most to lose, with the potential loss of $US19.3 trillion in revenues from 2015 to 2035. The coal industry stands to lose $US4.9 trillion, while the gas industry $US4 trillion.
The latter two markets have particular implications for Australia, which is among the world’s largest exporters of LNG and thermal coal.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/28-trillion-11465

I see the AU conservatives are as hell bent as US/CA conservatives on killing renewables and promoting BigCarbon.

So?

boutons_deux

05-02-2014, 04:13 PM

Here's how blue states do it:

Hawaii’s Largest Utility Ordered To Help Customers Install More Rooftop Solar (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/02/3433587/hawaii-utility-more-solar/)

Hawaii’s energy regulator got tough with the state’s largest investor-owned utility this week, putting forth a plan for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) to reduce energy costs and connect more rooftop solar systems to the electric grid.

“It is now incumbent upon the Hawaiian Electric Companies to use this road map diligently and promptly to move forward,” said (http://khon2.com/2014/04/29/state-orders-hawaiian-electric-companies-to-lower-costs-address-challenges/) commissioner Lorraine Akiba of the Public Utilities Commission.
HECO has been the target of substantial criticism from Hawaiians lately as customers have grown weary of sky-high electricity bills and difficulty installing their own solar panels to mitigate those costs. A recent poll (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/27/new-poll-shows-hawaiian-electric-heco-slowing-rooftop-solar/) found that 94 percent of Hawaii residents support more rooftop solar, and 90 percent believe that HECO is slowing rooftop solar to protect its profits.

The PUC ruled that HECO was not moving fast enough to address key sources of customer frustration, namely challenges connecting solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to the electric grid. “The PUC is giving Hawaiian Electric up to 120 days to come up with a more comprehensive strategy that can lower energy costs and help connect more PV systems to the grid,” KHON2 News reported (http://khon2.com/2014/04/29/state-orders-hawaiian-electric-companies-to-lower-costs-address-challenges/).

The rapid growth in rooftop solar (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/24/3430258/us-solar-capacity-418-percent/) is catching utilities off-guard across the U.S. and many are fighting back against the trend due to the threat it poses to their bottom line. Quite simply, more customers installing their own rooftop solar panels means they’re producing more of their own electricity and buying less from their utility company.

( otoh, red states )

The battle has grown particularly contentious in states like Arizona, where the state’s largest utility, Arizona Public Service Company (APS), has gone as far as to launch a multi-million dollar lobbying and marketing campaign against solar energy, partnering with dark money organizations funded by Charles and David Koch. The latest attack (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/30/3432172/arizona-solar-property-tax/) against rooftop solar in Arizona comes in the form of a potential property tax being imposed on customers who lease solar their solar systems — the vast majority of the state’s solar customers.

And Oklahoma, looking to get ahead of the looming threat, passed legislation (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/) imposing a fee on customers who install solar panels or small wind turbines on their own property. Gov. Mary Fallin (R) signed the measure last month but took the rare step of issuing an executive order (http://newsok.com/gov.-mary-fallin-signs-distributed-generation-bill/article/4248019) emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and fair implementation of the new legislation.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/02/3433587/hawaii-utility-more-solar/

boutons_deux

05-02-2014, 04:23 PM

So?

The New Abolitionism

Now here’s the terrifying part. The Carbon Tracker Initiative, a consortium of financial analysts and environmentalists, set out to tally (http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Unburnable-Carbon-Full-rev2.pdf) the amount of carbon contained in the proven fossil fuel reserves of the world’s energy companies and major fossil fuel–producing countries. That is, the total amount of carbon we know is in the ground that we can, with present technology, extract, burn and put into the atmosphere. The number that the Carbon Tracker Initiative came up with is… 2,795 gigatons. Which means the total amount of known, proven extractable fossil fuel in the ground at this very moment is almost five times the amount we can safely burn.

Proceeding from this fact, McKibben leads us inexorably to the staggering conclusion that the work of the climate movement is to find a way to force the powers that be, from the government of Saudi Arabia to the board and shareholders of ExxonMobil, to leave 80 percent of the carbon they have claims on in the ground. That stuff you own, that property you’re counting on and pricing into your stocks? You can’t have it.

...

The last time in American history that some powerful set of interests relinquished its claim on $10 trillion of wealth was in 1865—and then only after four years and more than 600,000 lives lost in the bloodiest, most horrific war we’ve ever fought.

...

In fact, the parallel I want to highlight is between the opponents of slavery and the opponents of fossil fuels. Because the abolitionists were ultimately successful, it’s all too easy to lose sight of just how radical their demand was at the time: that some of the wealthiest people in the country would have to give up their wealth. That liquidation of private wealth is the only precedent for what today’s climate justice movement is rightly demanding: that trillions of dollars of fossil fuel stay in the ground. It is an audacious demand, and those making it should be clear-eyed about just what they’re asking. They should also recognize that, like the abolitionists of yore, their task may be as much instigation and disruption as it is persuasion. There is no way around conflict with this much money on the line, no available solution that makes everyone happy. No use trying to persuade people otherwise.

If, indeed, what we need to save the earth is to forcibly pry trillions of dollars of wealth out of the hands of its owners, and if the only precedent for that is the liberation of the slaves—well, then you wouldn’t be crazy if you concluded that we’re doomed, since that result was achieved only through the most brutal extended war in our nation’s history.

While it is immensely, unfathomably profitable, it requires ungodly amounts of money to dig and drill the earth, money to pump and refine and transport the fuel so that it can go from the fossilized plant matter thousands of feet beneath the earth’s surface into your Honda. And that constant need for billions of new dollars in investment capital is the industry’s Achilles’ heel.

A variety of forces are now attacking precisely this vulnerability. The movement to stop the Keystone XL pipeline is probably the largest social movement in American history directed at stopping a piece of capital investment, which is what the pipeline is. Because without that pipeline, a lot of the dirty fuel trapped in the Alberta tar sands is too costly to be worth pulling out.

eighteen foundations, twenty-seven religious institutions, twenty-two cities, and eleven colleges and universities have committed (http://gofossilfree.org/commitments/) themselves to divestment. Together, they have pledged to divest hundreds of millions of dollars from the fossil fuel companies so far.

Of course, that’s a drop in the global pool of capital. But some of the largest funds in the world are sovereign wealth funds, which are subject to political pressure. The largest such fund belongs to Norway, which is seriously considering divesting from fossil fuels.

Investors, even those unmotivated by stewardship of the planet, have reason to be suspicious of the fossil fuel companies. Right now, they are seeing their investment dollars diverted from paying dividends to doing something downright insane: searching for new reserves. Globally, the industry spends $1.8 billion a day (http://carbontracker.live.kiln.it/Unburnable-Carbon-2-Web-Version.pdf) on exploration. As one longtime energy industry insider pointed out to me, fossil fuel companies are spending much more on exploring for new reserves than they are posting in profits.

This means that fossil fuel companies are taking their investors’ money and spending it on this extremely expensive suicide mission. Every single day. If investors say, “Stop it—we want that money back as dividends rather than being spent on exploration,” then, according to this industry insider, “what that means is, literally, the oil and gas companies don’t have a viable business model. If all your investors say that, and all the analysts start saying that, they can no longer grow as businesses.”

As the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” What the climate justice movement is demanding is the ultimate abolition of fossil fuels. And our fates all depend on whether they succeed.

http://www.thenation.com/article/179461/new-abolitionism

SnakeBoy

05-02-2014, 05:17 PM

lol "climate justice movement"

boutons_deux

05-05-2014, 05:10 AM

Duke Energy Attacks Rooftop Solar EnergyThe dirty little tricks that big energy companies use to maintain their stranglehold over their customers, while continuing to pollute the very regions the serve, have now taken on a new twist. Duke Energy, whose operations were responsible for spilling 82,000 tons of coal ash (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/04/north-carolina-coal-ash-spill/) into the Dan River, is now trying to run a misinformation campaign that attacks rooftop solar energy (http://costofsolar.com/?lead+source=Ecopreneurist) across the company’s service territories in Southern states.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/04/duke-energy-attacks-rooftop-solar-energy/#rfkKPu6xf660jBx6.99

The lies and propaganda against rooftop solar proves that centralized electric utilities see it as a serious threat to their local monopolies and guaranteed cash flow.

sickdsm

05-06-2014, 04:46 PM

I'd like to learn a little more about how this project went. I have a sister who works with this sort of thing under USDA, she's trying to interest me in it. Sheclaimed a 3 yr payback. 25% rebate, 15% tax credit.

On a side note.

Ive heard stories (one firsthand) about ontarios energy mess. High rates supposedly bc of the solar and wind projects. Govt backed out of promises. Big users of electrity are buying oil fired generators and going off grid. The guy i talked to did go off grid. I wasnt sure if rates were the same regarding res. or ind.

boutons_deux

05-06-2014, 05:01 PM

Ive heard stories (one firsthand) about ontarios energy mess. High rates supposedly bc of the solar and wind projects. Govt backed out of promises. Big users of electrity are buying oil fired generators and going off grid. The guy i talked to did go off grid. I wasnt sure if rates were the same regarding res. or ind.

http://thebiggreenlie.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/ontarios-energy-sector-just-one-helluva-mess/

SnakeBoy

05-06-2014, 06:13 PM

Ive heard stories (one firsthand) about ontarios energy mess. High rates supposedly bc of the solar and wind projects. Govt backed out of promises. Big users of electrity are buying oil fired generators and going off grid. The guy i talked to did go off grid. I wasnt sure if rates were the same regarding res. or ind.

If you want to really see how to make an energy mess by "going green" then look no further than Germany.

boutons_deux

05-07-2014, 08:26 AM

If you want to really see how to make an energy mess by "going green" then look no further than Germany.

link us to the green disaster in Germany.

