Californica solar requirements screw all...

Well, I could ski for free there. Looks OK, if you don't mind the oxygen deficit. [1]

Squaw is still open weekends, and we saw people skiing at Boreal last weekend. It's almost August!

We are Prop13'd in. Pioneer's advantage.

I'm free to ignore most of the silliness. I don't ignore the canyons, cliffs, trails, forests, beaches, mountains, the beautiful climate, or the low pollen count.

By your standards, Mississippi, or maybe Costa Rica, would be even better.

in the

d_ must

You are correct, as a proposed bill it will likely change dramatically prior to be put up for passage, and then may get edited and changed further.

I should have said nothing rather than fanning the flames.

Opps!

John :-#(#

Hmmm, that's a vague statement. Do the homes just need SOME solar panels, or enough to completely supply all energy requirements? What about at night?

Jon

The article is a hysterically funny satire, and the guy they quote is the Senate president pro tem, NOT the majority leader.

And, anyway, what they are reporting on is a CA senate BILL, not law.

Jon

Actually Illinis has been bankrupt for about 35 years, they just have been doing a really GOOD job of hiding that fact. When they stopped paying into the state employees retirement funds, it became a case of a train wreck in the slowest possible motion. Now, people are estimating they are in the hole for somewhere between $120 billion and 200+ billion. It would take them centuries to dig out of that hole. My daughter is getting a Master's degree in an Illinois state university, so I watch it all with some concern.

Jon

Sure! Otherwise you might get shot by the Thompson.

I wonder if there is a market for fake solar panels. When the San Francisco Department of Political Correctness arrives to insure that you have done your part to enrich Chinese panel manufacturers, you simply show them your fake solar panels on the roof. It wouldn't take much programming to generate a dismal history of generated electrical output due to fog, trees, weather, and building shading. Certainly, there would be some risk involved, but saving about $30,000 in unwarranted expenses might make it worthwhile. However, it's too risky, I suggest a Rent-a-Solar-Panel service, which will rent to you a temporary system that sorta works but would pass an inspection.

You mean like we spend all the money reducing emissions by 50% and there is nothing left to build dikes and power air conditioners?

--sp

Den mandag den 17. juli 2017 kl. 23.45.38 UTC+2 skrev Spehro Pefhany:

No, my point is spending a lot of money on something that the computer models don't agree on and virtually all predict higher than verified results.

We have better things to invest in - dealing with pollution, poverty, health care, space travel, etc. All things that produce results NOW that are verifiable and benefit people now, not some pie-in-the-sky predictions of disaster awaiting us in 100 years unless we do as the high propagandists demand.

Climate Change (used to be called Global Warming, remember? Why did they change the name? It wasn't living up to the facts that the climate wasn't really warming much) has all the appearance of being a new religion. Those who have converted to the faith refuse to consider that there are questions about the authenticity of the alarms/concerns. They call the skeptics 'deniers' as if all but the most stupid person doesn't accept that the climates change and have always changed. These skeptics (and I am one) are treated like heretics and treated with disdain. Rather than listening to our points and treating them with the consideration that any scientific claim must stand up to. Of course there are loonies on the skeptics side, but we don't have the market cornered. Sigh. Read the damn evidence, and try to remember that no computer model for weather prediction is valid for more than 5 to 7 days in the future and ask yourself how can scientists then claim to predict the next 100 years for climate, when climate is far more complex then daily weather...

Smoke & mirrors my friends, it is all smoke & mirrors.

John

I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional. The feds also have a compelling reason to strike it down - it inhibits commerce. I am pretty sure the law w ill be no more once someone finds the right lawyer to take it to the suprem e court.

This part is expressly unconstitutional but they might not enforce the Cons titution :

nding that. The program, of course, will be income qualified and aimed tow ard identified minorities.? Expanding on that issue, he said anyon e who can show they are Black, Hispanic, LGBTQ or disabled will get a speci al subsidy. We are particularly targeting our Native American friends. As long as you can prove you are at least 1/16 Native American we will provid e a full subsidy for those individuals.? "

California has never given a shit about the Constitution and they have gott en away with alot. They're not the only ones.

ve been hard hit by water shortages. The farmers are already at war with t he state because they think the elected officials care more about the Delta Smelt than feeding Americans."

Not sure what the Delta Smelt is, but I tend to think the farmers are right . A bunch of unrealistic assholes who have degrees in basketweaving and Con stitutional evasion. That's how it seems. And silver spoons of course, they simply seem not to care at all what something costs the state or the Peopl e. In years to come they will likely become nothing but a retirement state for the wealthy. Nobody is going to want to do any business there and if yo u need a job you can't afford it. And their single payer healthcare ? If th at happens not many are going to use it because they already got healthcare . So they will have the wealthy and the underclass.

Maybe that's what they want.

Good, then we don't have to subsidize it and people will buy it anyway.

It's unlikely I would want to make a public speech so I don't really need that freedom either.

Sure it's no cost, because when the government pays for something that makes it $free. We should have 100 aircraft carriers because they must be free too.

You have conservative instincts, but California has warped your mind a bit. It is a real phenomenon.

Won't it still fail a proper ROI analysis that includes maintenance/parts-replacement? ...Jim Thompson

Of course it will. That's why nobody would buy it.

Because some of the most idiotic federal regulations started there.

And you don't need to be told about its influence on national elections.

The proper way to do it is a nuclear reactor in every basement ;-) ...Jim Thompson

The ROI interval is shortening even more rapidly than that, because reduced sales of grid electricity drives up the cost per KW to deliver it. So each house that invests in a solar installation increases their neighbour's power prices. i.e. Grid power costs more the more rooftop solar is installed. This has a limit however, because home energy storage is still very pricey so we still need a grid.

The ROI period for solar is now less than seven years in Sydney. That's short enough to make reasonable predictions of maintenance costs and MTBF and hence to calculate the period accurately. But I'm still torn - we need better storage more than cheaper cells.

Clifford Heath.

Jim, I read the article, it is obviously from the Onion! I'm still working on how they spoofed Townhall. Mikek