Still like the Koch brothers?

[bradly1101]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-solar-kochs-20140420,0,7412286.story#axzz2zRoJyrNf

Solar, once almost universally regarded as a virtuous, if perhaps over-hyped, energy alternative, has now grown big enough to have enemies.

The Koch brothers, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and some of the nation's largest power companies have backed efforts in recent months to roll back state policies that favor green energy. The conservative luminaries have pushed campaigns in Kansas, North Carolina and Arizona, with the battle rapidly spreading to other states.

Green energy is now a threat to the traditional forms. Just another area where progress is vulnerable to the old guard. Whether it's gay marriage, abortion rights or helping the poor, conservatives just won't move forward unless it directly serves them.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I guess I'm supposed to lose sleep worrying about what the Koch Brothers are doing and to think that I thought conservatives were supposed to be the fear mongers.

 

[IGBT]

solar is false economy. if it was worth while and cost effective your neighbor wouldn't have to help pay for all that solar junk on your roof under the guise of credits / subsidies.

 

[Jhhnn]

solar is false economy. if it was worth while and cost effective your neighbor wouldn't have to help pay for all that solar junk on your roof under the guise of credits / subsidies.

The same can be said for subsidies & so forth to fossil fuel production.

 

[senseamp]

Kochs own a lot of refineries and oil and gas pipelines. More solar = less demand for gas for electricity generation. Solar + electric vehicles = less demand for oil and refined gasoline.

 

[michal1980]

I love the Kochs, if only because the they drive the left so nuts. The amount of hate for these people from the left is boundless.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I somehow don't think their try to kill alternative power sources as much as they're opposed to the subsidies.

Funny thing is many alternative power sources use Koch Industries connectors to control and distribute the power.

Molex - Koch Industries

http://www.molex.com/molex/industry/industry?industry_key=solar&channel=Industries

 

[Thebobo]

I love the Kochs, if only because the they drive the left so nuts. The amount of hate for these people from the left is boundless.

Irony alert!

 

[boomerang]

Since few if any have taken time to read the article I will quote some important passages.

At the nub of the dispute are two policies found in dozens of states. One requires utilities to get a certain share of power from renewable sources. The other, known as net metering, guarantees homeowners or businesses with solar panels on their roofs the right to sell any excess electricity back into the power grid at attractive rates.

Net metering forms the linchpin of the solar-energy business model. Without it, firms say, solar power would be prohibitively expensive.
The power industry argues that net metering provides an unfair advantage to solar consumers, who don't pay to maintain the power grid although they draw money from it and rely on it for backup on cloudy days. The more people produce their own electricity through solar, the fewer are left being billed for the transmission lines, substations and computer systems that make up the grid, industry officials say.

"If you are using the grid and benefiting from the grid, you should pay for it," said David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, the advocacy arm for the industry. "If you don't, other customers have to absorb those costs."

Imagine a scenario where the well-heeled can afford solar, are selling it back to the utility companies and are not paying to support the grid. The less affluent can ill afford to cover those costs. Address the problem now while it is in its infancy makes perfect sense.

 

[michal1980]

Since few if any have taken time to read the article I will quote some important passages.

Imagine a scenario where the well-heeled can afford solar, are selling it back to the utility companies and are not paying to support the grid. The less affluent can ill afford to cover those costs. Address the problem now while it is in its infancy makes perfect sense.

IMHO a lot of utility companies charge things ass backwards. Every user should pay a fixed % of the fixed cost. Then pay a variable rate for actual usage.

 

[Stewox]

conservatives just won't move forward

Bothered, that we don't like the new world order?

Actually, we'll resist it as much as we can.

Who the hell you think you are. You want a brainchip in your head, you want smart contact lenses, go ahead and assimilate with google, leave us the hell alone.

And to explain the terms, what you call "conservatives" are a number of groups, one of them is mainstream conservatives who aren't that informed but still somewhat supportive of traditional stuff, the awakened ones you could call them constitutional libertarians .... but I guess I spoken in defense of others as well here.


Speaking of green energy and koch brothers ... being so upset about their little chunk, how about you being upset about the whole climate change being fake ha?

The mainstream environmentalists are dupes of UN Agenda 21 - Climate Change Hoax - The Carbon Tax Conspiracy, emails proving how to hide the decline leaked, twice, software code for a "fudge factor" applying a % fudge to make all the decline of temperatures look like rise - And we need to pay carbon tax to al-gore or else the planet will fry itself, just listen to the experts and submit to your masters.

