The Mother of All of Game Changers: 60 cent/watt Solar

Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:37 am   

VEPCO just started charging everyone with solar grid ties $60 more/
month.

All this will do is cause everyone with PV to buy one of those molten
salt batteries and get off the grid altogether.


Bret Cahill

Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:16 pm   

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:37:59 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill_at_yahoo.com> wrote:


You gave damn little of a clue to understand what you are talking
about.





--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52_at_sympatico.ca

Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:43 pm   

"Bret Cahill" wrote in message
news:faaf97a1-33ee-492f-97f4-c7f6721c5421_at_b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...


Not in California. It's illegal and you can have your home destroyed and be
thrown in jail:
http://www.thegic.org/video/is-living-off-the-grid-a-crime

Paul

Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:23 pm   

On 12/17/2011 2:43 PM, P E Schoen wrote:


I would expect no less, from the Socialist State of California.


I'm sure Obama would be happy to make it a Federal law and a Federal
owned grid.

And he may, as soon as he can bankrupt the coal plants and nationalize
the plants and their grid system. I expect it will be as efficient as
AMTRAK.

--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good thing but when
either of them take control, they become self destructive.

Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:52 pm   

Dominion is charging households with solar + grid ties an extra $60/
mo, provoking a big uproar. To pay for shifting from power generation
to load leveling Dominion is flat taxing green power generation.

What'll happen is customers will drop the grid tie but still be ready
to switch to the utility when they need it. An EV sized battery can
be financed with $60/month.

This defeats the entire purpose of the Carter law requiring utilities
to pay their customers for feeding the grid. The meter runs backwards
during the day with a grid tie, forward at night.

It seems obvious now but it's curious how no one thought of -- or at
least planned for -- this scenario before.


Bret Cahill

Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:10 pm   

On Dec 17, 11:43 am, "P E Schoen" <p...@pstech-inc.com> wrote:

Actually 100% off-grid can't possibly be illegal in any federal
court. If they elect to not fight the corrupt and otherwise
dysfunctional state of California, it's their own loss and they
clearly deserve one another.

What's the typical monthly zero consumption base electric utility rate
in California?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:11 pm   

Most will hook up to humor the utility and then run off solar, paying
the utility $3/mo to stay off their case.

Dominion isn't going to be looking for PV, just the grid ties to
charge the $60/mo. So what customers will do is drop the grid tie and
use the $60/mo to finance a EV sized battery. They'll stay on the
grid nominally and may want to remain connected for outages, i.e., a
hurricane blows the PV off the roof.

This won't help Dominion finance load leveling infrastructure but that
was never the intent of the Carter law anyway.


Bret Cahill

Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:13 pm   

Something like $3 in some places.


Bret Cahill

Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:37 pm   

On Dec 17, 12:13 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

No doubt that's a minimum fee for account billing, and likely they
could get away with doubling that charge if home owners are selling
their surplus energy back onto the grid via a qualified method. It
used to be a federal mandate that all big energy providers had an
obligation to buy or credit whatever surplus energy that private
citizens could offer, though I guess that's kind of blowing in the
wind or at least too complex for most of us to deal with.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:43 pm   

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill_at_peoplepc.com> wrote:

Lots of people have thought of it, planned for it and put regulations
in place for it.

Many places have limits on "personal" installations just because of the
issues with load leveling.

That you do not know this is hardly a surprise.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:16 pm   

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:43:12 -0500, "P E Schoen"
<paul_at_pstech-inc.com> wrote:


No, you silly goose: it is not against the law in California.
Sheeeish. In fact California gives a tax rebate for people who
install solar energy devices on their buildings.

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52_at_sympatico.ca

Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:32 pm   

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:10:07 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
<bradguth_at_gmail.com> wrote:


It is not illegal in any court, you silly goose: the assertion is
a lie. It is not against the law in California to "get off 'the
grid.'" I lived 30 months "off the grid:" no mailing address, no
physical address, no telephone, no electricity, no sewer system,
no plumbing.

The same is true in New Mexico: I have lived "off the grid" for
eight years.

Sheeeish.


Idiot.


Idiot.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52_at_sympatico.ca

Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:49 pm   

"AGWFacts" wrote in message
news:30mse7pepe77sn96rl3dnle0at9lk7opp1_at_4ax.com...


I was being a bit facetious and sarcastic. But....

It seems that depends on where you live and how you choose to live. If you
have a conventional house and it meets all zoning codes and local conformity
statutes, and you pay lots of property taxes and support the infrastructure
by remaining on the grid and shelling out money to various businesses, they
will allow and even encourage you to install solar and wind energy devices,
especially when you purchase them locally and use local labor to install
them according to the specifications allowed.

But if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere, and own land that is not
appraised for very much, and build a house out of recycled materials that
can't be assessed very high, so you pay very little taxes, and you also
become self-sufficient by drilling a well and growing your own food, and
rarely pump money into the government and corporate coffers, you are seen as
a threat and they use an arbitrary "nuisance law" and claim complaints from
anonymous "neighbors" who are a half-mile or more away. They find you in
violation and give you the choice of conforming to regulations that are
designed for the usual suburban neighborhoods, which would require
completely rebuilding your home with money you don't have, or they order you
off the land you own and bulldoze everything into oblivion.

The government has no right to deprive an individual of life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, as long as his actions do not harm others. But
they seem to have acquired that power in the name of building codes and
zoning laws that should not apply to remote areas. Self-sufficiency and a
sustainable lifestyle that does not harm the environment is a threat to
those who want to continue business as usual and attempt to proliferate
suburban sprawl and conspicuous consumption because it is seen to be good
for the economy, while in reality it has reached its limits and is a
paradigm that is now in its death throes.

Paul

Sun Dec 18, 2011 11:23 pm   

"AGWFacts" wrote in message
news:grmse75vim7kqmcedu3rvvnckhnlq0n3d4_at_4ax.com...


And you were fortunate that nobody knew or cared or had a beef with you.


Probably you are in an area that does not have draconian laws, and nobody
has any issues with you where you are. But if a developer set his eyes on
your land, they may use various methods to kick you out of your home and
property. Even quicker if you are on "public" land, which should be yours,
but in fact is controlled by government and corporate interests.


It takes resources to "fight city hall". And these people are marginally
employed, possibly suffering from PTSD or other mental problems that limit
their ability to work normal jobs, and perhaps living on fixed incomes and
shoestrings. Except for the publicity they may get occasionally, they are
essentially invisible to most people and it seems they are being harassed
and unfairly targeted by some malcontents. The land they own is worth next
to nothing if they cannot live as they choose, and perhaps it's worth a lot
to the people who might want to build a highway or airport. So they use
zoning laws to kick them off their own property and probably push them into
homelessness and poverty.

Paul

Mon Dec 19, 2011 12:51 am   

AGWFacts wrote:


That's what most people call HOMELESS, and California is full of
homeless people.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.