Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Brian Bartholomew (bb![]() |
|
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:49:44 -0700 (PDT) |
> The power company pays the people from ratepayer's bill payments. Then it would use less resources to cancel the purchase program, and lay off the accountants who shuffle this money. People who want to peak shave at home could do it without involving the utility. The utility could put a flyer in their bills saying if you install rooftop PV size X it will payback in Y years. Or they could save a few trees and print that right on the envelopes. > Rather than building peaking plants, which are the most expensive > type, they can avoid that if enough home-owners supply themselves > during peak use summer months. You have assumed that homeowner-sized peaking plants are cheaper per kWh than utility-sized peaking plants. I know that assumption is hugely false for small vs. large fossil, and I strongly suspect it is false for small solar vs. large fossil. I don't see how home PV can be more efficient than large hydro, and since they're deliberately scrambling the cost accounting we'll never know the truth. The most efficient mixture of home and utility systems would arise if the consumer bought power at retail, and sold it at wholesale. If home PV won't pay back at wholesale rates, then the proper decision for sustainability is to not build them. If your response is that fossil causes an air pollution externality while PV doesn't, then I agree; you should put a price on air pollution and add it to the fossil electric bill. Maybe home PV will then start looking attractive...and maybe it won't. > Living, above all other things, requires a habitable environment as > you would learn in one hour if they let you visit the space station > how expensive (and fragile) an artificial environment costs. I think you're trying to draw the conclusion that since the space station is hard to keep viable, the Earth is too. I find the two systems so different in magnitude in every way that I can't draw that conclusion. > If for any reason you don't care about environmental security and > only care about money I want to see actual sustainability, backed by engineering analysis, rather than "we subsidized PV because it's fashionable right now, and we hid what is actually a net reduction in sustainability by shuffling the bill monies for six months". Brian
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay, (continued)
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Brian Bartholomew, October 13 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Brian Bartholomew, October 13 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Amy D, October 13 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Lion Kuntz, October 13 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Brian Bartholomew, October 14 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Andrew Netherton, October 13 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Brian Bartholomew, October 14 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay Lion Kuntz, October 13 2006
- Re: Making 'Clean Energy' Pay John Beutler, October 15 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.