EscapingProgress Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/04/17/oklahoma-okays-new-surcharge-on-distributed-renewables/ "Oklahoma may soon join Arizona on the short but growing list of states requiring customers who self-generate their electric power with solar panels or small wind turbines to pay special fees." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 fuck. that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ah, a sunlight tax to go with the rainwater tax. It won't be long until we have a tax on the oxygen we breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Ah, a sunlight tax to go with the rainwater tax. It won't be long until we have a tax on the oxygen we breathe. O2RS agent: "How do you explain this billing discrepancy?" me: "I held my breath for 5 months, I swear!" O2RS agent: "Wouldn't that have killed you?" me: "(pensive pause)... I got better." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livemike Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/04/17/oklahoma-okays-new-surcharge-on-distributed-renewables/ "Oklahoma may soon join Arizona on the short but growing list of states requiring customers who self-generate their electric power with solar panels or small wind turbines to pay special fees." The reasoning behind this is that because the State forced the electricity companies to adopt "net metering" where the owners of solar panels get to sell back electricity at the same price they bought it at* they have to charge them a special fee so that it doesn't actually cost them. So it's correcting the previous state stupidity. I may be wrong about this but that's my understanding. * At least that's my understanding of how it works, it may just be close to the same rate. In any event it's WAY more than it costs the companies to generate electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra2411 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Ah, a sunlight tax to go with the rainwater tax. It won't be long until we have a tax on the oxygen we breathe. They already do tax the oxygen we breath - carbon tax. They tax us when we exhale. Well not yet, but after all the income tax was only for the very rich... I'm not a fan of solar or wind turbine. They're not in tune with demand so you have to store them and that gets prickly. I'm a huge fan of LFTR type nuclear reactors. We had one running in the 60's in Oak Ridge. It was so safe they used to leave it alone on weekends. Fueling accidents are the major source of potential mishaps. You can also use the abundance of heat to make synthetic gasoline and diesel from anything carbon based. That's 1940's technology... Without the state in the way, within 10 years we could be completely energy independent. That would end our need to be in the middle east and would cut the money we spend on oil there that fuels terrorism. But no, we had to pursue heavy water reactors because of their wonderful use as a breeding ground for weapons grade nuclear material... Can't do that with LFTR's. Can't collect the rain or your stealing the king's water, can't collect the sun or your stealing the king's light... We already know the king owns all the land, don't pay your tribute and you'll find that out quick enough... I keep wondering if people will wake up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I'm not a fan of solar or wind turbine. They're not in tune with demand so you have to store them and that gets prickly.I hate to nitpick, but I want to make a few points in regards to the above statement. Solar energy actually matches up quite well with peak demand for electricity. Solar power output tends to be at it's maximum during the hottest part of the day, which is also the period of peak demand due to the vast electricity consumption of air conditioners. Even in winter, where demand is usually less, the output of solar still roughly matches the peak demand period. The output of wind power is fairly random.Even with unreliable output, solar and wind can still (not that i think they should) effectively replace a large percentage of power from fossil fuels and nuclear, as long as there ia an adequate amount of 'baseload' power that is on standby, and easily turned on at a moments notice if the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing. As I understand, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants are not very good for this, since it takes a long while to alter their power output. Hydroelectric however, is perfect for this purpose. Just open a couple of extra floodgates, and in seconds the power output can be increased significantly. So wind and solar can replace coal/nuclear at times, so long as there is a sufficient amount of hydro power on standby.Of course, they are way more expensive to produce, so I in no way endorce governments funding their construction. I'm not worried about carbon dioxide emissions either. There are significant safety concerns in regards to nuclear. Not because it is not easy to produce nuclear power safely, but because governments have shown themselves to be negligent in ensuring the safety of nuclear power. I wouldn't trust the government to ensure my haircut it up to scratch, let alone that a nuclear power plant is safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts