Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Markle]

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?

Is a tax deduction a subsidy? Yes or no?

I said it can be.
Is there a subsidy with the ACA?

A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3]

Thank you for confirming that you are dodging a simple question.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

In the future, read the coversation before jumping in.

That was the posion of the poster I responded to. I simply applied it to solar.

 

[Markle]

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.

From YOUR source.

California is a state of extremes. It’s home to some of America’s richest and poorest counties. That means there’s no single cost of living in California. Still, there are some things that apply to locations across the state – like the high income tax.

Your point?

That your source fell all over itself qualifying their answer and disproving your assertion.

 

[SmokeALib]

If you can afford a new house in Kalifornia, Chinese-made solar panels will be the least of your concerns.

 

[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.

In the future, read the coversation before jumping in.

That was the posion of the poster I responded to. I simply applied it to solar.

Which, I proved was a foolish comparison on your part. Thank you so much!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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. It was also confirmed by two, independently licensed real estate appraisers in our area. The system resulted in the owner having a net zero electric costs due to his selling his surplus energy to the local utility company and buying back what he needed at night and other times his solar system did not produce.

Nonsense. More like $20-25k.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

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

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

Is a tax deduction a subsidy? Yes or no?

I said it can be.
Is there a subsidy with the ACA?

A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates).[2][3]

Thank you for confirming that you are dodging a simple question.

I've dodged nothing, dope. I've given you a clear definition.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

From YOUR source.

California is a state of extremes. It’s home to some of America’s richest and poorest counties. That means there’s no single cost of living in California. Still, there are some things that apply to locations across the state – like the high income tax.

Your point?

That your source fell all over itself qualifying their answer and disproving your assertion.

Qualifying?
An average is an average.
It states clearly what the average is, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks. I clicked through several of the links and didn't see any oil subsidies.

In Ohio, Marathon Petroleum is benefitting from a 15-year tax credit for retaining 1,650 jobs and a 10-year tax credit for creating 100 new jobs. The subsidy is worth $78.5m, according to the Good Jobs First database.

That's not an oil subsidy, that's a job subsidy. And it doesn't back the previous claim....Oil, gas, and coal industries get a shocking amount of funding from the US government

Keep trying, there must be some out there..........

Nonsense, this oil company DIRECTLY BENEFITED from these subsidies, directly made more competetive. Certainly that counts as an example of oil industry getting subsidies.

As far as I can tell, any decent sized company that promised to retain "1,650 jobs and create 100 new jobs"
could probably get some sort of tax credit from that state, or another. You can argue for and against states doing that for all sorts of reasons, but Ohio doing that doesn't help the original claim.....

the US government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015

I know it's difficult for you, but try to focus.

So, you're arguing that the govt subsidies for coal is good but a subsidy for an industry that employs three times as many is not?
Explain that logic.

Are there three times as many solar jobs as coal jobs?

So, you're arguing that the govt subsidies for coal is good

I'm pointing out a state subsidy to retain industry shouldn't be considered proof of a supposed
Federal subsidy for fossil fuels.

but a subsidy for an industry that employs three times as many is not?

Good point, the "green energy" industry isn't very productive.

Speak to this.
Are there three times as many solar jobs as coal jobs?

"More than 260,000 Americans are employed by the domestic solar industry — three times as many workers as employed by the entire coal mining industry."

It's true, the "green energy" industry isn't very productive.

Now that you've shown how many jobs there are, compared to coal, please show
how much solar energy is produced, compared to coal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not an oil subsidy, you fuck 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........?

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

Retain and create jobs per your link, dope.

As far as I can tell, any decent sized company that promised to retain "1,650 jobs and create 100 new jobs

Retain and create jobs per your link

Excellent!!!
It's not a subsidy for oil, it's a subsidy for jobs.
Glad you understand.

To the oil company, dope.

Yup, to a company to keep jobs, not to produce more oil. Idjit.

 

[Flash]

.

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.

Fast fact.... in the US, almost 80% of the wealthy are first generation rich.

Meaning people who started out with nothing, and ended up making millions.

The immigrant who became a drone firm boss

In Socialist countries, you are either part of the elite or your are not, and never will be.

Post up a graph that shows wealth distribution in America.

Did you vote for that Obama asshole?

Because if you did then you voted for a dickhead that increased income disparity along with poverty and family income.

Commie Kalifornia has the most poverty in the US. How is that socialism working out for the state?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Hell, mine is less that even that in the winter. (I think it was 38 bucks for March.)

Because you live in a trailer and can't afford anything to plug in no doubt.

Having no facts, you fling poo.

In other words: you concede.

You're a liar. You conceded then.

Have you seen a doctor for your hallucinations?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

He probably isn't far off for an apartment.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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. It was also confirmed by two, independently licensed real estate appraisers in our area. The system resulted in the owner having a net zero electric costs due to his selling his surplus energy to the local utility company and buying back what he needed at night and other times his solar system did not produce.

Nonsense. More like $20-25k.

Any actual proof of that? Or did you squat and bear down, as usual?

 

[AntonToo]

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.

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.