About turtledove

turtledove

Follow
Befriend (5)
51 threads
901 comments
Followed by 1
Following 0
Ignored by 1
Ignoring 2
Ignore turtledove
Aliases
In United States
Registered May 19, 2010

turtledove's most recent comments:

  • On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, 7:34am PDT in Solar panels are the Internet of electricity, turtledove said:

    bob2356 says

    I don't find subsidies to solar any more egregious than the huge subsidies that have been larded on electric utilities both currently and in the past. Why does one disturb you and not the other? Building a diversified electric generating system that is not as subject to the politically volital price of oil is a good use of subsidies if they must exist.

    I'm not arguing one subsidy over another. I'm arguing about what the companies are allowed to do with the subsidies.

    I'm actually a fan of solar. I own panels, plan to collect my subsidy, and pay on a net-usage agreement with the utility (though it didn't cost anywhere near $53k, so I'm not sure what kind of system this guy has...). I think it's pathetic that net-usage might disappear because the utility companies want their profits. My understanding is that this summer, net-usage arrangements might disappear in California if the utilities have their way. They are voting on something, for sure. Clearly, this is also an abuse. I'm not saying that there aren't other abuses going on. But the subsidies are something that every single one of us pays for. These are your subsidies. Did you know that your subsidies, the ones you intended to promote solar in one capacity or another, is actually going to profitable, tax avoiding companies that have nothing to do with alternative energy?

  • On Sat, 18 Apr 2015, 7:19am PDT in Solar panels are the Internet of electricity, turtledove said:

    MattBayArea says

    Turtledove, did you read the part of the article where the utility company claimed that the grid could not support the solar power even though they had not done any tests to determine this? Later, when Solar City and the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory helped the utility do some real tests, they found that there was no problem at all.

    Do you think the utility stands to gain from dishonesty about this? Do they profit more when they generate the power, rather than letting homeowners generate power (sometimes selling some of it back at the market rate)?

    Of course I read that. That is bad, too, and I'm sure something we will see more and more of as utilities scramble to make ends meet.

    "I'm very confused about why you believe 'liberals' should be upset about tax credits that appear to be working as intended (the net result is that solar city is more profitable, thus encouraging a solar-technology provider to do business), but not about a company that may be lying in order to defy a law and screw customers over."

    When we were sold on the importance of the tax credits, it was sold as a credit to benefit either the people who purchase solar panels or the company leasing the solar panels to the consumer. That makes sense. It was never sold as a tax credit that could benefit companies like Google, who aren't creating alternative energy, don't want to pay their share of taxes and, therefore, would rather purchase tax credits. First of all, it creates an income stream for the solar companies that is fake. They aren't in business to sell tax credits to profitable companies. They are in the business of selling solar panels. So, on the one hand it skews performance without any tax effect. Second, it takes a tax credit away from something else, and I tend to think there are more worthy causes than Google. If the credit is sitting around unused, you could lower taxes, use that money to fund something you've been defunding for decades, use that savings to fund an investigation of all these abuses, or consider it money that the federal government doesn't have to spend, at all.

  • On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, 10:08pm PDT in Solar panels are the Internet of electricity, turtledove said:

    SoftShell says

    dem libbys wear dem rosecolored galassas...

    I'm just wondering if they realize where these federal subsidies come from. Their well-intentioned subsidies are being converted into something that provides yet another tax advantage to companies that don't need it. But we're bastards because we don't feel our taxes should go up and be misappropriated through some loophole few have even heard of that benefits people who don't need it! Why would we want our taxes to go up when you mismanage every program across the board? IMHO, the problem isn't the idea behind the program, it's the sloppy way it is implemented and, therefore, taken advantage of. Name one federally-subsidized program that hasn't been abused by those the program never intended to help? Name one federal subsidy that didn't result in a rise in cost of whatever is being subsidized?

    Things are so gunna change when I'm in charge.

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net