TeyshaBlue

05-07-2014, 09:38 AM

boutons_deux

05-07-2014, 10:05 AM

Probably not in your rss feed. :lol

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/germany-to-add-most-coal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/merkel-s-offshore-wind-power-dream-for-germany-stalls.html

Unlike ACA needing fixes that the Repugs will obstruct, I'm sure the Germans will figure out a huge undertaking, and they won't have the Repugs to fuck it all up.

German mgmt and German unions actually cooperate for the good of all Germany, unlike American corps that bust unions to enrich only themselves in their never-ending, successful War on Employees.

You BigCarbon eaters, GFY and stick your schadenfreude up your asses.

Germany is at least trying, esp in the distributed/rooftop solar, whereas America, with its fragile, under-invested grid, is obstructed by electric utilities and corporate lobbyists.

TeyshaBlue

05-07-2014, 10:38 AM

lol boutons.

boutons_deux

05-07-2014, 10:42 AM

btw, even China is making efforts. Their YOY increase in coal demand is down from nearly 20% to about 2%, thanks to huge investment in wind and solar.

One of Germany's renewables project problems is that Chinese turbines underprice Euro turbines, much like China dumps solar panels on US/CA markets. I'd support a huge tariff on Chinese solar and wind turbines to kill the game rigging.

While the Repugs try to gut/destroy the EPA, CWA, etc, etc.

Wild Cobra

05-07-2014, 11:42 AM

btw, even China is making efforts. Their YOY increase in coal demand is down from nearly 20% to about 2%, thanks to huge investment in wind and solar.

China would be so bad off if they would modernize the coal burning process with scrubbers.

One of Germany's renewables project problems is that Chinese turbines underprice Euro turbines, much like China dumps solar panels on US/CA markets. I'd support a huge tariff on Chinese solar and wind turbines to kill the game rigging.

Cool... You really want to eliminate the Clinton Free Trade Zone?

While the Repugs try to gut/destroy the EPA, CWA, etc, etc.
No, they just see that regulatory commissions are going to far with cumbersome regulations. But then, good little libtards like you love to have an over reaching authoritarian government when it comes to hurting big business. Don't you?

boutons_deux

05-07-2014, 01:38 PM

China would be so bad off if they would modernize the coal burning process with scrubbers.

Cool... You really want to eliminate the Clinton Free Trade Zone?

No, they just see that regulatory commissions are going to far with cumbersome regulations. But then, good little libtards like you love to have an over reaching authoritarian government when it comes to hurting big business. Don't you?

scrubbers don't remove the C02.

Two US plants are coming on line soon with CCS, where the captured CO2 will help or replace water in fracking.

Free trade ain't free if one partner is depressing its currency AND/OR dumping product in foreign markets.

for BigCorps, "cumbersome" is ANY regulation that protects workers or the environment.

Wild Cobra

05-07-2014, 01:53 PM

scrubbers don't remove the C02.

Two US plants are coming on line soon with CCS, where the captured CO2 will help or replace water in fracking.

Free trade ain't free if one partner is depressing its currency AND/OR dumping product in foreign markets.

for BigCorps, "cumbersome" is ANY regulation that protects workers or the environment.
We know for certain the aerosols emitted by coal burning are bad. Neither side disagrees with that.

It is clearly debatable if CO2 is significant.

Wake up and smell the truth, and stop being such a Larry.

boutons_deux

05-07-2014, 02:03 PM

It is clearly debatable if CO2 is significant.

it's a false debate fabricated by BigCarbon and its shills like yourself.

as if facts would stop your shilling:

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

Wild Cobra

05-07-2014, 02:07 PM

it's a false debate fabricated by BigCarbon and its shills like yourself.

as if facts would stop your shilling:

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

Why can't you focus on agreeing that soot and other aerosols, emitted by old coal power plants, is harmful?

boutons_deux

05-07-2014, 03:14 PM

Why can't you focus on agreeing that soot and other aerosols, emitted by old coal power plants, is harmful?

Agreeing with you on anything would be a bad as complimenting TB :lol on his long-windedness

Any shit, including heat, coming out coal-fired electrical plants is pollution to be stopped.

TeyshaBlue

05-07-2014, 05:38 PM

No need to summon walls of texts from moonbat blogs. I can bitch slap you in three lines. :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230512&page=2&p=7311167&viewfull=1#post7311167

TeyshaBlue

05-10-2014, 09:30 AM

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/solar-highway-indiegogo/?ncid=rss_truncated

Cool idea. I've got questions around heat/cold expansion/contraction tho. Wonder how it handles extreme heat?

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 10:07 AM

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/solar-highway-indiegogo/?ncid=rss_truncated

Cool idea. I've got questions around heat/cold expansion/contraction tho. Wonder how it handles extreme heat?

my moonbat RSS feeds pushed this my way.

I said "WTF"? how much would it cost? what about surface roughness to prevent skidding? durability, years? decades? maintenance costs? scratching of the surface by road wear that blocks light?

And the above-all-WTF, USA's continent is hardly populated, with Ms of acres of vacant land, esp in the useless, sterile semi-desert, desert from San Antonio to San Diego being available for massive solar panel farms.

Want to get double use of land used for highways while reducing oil consumption? Build elevated railways for high-speed, fully electrified trains (no diesel-electric kludge).

Wild Cobra

05-10-2014, 10:37 AM

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/solar-highway-indiegogo/?ncid=rss_truncated

Cool idea. I've got questions around heat/cold expansion/contraction tho. Wonder how it handles extreme heat?
I suspect that's less of a problem than this... I wonder more, how long of life they have before scuffing, and wearing down. What about cars with dripping oils and gas? Do the plastics used hold up to that, and the UV light from the sun?

Wild Cobra

05-10-2014, 10:45 AM

my moonbat RSS feeds pushed this my way.

I said "WTF"? how much would it cost? what about surface roughness to prevent skidding? durability, years? decades? maintenance costs? scratching of the surface by road wear that blocks light?

My concerns as well, but I suspect a there is a material that will work. Thing is, to get both the chemical resistance for oil fuel, antifreeze, and UV light... I also wonder at what frequency they would have to be individually remove the panel comers and replace them. Asphalt and concrete can be allowed to wear considerable before they are repaved. I can't imaging such processes lasting even 10% the time for which repaving in needed.

And the above-all-WTF, USA's continent is hardly populated, with Ms of acres of vacant land, esp in the useless, sterile semi-desert, desert from San Antonio to San Diego being available for massive solar panel farms.

Solar panels will cause their own version of climate change. maybe we should see how some of these current projects work before implementing them real wide.

Want to get double use of land used for highways while reducing oil consumption? Build elevated railways for high-speed, fully electrified trains (no diesel-electric kludge).
One reason why cars won out over trolly's in the past is people wanted their individual freedom of movement. Some would say public transportation is cheaper, but that only fits for a small number of people.

Elevated high speed rail? I challenge you to do a cost review analysis for such a thing...

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 11:15 AM

"Solar panels will cause their own version of climate change"

yes, climate change to the good, less coal/natgas burning means less CO2.

Wild Cobra

05-10-2014, 11:35 AM

"Solar panels will cause their own version of climate change"

yes, climate change to the good, less coal/natgas burning means less CO2.

There is more to it than that. the shade and conversion of sunlight to electricity also reduces the heat where they are located. They might be capable of inducing regional climate change.

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 12:20 PM

There is more to it than that. the shade and conversion of sunlight to electricity also reduces the heat where they are located. They might be capable of inducing regional climate change.

less heat on the ground shaded by solar panels in semi-desert or desert? :lol

What %age of the surface of the 1200 miles between SA and SD would have to be covered to realize your febrile fantasy of solar panels directly changing the weather? :lol

Wild Cobra

05-10-2014, 12:29 PM

less heat on the ground shaded by solar panels in semi-desert or desert? :lol

What %age of the surface of the 1200 miles between SA and SD would have to be covered to realize your febrile fantasy of solar panels directly changing the weather? :lol
I don't know.

I only know it does cause some change. I will not attempt to quantify it. Consider however when we do start increasing the percentage of desert, covered by solar cells or mirrors.

I'm not saying the impact would be negative, in fact, I think it would be positive.

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 12:36 PM

covering your sunbelt home's roof with solar panels certainly blocks heat, reduces a/c costs.

everything has negative side effects to be weighed against the positive.

It would take a hell of a lot of negative side effects of 100K of acres of solar panels to convince me that would negate the positive of extracting/burning less carbon fuel.

Wild Cobra

05-10-2014, 12:50 PM

It would take a hell of a lot of negative side effects of 100K of acres of solar panels to convince me that would negate the positive of extracting/burning less carbon fuel.
I didn't say it would be negative.

Can't climate change be positive?

What if... What if we cooled the desert just enough, that more vegetation started coming to life again?

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 02:02 PM

Analysis of the Potential for a Heat Island Effect in Large Solar Farms

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/13_39th%20IEEE%20PVSC_%20VMF_YY_Heat%20Island%20Ef fect.pdf

TeyshaBlue

05-10-2014, 02:12 PM

my moonbat RSS feeds pushed this my way.

I said "WTF"? how much would it cost? what about surface roughness to prevent skidding? durability, years? decades? maintenance costs? scratching of the surface by road wear that blocks light?

And the above-all-WTF, USA's continent is hardly populated, with Ms of acres of vacant land, esp in the useless, sterile semi-desert, desert from San Antonio to San Diego being available for massive solar panel farms.

Want to get double use of land used for highways while reducing oil consumption? Build elevated railways for high-speed, fully electrified trains (no diesel-electric kludge).

The video showed quite a bit of texture (circular raised areas) so I imagine traction would be quite good... probably noisy as hell tho.
I kinda thought it was an answer to a question nobody was asking. But as a foundation for Smart roads, it makes sense.... The solar aspect is just frosting on the cake.

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 02:35 PM

I'd much rather see navigation aids in or around roads, plus correlating/voting input from high-resolution GPS, to facilitate self-driving cars.

Emina Sendijarevic tells Wired.co.uk:

"Research on smart transportation systems and smart roads has existed for over 30 years — call any transportation and infrastructure specialist and you'll find out yourself. ...

What's lacking is the implementation of those innovations and making those innovations intuitive and valuable to the end-consumers — drivers."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/14/302987616/dutch-test-glow-in-the-dark-road-of-the-future

but, as the Repugs tell the USA, "we're broke" (ie, their hated 99% is broke and their beloved 1% got all the money)

http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/04/30/us/20110430_usc609.gif

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/infra_furm.png

boutons_deux

05-10-2014, 03:55 PM

Consumers To Take Control Of Solar Energy Supply, Usage, Storage, & Costs

Last week we wrote that some utilities in Australia – particularly those in regional areas (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/sa-network-operator-rural-communities-quit-grid-38514)– accepted that the future would bring big changes to the way energy was produced and delivered, (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/stand-alone-power-becomes-growing-reality-utilities-82298) and that communities would use local renewable energy sources and storage (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/australian-networks-see-future-of-renewables-based-micro-grids-42817)to look after their own needs.

But what if that change came quicker than even these utilities expected? And if that extended into big towns and the suburbs of major cities? And what if it resulted in a reduction in electricity prices for nearly all consumers?

That is the scenario being painted to network operators and the utilities industry by global consulting firm PwC, which says the sector is about to go an unprecedented and rapid transition as dramatic as that which affected other industries.

Electricity utilities, it says, are about to face their “Kodak moment” and the key is the emergence of rooftop solar, and its ability provide a cheap source of electricity, as well as other “enabling” technologies such as storage and smart software.

This, says Mark Coughlin, the power utilities leader for PwC, will fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between utility and the consumer. It will effectively shift the power from the utility to the customer, be they households or businesses, and will challenge the very “right to survive” of the traditional utility.

“This traditional utility model where the company controls the ‘electrons’ and the consumer has little choice is on its last legs – this model is struggling to meet customer needs,” Coughlin says.

“Once a household or a business has a solar panel on the roof or some other power source they are no longer a passive consumer.”

He says that customers are now emerging as competitors to the the utilities. “In as little as the next five years consumers will exert unprecedented control over energy supply, usage, service standards and costs,” Coughlin told the Energy Networks Association conference last week.

Coughlin’s comments, and those of many at the conference, reflect the fact that despite the common view that Australia has cheap energy sources, it does not have a cheap form of delivery of that energy from the centralized power generators to the consumer power sockets.

Hence the emergence of rooftop solar, which is already cheaper than socket-power because it has no delivery costs, and which is starting to challenge some fossil fuel generation, such as rising gas costs, on generation price.

This, coupled with the emergence of battery and other storage technologies, smart meters, and other software that allows energy to be stored and delivered at lower cost on a smaller network, is challenging the traditional business model of the industry.

“Smart grids, smart meters and customer energy management ‘gadgets’are only the beginning of what is possible,” PwC says in a new report Utility of the Future. Already we can control our home electronics and entertainment via our smart phones and tablets – why not our energy usage on a minute-by-minute basis?”

Coughlin says that these technologies – and new financing structures – will open the door to a flood of new entrants to the industry, be they telco, technology providers, financiers and systems managers, and existing utilities will also rush to form new alliances and joint ventures.

In data, this will include the likes of Google and Apple, in finance it will range from huge investors such as Warren Buffett (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/warren-buffetts-energy-rules-wind-is-cheaper-than-coal-83767)and Macquarie Group. (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/macquarie-obtains-electricity-retail-licence-as-solar-business-builds-49883) But PwC says it will also come from local sources. “We expect to see small crowd-funded energy companies emerge in Australia within the next three years,” it predicts.

“Customer energy contracts will greatly favour the customer – suppliers will have little choice in the matter!” the PwC report says, noting that changes to the way services are offered are likely to occur within three years.

“This will mark a major, transformational shift for both the utility sector and customers. “ And it will drive benefits to consumers. “In some cases this will see customers paying more for certainty of supply. In other cases we see the distinct possibility that costs will reduce for customers.”

PwC says the biggest challenge will affect the large energy retail businesses, the major brand names which in Australia include Origin Energy, AGL Energy and EnergyAustralia. “The existing shape of the energy retail business will not survive in its current state, given the atrophy of retail growth in traditional markets,” it says.
PwC predicts that the retail market will turn into a “channel fight” focused on costs and choice. The retail sector could be subsumed into other large scale “retail engines” such as data providers and telcos, and other in house service providers. And there is likely to be a big turf war with the network distributor companies over who owns those assets.

“The key will be who has ownership and operational control of distributed generation assets – these will be the swing factor in who can provide the most innovative services for customers.”

Generators will struggle because of the combined impact of falling demand, and rival energy sources, such as rooftop solar. In Europe, nearly $500 billion has been wiped from the value of utility assets – primarily generators – as a result of the impact of new technologies.

PwC says Australian generators are facing the same headwinds – as can be indicated already by the lack of profits (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/stanwell-blames-solar-for-decline-in-fossil-fuel-baseload-54543), the write-downs (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/massive-losses-hit-energyaustralia-as-demand-falls-solar-soars-67443), and the closures (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/gas-price-surge-sends-wrecking-ball-through-energy-markets-19541) and the reassignments (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/origin-confirms-darling-downs-become-peaking-55474)in the coal and gas industry. This underpins the reasons for the incumbent industry to try and have mechanisms such as the renewable energy target stopped in their tracks.

“Contracting for long-term demand will become increasingly difficult as time passes given viable alternative sources of supply will almost certainly become available within 10 years,” PwC writes.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/10/consumers-take-control-solar-energy-supply-usage-storage-costs/#4Sm14Pe5pWtHLir3.99

boutons_deux

05-14-2014, 11:23 AM

What happens when BigCarbon doesn't dictate govt policy:

Germany Generates Record-Setting 74 Percent of Energy From Renewables

Germany remains one of the best examples around the world for countries, regions and communities with dreams of amping up their renewable energy (http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/) generation.
The country on Sunday set a record by generating 74 percent of energy from renewable sources, according to Renewables International (http://www.renewablesinternational.net/germanys-record-renewable-performance/150/537/78770/).
The news follows a record-setting first quarter for the country, with renewables meeting 27 percent of demand (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/renewables-meet-record-27-percent-of-german-electricity-demand.html). Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity during this year’s first three months, compared up to 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year, the Federal Association of Energy and Water Industries told Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-09/renewables-meet-record-27-percent-of-german-electricity-demand.html).

http://files.cdn.ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/wind8.jpeg

“In fact, there are no technical and economic obstacles to go first to 20 percent of annual electricity demand penetration rate from a combination of those two technologies, then 50 percent and beyond by combining them with other renewables and energy efficiency measures and some progressive storage solutions at a modest level.”

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/14/germany-record-setting-renewables/

btw, the BigCarbon Senators just blocked an energy efficiency bill.

xrayzebra

05-20-2014, 02:19 PM

Hey CC, have you seen this.

CPS Energy Approves New Solar Fees

http://www.therivardreport.com/cps-energy-proposes-facility-charge-solar-customers/

So much for renewable energy savings.

CosmicCowboy

05-20-2014, 03:13 PM

Hadn't seen it but looks like I am still grandfathered in. CPS would be nuts to take on the early adapters like me. I literally have a contract with CPS signed by both parties that spells out exactly what the CPS rebates and fees were and what my financial responsibilities were. The argument that we need too pay our "fair share" for infrastructure is bullshit. We still pay the going rate for electricity generated by CPS that we purchase. CPS clearly wants to kill distributed solar in favor of their overpriced "farms" where they pay 13 cents a KW for power they sell delivered to the consumer for 11 cents. Makes no sense at all.

boutons_deux

05-20-2014, 03:26 PM

Conservative assholes in Australia favoring utilities/coal over solar:

Abbott’s clean energy cull: The green projects we may never see (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/abbotts-clean-energy-cull-the-green-projects-we-may-never-see-76419)

The systematic dismantling of clean energy support schemes by the Abbott government – from the carbon price, the anticipated neutering of the renewable energy target, and the removal of key financial institutions – has effectively brought a halt to the industry in Australia.

Apart from a number of wind projects contracted before Tony Abbott’s election last year, or solar farms supported by the ACT government’s 90 per cent renewable energy target, the industry is pretty much at a standstill. Leading Australian renewable energy developers are pushing their focus on international markets, international players are re-assessing their presence in Australia, local manufacturers are fearing the worst, and the market is bracing for a jobs and a brain drain.

There are some 12,000MW of wind projects currently on hold in Australia, awaiting a market signal to unlock finance that may never come. These include 2,500MW of projects from NZ’s TrustPower, and dozens of other projects owned by foreign and domestic companies. An unknown number – but suspected to be around 3,000MW – of solar projects, both small scale and large scale, are in a similar position.

But it is the area of emerging technologies that will be hit hardest, as prospects for financing are removed by the conservative government’s grim determination to remove both the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and the $3.1 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency – two agencies that could unlock nearly $30 billion of private investment in world leading technologies, and open the floodgates for billions more.

While ARENA has vowed to get on with business of funding renewables projects (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/arena-to-continue-operations-as-long-as-senate-supports-it-45401) unless and until the Abbott government can make good on its Budget promise to axe the agency, it’s worth taking stock of what is at stake if the Coalition’s repeal of the ARENA Act makes it through the Senate come July.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/abbotts-clean-energy-cull-the-green-projects-we-may-never-see-76419

boutons_deux

05-20-2014, 03:31 PM

Hey CC, have you seen this.

CPS Energy Approves New Solar Fees

http://www.therivardreport.com/cps-energy-proposes-facility-charge-solar-customers/

So much for renewable energy savings.

“Solar is great … but think in terms of the entire customer base.”

:lol CPS is thinking in terms of how to maintain their profits, how to protect their monopoly, and how to kill distributed solar.

boutons_deux

05-21-2014, 03:33 PM

Austin’s Super Cheap Solar Agreement (5¢/kWh) Goes To Recurrent Energy

The Recurrent Energy press release explains that it received “an award from Austin Energy for 150 MW of solar capacity in West Texas. The power will be delivered to Austin Energy pursuant to a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/21/austin-energy-cheap-solar-5-cents-kwh-recurrent-energy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

==============================

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, & Nuclear)

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/13/solar-sold-less-5%C2%A2kwh-austin-texas/

CosmicCowboy

05-23-2014, 06:45 AM

Just got a letter from CPS confirming I am grandfathered in and not subject to the new fees. Sweet. That added about 20k to the value of my house.

xrayzebra

05-23-2014, 10:55 AM

boutons, self-driving cars. I see where several manufacturers are coming out with models as soon as this year. I hope they work as advertised. It may be something that keeps old geezers like myself and my wife independent. It wont bother me to sit back and let someone or something doing the grunt work fighting the traffic while I watch TV or read.

Just not sure I will be able to afford one of these smart vehicles. Article I read brought out some very interesting points, like what happens when you have a bad accident involving serious injury or death. Who gets sued?

boutons_deux

05-23-2014, 11:36 AM

too many $Bs from too many car mfrs and Google, for self driving NOT to arrive some day.

But XZ and I will be worm cuisine before it happens.

boutons_deux

05-23-2014, 02:22 PM

Confederate BLIND SQUIRREL news

South Carolina Prepares for Solar Revolution With Historic 105-0 State House Vote

South Carolina’s House of Representatives voted in favor of legislation that would expand solar energy in a fledgling market by a whopping 105-0 count, The State (http://www.thestate.com/2014/05/21/3459478/solar-shining-after-dark-ages.html?sp=/99/132/312/169/) reported. A similar version recently passed the state senate. The final version should soon be on Gov. Nikki Haley’s desk for a signature.

The bill comes after two years of intense negotiations. It is considered a compromise bill between utilities like SCE&G and Duke Energy and green groups like the Southern Environmental Law Center (http://www.southernenvironment.org/) and the S.C. Coastal Conservation League (http://coastalconservationleague.org/).

It’s nowhere near as aggressive as laws in other states, but it represents a start. Under the legislation, investor-owned utilities in South Carolina must buy or invest in more solar energy by 2021. They must get 2 percent of their average five-year peak power demand from solar panels.

“Across the South, states like North Carolina and Georgia have already moved to take advantage of local, affordable solar power, and this compromise legislation is what South Carolinians have been waiting for,” Katie Ottenweller, head of Southern Environmental Law Center’s solar initiative, said in a statement (http://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/press-releases/selc-praises-south-carolina-solar-power-bill) earlier this year.

“With smart, forward-looking policies in place, the state’s solar market can and will grow rapidly, bringing enormous benefits to the people of South Carolina.”

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/22/south-carolina-solar-state-house-vote/

Nothing about encouraging distributed, rooftop solar, so as to protect Duke and other centralized electricity providers.

Wild Cobra

05-23-2014, 08:13 PM

That many politicians agree...

bad sign.

How many tax payers are getting screwed?

boutons_deux

05-24-2014, 07:28 AM

"CPS is thinking in terms of how to maintain their profits, how to protect their monopoly, and how to kill distributed solar."

And San Antonio city council, San Antonio municipality owns CPS, won't touch their milk cow CPS which send $200M to $300M/year to the city bank account. I went to a District 8 citizens meeting held by Ron Nirenburg. I asked about SA govt promoting roof top solar. He blew me off, saying that was CPS' business. Next ...

TDMVPDPOY

06-01-2014, 02:27 AM

the fkn monkey down here doesnt believe in renewable energy cause most of his rich friends are coal bosses and he probably has shares into these coal mining companies or energy providers...

fkn piece of shit turning this country into the socialist bullshit he left for....

boutons_deux

06-01-2014, 08:37 AM

U.S. Residential Solar Just Beat Commercial Installations For The First Time (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/31/3443520/us-residential-solar-beat-commercial/)

The first quarter of 2014 was another big one for the U.S. solar industry, with 74 percent of all new electricity generation across the country coming from solar power. The 1,330 megawatts of solar photovoltaics (PV) installed last quarter bring the total in the U.S. up to 14.8 gigawatts of installed capacity — enough to power three million homes, according (http://www.seia.org/research-resources/us-solar-market-insight) to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

In addition to being the largest quarter ever for concentrating solar power (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/09/2756771/arizona-solar-plant-salt/), a method of large-scale solar generation that uses a unique ‘salt battery’ to allow the solar plant to keep producing power even when the sun goes down, it was also the first time (http://www.solarreviews.com/news/home-solar-outpaces-commercial-1q-14-052914/) in the history of SEIA’s reports that residential solar installations surpassed commercial in the same time period. 232 MW of residential PV were installed in the first quarter, compared to 225 MW of commercial solar.

The remarkable growth of rooftop solar across the U.S. is sparking battles in multiple states as customers, utilities, and the solar industry wrestle with how solar customers should be compensated for the excess power they send back to the grid and whether they should be charged additional fees for maintenance and other costs incurred by the utility. And those fights will likely spread, considering more than one-third of the residential PV installations in the first quarter came online without any state incentive, another first.

Solar-friendly policies like incentives are particularly important for ensuring middle class families are able to adopt solar power for their homes. And, as a recent analysis (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/21/2723401/middle-class-rooftop-solar-revolution/) by the Center for American Progress found, it’s middle class families that are driving the rooftop solar revolution in the U.S., with “more than 60 percent of solar installations are occurring in zip codes with median incomes ranging from $40,000 to $90,000.”

This revolution is a threat (http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2014/05/28/barclays-just-threw-gasoline-on-the-fire-that-is-the-battle-between-utilities-and-the-solar-industry/) to utilities’ current business model, since more customers going solar means they’re buying less electricity from the utility. The result in several states has been a push by utilities to scale back incentives or even charge solar customers an additional fee. In Arizona, for instance, Arizona Public Service (APS) has aggressively sought (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/01/2873071/arizona-solar-battle/) to undercut residential solar and last fall, the state’s energy regulator voted to add what amounts to a $5 per month surcharge on solar customers. The decision was widely viewed as a compromise, particularly considering the considerable amount of money spent by APS and outside groups, several of which were funded by petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch.

The fight in Arizona is clearly far from over, however, as a new interpretation of state law could lead to customers who lease their solar panels being forced to pay (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/30/3432172/arizona-solar-property-tax/) property taxes on the systems — a move the state’s solar advocates say is again being driven by APS.

In Oklahoma, the possibility of an additional fee (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-solar-wind/) being assessed on customers who install their own solar panels or small wind turbines sparked outrage and prompted Gov. Mary Fallin (R) to take the rare step of issuing an executive order emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and equitable implementation of the new legislation.

Even San Antonio’s solar-friendly ???? :lol :lol municipal utility, CPS Energy, shocked solar installers recently by proposing an additional fee (http://www.utilitydive.com/news/cps-energy-wants-to-charge-solar-fees/265768/) on solar customers that would be even larger than Arizona’s. Advocates are currently working to reach a compromise with the utility before the proposal moves to the city council for a vote.

In this various battles, the utilities often claim that solar customers aren’t paying their fair share of costs. But an increase in residential solar not only reduces the amount of electricity coming from polluting sources like coal-fired power plants, it provides a clear value to the utilities that’s often left out when they argue for additional fees. Solar generates during peak hours, when a utility has to provide electricity to more people than at other times during the day and energy costs are at their highest. And solar panels actually feed excess energy back to the grid, helping to alleviate the pressure during peak demand. In addition, because less electricity is being transmitted to customers through transmission lines, it saves utilities on the wear and tear to the lines and cost of replacing them with new ones.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/31/3443520/us-residential-solar-beat-commercial/

boutons_deux

06-01-2014, 08:42 AM

Board approves more solar rebates, continued net metering, new fees

CPS Energy is adding another $21 million to its rebate program because it wants to continue to support the industry, he said. The fees will cover the costs of maintaining and upgrading the grid, also known as the “cost of service.”

Proposed fees include a one-time commissioning fee of $450 for residential customers. Commercial fees would vary based on the size of the system.

New solar customers will also pay a monthly grid fee of $1 per kW per month. For a typical 5kW system, that’s about $5 a month. Grid fees will grow to a maximum of $17.50 a month as the program is phased in.

Local solar companies worry that this 10 percent decrease in the cost of solar may be too ambitious due to pending tariff cases (http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/02/solarworld_wins_key_us_ruling.html).

“Ten years is the sweet spot for getting people to invest in solar,” (Solar San Antonio Executive Director Lanny) Sinkin has said in previous interviews. “Beyond that, people have a hard time imagining the return (on investment).”

Eugster’s presentation to the board (http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/Board_Notices/051914_BOT_Briefing_Solar_DG.pdf) noted that a 5.6 kW system currently has a “simple payback time” of nine years; that would rise to 10 with the fees and eventually to 12 as the rebate was reduced over time.

http://newsroom.cpsenergy.com/blog/board-approves-solar-rebates-net-metering/

CPS is rooftop solar friendly? :lol

CPS is friendly primarily to its own monopoly.