Under the pretense of protecting the planet, they're simply deindustrializing america and shipping industries to china, slave pits, mobile execution vans, organ harvesting, a model for the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFpzaQPKC54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzU8X_lBqA

Climate Change Hoax - The Smoking Gun Evidence:

Excerpt from computer source code file from the leak; linked in hyperlinks above.

Computer Code: Interactive Data Language (IDL)

Briffa_sep98_d.pro

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)​

Analysis of the code:

Starting off Easy

Lines 1-3 are developer comments




Line 4

yrloc is a 20 element array containing:
1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years…

yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, ... , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994]
​

findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript

F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0
​

Pretty straightforward, right?




Line 5

valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some arrogant programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. It contains twenty values of seemingly random numbers. We’ll get back to this later.




Line 6

Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 8.




Line 8

This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.


The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.
The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.
What the heck does all of this mean?
Well, I’m glad you asked. First, let’s plot the values in the valadj array.


Look familiar? This closely resembles the infamous hockey stick graph that Michael Mann came up with about a decade ago. By the way, did I mention Michael Mann is one of the “scientists” (and I use that word loosely) caught up in this scandal?

Here is Mann’s graph from 1999

As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.
Where do we go from here?

It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.
This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.
If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.

Tadaaaa.

And for those guys that are wondering what sep98 means, September 1998, it's been a lie allllll the time.

 

[werepossum]

Since few if any have taken time to read the article I will quote some important passages.

Imagine a scenario where the well-heeled can afford solar, are selling it back to the utility companies and are not paying to support the grid. The less affluent can ill afford to cover those costs. Address the problem now while it is in its infancy makes perfect sense.

Well said, sir. And yup, I still like the Koch brothers exactly the same.

IMHO a lot of utility companies charge things ass backwards. Every user should pay a fixed % of the fixed cost. Then pay a variable rate for actual usage.

That makes sense to me.

 

[MongGrel]

Since few if any have taken time to read the article I will quote some important passages.

Imagine a scenario where the well-heeled can afford solar, are selling it back to the utility companies and are not paying to support the grid. The less affluent can ill afford to cover those costs. Address the problem now while it is in its infancy makes perfect sense.

Are all ready I imagine, and probably getting more tax breaks for it.

 

[WackyDan]

I love the Kochs, if only because the they drive the left so nuts. The amount of hate for these people from the left is boundless.

With Bush out of office, they needed a new satan.

 

[werepossum]

Are all ready I imagine, and probably getting more tax breaks for it.

Of course. And at the right times, one can get the federal taxpayer to cover 1/3 of the installation and the state taxpayer to cover 1/3 of the installation, which makes solar economically feasible. If you have money, you can make that money work for you in many, many ways, and this is one of the safer ones.

We do all benefit though. For one, we get a cleaner environment. For another, the utilities have to buy less capacity (peak power is generally 2 - 5 PM when properly designed solar is fairly efficient.)

 

[brycejones]

I love the Kochs, if only because the they drive the left so nuts. The amount of hate for these people from the left is boundless.

So no comment on if you support what they stand for. You just like them because they upset someone you dislike. That makes sense.......

 

[hans030390]

I'm inherently fine with my tax dollars being used to subsidize movements towards renewable, "green" energy, even if just for an individual's solar panels. I understand the benefits and gains can take time to cover the initial costs but believe we will be better off in the long run the quicker we pursue a more sustainable living and consumption environment.

If you have solar and are generating more power than you consume, and that power makes it to the grid to be used by others, I believe you should see money back from that (something that you are now providing vs. the company), but only if it will also then cover private infrastructure fees. (So, somewhat of a static fee for infrastructure upkeep that you would always have to pay + fees for what you actually consume...put back enough power back into the grid to cover those costs and then some? Get some back.)

I'm hoping energy will be much cheaper in the future, and it should be once the initial costs of moving to renewable, sustainable sources is covered. I'm tired of paying out the ass for energy.

 

[boomerang]

So no comment on if you support what they stand for. You just like them because they upset someone you dislike. That makes sense.......

