Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?

Oh, BS. I can read an electric bill. Mine, about half is for the cost of the energy, the other half is for DISTRIBUTION. This isn't anything new, if you've followed solar at all, it's come up before, it's coming up more and some states are starting to take steps to address it, ie making solar homes pay their real cost, instead of being subsidized by putting the cost of distribution on their neighbors.

Reply to
Whoey Louie
Loading thread data ...

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Goddamn you are stupid, boy! They DO PAY! They simply pay with solar wattage instead of cash. Wake up, you sub-human, math devoid idiot!

You are obsessed with this poor middle class asshole who can barely pay crap. Why? Is that you, fat ass?

You use, you pay. Period. A solar included consumer uses his own solar. When that is not there, he uses the METERED grid connection.

Wake the f*ck up.

You are seriously wrong, child. And not simply on this point.

Remember when I said that the cause was inexperienced pilot error, and you refuted? Guess what the final determination is.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yes, IDIOT. AND WHEN THE SOLAR USER READS HIS, half of HIS *METERED* usage is for the distribution thereof.

IOW, if he generates, that meter does not move, because there was NO USAGE. If he uses it when not generating, it does move.

If it does move, he pays. Same same. Get over it, ya dippy twit.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Wrong, always wrong. And what happens with those solar homes that are paying little or zero electric bills when the sun goes down, stupid? They need the grid just like their neighbors, except they aren't paying for it.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

They most certainly DO pay. They get CASH credit against their usage for their solar. THAT is why the bill APPEARS to be little or none. WAKE THE FUCK UP!

I find it very amusing that you are unable to do this *VERY SIMPLE* math. Of course, I am adult enough that I am not "rolling on the filthy floor laughing" like you do so often. Maybe you been breathin' floor dust all these years. I am going with the decidedly obvious fact that you dumbed yourself down. Self retarded. Self impotentized.

Go find a tall building to jump from, DipTard4.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Whoey Louie wrote in news:ac62de5a-7e22-4288- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Your problem is that you manipulate facts.

At least one or more of those obtained their weapon(s) through illicit or unsupervised means, and that includes the stupid bastard who shot my Aunt and Cousin.

You are devoid of facts and you even f*ck it up when you google and try to respout.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Whoey Louie wrote in news:7ada4f25-2e20-43bb- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

If only I could make your post count zero... or your heart rate...

or do the ant hill thing and watch as your fight or flight adrenalin kicks. Buried up to your neck in heavy wet sand and getting nailed by ants while your kidney caps fire. Now that would be a ROFL video.

You really are pathetic. Pathetic times pathetic is overtly pathetic, and that is you.

So repeat after me, dipshit... You admit that you are wrong. Otherwise all of Usenet will see how you operate and how your Trumpesque characterlessness is blatantly obvious.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Who exactly are "those"? As far as the mass shootings of the last several years, only a small percentage acquired their guns illicitly. Most legally bought them. Unsupervised, IDK what that means. For example, Cruz, the Parkland FL, school shooter, obtained his rifle by simply walking into Dick's Sporting Goods and buying it, which was perfectly legal. A lot of us would call that "unsupervised", but the state of FL, NRA, gun nuts say it's all A-OK.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Bullshit.

Say all users but ten go to solar. Sorry, punk, but those ten users are NOT going to pay $300,000 (just a number you retarded twit) a month each for the power.

You see, your claim is both baseless and pathetic.

Before solar the $150 a month 'poor guy' paid the same $75 a month for his distribution.

After solar the 'poor guy' still pays the same.

Now, the solar guy, using the same amount in his home, generates a great deal of that, thereby NOT using the grid at all during that time. Then, during your precious night sequences, he uses a bit of his total consumption for that month. That metered usage and cost is SMALL, just like what he actually used. He also gets credit for his solar, which gets APPLIED AGAINST that small usage. Your precious 'net' is EXACTLY what the term describes. The net amount he then actually owes the genco back. That number could be positive, zero, or even negative, placing it back onto that customer's solar credit books.

