Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Getting a system installed, ready for future battery backup

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    J.P.M., I have no interest in discussing politics on this forum.
    I just had simple question of whether there will be new StorEdge inverter coming out that is based on the their newer HD Wave tech (i.e. transformerless). I'm just trying to decide whether or not to delay my PV installation and I thought this would be the forum to ask it in.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
      That's true of many things. Roads, schools, air traffic control, oil companies, farming, the VA, nuclear power plants etc all see $$ from taxpayers routed to special interest groups. Government being government they overdo it and then massively f*ck up the implementation of said subsidies.

      But if that's "stealing", then every single person in the US who uses roads, or takes advantage of our airspace system, or uses power from a nuclear power plant, or puts gas in their car, or goes to a VA hospital, is "stealing" as well.


      I get a good part of that. But just about everyone uses roads. Most fly 1X/awhile. Gov. provided schooling is mandated by the fed. and state constitutions or elsewhere, or at least that's how it is.

      I don't like my increased tax burden because the fed. gov. allows unlimited deductions for breeding. Furthermore, those folks with lots of kids can then cause my school taxes to increase while their school tax burden is mostly unaffected by their breeding choices. We all have stuff we think sucks. At the risk of catching hell for use of an oxymoron, nothing is all or nothing. As long as we accept the facts of living in a pluralistic society, some, maybe at times a lot of the toleration part of such a societal arrangement is required.

      However, it seems to me that those creating at least part of a (claimed) problem, that is, to Mervij7's reference to grid load fluctuation, - at least to the extent it actually can be proven or at least commonly and largely believed and acknowledged to exist as a problem that's at least partially caused by distributed and hard(er) to regulate generation (PV) - bear some, maybe a lot of the burden to address a solution, or at least remove some of the burden from those not reaping the benefits. I for one, do not see the fairness of subsidizing those who may have a hand in creating at least part of a problem by making it more cost effective to keep the problem (and maybe even making it largerby the subsidy), while adding insult to injury at the expense of others who often can ill afford it by increasing the financial burden on all by a few. To me at least, that's an unreasonable stretch on the forbearance I spoke of above.

      It reads to me that on one hand you're justifying R.E. or in this (sub)case energy storage subsidies by what looks to me to be an implication that because gov. support for services that are in many cases universally necessary and common, it is at least allowable if not desirable and justifiable to use taxpayer resources to sthupp the usually mostly well heeled at the expense of those who are not R.E. users, that is, the large portion of the population that does not use R.E. on a residential scale.

      Then, on the other hand, you seem to be condemning (and I agree with you here) the delivery system for such selective largesse as being mostly or only capable of overdoing it and F-bombing up the implementation. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me.

      Respectfully,

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by J.P.M. View Post
        I don't like my increased tax burden because the fed. gov. allows unlimited deductions for breeding. Furthermore, those folks with lots of kids can then cause my school taxes to increase while their school tax burden is mostly unaffected by their breeding choices. We all have stuff we think sucks. At the risk of catching hell for use of an oxymoron, nothing is all or nothing. As long as we accept the facts of living in a pluralistic society, some, maybe at times a lot of the toleration part of such a societal arrangement is required.
        Agreed with all of that. Which tax deductions/subsidies you are OK with and which ones you aren't is going to depend on what's important to you; people without kids will have different priorities than people with kids to use one example.
        However, it seems to me that those creating at least part of a (claimed) problem, that is, to Mervij7's reference to grid load fluctuation, - at least to the extent it actually can be proven or at least commonly and largely believed and acknowledged to exist as a problem that's at least partially caused by distributed and hard(er) to regulate generation (PV) - bear some, maybe a lot of the burden to address a solution, or at least remove some of the burden from those not reaping the benefits. I for one, do not see the fairness of subsidizing those who may have a hand in creating at least part of a problem by making it more cost effective to keep the problem (and maybe even making it largerby the subsidy), while adding insult to injury at the expense of others who often can ill afford it by increasing the financial burden on all by a few.
        One of the most important things the government can do (IMO) is to help drive advances that keep the US a world leader and that help their citizens live more productive lives. Massive land giveaways to railroad companies allowed railroads to proliferate in the US - and these opened up the west and indeed much of the country to migration and development. Sure, it sucked for the existing transportation industries (horse, stage, canal) and benefited only the richest of the rich at first (railroad owners and the rich people who could afford to travel by rail.) But over time, rail travel became cheaper. More lines opened, engines became more efficient, trains became longer, heavier and faster and started carrying more and more people and freight. And the price went down, so that everyone started to benefit.