So it's important to you that people pick a side? In the context of the thread it certainly isn't necessary. The article the OP used as the basis of the thread is not bad reporting but because it came out of the Los Angeles Times, it had to have the appropriate slant. Which it did. The all-important Koch brothers ministrations are the source of all evil slant. This is very important right now because it's the course chosen by the White House in an attempt to turn the mid-terms in favor of Democrats.

Many of us can look past the propaganda aspects of the article to see what it's really about which is common sense concern for the potentially negative results of too many moving to solar augmentation without proper policies in place. That's what the article is about. And it takes people willing to put themselves on the line to bring these things up for scrutiny. It shouldn't, but in the world we live in with a slew of eco-kooks coupled with non-thinkers that excel in knee-jerk reactions, one is taking a big chance by speaking publicly about that which is basically common sense.

The same people that screamed for better fuel economy, hybrid and electric cars that have resulted in less money available for maintenance of our infrastructure are outraged when brave people try to keep it from happening with our electrical grid.

The people that think they are the "smart guys" pretty much continually show us that they are far from it.

 

[brycejones]

So it's important to you that people pick a side? In the context of the thread it certainly isn't necessary. The article the OP used as the basis of the thread is not bad reporting but because it came out of the Los Angeles Times, it had to have the appropriate slant. Which it did. The all-important Koch brothers ministrations are the source of all evil slant. This is very important right now because it's the course chosen by the White House in an attempt to turn the mid-terms in favor of Democrats.

Many of us can look past the propaganda aspects of the article to see what it's really about which is common sense concern for the potentially negative results of too many moving to solar augmentation without proper policies in place. That's what the article is about. And it takes people willing to put themselves on the line to bring these things up for scrutiny. It shouldn't, but in the world we live in with a slew of eco-kooks coupled with non-thinkers that excel in knee-jerk reactions, one is taking a big chance by speaking publicly about that which is basically common sense.

The same people that screamed for better fuel economy, hybrid and electric cars that have resulted in less money available for maintenance of our infrastructure are outraged when brave people try to keep it from happening with our electrical grid.

The people that think they are the "smart guys" pretty much continually show us that they are far from it.

The poster I responding to (not you) picked a side for the lamest of reasons. That's all.

 

[werepossum]

I'm inherently fine with my tax dollars being used to subsidize movements towards renewable, "green" energy, even if just for an individual's solar panels. I understand the benefits and gains can take time to cover the initial costs but believe we will be better off in the long run the quicker we pursue a more sustainable living and consumption environment.

If you have solar and are generating more power than you consume, and that power makes it to the grid to be used by others, I believe you should see money back from that (something that you are now providing vs. the company), but only if it will also then cover private infrastructure fees. (So, somewhat of a static fee for infrastructure upkeep that you would always have to pay + fees for what you actually consume...put back enough power back into the grid to cover those costs and then some? Get some back.)

I'm hoping energy will be much cheaper in the future, and it should be once the initial costs of moving to renewable, sustainable sources is covered. I'm tired of paying out the ass for energy.

That's not really what this issue is about though. It's specifically whether people with solar arrays, whose initial purchase is heavily subsidized, should pay something for the infrastructure necessary for them to connect to the grid. Michael80 proposed a reasonable solution in two lines.

IMHO a lot of utility companies charge things ass backwards. Every user should pay a fixed % of the fixed cost. Then pay a variable rate for actual usage.

This is actually similar to large commercial service where part of your rate is based on energy consumption and part of demand, that being the maximum amount of power one draws. Often there is an additional charge for on-peak maximum demands. As smart meters become the norm, homes will also be subject to some of these costs, to discourage people from doing laundry in the afternoon. Either way, this becomes absolutely necessary as we get more point-of-use alternative power generation.

Once this is done, the debate will probably shift to how that fee is calculated. If I choose to live in the boonies and you choose to live in a downtown apartment building, the cost to bring power to me is much higher. If infrastructure costs are equal, you are subsidizing me. If infrastructure costs are not equal, we risk undoing the benefits of rural electrification and establishing a society of haves and have nots. No easy answers.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Since few if any have taken time to read the article I will quote some important passages.

Imagine a scenario where the well-heeled can afford solar, are selling it back to the utility companies and are not paying to support the grid. The less affluent can ill afford to cover those costs. Address the problem now while it is in its infancy makes perfect sense.

They charge separately for the cost to maintain the grid (at least they do here in Kansas, home of the Koch brothers). So even if I had solar power I am still paying a monthly fee to the power company for their "operational costs".

Customer Charge: A fixed monthly charge that covers the operational costs to meter and bill your account and provide customer service. Like our rates, this amount is determined by state regulatory commissions.
Franchise Fee: A municipal fee your city charges for the ability to bring utility lines across city property to serve you. This can also be listed as a city license fee.
City, County and State Taxes: Sales tax charged by the city, county and state in which you reside.
You’ll also see other charges based on the service area in which you live.
EER (Energy Efficiency Rider): This recovers costs for providing energy efficiency programs. Energy efficiency helps keep rates affordable over time by reducing the amount of electricity needed and delaying the need to build new power plants.
PTS (Property Tax Surcharge): This accounts for property tax KCP&L must pay the government, over or under what is already estimated and included in base rates.

 

[BoberFett]

The same can be said for subsidies & so forth to fossil fuel production.

Yes, it can. Two wrongs don't make a right. We should be rolling back subsidies on all energy forms and let the true cost through, then allow the market to work.

I imagine oil wouldn't look so great if the trillions spent on our meddling in the Middle East were included in every gallon of gas.

 

[WackyDan]

If you have solar and are generating more power than you consume, and that power makes it to the grid to be used by others, I believe you should see money back from that (something that you are now providing vs. the company), but only if it will also then cover private infrastructure fees. (So, somewhat of a static fee for infrastructure upkeep that you would always have to pay + fees for what you actually consume...put back enough power back into the grid to cover those costs and then some? Get some back.)

The reality is that surplus power you produce doesn't actually go back into the grid. That is the rub that most utilities have issue with. They don't save any money in power generation at all if you have wind/solar and have produced surplus. They do however (varies by state) have to give you credit towards your power bill for the surplus you've made. In most states, that doesn't mean they cut you a check, but that they zero out your bill appropriately and that you are still on the hook potentially for the line access fees, federal taxes, etc.

 

[WackyDan]

If I choose to live in the boonies and you choose to live in a downtown apartment building, the cost to bring power to me is much higher.

Not always true. If you live in the boonies you stand a far better chance of your power being generated by hydro... So if you live in rural TN or Western NC, that TN Valley Authority project from the 30's is providing dirt cheap power versus coal, gas, or nuclear... So while the distribution infrastructure is still part of the cost, the balance comes from cheaper production. Cities may have density, buy I would suggest that the grid infrastructure has to be more robust and cost of servicing that goes hand in hand. Additionally, retrofitting or new line work in cities has to be stupid expensive from a permitting and right of way perspective.

 

[FaaR]

Bothered, that we don't like the new world order?

New world order eh? What new world order would that be. You mean the existing world order, run by the world's rich and powerful, bilderberg-attending powermongers (whom overwhelmingly are conservative, I might add)? WUT! People who reason like you always make me laugh, it's truly as if you can't see the forest for all the trees.

Speaking of green energy and koch brothers ... being so upset about their little chunk, how about you being upset about the whole climate change being fake ha?

Gods, no... Not climate change tinhattery again. Dude. Look.

~95% of the world's leading scientists are in agreement humans are changing this planet's climate. Pretty big conspiracy, and for what, research grants? Wow, that's sure gonna make 'em rich, fo sho! LOL! Arrayed against said scientists you have (again) the world's rich and powerful, owning oil and gas wells, coal fields, and industries related to the same amongst other things. Who has the most to gain by perpetuating falsehoods?! Not the scientists I can tell you, not that you'd listen anyway.

In any case, the whole idea that humans couldn't possibly affect climate is utter bunk anyway. You see, starting with the renaissance roughly, we invented this thing called the scientific principle, which means we do experiments to check the outcome of things. We've now checked - thoroughly - that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light, converting it into heat. As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increases it will be able to retain more heat. We are monitoring corresponding rising heat levels.

The mainstream environmentalists are dupes of UN Agenda 21 - Climate Change Hoax - The Carbon Tax Conspiracy, emails proving how to hide the decline

Jesus christ, PLEASE. Not this "climategate" bullshit again which has been debunked SO many times. There have been MANY climate models done using many different data sets - ground temperature measurements, satellite temperature measurements, ocean temperature measurements and so on that all project similar curves.

The so-called "climategate controversy" is a complete and utter fabrication, anyone falling for it is a dupe.