# Conservative Political Group Aims to Penalize Solar Owners



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) reportedly plans to promote state-level legislation that would, effectively, prevent homeowners from going solar.

More...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

This "article" falls under the category of, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

I've never met, nor even heard of, a person who opposed alternative energy on the grounds of their "Conservative Beliefs." Nor does anything this group proposed constitute "an attempt to block alternative power."

The article is pure hate-mongering, lacking in any actual factual statements regarding the ALEC group.

Here' an example of why the uber-greenies are perceived as utterly insane by normal people:



> At its meeting in August, ALEC put forward an initiative that would allow utility companies to import clean energy from other states ...


In other words, the utilities are asking for laws which violate the Constitutional guarantee to free and unrestricted interstate commerce to be overturned because they are un-Constitutional. Duh.

When you demonize others for doing what is rational, you have become the thing you are trying to accuse others of being.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

Not exactly an unbiased article, is it ? Written by a propaganda rag for the global warming agenda, it is almost laughable in its paranoia. A meeting is planned with OVER 800 attendees from legislators to energy industry leaders. Dozens of energy issues will be discussed, and yet they must all be in lockstep on every issue ? The only "conservative" theme they probably have in common is a backlash against the dictatorial EPA and "mandates" designed to crush their existing businesses while subsidizing their competitors. The EPA lost all credibility when it bought into the Global Warming scam and demanded authority to control CO2 as though it were a pollutant.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Climate change is real.
I suppose you guys think that the sun revolves around the earth, too!
Since you guys are into junk science, why don't you abandon all electric vehicle design, since it involves junk science?
Over 95% of world scientists believe that climate change is true.
Would you trust a medical treatment that was recommended by 95% of the physicians or 5% of them?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> Climate change is real.
> I suppose you guys think that the sun revolves around the earth, too!
> Since you guys are into junk science, why don't you abandon all electric vehicle design, since it involves junk science?
> Over 95% of world scientists believe that climate change is true.
> Would you trust a medical treatment that was recommended by 95% of the physicians or 5% of them?


We've had this conversation before. I believe in climate change; disagree that the worst-case projections are anything but political hype; but even if they aren't they will be a non-issue in a few years.

That does not put me in "junk science" - that title goes to those who cherry pick results from experiments and blatantly ignore other evidence (such as declining prices for solar and batteries) which render the topic moot.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Although I am a progressive "Greenie", I agree that many environmental groups tend to be excessively alarmist and often "cherry-pick" news items and blow them out of proportion to advance their agenda. But much of that comes from the increasing polarity of far-right extremists and their own short-sighted efforts to bolster the profits of their supporters in the Big Energy and Big Business sectors. 

I have tried to find references to ALEC that are less sensational and slanted toward conservatives with their own explanations of the logic and intent of ALEC's actions, but all I could find have been articles by environmental activists in predominantly "liberal" venues. And most of them seem to cite the Guardian as their primary source. Here are some links to what I found:

http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/12/after-a-political-setback-in-nc-alec-retools-assau.html

http://www.quietsolarenergy.com/con...s-stealth-tax-on-homeowners-who-install-solar

http://www.energyandpolicy.org/the_...xt_attack_on_clean_energy_surfaces_in_arizona

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterde...ing-at-risk-of-further-polarizing-the-debate/

Here is a link to information supplied by the electric power industry and their associations (Edison Electric Institute):

http://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/...ocuments/Straight Talk About Net Metering.pdf

Others:

http://energy.gov/savings/valley-electric-association-net-metering
http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/saveenergymoney/solarenergy/solarupgrade/index.page
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/examine-issues/policy/net-energy-metering.aspx

I think there is at least one basic flaw in their statement about the charges for consumption of electrical energy and the reverse charges paid to homeowners for excess energy returned to the grid. There are two separate and distinct set of charges: one for the distribution charges for connection to the grid, and another for the energy actually consumed (or returned to the grid). It is certainly reasonable for electric companies to charge the fee for connection to the grid, for the costs of maintaining and improving it. But the fees for the energy itself should be based on the rates of the _energy supplier_, and not the local utility. Small scale local co-generation actually reduces the costs of the transmission and distribution because it lowers the power of the long haul transmission lines as well as local distribution equipment, and may reduce the impact of blackouts on homes, businesses, and communities.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

In Cal the power co's. pay les for the excess power they buy back then they charge the owner when he buys it back . So a fee is built in .


----------



## dedlast (Aug 17, 2013)

sunworksco said:


> Climate change is real.
> I suppose you guys think that the sun revolves around the earth, too!
> Since you guys are into junk science, why don't you abandon all electric vehicle design, since it involves junk science?
> Over 95% of world scientists believe that climate change is true.
> Would you trust a medical treatment that was recommended by 95% of the physicians or 5% of them?


I hate getting involved in these "arguments" since I find them a complete waste of breath on both sides. Nobody's likely to change their mind because of what they read in this forum. But I think dragging `prevailing scientific opinion` into the argument and trying to use that as an argument-ending statement is disingenuous. Prevailing scientific opinion changes with the wind, so to speak. To re-use your example, at one time, all the scientists who were anybody thought the sun _did_ revolve around the earth. 

I tend to think the way PhantomPholly does on this. Things are changing, but I have some serious doubts that human activity is as heavily involved as we are told and the actions proposed or taken to control it or more about controlling people than fixing the problem. 

In the mean-time, I will continue my efforts to minimize my own footprint because it makes ecological and economic sense to me to do so.

Bill


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Since when does scientific data become opinions?
The data extracted from the ice core drilling in the polar caps are from science, not opinions.
Maybe when 25% of world population is displaced due to the rising ocean levels from the polar caps melting, you may change your opinions.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> This "article" falls under the category of, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."
> 
> I've never met, nor even heard of, a person who opposed alternative energy on the grounds of their "Conservative Beliefs." Nor does anything this group proposed constitute "an attempt to block alternative power."
> 
> ...


The issue is that the people who are financing the 'conservative movement' are the ones who don't want their energy companies threatened by this. And they are the ones claiming that there is this 'war on coal' that I wish was happening from clean energy.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lt1800/sounding-the-alarm-new-regulations-on-the-way-from 
(With articles like that, no wonder there are so many people who don't think for themselves and post on-line)

As to why ALEC would want to sell clean energy over state lines, I bet it has a lot to do with Nevada and Arizona. They would have their utilities build there for cheap and then sell the electricity to California. I doubt their intentions are honest and good, and I am right in accusing ALEC of being evil until they somehow prove otherwise.

The rest of the country isn't generating enough clean energy to power a city or two in each state, let alone a whole state.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Just last night I saw the movie "Silkwood", and it shows what "Big Business" is capable of and how they will do almost anything to bolster their bottom line and enable big bonuses for bosses and speculators (shareholders), at the expense of their employees and the health and welfare of the public. Fortunately there are laws intended to protect those who report unsafe practices, although there are still many problems and people still fear harassment and retaliation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

Another movie based on real life was Erin Brockovich, who was (and is) a real life whistleblower and highly effective activist who helped compensate people who were injured by activities of PG&E.

Also see "Coal Country", which ostensibly tries to present both sides of the story, but slants to the side of safety, which I believe is prudent and reasonable, given the excesses and misinformation presented by those who stand to make huge profits at public expense.

Other informative links about what seems to be going on are:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-kno...willing-to-go-for-canadas-tar-sands-oil/7676/


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> Although I am a progressive "Greenie", I agree that many environmental groups tend to be excessively alarmist and often "cherry-pick" news items and blow them out of proportion to advance their agenda. But much of that comes from the increasing polarity of far-right extremists and their own short-sighted efforts to bolster the profits of their supporters in the Big Energy and Big Business sectors.


Paul, that is the situation viewed through extremely colored glasses. It makes multiple assumptions, many of which are either flat out wrong or upon which there is at least honest disagreement.

Fact: The laws created which give current alternative energy generating homes full value for energy put into the grid as what they draw out, on whatever schedule is convenient to them, is essentially stealing from the power companies (and thus ultimately their other consumers, to whom they pass along those costs) because it forces them to subsidize those installations. From your point of view those subsidies are a "good thing;" however those who understand economics understand that this creates a net increase in the cost of energy to other people (because the utilities merely pass these costs on to other consumers). Thus, these subsidies are effectively allowing people who install solar (mostly wealthier people) to steal from the poor (who must foot the bill for higher net energy costs). The astonishing part is that liberals think this is "helping," and are carrying an astonishing level of cognitive dissonance given that they seem to think the wealthy are evil.

Fact: There is no initiative whatsoever from any quarter to "quash alternative energy." None. Businesses simply realize that subsidies are bad for everyone. A desire to remove subsidies is not opposition, it is a recognition that the fastest way to get where we are going is to promote prosperity.

Fact:  Throughout history there have been literally millions of government schemes to make something "affordable." Some of those were sincere, while some of those were simply "political cover" to accomplish some corrupt reallocation of taxpayer money to some favored cronies - but the result was that none have ever accomplished what they said they were attempting to do.

Fact: You cannot create more innovation through legislation. You can, at best, hurry one engineering feat at the expense of many other lost opportunities (like the Manhattan Project did) - but at the end of the day such projects always have unintended consequences that the politicians try to hide.

People who want a particular outcome before its time do not want to hear that it is not possible, or that efforts to force it have exactly the opposite effects - and politicians are quick to tell such suckers that they can, in fact, wave a magic wand and make it happen. Believing in such things (something for nothing) is a fools game.

So, when you view the actual facts an stop focusing on the rhetoric, what you find is that what Conservatives want is to stop doing those things which we know absolutely will make life worse for the average person. That is not being "more polarized" or "more extreme" - it is exactly the same position they have always held while the left has become more and more extreme. The only reason that some people perceive Conservatives as "more extreme" is because they themselves have moved further and further from what actually works in life.

And yes, I know you won't believe me on this - because it would require you to accept that you have become an extremist. No one ever thinks that about themselves, even when they are chanting for people to be lynched for simply expressing another point of view. But if you are willing to face unpleasant truth, go and read up on JFK and his views on government. With regards to business, taxes, and the economy they are almost identical to Conservatives today - and the Left still idolizes him.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> Since when does scientific data become opinions?
> The data extracted from the ice core drilling in the polar caps are from science, not opinions.
> Maybe when 25% of world population is displaced due to the rising ocean levels from the polar caps melting, you may change your opinions.


Being displaced is not "catastrophic." If it warms a bit we will find the world's most fertile land thawed, providing the largest harvests ever seen. The world went through warming phases before, and we still do not know why the warming stopped and reversed before the so-called effects of mankind on our levels of CO2. There are mechanisms we do not yet understand, and therefore our science (and any "projections" based on our science) is incomplete and therefore suspect. It is good science to understand that there is much you do not understand. 

Anything beyond that belongs in the "Climate Change" thread.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> Just last night I saw the movie "Silkwood", and it shows what "Big Business" is capable of and how they will do almost anything to bolster their bottom line and enable big bonuses for bosses and speculators (shareholders), at the expense of their employees and the health and welfare of the public.


"Big Business" doesn't do this - people do.

The vast majority of big businesses are run by conscientious people (who may only be that way for fear of discovery if they do something wrong, but the reason hardly matters). 

The idea that some whole sector of business is "evil" is utter nonsense. Those in "Big Oil" are responding to an insatiable desire from the public, who like crack whores will do anything to keep their cheap gasoline. Pointing your finger at the oil company as "the source of evil" is exactly the same as pointing into a mirror.

As for tar sands - they are economical, period. If they weren't, the Canadians wouldn't be creating fuel from them.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Being displaced is not "catastrophic." If it warms a bit we will find the world's most fertile land thawed, providing the largest harvests ever seen. The world went through warming phases before, and we still do not know why the warming stopped and reversed before the so-called effects of mankind on our levels of CO2. There are mechanisms we do not yet understand, and therefore our science (and any "projections" based on our science) is incomplete and therefore suspect. It is good science to understand that there is much you do not understand.
> 
> Anything beyond that belongs in the "Climate Change" thread.


How about all of the methane that will be escaping the Tundra?
You are what is wrong with "Junk Science", thinking that earth will provide us with a great climate for agriculture.
Just the opposite will happen. The climate will change for the worst growing conditions with tremendous temperature swings and droughts.
Methane is the biggest problem we have for destroying earth's atmosphere.
You don't understand the climatology but the climatologists do understand what the problem is and how to explain it better than you can.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> How about all of the methane that will be escaping the Tundra?


Where do you think all that methane came from in the first place? And how did it end up in the Tundra?

Unlock all that land from ice, and green things sprout - pulling CO2 and methane out of the atmosphere and locking it into the soil.

<snip stuff that belongs in the Climate Change thread>



> Methane is the biggest problem we have for destroying earth's atmosphere.


I'm not going to argue the science with you - both because I admit I'm not a climate scientist and because I'm convinced by what you've written that you aren't either. I am, however, an ardent student of history - and this scam is exactly like thousands which have come before it. Too, I've read the summary reports of the experts (all of them, both pro and con), and our greatest threat is temperature change. Given these facts alone, the crisis is clearly manufactured because by the time it will be a real issue other factors will render it moot. The temperature is rising linearly, while our understanding is growing geometrically. That means that spending trillions to "do something now" is both unnecessary and wasteful, because in 30 years we will have reduced our emissions 80-90% and will also have developed more effective means to address the additional CO2 and methane - IF in fact we decide at that time that they are a problem.



> You don't understand the climatology but the climatologists do understand what the problem is and how to explain it better than you can.


Yet they've put together plain-English summaries which any rational person can easily comprehend - so I do in fact have a firm understanding of the range of predicted impact of Climate Change, which is all I need to draw intelligent conclusions. According to the most negative summaries, by the year 2100 and if nothing changes in the way we use fossil fuels (which alone is a whopper of a FALSE supposition because by then we will all be on renewables) the temperature MIGHT rise 2 degrees centigrade. That is 87 years from now, and you can bet that we will be watching like a hawk during that time period to see if those predictions are accurate or bunk.

In the meantime, "Climate Change" is not about our climate. It is about power, and it is a scam, and there are two types of people who preach that we must take action: Those who know it is a scam but seek personal benefit, and those easily persuaded to be the scammers' tools to achieve their personal benefit.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> "Big Business" doesn't do this - people do.
> 
> The vast majority of big businesses are run by conscientious people (who may only be that way for fear of discovery if they do something wrong, but the reason hardly matters).
> 
> The idea that some whole sector of business is "evil" is utter nonsense.


The problem is that most people are conscientious - The common man is not only capable he/she is also quite capable of worrying about other people.

But businesses are not run by "most people" 
In order to get to the top of the heap a certain mindset is required

In all my years in industry middle managers and engineers tended to be governed by a desire to "get the job done"
Senior managers were uniformly governed by "what is best for ME"

Which is entirely predictable - who wins somebody who concentrates of his/her job? or somebody who concentrates on his/her career?

The net result is that senior positions are almost uniformly held by very unpleasant individuals

Don't be surprised when a system designed to select psychopaths ends up acting in a way that we would call "Evil"


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> The problem is that most people are conscientious - The common man is not only capable he/she is also quite capable of worrying about other people.
> 
> But businesses are not run by "most people"
> In order to get to the top of the heap a certain mindset is required
> ...


Duncan, that is one of your best posts ever IMHO. Ironically, it points out exactly why you and I don't see eye to eye politically - because the very logic you use to suggest that big business is heavily weighted towards sociopaths is exactly why government cannot be allowed to grow so large it cannot be held accountable. Business leaders at least are accountable to a Board of Directors; Customers; and to the laws of the land enforced by government (and sometimes those business leaders get ratted out by ambitious juniors...). All of those checks and balances tend to keep their ambition in check, "coloring between the lines" as it were. However, despite the fact that you clearly understand the basic nature of "people who seek power," you still cling to the notion that creating a monstrous government not accountable to anything at all is the "solution," not the problem. That disturbs me greatly, if you hadn't noticed...

We are already past the tipping point for big government, and we are seeing the abuses and the lack of accountability. Historically, we can expect to start to see more laws curtailing our Constitutional Rights and more and more judges upholding such violations using flimsy rationalizations. Our current POTUS and many in his political party have stated clearly on the record and in no uncertain terms that they think the Constitution is an outdated document and needs to be changed or abolished. This should frighten you greatly, and the fact that it does not speaks terrible things about the future of our once great nation.

It's time for you to go read (or re-read) Orwell's 1984, and Machiavelli's "The Prince." Take what you wrote above, and apply it to government, and figure out where it leads to.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Theoretically the government IS held accountable to the people - all of them - at least those entitled to vote. Business management is also held accountable to its stockholders, but in practice most of the stock is held by big investor/speculators with only monetary reward as their guide, or by the big bosses themselves. 

People tend to view government as some alien entity that either takes care of their needs with an infinite source of cash, or that restricts their perceived rights to do whatever they wish with what they consider their fully owned property, which in many cases is actually public land and resources or people themselves in the form of their employees.

In practice, government is largely controlled by politicians who in turn are largely controlled by big businesses who have a lot of money they can "invest" in lobbyists who provide deliberately falsified information in the guise of being "experts" in fields of which politicians are very poorly educated. Progressive "leftist" greenies and others who care about the environment and poor people rely on charitable contributions and when that money is targeted at legislation it no longer qualifies as tax deductible, so there is not nearly as much money to support their efforts to provide their version of "the truth". 

I am much more inclined to believe those who have little to gain from their actions to limit, control, regulate, and tax the activities of Big Business, yet the corporate apologists and Right Whiners assert that such precautionary efforts are due to some mysterious global entity that seeks extraordinary power and evil control over people. Jesse Ventura in his "Conspiracy Theory" series says "follow the money" and allegedly traces environmental efforts to some ultra-rich and powerful person or organization with world domination as his goal. Yet he and others of his ilk ignore or excuse the billions of dollars of profit and propaganda promulgated by the huge corporations who scream about every attempt at promoting public safety, accountability, and ethical practices.


----------



## Ampster (Oct 6, 2012)

PhantomPholly said:


> ........
> Fact......
> Fact......
> Fact......


Many of your "Facts", actually appear to be strongly held opinions or beliefs, not facts at all. With that level of misrepresentation I didn't bother to see if there was any merit to your argument.


----------



## Ampster (Oct 6, 2012)

aeroscott said:


> In Cal the power co's. pay les for the excess power they buy back then they charge the owner when he buys it back . So a fee is built in .



Yes, and the unfortunate thing in California is the power companies are not improving the distribution system so that it will be able to support the evolution of EV's and distributed generation from solar.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

All one has to do is think of the San Bruno, Ca. gas pipeline explosion.
There is nothing but profits over safety of human lives in that disaster.
We can't expect such a greedy entity to plan for a green future if they can't even maintain there own infrastructure.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> Theoretically the government IS held accountable to the people - all of them - at least those entitled to vote. Business management is also held accountable to its stockholders, but in practice most of the stock is held by big investor/speculators with only monetary reward as their guide, or by the big bosses themselves.


I am all in favor of making controlling stakeholders fully accountable for illegal actions of the corporations they hold (lifting the corporate veil). I am also in favor of revoking "personhood" status from corporations, and the immense immunity that charade provides to corporate leaders, boards, and principal stockholders for their actions. I don't know any Conservatives or Independents who do not favor accountability, and I'll point out that it is the liberal Trial Lawyers' Association which promotes most of the laws making it impossible to hold anyone accountable for anything, or to actually punish them if you catch them red-handed (or with cold cash in their freezer).

Neither of those actions would change the principal differences between corrupt government and corrupt businesses: 
1. Corrupt business can and sometimes is held accountable by government (including fines and jail time). Government representatives are immune from consequences to their actions.
2. Corporations cannot compel people to buy from them, or to work for them, and as a result entire businesses / corporations have fallen as a result of a single scandal. Government can do both, and is unfortunately immune to collapse from a simple scandal.
3. Corporations will never hire felons, nor allow them to remain in their job once convicted. Go check out the number of Congresspersons with criminal backgrounds - many of whom unapologetically run again and again after being caught.



> In practice, government is largely controlled by politicians who in turn are largely controlled by big businesses who have a lot of money they can "invest" in lobbyists who provide deliberately falsified information in the guise of being "experts" in fields of which politicians are very poorly educated.


The larger and more powerful the government, the easier it is to hide such corruption. In a smaller government, politicians cannot hide their corruption nearly so easily. Corruption will never go away as long as people do not change; however, you can significantly limit the damage caused by it by limiting the ability of elected officials to cause mischief.



> Progressive "leftist" greenies and others who care about the environment and poor people rely on charitable contributions and when that money is targeted at legislation it no longer qualifies as tax deductible, so there is not nearly as much money to support their efforts to provide their version of "the truth".


yadayada and Conservatives are busy making a living so the nonproductive lefties can get their foodstamps. Lefties have an army of people with nothing better to do than "demonstrate" to promote their propaganda.... We could go around on this all day and it means nothing. The bottom line is simple, and our Founders had it right: Any single limitation on people's rights should be firmly grounded in factual evidence showing that actual harm will be done unless those rights are limited. Any other use of power is an abuse. And, bringing this back to the subject of this thread, the subject article is screaming for our Constitutional Rights to be revoked despite firm evidence that the restrictions cause real harm to the poor and do nothing to solve the "problems" they claim as the justification for those restrictions.




> I am much more inclined to believe those who have little to gain from their actions to limit, control, regulate, and tax the activities of Big Business, yet the corporate apologists and Right Whiners assert that such precautionary efforts are due to some mysterious global entity that seeks extraordinary power and evil control over people. Jesse Ventura in his "Conspiracy Theory" series says "follow the money" and allegedly traces environmental efforts to some ultra-rich and powerful person or organization with world domination as his goal. Yet he and others of his ilk ignore or excuse the billions of dollars of profit and propaganda promulgated by the huge corporations who scream about every attempt at promoting public safety, accountability, and ethical practices.


Really? You hold up an ex-Professional Wrestler's conspiracy novel as stereotypical of Conservatives? Oh. My. God....


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> All one has to do is think of the San Bruno, Ca. gas pipeline explosion.





> PG&E also reduced their operating pressures by 20% after investigations revealed the pipeline may have been improperly installed.[32]


In other words, it appears that Union Labor (including IBEW 1245 and ESC Local 20) didn't do the job properly and so 8 people died. Why are they not indicted in this catastrophe? After all, their labor and rules are forced upon the utility?



> There is nothing but profits over safety of human lives in that disaster.


Yep. That is how Unions think.



> We can't expect such a greedy entity to plan for a green future if they can't even maintain there own infrastructure.


We can't achieve safety so long as labor dictates to management.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ampster said:


> Many of your "Facts", actually appear to be strongly held opinions or beliefs, not facts at all. With that level of misrepresentation I didn't bother to see if there was any merit to your argument.


That appears to be your opinion unsupported by any facts.

If you believe any one of those facts are incorrect, please provide some evidence to support your belief and I'll be happy to set you straight.

I am extremely careful about what I call a fact - you know, the criteria being that it is actually true....


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ampster said:


> Yes, and the unfortunate thing in California is the power companies are not improving the distribution system so that it will be able to support the evolution of EV's and distributed generation from solar.


The rise of solar power in California will help, not hurt, the distribution problems they have. That is because solar power is most available in the highest use hours, thus reducing the energy which needs to be distributed.

California has serious work to do on its distribution, but solar is part of the solution, not the problem.


----------



## Ampster (Oct 6, 2012)

PhantomPholly said:


> The rise of solar power in California will help, not hurt, the distribution problems they have. That is because solar power is most available in the highest use hours, thus reducing the energy which needs to be distributed.
> 
> California has serious work to do on its distribution, but solar is part of the solution, not the problem.


I absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately some if not all the public utilities here don't take that view. I believe it has been proven in Germany that the large number of solar intallations have benefited the grid.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

<crickets>......

So one presumes from this that there was no actual dispute of the facts, it was just an expression that you don't like the facts due to ideological beliefs. Well, that isn't unusual - reality is quite unpopular. Unfortunately, life doesn't change to match our fantasies, it is up to us to come to terms with Life.

If it's any consolation, I'm not particularly happy with the facts of life either. In my perfect world there would be no sick nor disabled nor stupid nor irrational nor unethical people. Go figure.



PhantomPholly said:


> Ampster said:
> 
> 
> > Many of your "Facts", actually appear to be strongly held opinions or beliefs, not facts at all. With that level of misrepresentation I didn't bother to see if there was any merit to your argument.
> ...


----------



## Ampster (Oct 6, 2012)

PhantomPholly said:


> <crickets>......
> 
> So one presumes from this that there was no actual dispute of the facts, it was just an expression that you don't like the facts due to ideological beliefs. Well, that isn't unusual - reality is quite unpopular. Unfortunately, life doesn't change to match our fantasies, it is up to us to come to terms with Life.
> 
> If it's any consolation, I'm not particularly happy with the facts of life either. In my perfect world there would be no sick nor disabled nor stupid nor irrational nor unethical people. Go figure.


If you are referring to an earlier post, I see more ambiguity and grey area than you may. I don't have enough information to say one way or the other. 

LOL, I am still coming to terms with this imperfect world.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ampster said:


> If you are referring to an earlier post, I see more ambiguity and grey area than you may. I don't have enough information to say one way or the other.
> 
> LOL, I am still coming to terms with this imperfect world.


Let me know if you get it figured out...


----------

