|
|
|
|
|
|
by opo
69 days ago
|
|
|
You won't convince many people if you think ad hominem attacks and insults are acceptable. Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. |
|
|
> a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar
That's completely, trivially provably wrong.
For one, rooftop residential allows decentralization and redundancy. Customers can have their house continue to run while the grid as a whole is down.
Utility solar absolutely does not - solar here is just another source of energy into the centralized grid. From a physics and math perspective, that source of energy could very well have been a coal plant. It doesn't have the same decentralized and redundancy benefit as a 10kWh PV array and a 30kWh battery on a home where the home no longer even needs the grid anymore.
Any rational consumer would appreciate having power than not - We cannot argue physics and math or consumer demands - that's just insanity.
A person who repeatedly argues against this basic math doesn't have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Further, when there's a group of people who repeatedly argues the same illogical swill using the same phrasing as the others, it's a cult.
I could go on and on but I have learned that arguing with brainwashed people takes a lot of time and effort and most of the time, in the end, it ends in a stalemate. Most of the time, it reenforces them they are right and the other side is ignorant and "doesnt get it". No thank you.
On this very thread a person who actually designs and implements grid projects agreed that the only objective utility solar serves are those of the utilities themselves.
The reason why this person is provably correct is because you could come to the same conclusion from first principles as well. To most people, the above statement is a "duh!" moment.
They gave solid, clear, objective examples of how utilities have other much higher priorities than ensuring consumers have access to the most affordable, reliable, resilient power.
They further gave evidence and insight into how the way utilities fund their infrastructure projects actively make them opposed to what's good for the consumer, because decentralization and redundancy would collapse the value of existing collateral.
Now that's a high quality, high value, high merit discussion.
When someone comes and lectures me about how my dollars should go towards initiatives that absolutely do not help me, rather makes me even more dependent on a 3rd party that doesn't have me as their first priority, I dont care about what they have to say especially when I have options available where my dollars directly go towards initiatives that absolutely do help me.
The most generous interpretation I have of their motives is that they are brainwashed.
I would encourage beginning from first principles, gaining clarity into what the final objective is - to provide affordable, redundant, reliable, resilient power to the consumer or to ensure the utility has smoother operations and a tighter grip over the consumer and ensure the consumer is completely dependent on the utility?
If the brainwashing isn't complete and there's a tiny chance of a breakthrough, maybe changing domains would help?
What's better for a local economy that has willing, capable backyard farmers:
- allow them to sell their product that meets all regulatory requirements, to other willing consumers at the same market clearing price or
- destroy them completely and remove any incentives for them to grow, in favor of having a massive, centralized farm?