Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Flopper]

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.

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

IF the people want to move towards solar, they'll do it of their own accord. The don't need Stalinist douchebags like you forcing them

Did you move toward digital, dope?

Of course not. You were led there.

I wasn't led there by the government, moron.

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

And it all came for free, right?

Any advanced technology has to be paid for by somebody. Usually that somebody is the consumer. And do you really believe without government, the industry wouldn't have eventually went to HD on their own? Industry is always looking to create more things to sell. Right now they are selling televisions with ultra HD. The problem is that there are few stations that broadcast ultra-high, but that will change on it's own timeframe and not the governments.........hopefully.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

 

[Markle]

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.

That's just foolish.

If I build a house in the country, it is a simple matter to have electric supplied. Instead of water and sewer connections, I will have to install a well, pump and septic tank. It isn't a choice, it is required if I am to live in the house.

It may be simple but not cheap. I have shared ownership in a cabin in the mountains about 1500 feet from the nearest road. The cost of running a power line was $16,000 and that did not include trenching, clearing trees and undergrowth or the power meter, nor did it in include any future maintenance.

Fifty thousand dollar savings on solar PLUS you had electricity at night and in rainstorms.

 

[Markle]

Bullshit. It's just another system of the home.
Solar panels are not $70k, liar.
They cost less than your kitchen quote especially twenty or thirty years on from their original install.

The price I cited is for a 75 kWh solar system retro-fitted to a 2,500 sq. ft. late model home in my area of expertise. That was the cost quoted by the owner of the property substantiated with his receipts.

Please stop spreading nonsense, you don't know what you are talking about.

Systems are speced in [kW] units. My bigger unit is 8.55 kW, which produces about 10,800 kWh a year on unobstructed roof in not-so-sunny NY. Thats enough to cover 100% of electricity in a medium sized house and was $28,000 gross.

If I was in sunny California I would only need a ~7.0 kW system to produce same electricity...the cost quoted COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE for 75 kW unit, it was 7.5 unit that was maybe purchased 10 years ago and does not represent current costs.

Please review my post, it is for a 75 kWh system.

What is kilowatt-hour (kWh)?
How many kilowatt-hour does a house use?
Energy consumption of a house is about the range of 150kWh..1500kWh per month or 5kWh..50kWh per day.

It depends on the weather that affects the heating or air conditioning requirements and the number of people that live in the house.

Kilowatt-hour (kWh): definition, example and conversion calculator

 

[OnePercenter]

Progress costs.
Cars cost more than buggys.
Smartphones cost more than the kitchen rotary dial.
MRIs cost more than leeches, etc.

The truth is, the more companies that manufacture and install solar, the lower the pricepoint.
It becomes cheaper every year.

In the future, the roofing material itself will be the photo voltaics.

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

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.

Are you stating that freight rail doesn't collect indirect government subsidies?

 

[OnePercenter]

You forgot to factor the tax credit and the energy credit.

Yeah, well like I said, if you took that same amount of money, invested it in a secure growth fund, there is no way anybody is making out unless they get a subsidy from the government which means indirectly, it's government paying for it. Without government, a really bad investment.

Your "secure growth fund" doesn't receive government subsidies?

Nope, they don't. And don't take off with saying companies getting a lower tax rate is a subsidy.

Why don't you list the name of your growth fund and we'll do some dissecting.

Why mine? Just contact any reputable investment company and ask what 20K or so would be in 20 years from today. I know how my IRA is performing, and there is no way you can tell me that electricity savings would outdo secure investments in that amount of time.

Why not yours? EVERY investment instrument benefits from subsidies either directly or indirectly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

And that's fine with me if people buy it on their own without taxpayers footing much of the bill. Also so they aren't forced to buy them.

Government didn't force people to buy cars, citiznes bought them because of it's advantages.
Government didn't force people to buy smart phones, people bought them freely because of their advantages.
Government didn't force anybody to get an MRI. People freely chose to get those for themselves.

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

Exactly! The only outages are caused by darkness, clouds, snow or rain.

 

[otto105]

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

So, you’re not looking forward, but stuck in the old world thinking.


Why is that?

 

[eagle1462010]

In a Free Country people have the RIGHT OF CHOICE......................in places like Mexifornia you are ORDERED to buy stuff you don't want.

Forced by a CULT of IDEOLOGY.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

So, you’re not looking forward, but stuck in the old world thinking.


Why is that?

Making money is old world thinking?

And actually, I didn't bring up the money part of the deal, the pro-panel people did. I was just pointing out the flaw with their calculation on the savings.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

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.

I have not problem with government doing things that benefit most if not ALL people. But forcing somebody to pay and use solar panels is not benefiting anybody but the saps that believe in global warming.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

Exactly! The only outages are caused by darkness, clouds, snow or rain.

Plus I can't recall a time where I experienced an outage because of world fuel shortages.

 

[otto105]

In a Free Country people have the RIGHT OF CHOICE......................in places like Mexifornia you are ORDERED to buy stuff you don't want.

Forced by a CULT of IDEOLOGY.

Then just move to a new place asshole.


Sounds like freedom to me.

 

[otto105]

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

So, you’re not looking forward, but stuck in the old world thinking.


Why is that?

Making money is old world thinking?

And actually, I didn't bring up the money part of the deal, the pro-panel people did. I was just pointing out the flaw with their calculation on the savings.

You brought up money in investment.


So is investing in old energy better than new energy sources?

 

[eagle1462010]

In a Free Country people have the RIGHT OF CHOICE......................in places like Mexifornia you are ORDERED to buy stuff you don't want.

Forced by a CULT of IDEOLOGY.

Then just move to a new place asshole.


Sounds like freedom to me.

I don't live there asshole.......I consider ordering others to buy them in California to be a violation of the Constitution............So you can shove the panels up your ass ............Clear it up for you.

 

[otto105]

In a Free Country people have the RIGHT OF CHOICE......................in places like Mexifornia you are ORDERED to buy stuff you don't want.

Forced by a CULT of IDEOLOGY.

Then just move to a new place asshole.


Sounds like freedom to me.

I don't live there asshole.......I consider ordering others to buy them in California to be a violation of the Constitution............So you can shove the panels up your ass ............Clear it up for you.

The only thing clear, is your status as an asshole.


A young stupid one at that too.

 

[eagle1462010]

In a Free Country people have the RIGHT OF CHOICE......................in places like Mexifornia you are ORDERED to buy stuff you don't want.

Forced by a CULT of IDEOLOGY.

Then just move to a new place asshole.


Sounds like freedom to me.

I don't live there asshole.......I consider ordering others to buy them in California to be a violation of the Constitution............So you can shove the panels up your ass ............Clear it up for you.

The only thing clear, is you status as an asshole.


A young stupid one at that too.

I'm old ...............and I understand when people order someone else to buy something that they don't want is flat out wrong.....

And to tell those trying to force it on others............to take a long walk off a short bridge.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

So, you’re not looking forward, but stuck in the old world thinking.


Why is that?

Making money is old world thinking?

And actually, I didn't bring up the money part of the deal, the pro-panel people did. I was just pointing out the flaw with their calculation on the savings.

You brought up money in investment.


So is investing in old energy better than new energy sources?

Maybe you didn't read the past posts.

The debate was whether panels would save you money or not. Some said yes and some said no. I was pointing out the fact that with that kind of bread, putting your money into a fairly conservative growth account for 20 years (you know, stocks) would yield you a hell of a lot more money than you would possibly save using panels.

 

[otto105]

In a Free Country people have the RIGHT OF CHOICE......................in places like Mexifornia you are ORDERED to buy stuff you don't want.

Forced by a CULT of IDEOLOGY.

Then just move to a new place asshole.


Sounds like freedom to me.

I don't live there asshole.......I consider ordering others to buy them in California to be a violation of the Constitution............So you can shove the panels up your ass ............Clear it up for you.

The only thing clear, is you status as an asshole.


A young stupid one at that too.

I'm old ...............and I understand when people order someone else to buy something that they don't want is flat out wrong.....

And to tell those trying to force it on others............to take a long walk off a short bridge.

A bridge has two connections to land.


Noted again, is your ignorance.