Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Markle]

You can't even admit that a blatant oil company subsidy is a subsidy, so what the **** is the point of me going to fetch you 1000 more?

You are drunk on stupid.

That's not an oil subsidy, you **** head. And it's certainly not a federal subsidy.

It's a directsubsidy oil company recieved that made it more competetive.

Untill you can dispute even a single word of that sentence you need to stfu.

Subsidy: money given as part of the cost of something to help or encourage it to happen:

Your solar subsidy gives you money to encourage you to buy solar panels.

What did Ohio's subsidy encourage Marathon to do........?

I did not ask for the definition of the word subsidy. I asked what a subsidy was to you.

As you know, many Progressives erroneously consider tax deductions, available to any business, a subsidy, which it is not

There is only one definition.

True, but Progressives have their own meaning for things.

Again, is a tax deduction, to you, a subsidy. Simple question, yes or no?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

The Federal Government built the interstate system as part of our military defense. President Eisenhower and the generals at the time saw how much Autobahns helped the Nazi's move military equipment and supplies quickly to supply their Blitzkrieg and how crippling it was when they ran out of their roads and railroads.

The vast majority of infrastructure is built by taxpayers, locally, agreeing to pay for THEIR roads, sewer, water, police, and fire. I don't recall the government paying for my first laptop, nor the software. Although, as a business expense I did deduct it from my gross income. I also don't recall government paying for a large part of my radio-telephone. The brand new Buick Century cost $12,000. and the radio-telephone $3,000. long before cell phones.

PROFIT has always been and always will be the driver of progress.

Profit needs a playing field, fool.

Did you ever notice the commerce that takes place around interstates? Is there a big box store in America that isn't within 5 min of an interstate?

Your point being?

Do you simply post for the sake of seeing your screen name or are they supposed to be relevant in some manner?

The point that was being discussed that you ignored, dope.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess that depends on where you live and what you use. My monthly electric bill is around 50 bucks a month. That's 600 bucks a year. Do you know how long it would take me just to break even on solar panels? And once you break even, how much more would you need to invest for replacement panels when those break down?

WOW! Your electric bill is more than 50% less than the State average?

Yep, that's what I pay.

Liar.
One brand new fridge alone is at least $150 a year.

Why would I lie about something like that? I'm telling you (and others have chimed in with the same claim) that my electric bill has been as low as $35.00 a month. Again, that's provided I'm not using a furnace or AC like I'm currently doing.

It would depend on what you are paying for electricity in the first place. Your claim is that your fridge is using $12.5 a month. Usually the fridge uses the most electricity in your home year round.

The fridge was just an example of one product in a home.

Yes, the most expensive product on a month to month basis. So what I have is a small fridge, about four or five lightbulbs burning at night, and that's about it until I use my window AC's or the furnace........and oh yes, my big screen which I don't know how much that costs, but I don't watch a lot of television either.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

Californians refuse to be fossil fuel bitches like the people back east are.

That's right! Californians are happy to pay 40% more than the national average to stick it to fossil fuels.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

You just made a case for why solar will pay in the long run. People with wells don't give a damn about your water rates.

Why should they? But we don't have many wells in the city.

Solar is the electrical eqivalent of a well, fool.

By mandating it, the future will see fewer users at higher rates making solar an even better deal.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It would seem to me that they would realize a considerable payback on their investment during those 20 years and when the house is sold with solar generating capacity it would surely draw a higher price.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

Solar panels lose performance as time goes on. Also their life expectancy is based on the environment of the house. Solar panels lose production if they are in very windy areas where branches and pebbles are blown around that can scratch the surface reducing it's performance. In low wind high sun areas, that heat does a number on those panels as well.

Solar panels require pretty low maintenance. Unlike generators which are composed of moving components which require repair or replacement, solar panels do not have moving parts that can rust or breakdown. About the only routine maintenance is spraying them down with a garden hose. The panels are warrantied for 20 or 25 years and with the new central inverter they could last for a number of decades.

Yes, if it's a single level home. Two family or two story homes would be a bit more of a challenge.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

That's part of the deal with any system or structure of any home being sold. That calculation affects the purchase price just as it does now.

Well yes, exactly. That's why I challenge the idea that solar panels actually increase the value of a home. IMO, it would decrease the value if anything.

No more than an outdated kitchen and bathrooms do.

 

[Markle]

People resented being forced to install flushing toilets as well. We survived.

Please show your reliable source and link, please.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I hear ya. Communists/Democrats can't tolerate freedom. They have to use force to get their agendas through. I don't have a problem with folks wanting solar panels. But i do have a problem with folks being forced to have them.

Sadly, the Communists are killing the California Golden Goose. They've seized complete control of the state. There's no checks & balances on them. They're rapidly leading the state to Third World disaster. Hopefully Californians will begin realizing that, and start booting them from power. It's not too late. They can still save their state.

California is the most capitalist place ever. Look at the cost of living and number of homeless.

Capitalism doesn't do that--liberalism does that.

.

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism robs wealth.

If these Moon Bats would ever take a course in Economics they would understand simple things like that.

Capitalism creates wealth

.......for a very small percentage of users.

Have you always been this desperate or only since November 9, 2016?

Post up a graph of wealth distribution in America, fool.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Capitalism doesn't do that--liberalism does that.

.

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism robs wealth.

If these Moon Bats would ever take a course in Economics they would understand simple things like that.

If they bothered to look at the Northeast liberal states, they would see those states are not far behind Commiefornia. Over 800K for a moderate house, 12 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, high taxation, government taking care of them from cradle to grave...........

You're such a liar. Or just a loser who hasn't been engaged in the housing market lately.


Post it up.

All you have to do is what I do, and that is watch the HGTV channel. Property Brothers is the best show, but they have other House Hunter programs that clearly show how little you get for your money in many liberal states.

Post up the median home prices for the states you're referring to.

Sure, no problem:

Here's how much home $300,000 will buy you in every US state

If you don't have time to go through the list, in short a house here in Ohio is about 88 dollars per sq ft. The Massholes are paying 226 per sq ft. In Rhode Island, it's about 184 peer sq foot. In Cali, it's over three times our cost at 280 per sq ft. DC, close to 500 a sq ft. and so on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It would seem to me that they would realize a considerable payback on their investment during those 20 years and when the house is sold with solar generating capacity it would surely draw a higher price.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

Solar panels lose performance as time goes on. Also their life expectancy is based on the environment of the house. Solar panels lose production if they are in very windy areas where branches and pebbles are blown around that can scratch the surface reducing it's performance. In low wind high sun areas, that heat does a number on those panels as well.

Solar panels require pretty low maintenance. Unlike generators which are composed of moving components which require repair or replacement, solar panels do not have moving parts that can rust or breakdown. About the only routine maintenance is spraying them down with a garden hose. The panels are warrantied for 20 or 25 years and with the new central inverter they could last for a number of decades.

Yes, if it's a single level home. Two family or two story homes would be a bit more of a challenge.

I don't know about that. I mean, if I'm looking to buy a 20 year old house and see those things on the roof, my first thought is "how many of those MF's am I going to have to replace in the next ten years?"

That's part of the deal with any system or structure of any home being sold. That calculation affects the purchase price just as it does now.

Well yes, exactly. That's why I challenge the idea that solar panels actually increase the value of a home. IMO, it would decrease the value if anything.

No more than an outdated kitchen and bathrooms do.

Correct. But I never made the claim an outdated bathroom or kitchen will increase the value of a home either.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The govt built the interstate highway system that made the market for cars boom.
The govt built or subsidized every bit of large infrastructure in this country, including the internet, which allowed for massive business expansion around them. The govt has always been the driver of progress.

All the interstate highway system did is bankrupt the railroads. That was a private system that didn't require any tax money to be spent, and it was perfectly adequate for interstate travel. So the interstate highway system actually retarded the economic development of this country by diverting huge amounts of capital into a system that wasn't needed.

The governent had very little to do with with the development of the internet. I was responsible for perhaps one of the pieces out of the 20 that were needed to make it viable.

Sure, dope. All of those trucks on the interstate are retarding economic development.

Sure they are. Trains are much more efficient. Interstate trucking is viable only because the taxpayers are footing a big part of the cost.

Sure, dope. If only walmart would just choose to utilize the tracks that run up to their loading docks, then murica would finally be free.

Only a dumbass turd like you doesn't understand how or infrastructure can be designed around rail tansport rather than truck transport. Furthermore, I said for "interstate transport." Trucks have always been used for local deliveries. containers can be lifted right off a train and onto a semi. That technology is in place right now.

Slice it any way you'd like. Your point is empty. We've all driven the interstates. You're only talking at yourself. All you dumbass rural folks know all the action is at the interstate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

Oh contraire' Tod, once the panels are in, your energy is free for the life of the home.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

You just made a case for why solar will pay in the long run. People with wells don't give a damn about your water rates.

Why should they? But we don't have many wells in the city.

Solar is the electrical eqivalent of a well, fool.

By mandating it, the future will see fewer users at higher rates making solar an even better deal.

And that's fine and dandy provided it's by consumer demand and not government mandates.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's not an oil subsidy, you **** head. And it's certainly not a federal subsidy.

It's a directsubsidy oil company recieved that made it more competetive.

Untill you can dispute even a single word of that sentence you need to stfu.

Subsidy: money given as part of the cost of something to help or encourage it to happen:

Your solar subsidy gives you money to encourage you to buy solar panels.

What did Ohio's subsidy encourage Marathon to do........?

I did not ask for the definition of the word subsidy. I asked what a subsidy was to you.

As you know, many Progressives erroneously consider tax deductions, available to any business, a subsidy, which it is not

There is only one definition.

True, but Progressives have their own meaning for things.

Again, is a tax deduction, to you, a subsidy. Simple question, yes or no?

It can be if it's designed to benefit society. As in job retention or creation. What's the purpose otherwise?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

All that "free" energy, Californians should be paying less than the national average, not 40% more.

Over here they started to increase our water and sewer rates, so the media pressured the water department for an explanation.

Their explanation was that Cleveland was losing population all the time, so in order to make up the lost revenue from people that no longer live here, they had to increase the rates.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

The less you use of a utility, the higher the rates go.

You just made a case for why solar will pay in the long run. People with wells don't give a damn about your water rates.

Why should they? But we don't have many wells in the city.

Solar is the electrical eqivalent of a well, fool.

By mandating it, the future will see fewer users at higher rates making solar an even better deal.

And that's fine and dandy provided it's by consumer demand and not government mandates.

The mandate creates the demand. That's the point. To move the population toward solar. Just as we moved from analog to digital.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

WOW! Your electric bill is more than 50% less than the State average?

Yep, that's what I pay.

Liar.
One brand new fridge alone is at least $150 a year.

Why would I lie about something like that? I'm telling you (and others have chimed in with the same claim) that my electric bill has been as low as $35.00 a month. Again, that's provided I'm not using a furnace or AC like I'm currently doing.

It would depend on what you are paying for electricity in the first place. Your claim is that your fridge is using $12.5 a month. Usually the fridge uses the most electricity in your home year round.

The fridge was just an example of one product in a home.

Yes, the most expensive product on a month to month basis. So what I have is a small fridge, about four or five lightbulbs burning at night, and that's about it until I use my window AC's or the furnace........and oh yes, my big screen which I don't know how much that costs, but I don't watch a lot of television either.

Don't think for a second that you represent anything close to average use.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

People resented being forced to install flushing toilets as well. We survived.

Please show your reliable source and link, please.

It's not code? Can you build a home in the burbs without one?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I pay less than 12 cents.................And if other people weren't paying for your system..........the cost of over the lifetime of your grid would cost more than the 19 you posted.

You pay 12c...oook and? how does that help ares with more expesive electricity? Does it help people in NY that will pay 20 or Hawaii that pay 30?

I still pay monthly fee for the grid and "other people" (since when is me paying less taxes equates to OTHER PEOPLE?) pay for all kinds of things starting with expenses of making the grid black-out proof that solar energy realy helps with.

I still pay monthly fee for the grid and "other people"

You never did say how much your bill used to be, how much it is now.......

Yes I did. Unit is expected to produce 10500 kWh a year, which is a bit over 100% of my expected energy consumption.

Other than energy you also pay for base grid charge.

My last bill was $15.

Yes I did. Unit is expected to produce 10500 kWh a year, which is a bit over 100% of my expected energy consumption.

No you didn't. You said how much less power you bought.

My last bill was $15.

Thanks. How much were they before you installed solar?

You don’t get it - electrical bills fluctuate month to month. Everything being equal you will spend more on electricity in hotter months due to more AC use. My march-aprill bill (before) is not directly comparable to April-May (after) bill.

What matters is annual output and consumption, which I gave you. My avg. annual bill was $~200 and because I now should produce over 100% of electricity consumed and my bill should now be about $15-20 monthly.

My avg. annual bill was $~200 and because I now should produce over 100% of electricity consumed and my bill should now be about $15-20 monthly.

You mean your average monthly bill was $200?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So?
You still have not answered question, why force someone to put solar panels on their own house?
It makes no sense to force that horse shit on anyone...

A contractor who builds a new house for another has no legal right after the house is sold.

Typical government overreach...

Spending $20 per month to save $80 to $300 per month sounds pretty good to me.

Where are you getting your numbers from? I'll be the first to admit I'm no calculator wiz, so I went to Lending Tree mortgage calculator to compare your numbers.

According to the mortgage calculator, at the current rate of interest, your extra bill would be about $100.00 a month based on a 30 year mortgage. With a 15 year mortgage, about $150.00 a month. I used the capital of 20K for the calculations since that seems to be the general consensus of what a solar panel system would cost.

LendingTree.com - Compare Lenders

This is the average.

Now, keep in mind, your number is fixed for thirty years. The number I provided will steadily rise over those thirty years.



The Cost of Living in California - SmartAsset

Utilities
Californians pay relatively low utility bills. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Californians consume an average of 562 kWh per month. They pay an average of 16.25 cents/kWh and have an average monthly bill of $91.26. For reference, the most expensive average monthly bill is Hawaii ($187.59) and the cheapest is New Mexico ($77.79). The U.S. average is $114.11.

Okay, but according to Fox news, it's mostly because of government subsidies.

California government mandates send electricity prices skyrocketing, but Texas free market policies keep prices low

 

[Markle]

No more than an outdated kitchen and bathrooms do.

You were referring to a comparison of the sale price of a home with a solar system.

Not true. Typical in your desperate state, you try to compare apples to avocados. We are discussing adding $70,000 to the existing property, be it new or old. Adding $70,000 to a 2,500 sq. ft. well built house in our area, North Florida, you might as well flush down your indoor toilet.

Spending that $70,000 on a pool, cage, landscaping will return an additional $20,000 to $30,000. to the price when you sell. If the home is, say 30 years old and in a good location and you spend $70,000. to remodel the kitchen and baths and the house will undoubtedly sell for $100,000 or more than the selling price would be without the remodel. Kitchens and baths are important to a buyer, $70,000 in solar paraphernalia is not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

.

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism robs wealth.

If these Moon Bats would ever take a course in Economics they would understand simple things like that.

If they bothered to look at the Northeast liberal states, they would see those states are not far behind Commiefornia. Over 800K for a moderate house, 12 bucks for a pack of cigarettes, high taxation, government taking care of them from cradle to grave...........

You're such a liar. Or just a loser who hasn't been engaged in the housing market lately.


Post it up.

All you have to do is what I do, and that is watch the HGTV channel. Property Brothers is the best show, but they have other House Hunter programs that clearly show how little you get for your money in many liberal states.

Post up the median home prices for the states you're referring to.

Sure, no problem:

Here's how much home $300,000 will buy you in every US state

If you don't have time to go through the list, in short a house here in Ohio is about 88 dollars per sq ft. The Massholes are paying 226 per sq ft. In Rhode Island, it's about 184 peer sq foot. In Cali, it's over three times our cost at 280 per sq ft. DC, close to 500 a sq ft. and so on.

Median home price.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, that's what I pay.

Liar.
One brand new fridge alone is at least $150 a year.

Why would I lie about something like that? I'm telling you (and others have chimed in with the same claim) that my electric bill has been as low as $35.00 a month. Again, that's provided I'm not using a furnace or AC like I'm currently doing.

It would depend on what you are paying for electricity in the first place. Your claim is that your fridge is using $12.5 a month. Usually the fridge uses the most electricity in your home year round.

The fridge was just an example of one product in a home.

Yes, the most expensive product on a month to month basis. So what I have is a small fridge, about four or five lightbulbs burning at night, and that's about it until I use my window AC's or the furnace........and oh yes, my big screen which I don't know how much that costs, but I don't watch a lot of television either.

Don't think for a second that you represent anything close to average use.

I never made that claim. I'm just saying what I pay for electricity and how it would be totally foolish of me to use solar and expect to make out in the end.