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

e:

ote:

ly

reactor, so

e.

a new

on old

k with the

ors.

KLT-40S

monosov barge.

eria and

ocal

Siberian

se things. ;)

thout heavy

ndustries

f shoving

own merits

credit (ITC), allows you to deduct 30 percent of the cost of installing a solar energy system from your federal taxes. The ITC applies to both reside ntial and commercial systems, and there is no cap on its value"

ing it

tricity

r zero

for the

that.

upport

have

grid

nly

of assistance to ramp up production to lower the cost to a usable figure. The nuclear industry had it's day in the subsidy sunlight as has the petrol eum industry, yet we still subsidize. So why all the outcry about subsidiz ing an energy technology that in a very few years will be walking on it's o wn two legs? Why no outrage of subsidies to the petroleum industry which m akes record profits?

rt:

) ? Ending the MLP ?subsidy? would result in MLP? ??s being considered corporations that must be taxed before their distr ibutions are passed along to shareholders. Therefore, any MLP income would be taxed at the corporate level and then again at the dividend level.

e from

rs

ration.

ermarket

at

s

? low estimate is $780 million) - Intangible Drilling Costs are ess entially the cost of drilling a new well that have no salvageable value. Cu rrently, most exploration companies are allowed to deduct 100% of the costs in the year they are incurred with the majors able to deduct 70% of the co sts immediately with the remaining 30% amortized over 5 years. "

ertain

ing

e

hing

rom any other well? Yes, business expenses are deductible and there should be no need for special deductions, right?

e

gy-coal-oil-subsidies

bsidies ? things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps lower-income residents pay their (fuel oil) heating bills. (There are better ways to help poor people, but let?s leave that aside for now.)

zing

es ? things like the money the US military spends to protect oil sh ipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burni ng fossil fuels."

so

re

o

t happened over the last decade or so. The petroleum industry is one where the practical economics is well served with 10 or 20 major petroleum compa nies.

ork

ey have to merge over and over until there are only a handful of companies? The answer is because the fewer the number, the less competition there is .

g inappropriate labels.

out.

you think in terms of "lib" ideas and whatever else there is, you aren't lo oking at the ideas themselves.

es

the

t most. If they thought it would be allowed they would merge into one comp any!

ke,

gh to fight Gate's lawyers. They even tried to unbundle internet explorer, but the lawyers convinced the judge it would wreck the OS. lol

r airlines get edged out in legal ways. Or the cell networks where being a little bit smaller makes it harder to provide all essential coverage.

ave

rs have resulted in two or three carriers are now one and prices have jumpe d significantly. This is well documented if you want to learn about it.

sing amounts. It needs to be tapered off with adequate notice so it can be used with confidence. There are places where the utilities have gotten th e state legislature to reverse the laws requiring them to buy residential s olar energy at the same price as they sell to residences. Such an abrupt c ut off creates FUD and prevents others from investing, which was the entire point of the program in the first place.

he

air

t
r

tomers? Here I thought you were about fairness.

ed as "transmission" on your bill.

es that allow a residential supplier to be paid for their electricity.

it?

generating electricity. At most you get credit on your bill toward future electricity use. Many states limit that either in amount or by duration. Kinda like saving up vacation at work.

Oh, BS. Google broken?

formatting link

Net Metering

Net metering allows residential and commercial customers who generate their own electricity from solar power to sell the electricity they aren't using back into the grid. Many states have passed net metering laws. In other st ates, utilities may offer net metering programs voluntarily or as a result of regulatory decisions. Differences between state legislation, regulatory decisions and implementation policies mean that the mechanism for compensat ing solar customers varies widely across the country

And why would they limit or ban a utility for paying for it? The greenies want more power generated, want more solar used. They are paying for commercial installations that generate power, why would govt ban a homeowne r from making a few bucks? Makes no sense. Now some POWER companies may try to not have to pay for it, but that's not the general case.

,

Distribution, have you not looked at a typical electric bill?

ion to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmissio n are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties and no t the local utility... at least not always.

at won't be zero. The rest of the bill should be zero if they are not usin g any net electricity. Do you pay for things you don't use? One of the ta xes is also a fixed fee, so not zero with zero usage.

IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states. Which is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a probl em that some states are starting to address. Here the bill is two parts, generation and distribution, it's about evenly split.

No, not everyone, but everyone in the many states that bill as describe is giving solar customers a subsidy, including poor families.

't see reason or appreciate facts. Everything you look at is through a bia sed point of view.

Yeah, right, I'm the one that doesn't know the facts. I had to explain that what you thought were subsidies to the oil industry is essentially Sub S tax treatment, the same thing a typical car dealer, supermarket, hardware store uses. And that the intangible drilling "subsidy", is merely allowing smaller oil companies to expense some of the costs of drilling a new well in one year, big oil companies in 5 years, instead of spreading it out over a longer period. It's not a subsidy. And obviously you're clueless about net metering too.

Reply to
Whoey Louie
Loading thread data ...

ition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmiss ion are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties and not the local utility... at least not always.

blem

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consump tion' meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Distant generation capacity costs a lot to distribute to our locality; but widespread solar on residential rooftops doesn't mean you have to build new long links .

Reply to
whit3rd

ddition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmi ssion are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties an d not the local utility... at least not always.

roblem

mption'

Who's talking about marginal costs? The simple fact is with net metering, a t least in most states, solar customers have zero or close to zero bills, s o they are not paying for the cost of the grid. Yet they need and use the g rid, without it they would have no power at night or when it's cloudy. They also need the grid to sell their excess power. So, again, the yuppies wit h the solar system are being subsidized by the poor family with the 150 bil l, about half of that is paying for the grid.

The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Sure, if you want to call the homes with solar money grabbers...

t widespread

ks.

You still need power at night, stupid.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

whit3rd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

He is too stupid and full of too many long chain triglycerides to understand. His long links are different than your long links.

350 Lbs of long links.

Bwuahahahaha!

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Anyone making a buy/sell decsion, naturally.

No, I'm calling the rhetoric of bill-speak "distribution" an illogical leap inducer. Jump on it if you like, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Distribution equipment to deliver solar power to the meter is a customer-supplied inverter. The power company doesn't pay for it, why would they get reimbursed for it?

Reply to
whit3rd

ddition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmi ssion are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties an d not the local utility... at least not always.

roblem

mption'

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

Distribution is largely a fixed cost, but they don't bill it that way. We used to have no fixed base charge and some few cents per kWh. Now the kWh charge went up as well as adding a $14 fixed base charge. They said the fi xed base charge was more representative of the fixed costs of distribution. They don't charge everyone the same because people would scream.

t widespread

ks.

I'm not sure you can say that with any significance. You can't really add solar to drop the "distant" generation. You need both since solar is not a vailable all the time. Adding solar also does not reduce the need for "dis tant" generation. What it does is use the demand following generation less creating less carbon pollution.

--

  Rick C. 

  +-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging 
  +-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply to
Rick C

The power utility is trying to double-bill.

The 'distribution' cost is billed thus by the utility to the users: home A delivers solar power into the network, home A meter goes in reverse. That power then goes to his neighbor in home B, whose meter reports the usage. B pays for electricity and distribution. Billing both A and B for the distribution is... excess, overbilling.

Reply to
whit3rd

the usage. B pays for electricity and distribution. Billing both A and B for the distribution is... excess, overbilling.

That depends on your point of view.

The utility company had to invest capital to construct the wiring that connects users A and B to each other, as well as the rest of the system, and spends more on maintaining that connection.

It makes sense fro them to recover that cost from the people who are exploiting that connection, whichever way the current flows.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

If a distribution charge on an electric bill makes no sense to you, then you're just stupid.

It's the distribution grid that delivers power to the solar home at NIGHT or when it's CLOUDY, stupid. The poor family down the street is paying half their electric bill for DISTRIBUTION to pay for the towers, the poles, the transformers, the land, the crews, that make that possible. Geez. And as more people go solar and have ZERO electric bills, more and more of that burden shifts to those that don't have solar. Some states are starting to address that, but right now in most, the people who don't have solar, including the POOR are subsidizing the wealthier who have solar.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

addition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Trans mission are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties and not the local utility... at least not always.

problem

ng

sumption'

e.

b?

e used to have no fixed base charge and some few cents per kWh. Now the kW h charge went up as well as adding a $14 fixed base charge.

ROFL

Still lost in the wilderness. Do you actually believe $14 a month per home covers the cost of distribution? Covers the cost of all the transmiss ion towers, right-of ways, clearing the brush, wire, transformers, poles, all the crews, the storm damage? Many electric companies have had some small monthly charge like that for decades. It doesn't come close to covering the cost of distribution, which is why it's included in the core bill, one way or another. That is if you have a bill, which solare custome rs don't. Here electric is billed at about .13 a KWH, with half of that a charge for the energy and the other half for DISTRIBUTION.

They said the fixed base charge was more representative of the fixed cost s of distribution.

Then they told you BS and you believed it. But then you just tied to tell us that net metering, where the electric company pays you for the excess energy you put in the grid is illegal. IDK how lib minds work, like why one would ever think a govt would do that. But then libs like to see govt do all kinds of stupid things, so I guess there is that angle.

They don't charge everyone the same because people would scream.

but widespread

inks.

d solar to drop the "distant" generation. You need both since solar is not available all the time. Adding solar also does not reduce the need for "d istant" generation. What it does is use the demand following generation le ss creating less carbon pollution.

