1. "Mr. Evers" is the unflashy personage who serves as Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers. He appears in the last 5 seconds of the ad... in all his low-key glory.
2. $1 million spent on TV ads seems too trivial to be warrant a NYT article. Is it an effort to cheer readers up: $1 million to the rescue? Or is this a gentle raising of the alarm: "Mr. Biden has failed...."?
3. Covering the roof with solar panels is something we're supposed to do. We're supposed to do it because it's in our economic interest — is it? — and because we're supposed to make sacrifices out of concern for climate change. That's a little complicated, but okay. We can be good people and benefit economically.
4. The ad. It begins with the sunrise — good, I'm a sunrise aficionado — but 4 seconds in, I'm dubious. We see a gloved hand with a dust cloth wiping a solar panel. Who's going to keep our solar panels cleared of leaves and debris? Now, I'm brooding over the obstacles to being that good person described at point #3. But Biden might save the day. I'm distracted and dismayed.
5. Over there in Trump world, you don't have to worry climate change at all. It's not even real.
6. Speaking of Trump, wasn't he just convicted of something that was in part a campaign finance law violation? In that light, do we still just giggle about an issue-advocacy organization running ads for a political candidate? Do we still say things like "technically an issue-advocacy organization"? Technically?! It is an an issue-advocacy organization, and the tax advantages are not just a technicality.
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
I’m against anyone who is FOR the green power scam.
More wasted taxpayer money.
"Cleared of leaves and debris" - not to mention snow.
That 750,000 homes number is wrong.
“Don’t tell me that solar power is reliable as it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.” Michael Corleone.
The NYT article is a pro Mr Biden ad masquerading as campaign coverage of a pro Mr Biden issue ad.
It’s pro Mr Biden Russian nesting dolls all the way down.
PS:
The state where I currently reside gets 40% of its electric power from nuclear. I’m already more environmentally friendly than most Red States with their wind and solar.
Makes perfect sense for Wisconsin. Hail storms, Tornados and 150 days of sunless skys. How many acres of prime pastureland is this gonna ruin?
To me, the interesting thing is that the Biden campaign, and Biden-supporting campaigns, are running ads at all. Certainly not all of the ads from differing groups will appeal to everyone. But the ads are running and will appeal to at least some people.
Meanwhile the Trump PACs and the RNC are spending millions on Trump’s criminal defense and paying the inner circle of Trump family and functionaries. I may have seen a 2024 Trump ad, but I cannot recall it.
Does anyone actually believe their power bills will come down? Seems like a pro Trump ad for the discerning viewer.
Wisconsin doesn't get enough sunlight so it appears to be hugely stupid.
By all means yes, let’s publicize Biden’s actual record on “green energy” and his disastrous and impossible to achieve EV policies. For good measure let’s dispel the trite lie about “lowering energy bills” by showing the actual results in California, always ahead of the curve on crazy policies, where power prices are doubled yet the delivery is unstable and intermittent rolling blackouts are endured by an increasingly frustrated populace. One final frustrating fact is the homeowners who “invested” in rooftop solar based on the return on investment provided by generous subsidies and the ability to sell excess power back to the grid for a good price have learned that all the Progressive Promises come with expiration dates not spelled out in their contracts. Thus the tax subsidies evaporated and the grid is refusing the costly rooftop power in favor of cheaper fossil fuel power from out of state, leaving strapped homeowners with rising costs and monthly solar bills. Unless they had a fixed mortgage rate they are getting Bidenomics good and hard.
These are the natural economic consequences of “green energy.” California, Germany, Minnesota, the UK — everywhere and always the results are the same: economic disaster and people suffer for stupid politicians green dreams. Just wait until the solar arrays and windmills reach the end of their short life cycles! Like Tesla batteries the replacement cost is a killer!
I am certain the Center for the American Experience will run competing ads in MN. Who will tell the truth to the Badger state?
Random thought: the solution to money in politics isn’t transparency-it’s obscurity. If an elected could did not know who his donors were, then legislation could (perhaps) be based less on access/funding and more on merit.
Perhaps. And don’t ask me how to accomplish this if it were a good idea.
Gov. Mince.
As my favorite pics on this blog will confirm, sunny days in Wisconsin are not as frequent as daily pictures of the Madison sunrise would suggest. (That sentence doesn’t sound right but I don’t have the time to fix it)
Days of Sunshine Per Year in Wisconsin
I haven’t checked, but I bet the NYT article didn’t mention it, as suplemental information, for their readers.