        Right now solar is a pretty new technology. We see this newness in the problems it is causing (which you mention above.) It will, in the future, become more and more important to the US, as more people install solar and as the power (and later transportation) industry starts moving away from oil based fuels (both imported and domestic) towards solar. Thus the government has been rightly (IMO) supporting early development.

        That being said, a lot of the money being spent now is going in the wrong direction. Solar has taken off, and the government doesn't need to subsidize it in the same ways any more. What they should do is:

        -Roll back the tax credits. Choose some timeframe that doesn't cause too much shock to the market.

        -Change net metering. Allow anyone who wants to connect to connect - but go to real time pricing and a percentage payback for generation rather than 100%. That more fairly values the contribution solar makes, and provides the right price signals to generators (and to people who are considering battery systems.)

        -Take the money they were spending on solar incentives and apply that to research into grid scale storage. Grid scale storage is critical both to solar and to conventional generation; nuclear power plants, for example, cannot be easily throttled up and down, and so grid scale storage makes both forms of energy more economical and practical.

        It reads to me that on one hand you're justifying R.E. or in this (sub)case energy storage subsidies by what looks to me to be an implication that because gov. support for services that are in many cases universally necessary and common, it is at least allowable if not desirable and justifiable to use taxpayer resources to sthupp the usually mostly well heeled at the expense of those who are not R.E. users, that is, the large portion of the population that does not use R.E. on a residential scale.
        Yes. In the beginning you _always_ subsidize the rich, no matter what the technology you are trying to encourage. That's because at first new technology is expensive. The goal of the subsidy is to get it to the point where the middle class, and eventually the poor, can use it too - at which point you don't need the subsidies any more.

        (And again, public roads followed the same pattern. The first public roads for cars were used only by the very, very few rich who could afford those cars.)
        Then, on the other hand, you seem to be condemning (and I agree with you here) the delivery system for such selective largesse as being mostly or only capable of overdoing it and F-bombing up the implementation. That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me.
        It's not. All the above is assuming an ideal government, and what we have is very, very far from that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
          Agreed with all of that. Which tax deductions/subsidies you are OK with and which ones you aren't is going to depend on what's important to you; people without kids will have different priorities than people with kids to use one example.

          One of the most important things the government can do (IMO) is to help drive advances that keep the US a world leader and that help their citizens live more productive lives. Massive land giveaways to railroad companies allowed railroads to proliferate in the US - and these opened up the west and indeed much of the country to migration and development. Sure, it sucked for the existing transportation industries (horse, stage, canal) and benefited only the richest of the rich at first (railroad owners and the rich people who could afford to travel by rail.) But over time, rail travel became cheaper. More lines opened, engines became more efficient, trains became longer, heavier and faster and started carrying more and more people and freight. And the price went down, so that everyone started to benefit.

          Right now solar is a pretty new technology. We see this newness in the problems it is causing (which you mention above.) It will, in the future, become more and more important to the US, as more people install solar and as the power (and later transportation) industry starts moving away from oil based fuels (both imported and domestic) towards solar. Thus the government has been rightly (IMO) supporting early development.

          That being said, a lot of the money being spent now is going in the wrong direction. Solar has taken off, and the government doesn't need to subsidize it in the same ways any more. What they should do is:

          -Roll back the tax credits. Choose some timeframe that doesn't cause too much shock to the market.

          -Change net metering. Allow anyone who wants to connect to connect - but go to real time pricing and a percentage payback for generation rather than 100%. That more fairly values the contribution solar makes, and provides the right price signals to generators (and to people who are considering battery systems.)

          -Take the money they were spending on solar incentives and apply that to research into grid scale storage. Grid scale storage is critical both to solar and to conventional generation; nuclear power plants, for example, cannot be easily throttled up and down, and so grid scale storage makes both forms of energy more economical and practical.


          Yes. In the beginning you _always_ subsidize the rich, no matter what the technology you are trying to encourage. That's because at first new technology is expensive. The goal of the subsidy is to get it to the point where the middle class, and eventually the poor, can use it too - at which point you don't need the subsidies any more.

          (And again, public roads followed the same pattern. The first public roads for cars were used only by the very, very few rich who could afford those cars.)

          It's not. All the above is assuming an ideal government, and what we have is very, very far from that.
          Thank you for the thoughtful honesty and civility. We may not be on the same page, but we may have read and learned from some of the same tomes.

          Comment

          Working...
          X