TDMVPDPOY

06-02-2014, 05:08 AM

the sooner the west is less reliant on fossil fuels as an energy source and start using alternative energy sources,

thats when the middle east would have to find something new to export.....donkey sex tapes?

boutons_deux

06-04-2014, 09:29 AM

China expresses 'strong dissatisfaction' with U.S. solar tariff

China's Ministry of Commerce on Wednesday expressed its "strong dissatisfaction" with a decision by the United States to impose preliminary tariffs on Chinese solar products.
In a notice posted on its website, the ministry said the United States had "ignored the facts" and abused trade rules in order to protect its own industry, adding that the use of trade measures "would not solve the development problems of the U.S. solar industry."

The United States slapped new import duties on solar panels and other related products from China (http://www.reuters.com/places/china?lc=int_mb_1001) on Tuesday after the Commerce department ruled they were produced using Chinese government subsidies, potentially inflaming trade tensions between the two countries.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/04/us-usa-trade-solar-china-idUSKBN0EF02A20140604

CosmicCowboy

06-04-2014, 09:55 AM

You would think the liberal greenies would realize that lowering the price point of solar is the quickest and best way to get solar accepted.

boutons_deux

06-04-2014, 10:01 AM

You would think the liberal greenies would realize that lowering the price point of solar is the quickest and best way to get solar accepted.

you would think you wrongies would know that China dumping panels on US is not how their adored "free market/invisible hand" is supposed to work.

How about SUBSIDIZING solar and wind for the next 100 years they way BigCarbon is/has been subsidized for the past 100 years?

CosmicCowboy

06-04-2014, 10:03 AM

So Boutons is against cheap solar panels?

CosmicCowboy

06-04-2014, 10:26 AM

And Boutons would rather subsidize solar panels with US tax dollars than let the Chinese subsidize them for free?

boutons_deux

06-04-2014, 10:43 AM

U.S. Residential Solar PV Installations Exceeded Commercial Installations for the First Time in Q1 2014

Driven by strong year-over-year growth in the utility and residential markets, the United States installed 1,330 megawatts of solar photovoltaics (PV) in the first quarter of 2014. According to GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industry Association’s (SEIA) Q1 2014 U.S. Solar Market Insight Report (http://www.seia.org/smi), the U.S. installed 232 megawatts of residential PV, exceeding the non-residential (commercial) market’s 225 megawatts for the first time in the history of the report.

Ongoing strength in the residential sector and volatility in the non-residential market spurred this historic milestone. Despite the dip in non-residential installations, GTM Research and SEIA expect the market to rebound and exceed the residential market in 2014 annual PV installations.

http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2014/05/us-residential-solar-pv-installations-exceeded-commercial-installations-for-the-first-time-in-q1-2014/789 (http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2014/05/us-residential-solar-pv-installations-exceeded-commercial-installations-for-the-first-time-in-q1-2014/789)

... while retrograde BigCarbon REPUG TX lags way behind with NO state incentives for distributed solar, and even in Austin/SA with their municipally owned electric utilities not really pushing rooftop solar.

Wild Cobra

06-04-2014, 11:10 AM

You would think the liberal greenies would realize that lowering the price point of solar is the quickest and best way to get solar accepted.

This is true, but at the same time, what good is it if we don't make them in US factories?

CosmicCowboy

06-04-2014, 11:27 AM

This is true, but at the same time, what good is it if we don't make them in US factories?

Why not let them make the relatively dirty manufactured panels and we make the inverters, etc. It doesn't all need to be born in the USA if the only way to do it is subsidize it with tax dollars.

Wild Cobra

06-04-2014, 11:32 AM

Why not let them make the relatively dirty manufactured panels and we make the inverters, etc. It doesn't all need to be born in the USA if the only way to do it is subsidize it with tax dollars.
We disagree there.

I say we let the natural supply and demand take shape. As electricity becomes more expensive, and manufacturing costs of solar cells comes down, solar will become attractive.

I am a firm believer that we need to roll back the Clinton Tree Trade Zones.

boutons_deux

06-04-2014, 01:39 PM

This is true, but at the same time, what good is it if we don't make them in US factories?

the benefit/cost is not just the purchase price. Foreign solar panels forestall coal and nuclear as well as domestic panel.

the hard costs are WAY down, it's the soft costs that are proving resistant.

Wild Cobra

06-04-2014, 01:41 PM

the benefit/cost is not just the purchase price. Foreign solar panels forestall coal and nuclear as well as domestic panel.

the hard costs are WAY down, it's the soft costs that are proving resistant.
Any excuse to put the jobs overseas, so you don't have to work. Right?

boutons_deux

06-04-2014, 02:10 PM

Any excuse to put the jobs overseas, so you don't have to work. Right?

you're the one who said overpaid US workers should be put into competition with Asian workers.

CosmicCowboy

06-04-2014, 04:11 PM

Cheap chinese solar panels make boos head want to explode. Love em? Hate em? Arghhhhhhh!

TDMVPDPOY

06-04-2014, 11:32 PM

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/csiro-claims-gamechanging-solar-discovery-could-end-reliance-on-fossil-fuels/story-e6frf7jo-1226943557823

CSIRO claims game-changing solar discovery could end reliance on fossil fuels

read the rest on link

lol the liberal leader faggot of this country just cut all funding to science, he doesnt believe in that shit....but has no problem leeching off wifi technology that this company discovered/invented

Wild Cobra

06-05-2014, 12:08 AM

you're the one who said overpaid US workers should be put into competition with Asian workers.

Link please.

Any reference to such things are by means of a tariff, or changing our tax structure to a consumption tax.

I never advocated reducing US wages to achieve that goal. I have however said that we are in such reduce wage situations, because we cannot compete.

boutons_deux

06-12-2014, 02:16 PM

Warren Buffett Investing $15 Billion More Into Renewables

The Warren Buffet cash-train appears to still have more on it for renewables, based on recent statements made by the mega-investor.

While making a speech at a conference in Las Vegas earlier this week, Buffet made the comment that while his Berkshire Hathaway investment house had already invested around $15 billion into the clean energy sector there was “another $15 billion ready to go, as far as I’m concerned.”

Not an insignificant amount of money. http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif And considering that Buffet is already one of the largest clean tech investors in the US, another $15 billion would put him well above nearly anyone else.

The investments aren’t likely to stop there, though, as Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/buffett-ready-to-double-15-billion-solar-wind-bet.html) notes:

Unlike other utility-holding companies, Berkshire Hathaway Energy retains all of its earnings. That probably will continue, Buffett said yesterday, estimating that the unit could reinvest about $30 billion into its business in the next decade.

“We’re going to keep doing that as far as the eye can see,” he stated. “We’ll just keep moving.”

In related news, Warren Buffet’s news agency, PR Newswire, recently ran a strongly worded report (http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/report-nearly-5600-clean-energy-jobs-announced-in-first-quarter-down-from-same-period-in-2013-260294391.html) calling on Congress to reinstate production tax credits for renewables.

The report highlights, in detail, the employment costs of “federal uncertainty” over PTCs — making the case for state legislators to resist fossil fuel industry–funded attacks on pro-renewable energy policies.

Specifically, the report calls for the reinstatement of PTCs for “wind power, biofuels, and energy efficiency technologies,” a worthwhile cause, but hard to say if the report will have much of an impact.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/12/warren-buffett-investing-15-billion-renewables/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Wild Cobra

06-12-2014, 02:38 PM

LOL...

Berkshire Hathaway is the 5th largest company in the world. With annul revenues at $183 billion, that $15 billion invested over the years is a drop in the bucket. The company wholly owns GEICO, BNSF, Lubrizol, Dairy Queen, Fruit of the Loom, Helzberg Diamonds, FlightSafety International, and NetJets, owns half of Heinz and an undisclosed percentage of Mars, Incorporated, and has significant minority holdings in American Express, The Coca-Cola Company, Wells Fargo, and IBM.

He's one of your rich bankers BeShit.

Wild Cobra

06-12-2014, 02:45 PM

Of the companies I didn't list, he also has holdings through Berkshire in:

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V.
ConocoPhillips
Costco Wholesale Corporation
DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc
Deere & Company
DIRECTV
Exxon Mobil Corporation
General Electric Company
General Motors Company
Goldman Sachs Group Inc
Graham Holdings Co
Johnson & Johnson
Kraft Foods Group Inc
Lee Enterprises, Incorporated
Liberty Global plc - Class A Ordinary Shares
Liberty Global plc - Class C Ordinary Shares
Liberty Media Corp
M&T Bank Corporation
Mastercard Inc
Media General, Inc.
Mondelez International Inc
Moody's Corporation
National-Oilwell Varco, Inc.
Phillips 66
Precision Castparts Corp.
Sanofi SA (ADR)
Starz
Suncor Energy Inc. (USA)
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
The Coca-Cola Company
The Procter & Gamble Company
Torchmark Corporation
U.S. Bancorp
United Parcel Service, Inc.
USG Corporation
Verisign, Inc.
Verisk Analytics, Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
Viacom, Inc.
Visa Inc
WABCO Holdings Inc.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Wild Cobra

06-12-2014, 02:47 PM

Warren Buffett Investing $15 Billion More Into Renewables

By the way.

It isn't Buffet making these investments, it's the Holding company he is CEO of. Most of the $15 billion is likely a 1:1 tax write-off.

Wild Cobra

06-12-2014, 02:48 PM

He's all talk. A very good Charlatan to the left.

boutons_deux

06-24-2014, 04:32 AM

Texas Utility Doubles Large-Scale Solar, Says It Will Be Coal-Free By 2016 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/17/3449604/texas-utility-solar/)

Thanks to new investments in natural gas and utility-scale solar energy, El Paso Electric, a Texas utility with nearly 400,000 customers, announced on Monday that its electricity mix will be free from coal by 2016.

Thanks to successive investments in large solar projects, EPE has doubled its utility-scale solar portfolio in less than one year. “Our west Texas and southern New Mexico region has the right kind of sun for optimal solar energy production, making this region the ‘goldilocks’ in terms of climate, humidity and heat characteristics that allow us to expand our renewable portfolio with cost-effective technologies and reliable energy resources,” said Tom Shockley, Chief Executive Officer at El Paso Electric, said in a statement (http://www.epelectric.com/about-el-paso-electric/article/el-paso-electric-well-positioned-for-new-epa-carbon-standards-largest-solar-facility).

The utility signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with the massive Macho Springs solar plant in New Mexico, a 50 megawatt (MW) facility with the capacity to power more than 18,000 homes. According to the agreement (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/03/1529651/new-mexico-utility-agrees-to-purchase-solar-power-at-a-lower-price-than-coal/), signed last year, EPE would buy solar power from Macho Springs for 5.79 cents a kilowatt-hour — less than half the 12.8 cents per kilowatt-hour average price for electricity from new coal plants, according to Bloomberg.

In February, EPE signed a 30-year power purchase agreement with Newman Solar to build a 10 MW solar facility in El Paso that is expected to come online by the end of 2014 and power an additional 3,800 homes.

Deciding “it is in the best interest of its 395,000 customers,” EPE plans to sell off its seven percent stake in the Four Corners coal plant, located on Navajo Nation land near Farmington, New Mexico. The plant came in at number 15 on Environment America’s list (http://environmentarizona.org/sites/environment/files/reports/Power_Plants_AZ_scrn_0.pdf) of the nation’s top 100 dirtiest power plants, emitting 13.8 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/17/3449604/texas-utility-solar/

boutons_deux

06-24-2014, 05:33 AM

Australia has led way in slashing solar costs (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/lessons-australia-85029)

In 2013, the United States installed more solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity (http://venturebeat.com/2013/12/11/2013-is-a-record-shattering-year-for-solar-power-in-america/) than either Germany or Australia for the first time ever.

(The U.S. has tripled their combined population, so arguably this should have happened long ago…). With the decline of feed-in tariffs and other incentives in Germany, it is likely that the US will continue to outpace that country in new PV installations.

However, the U.S. continues to lag behind global PV leaders Germany and Australia in another important category: prices for residential systems installations.

As of Q2 2013, the average installed residential system price was $4.93/W compared to Germany’s $2.21/W and Australia’s $2.56/W. That needs to change.

Whether you look at U.S. DOE SunShot targets or RMI’s own Reinventing Fire (http://www.rmi.org/reinventingfire) vision, which has the U.S. solar market scaling from 4.5 GW PV installed per year to 20 GW, system costs have to come down to accelerate residential and commercial customer adoption. A new analysis and report from Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI)—Lessons from Australia: Reducing Solar PV Costs Through Installation Labor Efficiency (http://www.rmi.org/simple)—identifies opportunities for the U.S. solar market to take important steps in that direction.

Non-hardware costs (permitting/inspection/interconnection (PII), customer acquisition, installation, and margins/overhead) now dominate system prices in the U.S.

For sub-10-kW systems, 80 percent of solar system cost decline in the U.S. since 2008 has been due to hardware price reductions.

In the U.S., non-hardware costs now account for 70% of system costs.

Setting aside margins/overhead, the U.S. spends $1.22/W on PII, customer acquisition, and system installation. PV leaders Germany and Australia, on the other hand, spend just $0.33/W and $0.65/W, respectively. The U.S. clearly can and should pursue significant cost reduction opportunities to eliminate this difference.

http://blog.rmi.org/Content/Images/simple_australia_figure-1.jpg

RMI and GTRI previously launched a PV installation labor data collection and analysis effort under the SIMPLE BoS project, which investigated differences in non-hardware costs between the U.S. and Germany, including installation labor. This 2013 report (http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_12_05_can_usa_solar_cost_compete_with_ge rmany) provided a detailed breakdown of primary drivers of PV installation labor cost differences between the U.S. and Germany. Now, in 2014, RMI and GTRI are following up on that groundbreaking work with further investigation of Australian solar installations.

Australia has emerged as a dominant player in the world residential solar market, with more than 10 percent of households possessing a solar system on the roof and system prices rivaling Germany’s. Even as feed-in tariffs (FITs) have declined, demand in Australia for residential rooftop solar has remained high and costs have continued to decline. Much of this is due to a focus on customer-owned PV, and thus an extremely competitive marketplace around system cost. Both retailers and installers have been forced to lean processes in order to offer lower pricing and gain market share; they rely on high volume rather than high margin to remain profitable. According to our on-site analysis, Australian installers are averaging 6.1 labor-hours per kW solar installed, while the U.S. is more than 50 percent higher at 9.4 labor-hours per kW installed. This is similar to averages observed in other industry surveys and studies.
http://blog.rmi.org/Content/Images/simple_australia_figure-2.jpg

Unlike Germany, Australia does not use motorized lifts, scaffolds, or other advanced installation equipment. Instead, economic incentives drive labor—installers in Australia receive a flat rate per installation, and thus make greater profit by mounting more systems in less time.

That Australian installers were able to shift so quickly towards a one-day install as an industry standard indicates that Germany is not an outlier; optimized installations are possible and should be pursued at both the U.S. and international levels.

We noted several factors that may increase efficiency based on observations and analysis of installation practices in Australia, Germany, and the U.S.:

Optimizing the pre-installation process
Reducing time spent on base installations, especially for clay-tile roofs
Pursuing rail designs that minimize installation labor
Reducing the number of meters installed in each electrical system to monitor PV output
Viewing the one-day installation goal as an opportunity to reduce time spent on non-production activities such as meals, travel, breaks, setup, and cleanup

These opportunities vary in magnitude, but in combination could have a significant impact on the number of labor-hours/kW U.S. installers typically invest in system installations. We believe installers in the U.S. could approach or go beyond Australian levels of efficiency by pursuing these primary measures, as well as other opportunities that help the industry approach the one-day installation as standard. If it can be done in Australia and Germany, there is no reason it cannot be done in the U.S.

We hope this report on Australia, the report on Germany, and all follow-on work under the SIMPLE BoS project will help the U.S. industry continue to reduce solar PV costs and enable the widespread, cost-effective deployment of residential solar PV systems.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/lessons-australia-85029

TDMVPDPOY

06-24-2014, 07:54 AM

reason why alot of aussies are switchin to solar, cause fkn energy bill prices have increase higher then inflation, when ur payin 600bucks for gas bills per quarter, u might as well cough up the money to install solar...u can get a decent system for around 5k...u write that shit off in 2years easy

boutons_deux

06-24-2014, 09:09 AM

boutons_deux

06-24-2014, 10:20 AM

2010:

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/content/dam/etc/medialib/new-lib/pei/sept/68576.res

can't find a more recent one

more recent, but not current:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/prices/electricity_households.cfm

boutons_deux

07-01-2014, 04:14 PM

how electric utilities are trying to stop distributed solar, same idea as CPSEnergy SA proposing to stick rooftop solar with $500+ fee

Solar Companies Sue Over New Rooftop Solar Tax In Arizona (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/01/3455140/solar-companies-sue-arizona-tax/)

Two solar companies are suing the Arizona Department of Revenue over its hotly-disputed decision to tax leased solar panels, an additional charge that would hit Arizona’s growing (http://www.trefis.com/stock/spwr/articles/205693/factors-driving-the-u-s-residential-solar-market/2013-09-13)solar leasing industry.

SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc. filed a lawsuit (http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2014/06/30/solar-companies-sue-stop-property-taxes-leased-rooftop-panels/11806043/) Monday against the state Department of Revenue alleging that the department’s interpretation of a state law to mean that Arizonans who lease solar panels aren’t eligible for tax exemptions granted to those who own them is illegal. This tax on leased solar panels would result in $152 extra in property taxes for the first year of a homeowner’s leased $34,000 solar-panel array, a charge that would decrease each year as the value of the array goes down. For larger, commercial arrays, the taxes will be higher (http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2014/04/26/leased-solar-panels-property-taxes/8232401/) — a leased 80-kilowatt, $360,000 system would carry a $1,615 charge its first year, and a 250-kilowatt system would be charged $4,485.

The first payments would be due from solar companies in October 15, and Bryan Miller, vice president of public policy and power markets for Sunrun Inc, say the additional cost to the companies will be passed along (http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2014/04/26/leased-solar-panels-property-taxes/8232401/) to the consumer.

“This would absolutely be the end for solar in Arizona,” Miller said (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/energy-inc/2014/06/solarcity-sunrun-sue-arizona-department-of-revenue.html?page=all). “It would burden those solar owners with a large tax increase that they were promised would never happen by top policy makers.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/01/3455140/solar-companies-sue-arizona-tax/

This violates the original idea of Sherman anti-trust because this is large companies/"trusts" to block/retard/penalize new market entries and "free industry".

TDMVPDPOY

07-02-2014, 01:25 AM

the credit rebate starting from 1/7/2014 here in australia...those on previous grandfather plans at 44c will remain unchanged, those who signed later all plans will be 8cents only...lmao

boutons_deux

07-02-2014, 05:14 AM

the credit rebate starting from 1/7/2014 here in australia...those on previous grandfather plans at 44c will remain unchanged, those who signed later all plans will be 8cents only...lmao

yep, conservatives everywhere fuck the 99% everywhere to protect/enrich/enable the 1%.

boutons_deux

07-03-2014, 11:27 AM

KingCoal is dead

Renewables Projected To Add Triple The Capacity Of New Fossil Fuel Plants By 2030 (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/01/3449868/renewables-soar/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BNEF1-638x312.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/01/3449868/renewables-soar/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Cli mate+Progress%29

boutons_deux

07-03-2014, 04:48 PM

BLUE STATE smarts!!

California property tax exemptions for PV systems extended to 2025

A property tax exemption for solar power systems in California has been extended to 2025, following the passing of a bill as part of the annual state budget.

Senate Bill 871 (SB871) was approved during the signing of the budget by governor Jerry Brown, which took place last week. The wording of SB871 extends the period during which property taxes will not be applied to "active solar energy systems", which includes PV and solar water heaters.

Reacting to the news from California, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) head Rhone Resch commended Governor Brown’s actions. He praised the governor “and his lawmakers” for their foresight and for their “commitment to a clean environment”.

“The extension of the exclusion does not take funds away from any jurisdictions where taxes are currently being collected, nor does it have an impact on the General Fund. But the exclusion will reduce wholesale solar electricity costs for utility customers, and it reduces barriers to accessing solar for customer-sited projects. Simply put, many homeowners would not choose to install solar if faced with a property tax reassessment,” Resch said.

Governor Brown is widely acknowledged to have made numerous efforts to promote solar power in his years in US politics. Another recent piece of legislation, the proposed Assembly Bill 2188 (AB2188), would cut so-called 'soft costs' for solar by streamlining the permitting process required to gain approval for a residential solar power system in California. Walker Wright, director of public policy at SunRun said earlier this month that AB2188 could help end the "bureaucratic nightmare" (http://www.pv-tech.org/news/californias_ab2188_could_cut_soft_costs_bureaucrat ic_nightmare_says_sunrun) that the approval process could often become.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/california_property_tax_exemptions_for_pv_systems_ extended_to_2025

TDMVPDPOY

07-04-2014, 01:52 AM

boutons_deux

07-04-2014, 05:35 AM

how much energy/fossil fuels does america import?

shouldnt u clowns be moving to renewable energy to be less reliant on import supplies?

i dont fkn get it, why does arab oil states who produced and charge its citizens below market rate, while western society who also do the same shit dont give its citizens a discount yet charge them market rate....
boutons_deux (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047) how much energy does ur setup make a day?..so how much energy do you consume a day?

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_ep00_imn_mbblpd_m.htm

"u clowns": America doesn't make its national energy policy, there isn't an national energy or industrial policy. BigOil makes national energy policy (and $Bs in anti-renewable LIES, propaganda) for its benefit, not for America's benefit.

America didn't invade Iraq, BigOil did.

While USA will never produce enough oil for its needs (at current consumption levels), BigOil already is pushing hard to EXPORT oil and gas treasures with give-away royalty payments to taxpayers.

LNG exports to the world market, where price is 3 or 4 times US domestic price, will pull US domestic prices towards world price, probably until its equal to world market, just like oil is. Why should BigOil give US consumers a price break on US oil and gas?

As the conservatives love to repeat, "free market solutions" are the best (way to screw consumers).

TDMVPDPOY

07-06-2014, 12:16 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-death-spiral-scaring-electricity-providers-20140706-zsy76.html

''The risk for the companies is that when people get the option of putting solar panels on their roofs and installing batteries and cutting the cord, demand will fall sharply. The people who end up left on the network will be the only ones left paying.'' They will be stuck with extremely high network charges, forcing even more people off the network, pushing network charges higher still. It is what Ms Carter calls ''your death spiral scenario''.
She says it is not upon us yet, but if battery storage improves and network costs keep rising, it will be.

lol these fkn energy companies are privatised, they only have shareholders to answer, why does the govt keep on regulating and protecting these fckheads who do nothing but increase costs. yet you dont see them improving their own infrastructure...

boutons_deux

07-06-2014, 12:23 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-death-spiral-scaring-electricity-providers-20140706-zsy76.html

lol these fkn energy companies are privatised, they only have shareholders to answer, why does the govt keep on regulating and protecting these fckheads who do nothing but increase costs. yet you dont see them improving their own infrastructure...

When BigCorps and the 1% lay "creative destruction" on small companies and citizens, it's wonderful, it's how the magical (but mythical) "free market" ALWAYS provides the optimum solution (for the BigCorps and 1%).

When the citizens and small companies lay "creative destruction" on BigCorps and the 1%, there's raging panic to stop it.

Wild Cobra

07-06-2014, 12:24 PM

Wild Cobra

07-06-2014, 12:30 PM

When BigCorps and the 1% lay "creative destruction" on small companies and citizens, it's wonderful, it's how the magical (but mythical) "free market" ALWAYS provides the optimum solution (for the BigCorps and 1%).

When the citizens and small companies lay "creative destruction" on BigCorps and the 1%, there's raging panic to stop it.

To my knowledge, commercial power users are charged by peak and non peak hours used. Residents are charged a sliding scale rater for what they use. What solution do you have that's fair?

In all reality, less infrastructure increase is needed as people build their own power generation. I see the article as an excuse to create even more unnecessary regulations.

TDMVPDPOY

07-08-2014, 02:04 AM

not sure if you clowns can watch this

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/07/4038488.htm

TDMVPDPOY

07-08-2014, 11:58 AM

boutons_deux

07-08-2014, 12:24 PM

apparently this is the shit they want to introduced to protect their revenue stream

any fkn mutt who has a 2kw system and lower can put their excess back into the providers system, they will get a rebate

while clowns who have systems higher then 2kw are not allowed to feed excess back into the system, in other words those with larger systems might as well cut themselves off from the grid...

so boutons_deux (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=16047) have u cut urself from the grid yet?

no, I have very low electricity bill. have trouble justifying solar panels, so adding the cost of battery storage is even less justifiable.

CPS is playing the old (disallowed) ATT "Carterphone" game, erecting technical barriers to joining the network: can't connect "foreign" stuff to our network unless a CPS-approved equipment and CPS-approved installer doing 100% of the work. no DIY, which I could do totally, then have an installer do the final step, if I can find an installer to play along

TDMVPDPOY

07-08-2014, 12:29 PM

no, I have very low electricity bill. have trouble justifying solar panels, so adding the cost of battery storage is even less justifiable.

CPS is playing the old (disallowed) ATT "Carterphone" game, erecting technical barriers to joining the network: can't connect "foreign" stuff to our network unless a CPS-approved equipment and CPS-approved installer doing 100% of the work. no DIY, which I could do totally, then have an installer do the final step, if I can find an installer to play along

yeh down here they wont allow cheap invertors connected to the grid, cause it fcks up the system.. << a bunch of made up bullshit by the grid providers, i havnt yet to read any fck ups or incompatible equipment fcking up any grid shit...

read that battery storage is still expensive even with recent news out from tesla...

boutons_deux

07-08-2014, 03:47 PM

Two damned Repug states doing their damndest to kill renewables

SolarCity and SunRun vs Arizona Department Of Revenue

Another obstacle to the growth of rooftop solar has arisen in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) claims that solar energy equipment is taxable if it is owned by a solar company and installed on another person’s property. They have assigned a value for property tax purposes at 20% of its depreciated cost, which amounts to about $152 a year for an average solar customer. This has prompted a lawsuit: SolarCity and SunRun vs the Arizona Department of Revenue.

As 85-90% of the state’s rooftop solar installations are leased, rather than owned, this new tax could have a strong negative impact.

The Arizona state department seems to perceive solar panels as small power plants providing electricity to homeowners or businesses.

In their writ, the solar companies lawyers pointed out that their clients are not in the business of “generating, transmitting or distributing electricity to customers.” They lease equipment that allows the customer to generate their own electricity.

“ … The Arizona Legislature has made it clear that the Subject Property, when used “primarily for on-site consumption” of the electricity generated by such property, is “considered to have no value and to add no value” to the property on which it is installed, and thus it should not be separately assessed for property tax purposes. Specifically, A.R.S. §42-11054(C)(2) provides:

“Solar energy devices, as defined in section 44-1761, grid-tied photovoltaic systems and any other device or system designed for the production of solar energy primarily for on-site consumption are considered to have no value and to add no value to the property on which such device or system is installed.”

A spokesperson for SunRun said she believes “the Arizona Department of Revenue’s interpretation is illegal.”

“As with any additional cost, it would reduce Arizonans’ ability to turn to an alternative to Arizona Public Service in order to save money on monthly electricity bills, and would reduce rooftop solar’s addressable market,” SolarCity Director of Public Affairs Will Craven told pv magazine (http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/solarcity--sunrun-to-sue-arizona-over-taxes-on-third-party-solar_100015588/%23axzz36OCB43DC).

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/07/solarcity-and-sunrun-vs-the-arizona-department-of-revenue/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

==============================

Utah Utility’s Recent Push To Impose New Fee On Residential Solar Customers Angers Many

Utah’s largest utility, Rocky Mountain Power, recently began mulling the idea of imposing a new fee on its residential solar customers — an idea that since being proposed has been generating intense debate.

Given that the utility doesn’t actually have that many solar customers — only around 2000 — the move may seem a bit strange. Especially when you consider that the fee would be rather substantial — $4.25 a month. Why so high? Supposedly to “to help pay some of the fixed costs of supplying and receiving electricity.” Hmmm.

Utah’s fight is indicative of a rapidly escalating tension: As rooftop solar becomes more and more mainstream, driven largely by middle class customers, utility companies across the country are looking to soften the blow to their business model by charging solar customers a monthly fee.

“Depending on the size of their system, it could be 10% or even more because some people only put in four or five panels and this is a flat fee,” Rossetti noted. “As a result, the additional charge could really impact lower income or elderly people who just want to put their foot into renewable investment.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/07/utah-utilitys-recent-push-impose-new-fee-residential-solar-customers-angers-many/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Wild Cobra

07-08-2014, 06:52 PM

yeh down here they wont allow cheap invertors connected to the grid, cause it fcks up the system.. << a bunch of made up bullshit by the grid providers, i havnt yet to read any fck ups or incompatible equipment fcking up any grid shit...

read that battery storage is still expensive even with recent news out from tesla...
I disagree.

When you are maintaining a system, you have certain reliability standards that must be met. You may not like their reasoning, but they are likely valid.

boutons_deux

07-08-2014, 07:35 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterphone

Wild Cobra

07-08-2014, 07:48 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterphone
What's your point?

TDMVPDPOY

07-16-2014, 01:57 AM

lmao have a read of this, no beneficial monetary gain for ppl who go solar down here

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/australian-households-with-solar-panels-might-pay-extra-for-helping-generate-power/

a normal system 2.5kw with .08cents rebate equates to about 50bucks a year, yet they want to charge you 50bucks for feeding the grid? ROFLMAO wankers

boutons_deux

07-16-2014, 05:20 AM

another area where red states SUCK

http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2014/07/Screen-shot-2014-07-15-at-12.58.57-PM.png?zoom=1.5&fit=620%2C9999

boutons_deux

07-16-2014, 12:40 PM

The World Is Going Solar

According to new data released by the Fraunhofer Institute (http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-and-media/press-releases/press-releases-2014/energy-charts-machen-die-energiewende-transparent), in the first half of 2014, renewable energy (http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/), like solar power, accounted for almost 31 percent of allelectricity produced in Germany (http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/14/germany-record-setting-renewables/). In fact, solar power generation was up 28 percent during the first half of 2014, compared to the same time last year.

http://files.cdn.ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/solargermanyfi.jpg (http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/)The solar sunship is in the solar village Vauban in Freiburg, Black Forest, Germany. Photo credit: Shutterstock (http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-185946890/stock-photo-details-of-the-sunship-in-green-city-freiburg-the-solar-sunship-is-in-the-solar-village-vauban-in.html?src=zehiWztLX54H_xhPq-2rxw-1-35)

For the first time ever in Germany—the cloudiest country in western Europe—solar power and other forms of renewable energy created more energy and electricity production than dirty coal. And, in June, Germany set a solar power recor (http://ecowatch.com/2013/08/23/renewables-push-fossil-fuel-plants-to-close/)d, using solar power to generate 50 percent of overall electricity demand for part of a day.

While Germany is relying heavily on renewable energy today to help fight global warming andclimate change (http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/), it has had a pretty standard energy evolution. In the 18th century, Germany was burning wood. In the 19th century, it was burning coal. In the 20th century, it was burning oil. Today it’s getting electricity from solar and renewables.

That’s a typical evolution for a developed country (that’s not controlled by the financial interests of Big Oil)

http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/15/the-world-is-going-solar/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=3c17f21a80-Top_News_7_16_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-3c17f21a80-85879165

what can be done by a national energy policy set by an uncaptured govt, rather than set by BigCarbon

btw, China is responding dramatically to its air pollution and energy import costs by going solar and wind in a huge way. India is trying but its (corrupt) democracy is having a harder time.

You BigCarbon suckers will lose your talking point that US shouldn't bother to reduce GHG because China and India will Keep On Smokin it up.

TDMVPDPOY

07-16-2014, 11:35 PM

makes sense for most of europe to go solar then rely on russian imported gas for energy

brazil a 3rd world country already using excess corn process ethanol oil to fund its industry

yet cuntry like aus, america trying to protect utility companys makes no sense when they own no obligation to protect their revenue windfalls when most of these utility companies have already been privatized into foreign ownership...

boutons_deux

07-17-2014, 08:20 AM

You conservatives are really screwing up the planet.
Environmentalists Decry Repeal of Australia’s Carbon TaxOpposition politicians and environmentalists in Australia reacted with dismay Thursday to the country’s repeal of laws requiring large companies to pay for carbon emissions (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/world/asia/australia-scraps-tax-on-carbon.html), saying that it made Australia the first country to reverse progress on fighting climate change.

The tax was devised to penalize hundreds of Australia’s biggest producers of carbon emissions, setting a price of 23 Australian dollars, or $21.50, per metric ton of carbon dioxide when it was put into effect in 2012 under then-Prime Minister Julia Gillard of the Labor Party, which is now in the opposition. The price rose to 25 Australian dollars this month.

“Today, Tony Abbott has made Australia the first country in the world to reverse action on climate change,”

“no one else in the world has repealed a working, functioning carbon pricing mechanism.”

“We are taking a monumentally reckless backward leap even as other countries are stepping up to climate action,”

Australia is the highest per capita emitter of carbon in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the group of developed countries, and that it ranks in the top 20 globally, emitting around 25 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person every year. “Australia’s economy is much more carbon-intensive than the U.S. economy,”

estimated that the tax cost the mining industry 1.2 billion dollars per year.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/world/asia/environmentalists-decry-repeal-of-australias-carbon-tax.html?_r=1

boutons_deux

07-17-2014, 01:21 PM

Scientists Confirm Burning Fossil Fuels Significantly Worsens Australian Drought

American scientists have just confirmed that parts of Australia are being slowly parched (http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/07/australias-record-heatwave-fuels-climate-change-fight/)because of greenhouse gas emissions, which means that the long-term decline in rainfall over south and south-west Australia is a consequence of fossil fuel burning and depletion of the ozone layer by human activity.

Such a finding is significant for two reasons. One remains contentious: it is one thing to make generalized predictions about the consequences overall of greenhouse gas levels, but it is quite another to pin a measured regional climatic shift directly on human causes, rather than some possible as-yet-unidentified natural cycle of climatic change (http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/).

The other is contentiously political. Australia’s prime minister, Tony Abbott, has in the past dismissed climate science as “crap,” and more recently has cut back on Australian research spending.

Australia has already experienced a pattern of heat waves and drought—punctuated by catastrophic flooding—and even now, in the Australian winter, New South Wales is being hit by bush fires.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/17/burning-fossil-fuels-worsens-australian-drought/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=03d4ef41b9-Top_News_7_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-03d4ef41b9-85879165

boutons_deux

07-21-2014, 09:50 PM

another Repug state attacking environmentalism, energy efficiency, renewables, to the benefit of Repug benefactors the energy sector

Florida Utilities Move To Slash Energy Conservation Programs (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/21/3462294/florida-utilities-to-cut-energy-conservation-programs/)

Over 100 people are expected to join a protest rally in Tallahassee on Monday ahead of hearings before Florida’s Public Service Commission (PSC) that could see the state’senergy conservation programs slashed (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-07-20/news/os-electric-utilities-reduce-conservation-20140720_1_carbon-pollution-conservation-southern-alliance) by up to 93 percent.

The rally is being organized by the Sierra Club and the Sunshine State Clean Energy Coalition — groups which say that the cuts put forward by some of Florida’s largest utilities will hurt ratepayers and the environment.

“In the long term, peoples’ power bills are going to go up… there won’t be any relief to prevent them from going up,” Sierra Club spokeswoman Jenna Garland told theBradenton Herald. (http://www.bradenton.com/2014/07/21/5264125/tallahassee-rally-planned-against.html?sp=/99/179/186/) “The utilities are proposing cutbacks to these energy-saving programs. This is a huge problem because these programs help save people money on their power bills.”

Protesters are also upset because the hearings have been closed to the public, after the PSC declared them too “technical” for public participation. If ratepayers want to object to proposed changes, they will have to submit written comments.

For years, ratepayers in Florida have paid a few extra dollars a month on their power bills to support utility programs that offer customer rebates for installing better insulation, efficient windows and energy-efficient appliances.

These programs cost Duke Energy residential customers about $4.02/month. Florida Power & Light (FPL) adds a monthly charge of $3.37/month to power bills to fund the programs.

But now, as these programs and others are up for a five year review, utilities are arguing that the programs are not necessary and not cost effective

According to the Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/utilities-will-ask-psc-for-permission-to-gut-energy-saving-goals/2189192), Duke Energy is proposing to slash energy conservation from 333 gigawatt hours (GW/h) in 2019 to just 21 GW/h. Tampa Electric’s proposal would take the utility from conserving 39 GW/h to 17 and Florida Power & Light would slash the energy it saves from 229 GW/h to 4 GW/h.

Also on the chopping block at the hearings — which will go through Wednesday — are programs that provide subsidies to homeowners to install rooftop solar arrays.

Florida’s big utilities are arguing that given the abundance and low cost of natural gas, it is cheaper for them to build new power plants than to support energy conservation.

They also say that energy is already being conserved thanks to government efficiency rules for building construction, appliances, and light bulbs.

“There is no economic justification for reducing conservation goals,” Martin Kushler, senior fellow with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, told the Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/utilities-will-ask-psc-for-permission-to-gut-energy-saving-goals/2189192). “The argument that efficiency is not cost effective is blatantly false.”

Kushler said that these sort of energy conservation programs generally cost about 2.8 cents to save a kilowatt hour. In contrast, a new natural gas plant costs 7 to 8 cents to generate a kilowatt hour. The U.S. Department of Energy has reported similar numbers.

Back in April, Indiana ended (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/31/3420960/end-indiana-energy-efficiency-program/) its state-wide energy efficiency program and in June, Ohio decided to freeze (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/13/3449029/ohio-freeze-renewable-energy/) its renewable energy and energy efficiency standards at their current levels for two years.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/21/3462294/florida-utilities-to-cut-energy-conservation-programs/

very simple: higher energy bills for consumers is higher revenues for the energy suppliers.