Bingo. Which is why most solar in the US is being heavily subsidized by the neighbors paying for the distribution, why the solar folks get mostly a free ride.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

What happens a night? When both A and B use electric from the grid, electric that comes from a far away dam or nuke? They get electric delivered via the grid. And they generate about as much energy as they use, so at the end of the month their bills are zero, or near zero. Meanwhile their neighbor, the poor family with no solar, gets a bill of $150, about half of it a DISTRIBUTION charge. And the more people that have solar, the higher the distribution charge will go for the folks without solar. In your example, even if A and B traded energy back and forth between themselves, they wind up with near zero bills, yet they are using the distribution network that others are paying for.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

No it doesn't. It just depends on being able to do basic math and understand income and expenses into a business.

On the rest, you're right.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

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

Bullshit.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Whoey Louie wrote in news:94548e3b-fa8b-4604- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

In both cases of which, you fail.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

But the utility company can buy power at a rate that matches its marginal generating cost, and is already charging users for the distribution overhead. The OTHER sources of power that supply the utility , do THEY pay a fee for the wires they don't own (don't control how it is used/structured/maintained)? I think not.

Extortion often makes sense. It isn't cost recovery if they already bill another way to cover that same cost. Whichever way the current flows, it goes through a meter to a paying customer who gets the bill. Utilities (regulated monopolies) typically operate on a cost-plus rate schedule, and costs are NEVER neglected or forgotten, so they aren't now un-billed. There is, therefore, likely no 'problem'.

There is, however, a complicated bit of verbiage that might support an artificial lowering of the as-booked price for buying solar power, and THIS IS A MONOPOLY so the solar-producing customers haven't got a competitive bargaining position, nor a lawyer nor lobbyists.

Reply to
whit3rd

It depends on more than that; it depends on the billing structure as approved by the (monopoly utility) oversight agency, which fully covers costs with a profit margin. Trying to second-guess the billing structure of an unspecified utility, or perceive a 'problem', is akin to saying that the local agency has made an error (even though such agencies have access to the books and a mandate to keep a balance).

Which locale, which agency, is being criticized? Can you support the assertion in court? Or, is someone just being anti-solar-power because he's invested in (other)?

Reply to
whit3rd

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

No, it is not. It is pumping it.

Used up by nearby others before it even makes it past the local pole pig primary.

You lose... again.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

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

It is an incomplete sentence, and a retarded one at that. It is also very poorly and improperly punctuated.

But now you will come back with the standard reply you stupid bastards spew when cornered with your utterly inane stupidity, which is you, jacking off at the mouth about my grammar error observation. The fact that it is not even a sentence to begin with, kinda makes seeing it as a moniker belched by a nit-wit a valid observation. Especially since you do it incessantly. Ooops.

That was a nice try, though, nit-wit boy.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

ome A delivers solar power into the network, home A meter goes in reverse. That power then goes to his neighbor in home B, whose meter reports

nd B for the distribution is... excess, overbilling.

connects users A and B to each other, as well as the rest of the system, an d spends more on maintaining that connection.

generating cost, and is already charging users for the distribution overhe ad. The OTHER sources of power that supply the utility , do THEY pay a fe e for the wires they don't own (don't control how it is used/structured/mai ntained)? I think not.

How would you know? The "other sources" of power seem to be people with big centralised generating plant, and that would be on the transmission networ k - the big, high voltage distribution system, rather than the local low-vo ltage stuff that you seem to be complaining about.

The negotiations that set prices and charges on that are going to be "comme rcial in confidence" and you won't have a look in.

ploiting that connection, whichever way the current flows.

l another way to cover that same cost.

What makes you think that?

The distribution network cost money to build and money to maintain.

Getting the customers to pay for it isn't any kind of extortion.

Loading the charge directly onto the electricity bill as an extra charge pe r kilowatt hour used to be a tolerably equitable way of getting that money back - heavy users of electric power subsidised more frugal consumers, who paid out less for exploiting a one-size fits all local distribution system but roof-top solar makes it a whole lot less equitable.

tomer who gets the bill. Utilities (regulated monopolies) typically operate on a cost-plus rate schedule, and costs are NEVER neglected or forgotten, so they aren't now un-billed.

tificial lowering of the as-booked price for buying solar power, and THIS I S A MONOPOLY so the solar-producing customers haven't got a competitive bar gaining position, nor a lawyer nor lobbyists.

In Australia, we can choose who we buy our retail power from, and presumabl y who we sell it to if we've got roof-top solar, or a solar farm in the hom e paddock.

I live in a flat, so I've got no experience of how that works.

Presumably the various retailers can compete by offering different rates fo r power used and power sold back, and different levels of fixed connection charge.

If your current regulatory structure is rubbish - and the US power privatis ation set up Enron, with al it's criminal frauds - you should be able to ag itate for something better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Do the other sources of grid power need to take power from the grid to power their generation plants? Home solar users need and use the grid for that when the sun isn't there, yet their electric bills are zero or near zero and they aren't paying for the grid. Their neighbors who don't have solar, including the poor, are paying an increasing share of the cost of the distribution grid. If half of homes have solar, the distribution charges on the remaining half will have to about double to cover the cost. Geez.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

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.