The Electric Vehicle (EV) discussion thread (Merged) (2 Viewers)

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,288
Reaction score
16,405
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Except that you are advocating that the company should lose money dealing with people who use solar. In effect, you don't want them to pay for electricity at all since you want the power company to "store" their surplus for free

So that means everyone else gets to subsidize the cost of labor and materials in getting power to that residence since that residence won't be paying anything towards upkeep of the grid. Do you think it's cheap to get a bucket truck and a crew out to fix a blown transformer or downed lines? What about all the other employees?

You are advocating a business model that has an end result of putting the company out of business and destroying the grid.

And you still haven't answered why the company should be forced to pay 3.3x more for power from one source when it can get it far cheaper elsewhere. Electricity is a commodity just like any other product.

Now I could see something more than 3 cents, but anybody who has ever managed or owned a business can see that forcing a business to pay exactly what they charge for a product is a quick way to go out of business

Yes, destroy the company if they're unable to provide a public good. Make it a public utility. Why on Earth would you let something as inherently non-competitive as electricity supply be governed by retail supply-and-demand?
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
Yes, destroy the company if they're unable to provide a public good. Make it a public utility. Why on Earth would you let something as inherently non-competitive as electricity supply be governed by retail supply-and-demand?
Well that becomes a different topic than the one we were discussing
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
Yes, destroy the company if they're unable to provide a public good. Make it a public utility. Why on Earth would you let something as inherently non-competitive as electricity supply be governed by retail supply-and-demand?
Of course what you are ignoring is even if it is a non profit, it still takes massive amounts of money to operate. You have to pay administration, you have to pay paper pushers, you have to pay for the workers in the field, you have to pay for all the equipment. You all are still advocating for people who have solar to use that system, contribute to its wear and tear, and to have the benefits in emergency situations and basically pay nothing for it.
So we institute a system where anybody who has solar gets to have the electric company/co-op "store" their surplus electricity....hell I am sure you all want them to profit as well. So anybody who can afford it installs solar (i.e. homeowners with money) so who is left footing the bill for the operation and upkeep of the grid? People who can't afford solar and who don't own their homes (i.e. the poor)

SOMEBODY has to pay for it and if some are exempt, then others pay more. Doesn't matter if it's a private company, a co-op, or government run
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,288
Reaction score
16,405
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Of course what you are ignoring is even if it is a non profit, it still takes massive amounts of money to operate. You have to pay administration, you have to pay paper pushers, you have to pay for the workers in the field, you have to pay for all the equipment. You all are still advocating for people who have solar to use that system, contribute to its wear and tear, and to have the benefits in emergency situations and basically pay nothing for it.
So we institute a system where anybody who has solar gets to have the electric company/co-op "store" their surplus electricity....hell I am sure you all want them to profit as well. So anybody who can afford it installs solar (i.e. homeowners with money) so who is left footing the bill for the operation and upkeep of the grid? People who can't afford solar and who don't own their homes (i.e. the poor)

SOMEBODY has to pay for it and if some are exempt, then others pay more. Doesn't matter if it's a private company, a co-op, or government run

Not ignoring it. It's just that us meat citizens don't owe paper citizens every single penny they can possibly wring from us.
There's a happy medium between the abject corporate slavery you promote and the nihilistic Communism we know doesn't work.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
Not ignoring it. It's just that us meat citizens don't owe paper citizens every single penny they can possibly wring from us.
There's a happy medium between the abject corporate slavery you promote and the nihilistic Communism we know doesn't work.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be advocating a net zero payment setup for those that have solar or advocating a system where the people who can't afford solar or don't own their home have to subsidize those that do own their homes and do have the disposable income to get solar installed
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,288
Reaction score
16,405
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be advocating a net zero payment setup for those that have solar or advocating a system where the people who can't afford solar or don't own their home have to subsidize those that do own their homes and do have the disposable income to get solar installed

Who said net zero?
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
Who said net zero?
If you are looking to legislate that the utility company purchase at the same rate they sell, then that is net zero

And as of yet, nobody has provided any reasonable, logical, or "fair" justification for it. Or justified having the poor subsidize the upper middle class and wealthy in this. Or justify forcing the utility to purchase electricity at 3.3x the market rate.

How is any of that ethical? Just because the goals are good and beneficial does not justify using unethical means to achieve them
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,288
Reaction score
16,405
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
If you are looking to legislate that the utility company purchase at the same rate they sell, then that is net zero

And as of yet, nobody has provided any reasonable, logical, or "fair" justification for it. Or justified having the poor subsidize the upper middle class and wealthy in this. Or justify forcing the utility to purchase electricity at 3.3x the market rate.

How is any of that ethical? Just because the goals are good and beneficial does not justify using unethical means to achieve them

That first line is gross zero, not net. Net zero would have them sell it back at a high enough price to recoup any losses incurred during the transaction.
As for subsidies, we (rich and poor alike) already subsidize fossil fuels. Why not just shift the existing burden toward a power source that isn't as destructive?
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
That first line is gross zero, not net. Net zero would have them sell it back at a high enough price to recoup any losses incurred during the transaction.
As for subsidies, we (rich and poor alike) already subsidize fossil fuels. Why not just shift the existing burden toward a power source that isn't as destructive?
Solar is subsidized as already stated in this thread. What do you want....the cost to be 100% subsidized and free electrical storage?

Why is it that when you start discussing paying for something people act like the act of subsidizing doesn't cost anybody anything? Like the money just magically appears?

"You don't have to pay for your solar panels directly because they are subsidized which means you are paying for it through increased taxes with the xtra cost of red tape and bureaucracy added in!"
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,288
Reaction score
16,405
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Solar is subsidized as already stated in this thread. What do you want....the cost to be 100% subsidized and free electrical storage?

Why is it that when you start discussing paying for something people act like the act of subsidizing doesn't cost anybody anything? Like the money just magically appears?

"You don't have to pay for your solar panels directly because they are subsidized which means you are paying for it through increased taxes with the xtra cost of red tape and bureaucracy added in!"

Same thing goes for gasoline. We can just change the recipients of those subsidies.

Where did I say 'free' electrical storage? My argument is that retail is too high. There's a lot of room between 'retail' and 'free', yes?
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
The argument was that the electrical companies should pay the same 10 cents that they charge, correct?

Or have I confused you with someone else. There were multiple discussions going on
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
27,487
Reaction score
73,614
Location
Earth
Offline
The argument was that the electrical companies should pay the same 10 cents that they charge, correct?

Or have I confused you with someone else. There were multiple discussions going on
The argument was that it used to be .10$ and that making homeowners sell at .03$ then have to buy it back at .10$ is unfair. There's been slight mention of a compromise price, but you've been stuck with that pricing as the only way power companies can stay afloat if we use your same argument technique.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
12,148
Offline
The argument was that it used to be .10$ and that making homeowners sell at .03$ then have to buy it back at .10$ is unfair. There's been slight mention of a compromise price, but you've been stuck with that pricing as the only way power companies can stay afloat if we use your same argument technique.
Anybody who looks at this thread knows that you were insisting that it remain ten cents. The only point I made is that there is apparently a justification for 3 cents if that is indeed the market value

I know that for a fact because I have asked numerous times what is ethical, logical, or reasonable about forcing the utility company to pay 3.3x the market value....what they can buy electricity from other sources for...and not once did anybody try to answer that nor did anybody say "well not 3.3x, maybe for 5 cents"

There has been a subtle shift in the discussion with nobody wanting to admit they changed their position

Them goalposts....they be a-movin

I even believe I stated that I would like to see state subsidies return on the purchase if this is going to be the case
 

Rickboy

Nom Nom Nom Nom.. me hungry for a SuperBowl
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
14,827
Reaction score
4,887
Age
50
Location
Colorado
Offline
Hoovies Garage making one of the more compelling reasons to NOT buy an EV. Keep in mind that Hoovie has always been pro EV.

 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom