The total area of solar panels it would take to power the world, Europe, and Germany

[wercal]

170. Too much gibberish coming too fast

I'll try to keep up:

1. "California could follow..." does absolutely NOTHING to refute my contention that federal, state, and net metering subsidies are financing the gap in the true cost of Solar vs traditional power sources. Assuming that its fucking impossible to subsidize everybody's power, this formula does not work long term...and the logical conclusion is that solar is not presently viable. Talk to me when solar is cost competitive in any state without subsidy.

2. So your take away from the entire Wikipedia article on net-metering is one link to the one part of the article that fits your view? And a study done (no doubt by solar advocates) in the one state that is famous for rolling blackouts, and has an impending infrastructure cost to build new power plants, which could be delayed in theory by using net metering? Well, I guess that trumps all the utility companies that are now trying to set net metering tariff fees, to make up for their losses. Sorry, I guarantee that you have it 100% wrong. Where I live, we DO NOT HAVE ROLLING BLACKOUTS. Ergo, there is no advantage to the power utility WHATSOEVER to net meter. Please tell me if I'm wrong - what advantage is there to the power company, if it already has capacity (and capacity built in for the next quarter century). And then tell me why its moral for me to pay for Johnny solar.

I'll simplify this for you:

Power company cost to make kwh = 7 cents

Power company transmission costs = 4 cents

Power company profit = 1 cent

So the retail rate = 12 cents

What exactly do you think happens when the power company buys power at the retail rate? Here:

Purchase cost = 12 cents

Transmission costs = 4 cents

Total cost = 16 cents

Sale cost = 12 cents

Loss = 4 cents

Well how does the power company handle the loss? You guessed it - they raise rates.

So please explain to me how on earth it is not immoral for Johnny solar to shove a 4 cent fee onto me for every kwh he sells back to the utility company. Why does Johnny get a free ride? I pay for transmission costs for both myself and him - why? And how is it moral? It isn't.

3. I really have no idea why a story about Jimmy Carter has anything to do with Hawaii and net metering....and how that automatically means that the solar lobby couldn't possibly be behind net metering laws. Its an illogical conclusion to make. (Fun fact, his vice president celebrated the commissioning of my power plant back in the 70s...you know, the one that still has capacity). Anyway, you are desperately crying out to be educated, so here goes:

Hawaii's first net metering law was in 2001. Maybe you should re-read that: 2001. Nothing to do with Jimmy Carter, as if that mattered. And you are under a pile of rocks if you don't believe large business interests, involved in the solar industry, had nothing to do with passage of that law.

Now, if you bother to read the articles you link to, you will understand that the law signed by Carter deals with 'avoided costs', NOT RETAIL RATES. Do you understand that?

Once again I will simplify:

1978 - Carter signs PURPA into law

2001 - Hawaii starts net metering

conclusion - Either Hawaii was in violation of the law for 23 consecutive years OR it is possible to comply with PURPA without net metering at retail rates.

Get that? Jimmy's morality has NOTHING to do with the current retail rates. You are convoluting a law designed to counter-act the power of a monopolistic power company, by forcing them to buy all generated power, at COST, with a very different and very immoral scheme to impose RETAIL rates on the power company.

Go find some more links....but read them next time.