Even Chuck is noticing that Biden is having to run ads to try to rally his base.
Biden is burning through dollars we DON'T HAVE at the rate of A TRILLION EVERY 100 DAYS..
For THAT money.. Couldn't they JUST BUY the votes?
Rh got it @7:07, as I was wrestling with a sentence.
I don't mind low-key, but Evers is starting to remind me of Gray Davis. Davis was also low key but got trapped by giving succor to higher-ups who had an urgent agenda in CA politics. Davis famously got recalled and replaced by Schwarzenegger.
Rusty,
Not pastureland, crop land, at least from what I’ve seen in my area. Prime food growing land. The farmer makes more money selling to wind and solar farms than growing and selling crops. People better think about that for a while.
"solar projects, which the ad says will power 750,000 homes in the state."
When the sun shines, maybe, and when hail doesn't destroy the panels, on a good day, backed by natural gas and coal, just to keep people from freezing.
Solar power in Northern states: it won't work, because winter sunlight is (a) scarce due to cloudiness, (b) at a very low angle when it shines, and (c) often blocked by snow accumulated on the panels. Because of (a) and (b) conditions, the revenue lost due to snow on panels is so low that it is not worth it to clear the snow from the panels, for which the labor costs more than the revenue lost.
Solar might work in sunny places like most of California, but Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and New England are just too far North and too snowy.
Maybe you ought to up your nuclear game (which is now just 14% of your grid power).
@Mike (MJB Wolf), I have a south-facing roof and considered adding solar panels. I even had a contractor out to talk to me about how many panels could fit on the roof (because of the placement of toilet vents and the chimney, only 15). But some of the basic questions I asked the contractor couldn’t answer (including how much power would it generate on a cloudy day — even in Virginia there are days that are not sunny) and, most disturbingly, there was a strong push to get me to sign right this very minute. I didn’t reach my 70s without realizing that when you are in a position where you must say “yes” then the only right answer is “no.”
In addition to the points you raise, my research since then uncovered another problem for rooftop solar: fires. The US Department of Energy claims that the risk is less than 1%, though whether I should trust a publication put out by an agency run by Jennifer Granholm is a good question. Here’s the best data I could find:
A 2021 study found that countries like Germany, Italy, Australia, and the United States had 29 fires per GW of installed solar power each year
My position is that water will flow whether we use it to generate hydroelectric power or not. Radioactive elements will decay whether we build nuclear power plants or not. And the sun will shine whether we capture thst energy via solar panels or not. But let’s finish working out some more of the risks of flaming solar panels on the roof, shall we?
The actual number of single family houses in Wisconsin is difficult to assess. Are there even 750k single family homes ready for solar? I'm guessing no.
other than people like Chuck, that are PAID by the democrats.. is ANYONE in favor of Biden?
ANY ONE?
Inga? do YOU Love Biden? i mean i'm SURE that your vote will be counted for him; but do you LOVE him?
Evergreen is one of those sick-fuck organizations that take advantage of nonprofit status to hide the origins of leftie political funding. Dark money doesn't begin to describe it- it's a funnel organization for 1630 and Arabella, the mother ships of left wing advocacy and hiding where the money comes from.
Chances are they're using your won tax dollars to feed the solar program as well as the ads to tell you this. Though we'll never rally know...
Solar works well for me, and I probably save a few hundred bucks a year. But I'm in an area with lots of sunshine and few trees around. And by "works well", I don't mean at night. I still need to be connected to the grid. Pushing solar everywhere is stupid.
The inside of solar panels contain toxic metals. One good hailstorm followed by rain and the land under those panels is poisoned for a long time. Not a bad idea in the desert, a disaster elsewhere.
They don't really care about the environment, it's about the virtue- see what we're doing for you, an ungrateful WI? I don't think they really care about the political ad either. They know we're in a post-election America now...
For the Great State of Wisconsin, known for it's excess year round sunshine, solar is the perfect energy source to solve all of our inflation problems.
PPS:
Norway and Finland have recently scaled back their plans for wind and solar in favor of nuclear.
For extra points: What do Norway, Finland and Wisconsin have in common?
Tom T. said...
Even Chuck is noticing that Biden is having to run ads to try to rally his base.
No. My point is that it is “advantage Biden; the Biden side has the resources to run ads while Trump doesn’t.”
And I’ll add to that point. In other states, and on national media, I am seeing much more (D) advertising than (R) in contested races. I see much, much more Sherrod Brown advertising than Bernie Moreno. More Jon Tester, than his opponent whose name presently escapes even a political nerd like me. I am seeing a lot of Mike Rogers (R) ads in Michigan, but the fact is that the waves of Elissa Slotkin ads are coming inasmuch as she has a lot more cash in hand for the fall.
Althouse said...
Technically?! It is an an issue-advocacy organization, and the tax advantages are not just a technicality.
What I'm noticing is that all the NYT Democrat puff pieces that Althouse has posted so far are free access.
Is the selective choice of a for-profit, otherwise paywalled newspaper to provide free access to articles that benefit a specific politician a form of in-kind contribution?
Yeah, solar is so popular, WA state government just outlawed natural gas usage to force people to use electricity for heating, laundry, cooking and hot water. Next on their target will be propane. The new law allows Puget Sound Energy to tell customers that PSE is terminating their NG service. Customers must spend $40,000 to $70,000 to upgrade their panel and replace their furnaces, water heaters, stoves and driers. And, at the same time, PSE can write off the pipelines and charge that to their customers. Not to mention the higher electricity rates because of increased demand since NG is no longer available.
Solar power is a joke, especially in northern states. Wind power is also a joke. Both are not "green power", Solar leaches heavy metals into the soil, windmills kill birds and insects in job lots. Both have service lives of only 20 years, then it's off to the landfill.
I want a true and detailed study of what is required to create solar panels. What mining, if any, is involved? What is the lifespan and how are they disposed of once the lifespan is done? I would need to be convinced they actually are environmentally friendly after all the details are outlined. We have a beautiful community pavilion and library in our town. A whole area of wildflowers near it was torn up to install an array of ugly solar panels.
Solar power, like wind power, is usually rated based on conditions that rarely are in effect, especially Wisconsin in winter. The actual output is usually far less than the predicted output. Wind and solar also have the bad habit of failing when it is needed most, as Texas learned. They typically do not bother to clear the snow from solar panels, not that they would produce much power during a snowstorm anyway.
You save money through government subsidies. When you include the taxes used to pay the subsidies, it costs more, though if a particular customer would benefit would depend on the tax situation.
Who's going to keep our solar panels cleared of leaves and debris?
Illegal aliens will fill in until the robots are ready.
I'm around 30° north latitude, and solar can be made to work reasonably well here as a supplement or emergency source, although the tax breaks will be expiring soon. We're close enough to the Tropic of Cancer (23°) so in summer the sun gets pretty close to overhead. The height of the sun in the sky is fundamental to the concept. Wisconsin is all pretty much north of 40° north latitude. Anybody that says that solar can be relied upon as a basis for almost a million homes is less than completely honest, and that's not even accounting for the clouds and the hail. It can't even be relied upon as a basis - compared to the alternatives - here in Texas. A few nuts do it, but mostly because they got the tax break for it. Without it, the payout doesn't exist.
Regarding the ad - will people see it for what it is? I have my doubts, which are also disappointments when it comes to stuff like this.
5. Over there in Trump world, you don't have to worry climate change at all. It's not even real.
It's not real. Even liberals who believe it's real only make symbolic virtue signaling gestures. No real changes that would inconvenience them, or cost them anything. Now, they even hate Tesla.
Can you get a conditional use permit for your leaf blower to save the planet?
According to my sources, Musk is working on a bird poop blower.
Climate change and sea level rise is so real that Obama bought a mansion on Martha's Vineyard, right off the beach.
1) The out of state slumlords that own all the houses in Milwaukee's massive hood are not going to put $1 into any home improvements. Lead pipes are still a problem. Those houses in Milwaukee's hood are insulated with fly paper. That's why people use their stove burners for dangerous heat. Madison couldn't are less.
2) Waukesha County isn't going to to shit. We know it's all bullshit. If you do the budget billing with WE Energies, the the seasonal utility cost are manageable.
3) I vote to use all of Dane County as a "solar only" experiment county. Have fun with your pipes freezing and exploding in the winter. Start with Madison and work your way out. Then maybe the other liberal UW College towns can follow suit.
4) The Wind turbines that pollute the beautiful view on State Road 33 haven't contributed shit to the grid, but instead fuck up the landscape. They look like the Imperial Storm Walkers from "The Empire Strikes Back."
The best is when you meet and AWFL who is all about the environment, but has dual air conditioners cooling her 3500 square foot McMansion.
I've seen rainwater basins on the side of McMansions, right next to the dual air conditioning units.
I don’t for a minute believe those numbers are real, but rather focus on that let’s deal with on aspect of the Ad.
Energy prices will go down and home value will go up.
Right now my real estate taxes are nearly 3 times my utility bill.
So it follows that if the numbers are real- energy prices go down and home values go up, I’m going to lose even more money.
Blogger Jersey Fled said...
For extra points: What do Norway, Finland and Wisconsin have in common?
I guessing Brandy consumption.
Last time we were up that way, the public library in Wisconsin Rapids had a solar array on its roof, with a display at center of the reading room showing how many kWh the array generated in real time. It was great in summer, with a constant flow to the library's physical plant (though there wasn't an accompanying graph showing total electricity use and whether any power was being put back in the grid.
Winter was another story. Most days, it was cloudy to partly cloudy, and kWh generated was less than half of what came in during summer, and of course for fewer hours. Still less power from the grid, but storage batteries would even out the load during the darker/colder months.
Solar panels for my home run about $80k in material and initial installation. Average life is 25 years, supposedly. That comes out to $267/mo. My electric bill was $125 in May using the grid. I’ll need more than $1 million to pay double for energy.
Length of day increases as you go north (summer) compensating for angle of the sun effect.
Meanwhile, in California where there's plenty of sun, a planned solar project is meeting resistance from environmentalists:
Can bighorns, a bullet train and a huge solar farm coexist in the Mojave Desert
Article is behind the LATimes paywall, so I can't provide quotes, but the issue is being debated on social media, as you might imagine.
There are a handful of yard signs in my Madison neighborhood touting Biden's clean energy plan. They appeared several months ago. Makes me chuckle every time I encounter one on my walks. "Save energy today" is one of its 2 points. I look at the house and imagine the economic illiterates inside.
a $1 million plan for TV spots playing up the president’s record on green power
It sounds more impressive if you say “one million dollars” in the Dr. Evil voice from Austin Powers.
Sorry. No financial support from me for Biden until he has been convicted and sentenced.
2. $1 million spent on TV ads seems too trivial to be warrant a NYT article. Is it an effort to cheer readers up: $1 million to the rescue? Or is this a gentle raising of the alarm: "Mr. Biden has failed...."?
...
5. Over there in Trump world, you don't have to worry climate change at all. It's not even real.
Just some grammar issues I think you might want to tweak.
"Meanwhile, in California..."
Joshua trees are protected by law. Also...
A new solar power project that will break ground in the Mojave Desert, near two Kern County towns in California, will require thousands of Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia) to be removed. The project is also expected to destroy a habitat for desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii), California’s state reptile and a threatened species.
Go Green!
From the article: "These ads are an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Ms. Whitmer and Mr. Evers, who polls show are far more popular than Mr. Biden in their states."
Well...Barney the wheezing pedophile down the street is more popular than Joe Biden these days. Of course Ms. Whitmer and Mr. Evers are more popular than Biden. But...is the concept that 750,000 homeowners are going to pierce their roofs to get solar panels in a region (upper Midwest) that is notorious for overcast skies and/or snow 4-5 months of the year? What is their back-up energy plan?
Or...is the Grand Plan one that involves taking over huge swaths of non-residential land (i.e. natural green spaces, parks, meadows, etc) and fill them with nature-killing panel farms such as is being done in the Mojave Desert of California?
An image of what your most beautiful parts of Wisconsin will look like as this progresses.
'Your home value goes up and your energy bill goes down.'
Well, let's see...
If your home value goes up, you pay more taxes. If the value of the house you're renting goes up, landlords pay more taxes and raise rent to make up for it.
I've read a number of articles about rising electric bills, even in areas that are adding lots of wind and solar power generation. Where is it that prices are going down?
Is the goal to power 8 houses in a couple of years?
Are they hiring the same people who are rolling out the federal EV charging stations program?
Will Mayor Pete come to your door and personally explain how your panels work and give you some candy?
'Your home value goes up …"
I would think long and hard about buying a house with solar panels on the roof. If they're brand new, and given my age, I'd probably say ok. If they're old, forget about it.
will power 750,000 homes in the state."
This is intended to obfuscate more than illuminate. How much electricity is this, actually? How many kilowatt-hours?
The other thing that this kind of reporting does, and I assume it does here but there is no way to tell, is to confuse nameplate or nominal output of the solar panels with actual output.
1,000KW of panels nominal will put out 1,000, at noon, on a sunny day, if the panels are clean, optimally angled and everything else is perfect. It is the very best that can ever be expected.
Then you have capacity factor. Assuming perfection, the sun only shines, on average, about 6 hours a day. That's the rating for Puerto Rico, probably closer to 4 for northern states like Wisconsin. That is not total sunlight, just the amount of hours that enough will strike the panels to generate juice.
So right there, capacity factor, in PR, is 25%, or 250KW. 16% or 160KW in WI.
So those 750,000 homes become 16% of 750,000 or 120,000 homes.
And if we assume 750,000 homes means 750,000KW of nominal solar, at 4 acres per 1,000KW (nominal) that is 750 acres, or about 1.2 square miles of panels to power 120,000 homes.
Fossil and nuclear plants typically run at 90% or better capacity factor over their lives. They can run at 100%, sometimes greater, for hours, or even weeks at a time. More importantly, they generate power when it is needed, not when the sun shines or the wind blows.
The power is dispatchable, on demand.
John Henry
Re solar capacity:
It is about 15 minutes before noon just now, on a reasonably clear day in eastern PR.
About 10 miles from my house is a 40MW, nominal, solar farm called Fonroche in Humacao. ///obey.helpful.pounding at What3words.com
Genera-pr.com is the govt utility that manages electricity generation in PR. (Luma purchases from them and distributes it) They publish real time data at https://genera-pr.com/data-generacion
There are a total of 150MW nominal solar plants connected to the grid. (current total demand is about 3,500MW) Currently they are putting out a total of 88MW, at noon on a sunny day. 58% capacity factor.
Fonroche, 40MW, is currently putting out 28MW, 70% capacity factor.
Fonroche is getting paid 17 cents/kwh. The 6 other plants are getting paid 18-21cents.
For contrast, we have a privately owned 450MW coal plant. It is currently putting out 242MW with 1 of 2 units offline. It is getting 4.4c/kwh
Eco-Electrica is a private 530MW combined cycle natural gas plant. Currently putting out 420MW at a cost of 10.62 cents.
Govt owned oil fired plants are providing most of the rest at 15-20 cents/kwh.
We also have a wind farm providing 31MW at 16.3 cents
My latest electric bill was a tad more than 22c/kwh.
Why the hell is solar so expensive?
John Henry
Photovoltaic without memory, wind turbines that operate in a viable range are models of intermittent, unreliable energy converters and renewable profits of the Green blight.
Direction and angle of solar panels has a huge effect on their efficiency. Rooftop solar pretty much has to face the same direction as the roof. There is some, but not unlimited, room to play with the angle.
How many houses are facing the right direction for solar?
When those folks come around telling you how much money you will save with solar, do they take that into consideration?
John Henry
How about reminding the voters of Wisconsin that "something they like [i.e. federally built EV charging stations]" has been a total, not to say very expensive, failure under Biden.
Blogger Leland said...
That comes out to $267/mo.
Not bad for a first pass to demonstrate infeasibility. But you really need to factor in the cost of money.
Either the cost of financing the install or the opportunity loss if you pay out of pocket.
Either way, probably closer to $500/month.
Also maintenance, repair, insurance and other costs.
John Henry
John Henry asks:
"Why the hell is solar so expensive?"
Solar and wind take huge amounts of resources to generate a pitiful amount of power. There foot prints are 10x to 100x more than the equivalent coal/gas/nuke power plant. Coal/gas/uranium costs are low relative to solar panels/windmill blades & generators. We can't forget about all the environmental desctruction required to site these monstrosities.
Wind and solar are not green and not economical.
Nobodoy seems to be reporting the millions and millions and millions spent on vote harvesting of universal mail in ballots, and on staffing the election count with those who support Biden. That is what is going to win Biden this election, and nothing else can lose it for him unless he is unalive on election day due to old age, or his supporters' finding a substitute for him.
Mike of Snoqualmie said...
Solar power is a joke, especially in northern states. Wind power is also a joke. Both are not "green power", Solar leaches heavy metals into the soil, windmills kill birds and insects in job lots. Both have service lives of only 20 years, then it's off to the landfill.
20 years under the best of circumstances. Meanwhile where I now work the powers that be discovered our watertube boilers were 50 years old, and the organization's rule is that they have a max lifetime of 40 years... With the planning process and all the bureaucracy involved, we're about 5 years away from getting 3 new firetube boilers- with a projected lifetime of 30 years. Why firetube? Well, they're cheaper to buy. Why listen to us operators telling them maintenance ease and longevity make watertube the better option? What do we know? Not like we're been working in the field for 40 years or anything. We don't have DEGREES!
Then there's the safety thing. Searching for which is safer-
Water-tube boilers are known to be safer than their fire-tube counterparts from an operational standpoint. The feature that makes water-tube ..
'Your home value goes up and your energy bill goes down.'
That's not always true. Solar panels are only good for about 25 years. So if someone buys your house, they're going to have to pay to replace the panels and the cost of removing the old solar array.
Also, the solar offset to your electrical bill is dependent on where you live. I live in Riverside County in CA. We have a tremendous amount of sunlight year round and my solar array generates more than my power consumption. (I can't imagine that you have that much daily sunlight in Wisconsin.) So for half the year I have a very small electric bill and the other half of the year I have a credit on my electric bill, but I still have a 20 year loan to pay off the solar array.
But then there's the unforeseeable variable of the government. A couple of years ago, in California, the California Public Utilities Commission (a totally unelected body of bureaucrats), changed the rules from Net Metering 2 to Net Metering 3. Under Net Metering 2, you were paid market price for the energy that your solar put back into the grid. That meant that your energy savings could pay for itself in about 20 years. Under Net Metering 3, they substantially reduced the amount that you would be paid for putting electricity back into the grid. So that means that it will take about 20 years to pay off your solar array from your electricity savings. (Luckily, I'm grandfathered into Net Metering 2 for the next 17 years.)
But it got worse...
This year, the California Public Utilities Commission decided to change the way that we pay for electricity. Now our electric bills will be broken into parts: One part is based on how much electricity you use. (At a slightly reduced rate) The second part is based on your household income. (The more you make, the more you pay.) So most low income people will see their bills go down slightly. (But not in the Bay Area. Up there, even the low income people will see their monthly bills go up.)
It's all in the name of "equity." The people at the California Public Utilities Commission felt that too many middle class and rich people were unfairly benefitting from getting solar on their buildings. (Plus solar didn't help renters one bit.) But they completely ignored the fact that people who got solar paid tens of thousands of dollars to do it. (And most took out loans to do it.)
So now the solar companies in California are struggling because business has dried up and many solar companies will go out of business.
Solar might work in sunny places like most of California
What a stupid uninformed statement. It is so unreliable, and only available at peak hours, making it horrendously inefficient. Data centers and a/c units tend to run 24/7 not just during sunny days. The environmental cost is high, the parts are sources from slave mines and the lifespan is less than 20 years. Rinse and repeat and where does the waste go.
Connections to Jay Inslee?
Types. Deletes.
Types. Deletes again.
Over there in Trump world, you don't have to worry climate change at all. It's not even real.
Climate change is real, and has been going on for 4.6 billion years.
STFU and deal with it.
Under Net Metering 2, you were paid market price for the energy that your solar put back into the grid.
When you say market price, do you mean the same price you pay to buy power from the utility?
Since 1980 or before that has been the meaning of "Net Metering"
There are a couple different meanings in the utility world for "market price"
Leave it to CA to have multiple kinds of net metering to further confuse things.
John Henry
If there's no money for ads, Chuck! should wonder why Trump polls so well.
He should also give us an update on his "migrant" guest room conversion.
(in between sips of T&T)
There are legitimate national interests in investing in renewable energy via solar, geo, wind, and otherwise. And there are legitimate places to make such investments to reduce the reliance on foreign sources of energy.
unfortunately both parties have completely lost their minds on this and many other matters.
Republicans SHOULD be advising smart investment as a national security interest, but not this willy nilly massive slush fund shit.
Relying on solar and wind in Wisconsin is a particularly stupid move, and if the voters of Wisconsin vote for it, when they start freezing to death in the winter, sympathy is going to be in short supply. Florida and Southern California, Arizona and New Mexico, parts of Texas, maybe. Wisconsin? Are they stupid?
And when they need to be replaced in 20 years they will be considered hazardous waste. You will pay as much to have them disposed of as you paid to have them installed.
Rusty said...
"Makes perfect sense for Wisconsin. Hail storms, Tornados and 150 days of sunless skys. How many acres of prime pastureland is this gonna ruin?"
One of the Japanese automakers that makes hybrids got their engineers together to calculate what USA land mass would be needed for solar cells to go all electric. The answer was 2/3.
Darkisland said...
"Under Net Metering 2, you were paid market price for the energy that your solar put back into the grid.
When you say market price, do you mean the same price you pay to buy power from the utility?"
It actually works out to slightly less than the amount that I would pay to draw the same amount out of the grid. Also, don't forget that in California, we're charged different rates during different times of the day. (To make things even more confusing.)
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2024/06/04/i-see-what-you-did-here-california-n3789659
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा