- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
(Reuters) - A U.S. court on Friday upheld rules from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission calling on utilities to take various actions, including increased planning of large transmission projects.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed FERC's "Order 1000," a series of measures from 2011 that requires large-scale regional planning of the nation's electric grid designed in part to create greater access to renewable energy.
I had been following this case for some time. Among those opposed to the FERC order was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which crafted legislation in a number of states that outlawed people from sending their excess solar or wind energy to the grid, and which also passed laws taxing solar and wind generation by citizens who installed wind and / or solar on their own property, which purpose was to create more profit for the oil, gas, and coal industries, at the expense of everyone else. This roadblock has now been removed, in addition to the planning requirement, which was the main thrust of the rule, with the result that we will burning less coal in the future, and also will take another step towards independence from Middle East oil. I fully support this decision.
Article is here.
Since you've been following this. How is the grid going to be paid for and maintained, if the utilities and other providers are forced to pay for the excess energy being pushed onto the grid by private citizens?
Still cheaper than burning oil or coal, a fact that is really bound to piss off the Koch Brothers. LOL.
I had been following this case for some time. Among those opposed to the FERC order was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which crafted legislation in a number of states that outlawed people from sending their excess solar or wind energy to the grid, and which also passed laws taxing solar and wind generation by citizens who installed wind and / or solar on their own property, which purpose was to create more profit for the oil, gas, and coal industries, at the expense of everyone else. This roadblock has now been removed, in addition to the planning requirement, which was the main thrust of the rule, with the result that we will burning less coal in the future, and also will take another step towards independence from Middle East oil. I fully support this decision.
Article is here.
WTH?
Why answer if you're not going to answer the question? It's a legitimate issue.
Since you've been following this. How is the grid going to be paid for and maintained, if the utilities and other providers are forced to pay for the excess energy being pushed onto the grid by private citizens?
I did answer the question. Yes, they can pay for what is put into the grid, and it will still be much cheaper than burning coal, oil, or gas. You think that the companies should expect people to just give it away? Robber barons might think that, but this is America, where everything has a price, including our politicians. :mrgreen:
How does buying buying the excess energy hurt the maintenance of the grid? How much excess power do you think will be pumped onto the grid? How is the grid being paid for now?
Seems you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
No you didn't answer the question. Perhaps you were too distracted by an opportunity to post something about the Koch Brothers.
How is the grid going to be expanded and maintained if so many people are using very little of the product the grid provides?
If a large portion of the people connected to the grid are meeting the majority of their energy needs by their own power generation, how do the grid operators generate enough revenue to maintain it?
By building less power plants, we use less "generated" electricity. Of course, not everybody is going to be able to install their own wind or solar, so most power plants will still be needed. There will be a bit less profit for the power companies, but there will still be plenty of profit. And there will be greener technology that is less expensive, since the power companies won't need to purchase as much coal or oil.
I think I'll use your "a bit less profit" to mean you don't have a clue, and don't really care. Fair enough. I thought since you were following it, you'd know if there was any discussion on the issue.
Nice dodge, and nice attack. I DO care. I care about America relying on it's own resources, without having to be blackmailed by foreign energy. I care about reducing the effects of global warming. I care about people being able to install solar and wind on their own property without having to be taxed for it, or being forced to give it away to the energy companies. Seems that you, on the other hand, only care about profits, even if those profits come by stealing the electricity produced by the average citizen who installs wind or solar on their own property.
Seems you are ignoring the obvious. Now it could be that not having to build new power plants could offset the cost of replacing powerlines and other equipment. What if it doesn't? If 20 people out of 100 no longer need much energy from the grid, do the remaining 80 have to cover all the costs?
Seems you are ignorant of the obvious... as conservation of energy has been the buzzword slogan for a few years now, everything from light bulbs CONs hate to more efficient HVAC, the trend has been for reduced consumption and more responsive forms of energy production- such as gas turbine power plants instead of slow to respond boiler plants.
But what part of the TOTAL consumption is home use vs business??? How much energy does a single Walmart consume? Whining over buying a few kilowatts of power is bogus.
The issue was the ability to sell surplus DIY energy to the power company, not people using less- which is a trend not connected to home production of power. The power companies are already dealing with a trend toward more efficient home use of power- try and stay focused on the issue...eace
Actually, I am extremely well informed on the subject. I'm sorry you are so willing to prove you are not. Had you been able to get past your reactionary desire to respond, you would have seen I was not questioning the transition to renewable energy, I was just asking how revenue to maintain the grid is going to be dealt with as more and more people convert over to solar and wind. Pretty simple, and a real issue, if you were informed. Obviously that is not something enviros want to think about. Good thing rational people do. However, thanks for your opinion, despite it's substantial gaps in relevance and reality.
What is most apparent is you give ZERO facts or figures to back any claim of being informed. You just sound like a typical CON deflector. You conjure up a 20% number for who will be paying less (no mention of how much) with ZERO support for that number, and no support to how the grid is paid for now. (most 'providers' buy their power from others and act as middlemen, the grid is as much for the power companies as any end user.) The amount of 'sell back' is a pittance to the amount being sent by the power companies.
Will the sell back be at the same price the end user pays for the energy? no
Will the feedback energy tax the grid? no
What percent of the total production on that part of the grid is your fantasy numbers?
Fact is if you had used ANY realistic numbers to ask your CON deflection questions I would have walked on by. But you asked a bogus question- the grid will be paid for as it always has, less than 1% of people will set-up an alternative energy source that is capable of selling any readable amount of power. Since the power company buys at it's costs and resells the home produced at their retail rate, they really have nothing to bitch about.
WTH?
Why answer if you're not going to answer the question? It's a legitimate issue.
The answer is the utilities can buy less coal and oil to pay for the green energy. Duh..
LOL
Actually all you seem to be wanting to do is pound the politics of the green agenda without applying any understanding of how it can be accomplished.
Solar and wind are not always available. At peak production, it's going to be imperative that any excess be stored for later use. That means it will need to be transmitted some kind of distance to then be released back to the grid, whether local or larger scale, when needed.
Obviously, your agenda can't see that far. Fair enough. Emotionalism isn't going to address the issue, no matter how wound up enviros get.
This is the problem with the debate... you talk about "storing excess".. no, you use solar and wind to the max when it is available and when it is not.. use coal, oil, nuclear or what ever there else is. The idea is not to replace oil/coal here and now, because we dont have the technology to do that... our battery storage tech is pathetic and we dont invest enough in it. The idea is to lower the usage as much as possible to extend the life span of fossil fuels while we invest in R&D on alternative energies.
Storing energy for later use is one of the cutting edge technologies being developed by the energy industry. It covers many different methodologies. Your claim about storage has no basis in reality.
For example, regarding my question so simply asked and so obnoxiously responded to:
As more go solar, grid users forced to pay up - SFGate
Solar power's surging popularity in California is forcing non-solar homeowners to pay a larger share of maintaining the electricity grid, according to a long-awaited state study released Thursday.
That additional cost could range from $75 million to $254 million per year, depending on how it's calculated. By 2020, it could range from $359 million to $1.1 billion per year, according to the study from the California Public Utilities Commission.
The study analyzes a question at the heart of an ongoing fight between utility companies and the solar industry. And it could help reshape the way solar homeowners get paid for the excess electricity they send to the grid.
Yes it has a basis in reality. It is no where near good enough as we speak, as you can see on everything from electrical cars and smartphones. Yes there is investment, but there is far more investment and tax subsidies in carbon based technologies... /wave fracking.
We need better battery technology pure and simple. At the moment it is bulky and does not last that long.
I dont disagree with you. In Europe they also found out that it was a problem to allow people have solar panels for electricity, because these panels covered a huge portion of their need and more than often produced more than they needed. This meant they did not buy electricity and hence no VAT came into the state, and hence tax income went down.
But as I see it, it is something we have to figure out. Nationalize the electrical grid for example so everyone pays for its maintenance and expansion over taxes. That would make it more fair, because like it or not, those that do use solar and sell to the net, do use the infrastructure also and should pay for using it.
No you didn't answer the question. Perhaps you were too distracted by an opportunity to post something about the Koch Brothers.
How is the grid going to be expanded and maintained if so many people are using very little of the product the grid provides?
If a large portion of the people connected to the grid are meeting the majority of their energy needs by their own power generation, how do the grid operators generate enough revenue to maintain it?
Why would the power grid need to be expanded if less people utilize it??
The power grid is already public / private. It is maintained by private companies, publicly owned companies, local governments, state governments, and the feds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?