Offline
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
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 installedNot 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
If you are looking to legislate that the utility company purchase at the same rate they sell, then that is net zeroWho 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
Solar is subsidized as already stated in this thread. What do you want....the cost to be 100% subsidized and free electrical storage?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!"
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.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
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 valueThe 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
Show me where I said it had to be 10 cents. The only thing I've said is it should be consistently priced. You are drawing conclusions based on inaccurate comprehension.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