Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

2. This part of the analysis is weak at best.

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #1)

Sat May 9, 2015, 10:37 PM

May 2015

It doesn't take into account the pool of capital that is tapped into by the non-monitized value that many, many homeowners place on the idea of owning their own energy source.
It also produces an incentive structure that endeavors to preserve centralized control of energy (it is MIT after all). A very viable alternative approach would focus on incentives for distributed commercial, community and residential microgrids; getting the "utilities" out of the generating business entirely.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MITEI (MIT Energy Initiative) releases report on the future of solar energy [View all] OKIsItJustMe May 2015 OP

Why the best place for solar panels may not be on your roof OKIsItJustMe May 2015 #1

This part of the analysis is weak at best. kristopher May 2015 #2

I think it makes perfect sense. It takes advantage of “economies of scale.” OKIsItJustMe May 2015 #3

Scale and per unit costs are only a part of the picture... kristopher May 2015 #4

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. OKIsItJustMe May 2015 #5

That is the entire point Mr Contrarian. kristopher May 2015 #6

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #7