dreadsword’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  OK

  Ok, you didn't like my link to a very similar post from 11 days ago, so I'll just post it here - it offers my own thoughts/questions on MSR.

  START POST

  The California State Senate Energy Committee passed the reincarnated Million Solar Roofs bill this past week - unanimously. This is apparently only the first in a number of steps needed to put the bill into law, but is nonetheless a symbolic milestone.

  1. $3.2 billion earmarked for solar roof refunds in the territories of 3 utility cos: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). Is this a good number or not? I have no context in which to judge, but anything measured in billions qualifies as big.

  2. Removal (or raising) of the Net Metering Cap. One of the fun advantages of solar power, domestic wind power, etc has been the ability to sell excess back to your utility co. and get paid for it. Apparently, however, your ability to do so has been limited by a cap - utilities will apparently pay for contributed electricity up to 0.5% of their total load (the new MSR bill raises this to 2.5%). Err - I'm not really sure what this cap actually means: Why would any kind of cap exist? Is the grid not agnostic as to where it gets its power from? Or is this a costing issue (i.e.: more expensive to payout to homeowners than to generate at big plants)? Or, is it reflective of some kind of physical limit??

  3. Making solar a standard homebuilding option. This one makes sense on a conceptual level - granite counter tops - y/n? Solar roof and support electronics - y/n? Why not make it an option? My question is - why isn't it an option already? Contractors are always looking for a source of margin - yet they haven't embraced solar as an option, and if I'm not mistaken, most solar systems are retrofits. This suggests to me that for contractors to take on solar would be a prohibitive cost to pass onto the consumer - or not enough profit for the contractor. Something seems to be amiss here.

  4. The final point is extra confusing: apparently, the state utilities board that would administer the MSR doesn't have control over the Los Angeles Public Works board; meaning that the bill passed in the State Senate would have a goal of establishing a parallel program in LA. That program apparently would have to be funded by the LAPWB itself, and would chop $800 million off the state budget. Is that chop reflected in the 3.2 b already? Or what? What about other large urban centres?

  Anyway, MSR is conceptually great, but for someone far removed from the debate, raises a bunch of questions. As inspired an idea as it seems to be on the surface, it almost seems like one of those things that should be left to the free market to mediate. Rising utility costs, declining solar costs, increasing awareness, and crappy utility service should drive solar adoption without the need for a multi-billion dollar government morass. Is this a case of superfluous government meddling? Or is it a legitimate case of government tilting the economic balance in solar's power to achieve a quasi-social goal?

  END POST

  http://www.sustainabilityzone.com

  On California's Million Solar Roofs bill signed into law posted 3 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why not...

  Publish a schedule of future target-level reductions ... i.e.: 5% per year, or something? And, set a exercise date for the credits (i.e.: how long they last) - that would give them a calculable future value, something like stock options.

  http://www.sustainabilityzone.com

  On EU carbon-trading market hullabaloo posted 3 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  How long before...

  ...it gets spuriously included as "news" in some policy wonk's speech??

  http://www.sustainabilityzone.com

  On 60 billion barrels off the coast of Louisiana?! posted 3 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This got cooking in the beginning of April...

  Rumours were flying weeks ago, sad to see them confirmed.

  Ah! Good to see that the new conservative government is asserting itself; unfortunate that its doing so by massively hacking green program budgets, withdrawing support for wind power and other alternative energy initiatives, and generally toe-ing the US line on prioritizing economic development over unquantifiable environmental savings.

  Canada has the potential to be an environmental hero, but under conservative stewardship, I can't help but think were headed down the villainous path. With the Alberta oil sands pouring massive amounts of money into the federal and Alberta provincial government (the Conservative heartland), I'm guessing that there will be little political will to try and find energy alternatives, or wean the country from oil. As the global demand for oil continues to rise, its Alberta/Conservative proxied influence in Canadian politics will continue to rise as well.

  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060413.wxclimate13/BNStory/National/home

  http://www.sustainabilityzone.com

  On O' Canada, where have you gone? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Mayor in No Rush to Flush

  Well, at least the mayor of london watches his water usage:
  http://www.sustainabilityzone.com/comments.php?load_this=214

  http://www.sustainabilityzone.com

  On The paper burden posted 3 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses