EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Obama Did It For the Money
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Renowned Scientist Stephen Hawking Joins Academic Boycott of Israel
Popular content
Today's Top News
Incentives to Going 'Off Grid' Bring Power to the People
The price of power has always been a political issue -- but now campaigners argue it could be the key to starting a green energy revolution.
Roofs in the Vatican City covered with solar panels point the way to off-grid power. On February 1, the British Government announced details of the rates that will be paid for renewable power generated by homeowners and communities.
Called the Clean Energy Cashback, or feed-in tariff (FIT), the aim is to provide an above-market bonus that will encourage individuals and groups to invest in solar panels, wind turbines and other forms of green power.
It's the first national scheme of its kind in the UK, although FIT plans have been operating in other EU countries and at regional levels in the U.S.
Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council told CNN that the announcement will help make small scale renewables a more attractive and viable option, for householders, communities and businesses. King also believes that it will also support an emerging green industry and generate high quality jobs.
But others are less enthusiastic about the UK's plan, and believe the Department of Energy and Climate Change's ambition that two percent of electricity generated from small scale renewables by 2020 doesn't go far enough.
"Research shows that a successful incentive mechanism set at the right level, like the FIT scheme, could deliver up to six percent of the UK domestic electricity demand," Jemma Robinson, Renewable Energy Association, told CNN.
When Germany introduced a similar FIT scheme 10 years ago -- but with targets of ten percent -- it started a green energy revolution in the country, turning it into a European leader in renewables.
There has been considerable public interest to the scheme in the UK.
A YouGov survey published at the end of January for the Renewable Energy Association, Friends of the Earth and the Co-Operative Group, revealed that 71 percent of UK homeowners said they would consider installing green energy systems if they were paid enough cash.
If widely adopted micro-power generation could transform the shape of our homes and how housing is built.
"It could mean in future that not just new-build homes but existing homes too will include at least some small-scale renewable energy generation," Steve Turner, Home Builders Federation, told CNN.
"At present the technologies most likely to be used appear to be solar thermal panels and photovoltaic panels which can be accommodated on or integrated in roofs [but] we can look forward in the future to community scale electricity and heat generation from renewable technologies."
However the key is finding the right technology for the right area.
"Householders need the best possible advice on what works for their home -- one solution will not 'fit all'," John Alker, Head of Advocacy at the Green Building Council told CNN.
"That is also important in order for technologies to remain credible. For example, in the past micro wind turbines have been used in built up areas and credibility has suffered as a result.
"But without a sufficient financial incentive, homeowners and house builders will be reluctant to invest, and there will be little progress."
At stake in the future of micro-power generation are not just carbon emissions -- campaigners also argue that localized green energy will have other benefits.
"Renewables are decentralized by nature, largely benign and can work effectively at small as well as large scale. Small scale power technologies are about the economics of mass manufacturing and deployment - rather than economies of scale," Leonie Greene of the Renewable Energy Association told CNN.
"That also means a change in ownership patterns. Potentially everyone can become an investor. These smaller technologies are also important globally -- the implications for the global south, which often lacks grid infrastructure, are extremely positive."
Oliver Harwood, Chief Surveyor of the UK's Country Land and Business Association Limited believes that micro-power generation will make people much more aware of their energy use.
"The growth of smaller scale energy influences neighbors and the wider community: it has a knock on effect which multiples. It can address fuel poverty, and insulate against rising fossil fuel prices into the future," he told CNN.
Yet Harwood remains skeptical that the UK has the right approach to renewable energy in general.
"One can argue that the UK approach to renewables has to date been an abject failure," he said.
"[Incentives so far have] supported only the cheapest very large scale projects that have been imposed on unwilling communities, causing significant resistance, and overall leading to a much lower rate of delivery than in other EU countries.
"The UK is 26th out of 27 EU member states in renewable electricity generation, only Malta does worse.
"In contrast the 20 or so EU members who have used Feed in Tariffs to drive power from the people have ended up with far more renewables (Germany at more than 13 percent compared to UK's 5.8 percent) with far less public concern. We note communities in other countries do not protest against their own wind turbines."
It seems at best unclear whether the announcement of Britain's FIT scheme will enable the country to join its European neighbors and take a great leap forward in green energy.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllFeed-in tariffs to support home solar, wind, or micro-hydro generation are are a fine idea, but I can see a few problems that will need attention.
Firstly, a lot of us do not live in climates or locations where any home-generation scheme is viable.
Secondly, most home-solar (and home-wind) are only going to practical on larger homes on large lots. The benefits will not be available to those that live in urban environments who already have smaller carbon footprints but virtue of their living in smaller and multi-unit living spaces and use of walking and public transportation.
Thirdly, the costs of a PX or wind syatem will result in the feed-in tariff benefits going mostly to the wealthy.
Assuming that higher electricity prices result from higher feed-in tariffs (not necessarily a bad thing), the result will be that the poor, and those already living low-carbon lifestyles, will be subsidizing the well in the exurbs off with their solar-panel covered ranch homes in sunny climates.
If fossil fuel prices are not high enough, much of this home generation will not be clean. Some people will with access to bargian prices diesel or natural gas will feed in electricity generated with fossil-fuel generators
So home generator feed-in tariffs needs to be part of a package of other incentives.
Why does the title of this article call it "off grid" when the article deals with metered systems tied into the grid?
PV and wind systems could work better in urban area if property owners had legal protection that prevented other property owners from blocking their sun light, wind, etc.
Even in rural areas we are seeing solar installations hampered by neighbors who plant fast growing trees to block them because they don't like the looks of the PV panels.
Unless more incentives are created to decentralize power production we will be stuck with more and more jumbo coal, gas and nuclear plants that result in more pollution and higher power costs. Within the past month alone Obama has been gunning hard for the fossil and nuclear industries.
Extremely good question.
And, if you are not a property owner?
This "off the grid" stuff sounds elitist, and distinctly anti-solidarity to me.
Access to basic utilities for heat, light and drinking water at an affordable regulated rate are a right. This will just ultimately lead to a situation where one _must_ generate their own electricity or put up with some kind of crappy expensive, welfare-grade utility service.
If you think this is far fetched, then study how the personal automobile replaced a syatem of cheap, frequent and fast public transportation for all that once existed -and the large monopolistic corporations that arose from that.
And, the off-the-grid promoteers also seem to not understand the efficiency of scale. A single large 4 mw wind turbine is far more efficient than thousands of little ones in people's yards, if they have yards.
If large utilities are abusive, they can be de-privatized and transferred to local government control.
pjd412, good points all. But I hope you agree that even small-scale generation of power can have its place, as "part of a package of other incentives", as you said above. Basically, wherever this power generation can be done without worsening the environment, where it economically makes sense, I think we should consider the option. This is not a new idea - it seems to work reasonably well in Germany for several years now.
But you are absolutely right about your warning: it would be a mistake to rush in, without looking at the alternatives - especially larger wind turbines. Your analogy with the automobile vs. public transport is just perfect. And your warning - that this should not lead to a situation where one must generate their own electricity - is also appropriate - just like it happened with the commuting, where the transit system was deliberately dismantled.
Any governmental program involving subsidies must be clearly thought through - to avoid a situation where people rush in and buy sub-standard systems, and they fail within a year or two - partly due to poor maintenance by the users themselves - such as the batteries. There is enough experience to learn from - where well-intentioned subsidies then go on to take a life of their own, with some unintended consequences.
-> "it would be a mistake to rush in, without looking at the alternatives - especially larger wind turbines"
We're not exactly rushing in. Home solar PV generation dates as far back as the '70s, 40 YEARS AGO. California is a reasonable poster child for why distributed generation is appealing. There's a lot of sun in most parts of the state. There's a lot of wind in certain parts of the state. There are commercial wind farms with utility-scale wind turbines in operation just east of the bay area and out by Palm Springs (maybe elsewhere, those are just the ones I've driven past).
At the same time, California got straight up ROBBED by deregulation advocates and Enron-style gaming of the utility grid. If there had been more generation within California the Enron game wouldn't have worked. The whole mess effectively doubled the utility customer's price of electricity in just a few years (inadvertently making solar PV more affordable).
This doesn't have to be a totally consumer or a totally gov't driven change. When I lived in Eugene, Oregon, the co-op there had contracted for the generation from a wind farm out in Idaho if I recall. The EWEB (utility) customers could voluntarily opt-in to the wind-generated electricity at a higher kw/h price. The program SOLD OUT. All the available generation from the wind farm was sold to customers who voluntarily chose to pay more. From a customer perspective it's cheaper than putting up your own DG (distributed generation, via wind, solar, or micro water turbine). For a small change in your monthly utility bill you know you're supporting a shift to RE (renewable energy).
I believe this was a great solution for my household because we were in-town, and had 80-100 year old Douglas Fir trees shading my roof. Not enough wind on-site for home generation, not enough consistent sun through the trees for solar PV efficiency. I can support RE power without the need for maintenance of a home-sited source. In my case I didn't particularly mind paying more to my co-op because it is owned by the city and local citizens. However, when I lived in CA I might still have opted-in if PG&E had offered a similar program. The only downside I can see of utility RE being offered for opt-in by consumers is that it still relies on the interstate grid.
If I move back to a sunny part of CA, I do anticipate installing grid-tie solar PV and probably solar water heating as well. The batteries are totally unnecessary unless you want power available during a rare power outage. For the cost of batteries and the hassle of maintaining them I'd skip batteries and just buy a small generator and power transfer switch. If the utility power goes down, run the generator to keep the fridge/freezer cool and run a small room fan. The cost/benefit of a small generator for $1000 (plus maybe $500 if you want power transfer for your house vs an extension cord to your fridge/freezer) is to me far greater than buying and maintaining batteries.
One area where gov't could help would be to offer education to the public and especially to building departments and architect schools. I see many new-home developments in recent years that get built with zero thought to solar. Just dropping the same cookie cutter house on both sides of the street doesn't make energy efficiency sense. Architects, builders, city/county planning departments and especially the paying home buyer should be aware of where the windows are and how much summertime sun is going to heat up the house requiring expensive AC, but also how the roof is oriented to South and what pitch the roof is built at to maximize solar PV panels. Even if the builder doesn't spec-build with solar, and the first owner doesn't install PV, it's a wonderful thing if the roof is oriented to South and at the ideal pitch for the latitude so some later owner can throw PV up easily and efficiently.
-> "Any governmental program involving subsidies must be clearly thought through - to avoid a situation where people rush in and buy sub-standard systems, and they fail within a year or two - partly due to poor maintenance by the users themselves - such as the batteries."
In California at least the gov't subsidy programs require 10 year warranties on the PV panels and the inverters. You can find information for each state at dsireusa.org. There really aren't sub-standard systems available, only substandard installation. That is, don't install the panels on the north-facing side of the roof or on a home where big trees are going to block the summer sun. Home maintenance PV panels is really just washing them down once in a while.
The biggest hurdles for PV in a home setting are
1) Initial cost (though discount financing is sometimes available)
2) City or Homeowners Association restrictions on placement of solar panels for "aesthetic" reasons.
3) Actual home-ownership. PV isn't something an individual renter can do for the house or apartment they rent. Here's where utility green power opt-in programs are so great.
Utility power will always be necessary. What we're talking about is the ONGOING, GROWING electrical demand. If we need to ADD 1000 mega watts of power or something over the next 10 years, that's maybe 50 each 200 mega watt power plants burning coal, natural gas, or nuclear fueled. Adding solar even in large amounts just offsets some of that growth. We are not in any danger of reducing the influence of utilities or existing power generation paradigm. We're really just talking about feeding a tiny portion of our growing energy needs with some cleaner source of electrons.
ErikK, thanks for an excellent reply. I hope I didn't sound like I was opposed to small-scale, decentralized renewable energy systems. When I wrote that previous post, I was thinking of some programs over the years, in a few different countries, that had some unexpected consequences. So much so, that there were mini follow-up studies done on these very programs about the pitfalls to avoid in future programs. While the programs themselves ended (when I say program, it's somewhat similar to a cash-for-clunker program, with a fixed budget and a a certain duration), lots of systems got sold, some people made their money, but there were also many who were disillusioned with the whole renewable energy technology. Some business owners even resolved to never volunteer for such a program again, until there was enough confirmation about their feasibility. From solar PV to fuel cells, there have been lots of "programs", and some quiet endings. Like I said, there's enough experience to learn from - as long as the focus is on making decentralized energy a success, and to not let it become just another photo-op, soundbite and statistic.
"A single large 4 mw wind turbine is far more efficient than thousands of little ones in people's yards, if they have yards."
If you have a link to this topic, I would much appreciate it..
Inductive electrical devises - motors, transformers or generators are more efficient the larger that are. For example the little wall transformer used to charge a cell phone is only a few percent efficient, but a big substation transformer is more than 99 percent efficient. Same with generators.
Plus there are efficiencies of siting. Big turbines are put on sites where measurements show maximum wind energy resources. Here in Pittsburgh, putting wind turbine is not practical, the wind doesn't blow nearly consistently enough (and solar panels are practically useless - especially this time of year). But just 50 miles to the east, on the Allegheny plateau, or 100 miles to the northwest, on Lake Erie, there is much more reliable wind. The generating all has to be done there.
If anything, success in renewables will require a much more centrally controlled continental grid, not decentralization. This idea of "getting off the grid" seems to be just a symptom of the same unhealthy individualism that led us to cross the prairies and kill Indians. We are all in this together.
Don't agree at all.
Centralized systems are what lead to dependency and entrapment in a system controlled by profit. So, if we build centralized wind/solar farms, what changes?
Decentralization of energy, as much as possible, democratizes energy and keeps us from being highly dependent on the BigBiz teat.
Advances in photovoltaics and wind turbines will make it possible for many individuals to generate at least some of their own energy. Along with improving homes' energy efficiencies (tightening and insulation) and reducing individual household energy consumption, we can get to a point where we are much less dependent of large-scale energy.
you may be right, but 'what changes' would seem to be less fossil fuels..
For one thing, fighting HOA (Homeowner's Association) on restricting customers from putting solar panals on their windows. I am lucky not to live in a home tied to HOA. Second change would be to give huge discounts in rural and suburban areas where there is more space for solar panals and wind turbines.
Ted, while I agree that centralized keeps people hooked to Big Energy, decentralization is not feasible within crowded cities.
*sigh* are we ever going to get a sensible answer out of your apparently sensible intellect. First nukes, now you argue against the PROVEN success and empowerment of FITS and the *obvious* benefits to individuals AND local communities from distributed generation. The abundance of nonsense which spills from your seemingly competent intellect leads me to suspect (yes, I still think this) that you are either a paid troll or some other form of shill for an industry such as coal, nuclear, or oil. I really can't think why else you drag your feet (along with every other knuckle-dragging centralized utility advocate) as people who really care about generating clean energy attempt to save the world.
Thanks - well, I'm just trying to understand the science. This seems to make sense, but any links would be helpful. imo, If the energy companies are working us over, the solution is to blow their d-damn heads off, not try to work around them. ie, let's make this work for everyone. It's bravado, and it may not be possible, but that what sounds best to me. If we can't achieve it now, we should expect, talk about, and work to do it eventually.
"This "off the grid" stuff sounds elitist, and distinctly anti-solidarity to me."
Solidarity with what, dependence on big energy companies or on grids that are prone to failure when you need them most?
I'm really getting tired of folks shooting down anyone who tries to pave a way out. Looks distinctly like sour grapes.
Please re-read my automobile and public transit analogy in my earlier post.
Obviously, of corporate control of electrical utilities is a problem we nationalize them. We don't make the provision of electricity an individual responsibility!
I wrote tht feed in tariffs are fine. But localization of electric generating resources won't work. Some region have huge resources and will need to export them, others will import them. Only a robust continental grid will make this possible.
No one here seems to be an engineer or a scientist, what DO you all do for a living?
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
"That also means a change in ownership patterns. Potentially everyone can become an investor."
Which is why here in rad-free market capitalist la-la land our big utilities companies despise this concept: If they can't control it or make money from it then it shouldn't exist.
"It's the first national scheme of its kind in the UK, although FIT plans have been operating in other EU countries and AT REGIONAL LEVELS IN THE U.S."
Note how CNN omits the negligible scale of these "schemes" in the U.S. or the fact that the U.S. has one of the lowest percentages of renewable electricity generation into its grid of any developed nation on earth.
"The growth of smaller scale energy influences neighbors and the wider community: it has a knock on effect which multiples. It can address fuel poverty, and insulate against rising fossil fuel prices into the future."
Oh, no, that's far too intelligent and makes too much sense to emulate in punitive capitalist (puni-cap) Amurka where needless economic suffering ist gut fur our fascist-lite souls.
"When Germany introduced a similar FIT scheme 10 years ago -- but with targets of ten percent -- it started a green energy revolution in the country, turning it into a European leader in renewables."
This is old and obsolete news showing how lazy and biased CNN's reporters are.
Germany's current target is 20% of domestic electricity demand by 2020. They are at 13% already and many predict they will reach 30%. The government there not only subsidizes surplus micro-power buy-backs but the purchase and construction of wind and solar arrays by private land owners themselves. The UK squawks about potentially reaching 6% and the U.S. is at slightly more than 1% and holding. [BTW, current real unemployment in the U.S. is at 16% while current unemployment in socialist democratic Norway is at 4%.--showing what bold visionaries we are here in Amurka--the land of the laissez-faire regressive greedheads.]
One of the best bang-for-buck renewable energy systems available to most households are solar-hybrid systems that tie into the grid. However, this will only work out for the investor IF the grid offers a pay-back system if the consumer generates more energy than is used.
Our energy cooperative in New Mexico, similar to many other rural co-ops throughout the US, provide few incentives for people wishing to be greener and more independent. Here, our co-op only offers credit towards the next month's bill for any excess energy that is produced, and the co-op does not allow credit to accrue from one month to the next. In others words, they are flipping us the bird.
Having the feds say "go green" is not enough. There has to be a major paradigm change at state and county levels as well.
You-all wouldn't have a Website where some of us well meaning amateurs could check out some of what you've done, would you?
Sorry, no web site, but grid-tied PV is really very, very simple. If you can build a deck and change circuit breakers, you can install your own PV system. Mucking with batteries for an off-grid system does up the ante significantly. Our trailer is completely off-grid, and my workshop is grid-tied.
I am not keen on wind generators, as they make quite a racket (the silence in remote NM is really outstanding), but if you are in an urban environment or suffer severe tinnitus, the hum from blade wash would be lost in the background noise.
>>>WTF wrote: Here, our co-op only offers credit towards the next month's bill for any excess energy that is produced, and the co-op does not allow credit to accrue from one month to the next. In others words, they are flipping us the bird.
That's sounds ridiculous. And why are they still called co-op's? It's OBVIOUS that the intent here is to make the customer consume more from the grid. Sounds like a typical capitalist enterprise - not much different from what some cell-phone companies do on pre-paid billing, where you lose your balance if you don't top it up every month? Were there discussions and debates before this system was put in place? I know such schemes can sneak by when not many people are paying attention, or they are deliberately bamboozled with lots of jargon.
Well, it is a co-op, which means that it should be "run by the stakeholders" (whatever that means). In reality, all we need to do is boot out the Board of Directors and replace them with visionaries (or fence posts, which would be better than what we have now).
Alas, here in rural NM, a significant number of the population, as well as the minority of big land owners, share the same surnames, so at election time, the families roll out in force keeping the incumbents in power.
I've long maintained that this feed in tariff system is the best, most democratic way to get alternative energy in wide use. Our (US) government needs to follow this lead and provide incentives in tax credits and low-interest loans to make it realistic for more households to invest in placing photovotaic panels on our roofs. I would have done it yesterday, but the initial capital investment (10s of thousands) is prohibitive.
There ought to also be an incentive to create cheaper, more environmentally neutral solar electricity generating technology.
Those who control the energy supply control the users.
When the global "western" world and lifestyle is looked at in that light, it makes a whole lot more sense why that system of oil, coal and nuclear in concentrated infrastructures is so ubiquitous.
Solar, wind, geothermal and even telluric currents are abundantly available small scale energy sources, all over the world. If not the one, then one or more of the other sources. But micro power systems are harder to make a profit on at every juncture, being less suitable for big scale 'grids'.
When looking into the available technologies, this question of suitability for profiting and exploitation is soon seen to be at the crux of the energy supply. That becomes pretty self-evident.
Eager innovators keep trying all over the west to implement clean small scale energy supplies, only to find themselves resisted by existing big scale energy deliverers. It's not a matter of a conspiracy, only an entrenched system of thinking established long ago by people now dead, in circumstances now obsolete.
We're in fact fighting the thinking of dead people. Which is why that mindset is so unassailable. Stitched up tightly - none of the really guilty around to be criticized. Neat trick.
Where's the US solar/electric Crash PROGRAM, Obummer?
Mr. Obamageddon wants 50 new nuclear power plants.
Is this his plan for green energy projects?
Well, it seems the U.S. is at least half-a-century behind Europe in a lot of things all the sudden (trains, healthcare, architecture, general belligerence, etc.) Energy is just another item on the list, and so now we're building nuke plants like our overseas friends did way back when.
No worries, another 50 years and Yankees will be Tea Partyin' like mad for safe and reliable energy sources ...just you wait and see.
0 calls coal green.
0's business is to sell a cooperative electorate to the highest bidder.
Most people I read talking about these schemes act like individual homeowner power generation is something you buy once and your expense is over. Au contraire! Your expense and vigilence are just beginning.
Something nobody much thinks or talks about in these renewable power generation schemes is the cost of upkeep and regular maintenance on your system's components.
When individual homeowners become their own utilities do they realize that their mechanical-electrical equipment is subject to wearing out, breaking down, and storm damage just like the central power company's grid?
Batteries (the principle means of sustaining your renewable power at those times when the wind isn't blowing or the sun shining) require regular maintenence and testing to make sure they are operating properly.
Small scale renewable power generation is still a great idea whose time has come, but only if a person going into it has a clear idea of the continuing work and investment involved in what they are doing.
Poet
Good points, Poet - especially about the maintenance. But in a carefully thought-out program, maintenance can provide jobs - where local companies can, for a small fee, carry out checks, maintenance, etc. "Local" is key - large monopolies on such "service" jobs should be kept out.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Cost effectiveness depends on how much of the renewable power you generate that you use for your own household needs vs. surplus power sold back from over-generation (that your household can't use) vs. any additional generation that is basically just renewable energy farming. The landowners taking advantage of all the government subsidies in Germany have a good mix with plenty of land devoted just to private energy farming above and beyond their household needs and household surplus.
If you connect to the grid, you won't need batteries and you can make your meter run backwards, selling your excess power.
I'm not sure if batteries can be avoided. If you are talking of PV, the panels generate DC power - of variable wattage during the day and all through the year. They generally charge batteries first. A power controller (which may include a DC/DC converter and an inverter) is what is interfaced with the building power supply (AC). Not sure if there are systems that do away with the batteries, though. Technically possible, but in practice, may impose too much fluctuations on the grid.
There are inter-tie systems that require no batteries. It's done quite often. They do require two meters however - one for power coming in, and one going out.
Thanks for the info. My own understanding is from a few years ago. Just did a google search for intertie, and was surprised to find so many commercial systems. Batteries used to be cited as the technological weak link in the use of renewables - especially in a decentralized form. The few off-grid buildings (demonstration projects) I've seen all used batteries - lots of them, in fact. I know the costs of solar PV panels have steadily come down, their efficiencies have gone up a bit, etc. Even the energy meters (digital, with interfacing, etc.) have become cheaper and there are so many. Years ago, I remember looking at such meters at industrial expo's - they were quite pricey.
Finally some good news. Too bad its not in America.
This is an outrage!!
I am the CEO of a very large energy consortium and if this takes hold how am i supposed to send my children to the finest law and medical schools in the land?
My wife is demanding a new Mercedes this year and she is tired of the same 3 vacation homes we always visit. What am I to do to keep her happy?
How am I supposed to pay my country club fees?
How am I supposed to pay these top notch Harvard accountants I have to find loopholes in the system for me?
And think of my shareholders....my poor poor shareholders who rely on the %20 return I give them every year.
Allowing these "people" to farm cheap energy from their environment has put me and my business interests in a very uncomfortable position.
Thank goodness I have the Supreme Court & Patent Office in my corner!!
And thank goodness I have my small group of goons who have performed admirably over the decades in destroying, buying up and hiding any advances thus far in bringing cheap energy to "the people".
Within the past month PNM the local utility in Albuquerque and Santa Fe has moved from net metering to a feed in tariff that is double the retail rate. For homeowners this cuts in half the payback of a photovoltaic system. This is very good news for solar in this state. It is crazy that New Mexico gets more than half of its electricity from coal.
The coal companies have been trying to build more plants in New Mexico, most recently on the Navajo reservation.
A good feed in tariff is the way to go. Germany shares latitude with Canada if solar can work that far north the US with more sun can with the will derive 20% if its electricity from the sun.
Hang in there Europe. The US is still stuck in dinosaur land. We are in for a crude awakening at the rate government keeps subsidizing the fossil fuel industries. Maybe there we'll play catch up.