How you are having a problem with a simple math calculation is a real tell about you. It is getting increasingly difficult to want to answer any of your posts except for the fact that you are dumping pure bullshit into the group that needs to be addressed.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

wrote in news:7ada4f25-2e20-43bb-b685- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You keep getting your sig wrong. You are not "Wrong, always wrong" as you so often sign your posts with.

You are "Wrong Wholly Wrong". WWW

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Well duh! But it illustrates the point. Which is that solar customers are dependent on the grid, they use the grid, they need it at night, but most are paying little or zero for the distribution grid. And with solar customers having zero or close to zero bills, the distribution costs are being paid by those without solar. Capiche?

No shit Sherlock.

Wrong, always wrong. Per the example above, the cost of the grid then gets divided up over less customers, so those homes without solar pay an ever increasing percentage of the cost of the grid. As the percentage of solar homes increases, the problem gets worse and increasingly unfair.

Small or zero. Small or zero bill, ie not paying for the grid.

He also gets credit for his

Zero or small is indeed what it is, which again means they are not paying much, if anything for the grid, for all the infrastructure that they need and that they use. Their non-solar neighbors are paying and getting hosed.

IDK, you sure do have problems with simple math.

Wrong, always wrong.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Whoey Louie wrote in news:721db584-4fca-48b8- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a bat eyes fail to see the money.

Grow up, you stupid f*ck. Better yet, HOAD!

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Yes, I suppose they do; a generator plant will have lights-on requirements even if the on-site generator is not spinning. Why do you ask?

I'm sure not all bills from the electric utility are 'zero or near zero' but if negative terms are in the bill, it's because the utility has good cause for them. "The laborer is worthy of his wages"

I see no relevance. The 'double' number has no parents, it's an orphan. The 'poor' who chose to buy electricity but not install a plant to generate it, are making a decision that suits them, of the usual cost/benefit type.

Reply to
whit3rd

Perhaps the government should buy them panels so they aren't exploited by the rich. It _is_ the leftist's way.

Reply to
krw

AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.

Always.

Reply to
krw

Repeat after me, zero Kwh times anything is ZERO. If you're net usage is zero, then you have no kwh charge and you're not paying for the distributions network even though you need it and use it when the sun isn't shining. Your neighbor without solar with the $150 bill is paying about half of that for the grid that you're using. The concept is so basic, it's quite amazing that some fools here can't grasp it.

Follow it to it's logical conclusion. If everyone but one home had solar and zero bills, that last home would be paying millions, the full cost of the grid. Yet all those solar homes need the grid and are using it.

Wrong, always wrong. It's really quite amazing, you should start picking stocks, tell us what to buy, then we could short them and make a lot of money.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Whoey Louie wrote in news:6578f295-94b4-4fab- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Except that it is NOT zero kW/hr. It is exactly what it is times the rate MINUS the CREDITS EARNED.

Grow up, little boy. You have no chance of getting anyone who knows what you are about to do anything (much less repeat after you), and it is not because your name is not Simon. It is because you are dirt dumb.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Trader4 thinks that this is a "logical conclusion".

It is actually an absurd extrapolation. Generating and selling electric pow er is a business, and if the business changes, so will the way in which the billing is organised.

Clifford Heath just posted a description of how his particular power bills are worked out - he generates his own power when the sun is shining, and se lls some of it back to the grid - at the rate that power auction system has worked out for the particular period. At night he buys in power, at the d ifferent rate that the power auction system has set for that particular per iod.

He also pays a fixed connection charge, which presumably pays his share of the the interest charges and the maintenance on the grid as a whole.

I've never even heard of his supplier, but I don't have any solar cells - o ur flat doesn't have a place to put them.

--
Bill sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

When CREDITS EARNED = GRID ELECTRICITY USED? I know it's a complicated formula, AlwaysWrong.

You're _always_ wrong. Really, AlwaysWrong, how do you do it?

Reply to
krw

John Doe wrote in news:qmgja9$7gp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And had it been built on a 30 meter construction pad as opposed to the 10 meter criminal level cutback version, it would probably still be operting without even a glitch from that day.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.