OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

Electricity bills have Generation, Transmission and Distribution in addition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmission are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties and not the local utility... at least not always.

IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states. Which
is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward.

Who's talking about marginal costs? The simple fact is with net metering, at least in most states, solar customers have zero or close to zero bills, so they are not paying for the cost of the grid. Yet they need and use the grid, without it they would have no power at night or when it's cloudy. They also need the grid to sell their excess power. So, again, the yuppies with the solar system are being subsidized by the poor family with the 150 bill, about half of that is paying for the grid.




The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.
>

Sure, if you want to call the homes with solar money grabbers...

Distant generation capacity costs a lot to distribute to our locality; but widespread
solar on residential rooftops doesn't mean you have to build new long links.

You still need power at night, stupid.

 

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 9:35:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 9:38:49 AM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/09/18 8:38 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:49:02 PM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/09/18 7:10 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 2:10:41 AM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/09/17 9:06 p.m., Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 4:05:08 AM UTC+10, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/09/17 9:42 a.m., bitrex wrote:
On 9/17/19 12:25 PM, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:

Anti-green propaganda doesn't seem to need to be plausible or credible to drag in gullible suckers. The depressing thing about youtube is that it's offering don't have provenance.


I don't mind most Greens, as various forms of pollution are a serious
problem, micro-plastics as an example of a contentious issue that is
being researched. And many environmental issues are critical - do
managed forests burn more or less than untended forests, etc.

It is simply when they stop debating and start preaching that my hackles
go up. Like the video link I posted above from around 2010.

Science is supposed to be about falsifiable proofs. Yet when some
scientists call into question the premise that weather is worse now than
in the past and have the audacity to use the government meteorological
(NOAA) own statistics, instead of other scientists proving them wrong,
they simply raise the equivalent of religious edicts and fatwas against
the infidels.

When 290 of the top 300 climate scientist think that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is persuasive, and the remaining ten contain at least two born again Christians (John Christy and Roy Spencer) a more rational observer would draw a different conclusion.

Please cite where you found this information about the 290 of 300
climate scientists.

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107?sid=aaba9166-d154-4b4a-93e1-c768efca61a5

It's famous, and I posted a link to here when it first came out.

Debate and evidence are what is important, not feelings, suppositions,
and claims of the moral high ground from the apparent climate religious
fanatics.

I wouldn't call John Christy or Roy Spencer religious fanatics,but they were clearly happier with evidence that lined up with their religious convictions, and took quite a lot of persuasion before they got around to recognising the sloppy corrections that had created the "evidence".


Again, please cite where you got this information.

Oops. It was John Christy and Roy Spencer.

Spencer and Christy both have Wikipedia pages which go into the satellite controvesy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

"Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[5][6] Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La NiĂąa Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere."

This is a form of words which ignores the fact that Christy and Spencer were very slow to recognise the effects of orbital drift and decay, and the "others" had to demonstrate exactly what was going on before Christy and Spencer would correct their data.

It was a famous scandal at the time.

https://skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html

I wouldn't call them religious fanatics either. The fanatics (in many
cases) appear to primarily be on the climate disaster side.

That's a very dubious claim. Where's your evidence? I didn't have any trouble digging out mine.

I notice that you did not have an argument with my point that science
needs to be falsifiable - and that people who propose theories must also
include ways to acceptably disprove the theory.

Who would? It's central to the way science works - though Popper's "falsifiability" isn't actually the way it works.

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo19722848.html

Polanyi's "personal knowledge" got published in 1958, and my father bought a copy at the time. I read it as an undergraduate.

There is a theory that storms have increased in intensity in the recent
past. However if you take weather back to the mid-1800s you discover
that the trend is essentially flat for storm intensity. Does that not
disprove the theory?

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Actually, it doesn't. There haven't been enough extra "more intense" storms to establish a statistically significant trend, which reflect that fact that half the global warming we've seem so far has happened since 1980, and there aren't that many hurricanes per year.

So, according to you: "There haven't been enough extra "more intense"
storms to establish a statistically significant trend". Or in other
words, there is no smoking gun, just a theory that has yet to be proved..

It certainly hasn't been falsified.

"Essentially flat" fits the increase we've seen. It certainly doesn't invalidate that particular prediction, even if it doesn't provide statistically significant support for it.

Really, when there are supposed scientists who are claiming that the
storms we are seeing recently are both wetter and stronger because of
climate change, but have no statistics to back them up?

The claim isn't based on statistics, but rather on an understanding of how hurricanes work. You need an area of ocean more the three degrees away from the equator to be warmer than 26C down to fifty meters ion order to spawn a hurricane.

The way it works is that bigger areas spawn more intense hurricanes (which proceed to drain that stock of stored energy) rather than spawning more of them.

Statistical confirmation of this point of view would be nice, but needs more particularly destructive hurricanes than we've had so far.

There's more to science than the blind application of statistics.

Not if you want people to accept that you have proved something.

Very few scientific discoveries are dependent on statistical evidence for acceptance, Consilience tends to be much more persuasive.

This is a point I've made here before in discussion with you. Is your memory failing? Or are you hoping that mine is?


No, you say that statistical proofs don't matter as proof in the science
of climate, and I say they do.

That's not what I said. They are a usual form of evidence, but by no means the only form of evidence.

And you seem to be claiming that a real and visible effect which hasn't manifested itself quite often enough to pass tests for statistical significance should be ignored, even when it knocks down most of the building on an island in the hurricane belt for the first time ever.

We will have to agree to disagree, as I
accept that you can't prove your position, and I can't prove a negative..

You want to think that I can't prove my position, and your idea of what might constitute negative proof is a trifle bizarre - to the point of being totally irrational.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

But what is the name of slandering pedophile you've been communicating with? And did he show you his picture collection of pubescent sporty boys in their singlets? Does the pretentious little cowardly worm even post here? Doubtful.

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b2e0ff79-2d8b-42b2-bd22-80c72207c112@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie
wrote:

Electricity bills have Generation, Transmission and
Distribution in add
ition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and
Transmission are lumped together since they are both charges from
third parties and not the local utility... at least not always.

IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states.
Which is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for
distribution is a pro
blem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a
paying customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes
runs his 'consumption' meter backward. The so-called problem is
a money grab, pure and simple.

Distant generation capacity costs a lot to distribute to our
locality; but widespread solar on residential rooftops doesn't
mean you have to build new long links.

He is too stupid and full of too many long chain triglycerides to
understand. His long links are different than your long links.
350 Lbs of long links.

Bwuahahahaha!

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

Electricity bills have Generation, Transmission and Distribution in addition to taxes and...
IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states. Which
is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.


Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward.

Who's talking about marginal costs?/sell decision

Anyone making a buy/sell decsion, naturally.

The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Sure, if you want to call the homes with solar money grabbers...

No, I'm calling the rhetoric of bill-speak "distribution" an illogical
leap inducer. Jump on it if you like, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Distribution equipment to deliver solar power to the meter is a
customer-supplied inverter. The power company doesn't pay for it, why
would they get reimbursed for it?

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

Electricity bills have Generation, Transmission and Distribution in addition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmission are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties and not the local utility... at least not always.

IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states. Which
is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

Distribution is largely a fixed cost, but they don't bill it that way. We used to have no fixed base charge and some few cents per kWh. Now the kWh charge went up as well as adding a $14 fixed base charge. They said the fixed base charge was more representative of the fixed costs of distribution. They don't charge everyone the same because people would scream.

Distant generation capacity costs a lot to distribute to our locality; but widespread
solar on residential rooftops doesn't mean you have to build new long links.

I'm not sure you can say that with any significance. You can't really add solar to drop the "distant" generation. You need both since solar is not available all the time. Adding solar also does not reduce the need for "distant" generation. What it does is use the demand following generation less creating less carbon pollution.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 9:51:09 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

... the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

The power utility is trying to double-bill.

The 'distribution' cost is billed thus by the utility to the users: home A delivers solar power into the network, home A meter goes in reverse. That power then goes to his neighbor in home B, whose meter reports
the usage. B pays for electricity and distribution. Billing both A and B for the distribution is... excess, overbilling.

That depends on your point of view.

The utility company had to invest capital to construct the wiring that connects users A and B to each other, as well as the rest of the system, and spends more on maintaining that connection.

It makes sense fro them to recover that cost from the people who are exploiting that connection, whichever way the current flows.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

... the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

The power utility is trying to double-bill.

The 'distribution' cost is billed thus by the utility to the users: home A delivers
solar power into the network, home A meter goes in reverse. That power
then goes to his neighbor in home B, whose meter reports
the usage. B pays for electricity and distribution. Billing both A and B for the distribution is...
excess, overbilling.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:1c7c66e4-961d-48b7-8133-f0104fde3211@googlegroups.com:

And the more people that have
solar, the higher the distribution charge will go for the folks
without solar.

Bullshit.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:80cf2716-e3c8-430c-
bd0c-effd75e04deb@googlegroups.com:

ROFL

Still lost in the wilderness.

You always mouth immature, petty, stupid baby bullshit like this.

It is one of your most pathetic major malfunctions.

Guys like you should feed ants out in the desert somewhere.
That would be a great contribution on your slut mother's part.
You fed some ants. Pretty much all fucktards like you are good for.

Instead of three crosses on a hill where you are one of the
thieves, it would be three ant hills in the desert with a final
destination for your souls being Hell.

You, the dippy dumbfuck on the right, and KRW on the left, and
Donald J. Trump feeding the ant hill in the middle.

Of course at the neckline. That way, they start feeding from the
ear canals in.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 7:51:09 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

... the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

The power utility is trying to double-bill.

The 'distribution' cost is billed thus by the utility to the users: home A delivers
solar power into the network, home A meter goes in reverse. That power
then goes to his neighbor in home B, whose meter reports
the usage. B pays for electricity and distribution. Billing both A and B for the distribution is...
excess, overbilling.

What happens a night? When both A and B use electric from the
grid, electric that comes from a far away dam or nuke? They get electric
delivered via the grid. And they generate about as much energy as they
use, so at the end of the month their bills are zero, or near zero.
Meanwhile their neighbor, the poor family with no solar, gets a bill of
$150, about half of it a DISTRIBUTION charge. And the more people that have
solar, the higher the distribution charge will go for the folks without
solar. In your example, even if A and B traded energy back and forth
between themselves, they wind up with near zero bills, yet they are
using the distribution network that others are paying for.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 8:19:00 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 9:51:09 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:48:10 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

... the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

The power utility is trying to double-bill.

The 'distribution' cost is billed thus by the utility to the users: home A delivers solar power into the network, home A meter goes in reverse. That power then goes to his neighbor in home B, whose meter reports
the usage. B pays for electricity and distribution. Billing both A and B for the distribution is... excess, overbilling.

That depends on your point of view.

No it doesn't. It just depends on being able to do basic math
and understand income and expenses into a business.

The utility company had to invest capital to construct the wiring that connects users A and B to each other, as well as the rest of the system, and spends more on maintaining that connection.

It makes sense fro them to recover that cost from the people who are exploiting that connection, whichever way the current flows.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On the rest, you're right.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:15:00 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

Electricity bills have Generation, Transmission and Distribution in addition to taxes and...
IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states. Which
is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.


Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward.

Who's talking about marginal costs?/sell decision

Anyone making a buy/sell decsion, naturally.

The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Sure, if you want to call the homes with solar money grabbers...

No, I'm calling the rhetoric of bill-speak "distribution" an illogical
leap inducer. Jump on it if you like, it doesn't make much sense to me.

If a distribution charge on an electric bill makes no sense to you,
then you're just stupid.

Distribution equipment to deliver solar power to the meter is a
customer-supplied inverter. The power company doesn't pay for it, why
would they get reimbursed for it?

It's the distribution grid that delivers power to the solar home at
NIGHT or when it's CLOUDY, stupid. The poor family down the street
is paying half their electric bill for DISTRIBUTION to pay for the
towers, the poles, the transformers, the land, the crews, that make
that possible. Geez. And as more people go solar and have ZERO
electric bills, more and more of that burden shifts to those that
don't have solar. Some states are starting to address that, but right
now in most, the people who don't have solar, including the POOR are
subsidizing the wealthier who have solar.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:48:10 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:41:08 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 11:19:25 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

Electricity bills have Generation, Transmission and Distribution in addition to taxes and possibly other fees. Sometimes Generation and Transmission are lumped together since they are both charges from third parties and not the local utility... at least not always.

IDK where here is, but it's not that way in NJ or most states. Which
is why the fact that solar people aren't paying for distribution is a problem
that some states are starting to address.

Oh, no, there's zero marginal cost to 'distribution'. You have a paying
customer who already pays for distribution, who sometimes runs his 'consumption'
meter backward. The so-called problem is a money grab, pure and simple.

Not at all clear what you are trying to say. Who is making the money grab?

Distribution is largely a fixed cost, but they don't bill it that way. We used to have no fixed base charge and some few cents per kWh. Now the kWh charge went up as well as adding a $14 fixed base charge.

ROFL

Still lost in the wilderness. Do you actually believe $14 a month per
home covers the cost of distribution? Covers the cost of all the transmission
towers, right-of ways, clearing the brush, wire, transformers, poles,
all the crews, the storm damage? Many electric companies have had some
small monthly charge like that for decades. It doesn't come close to
covering the cost of distribution, which is why it's included in the core
bill, one way or another. That is if you have a bill, which solare customers
don't. Here electric is billed at about .13 a KWH, with half of that a
charge for the energy and the other half for DISTRIBUTION.




They said the fixed base charge was more representative of the fixed costs of distribution.

Then they told you BS and you believed it. But then you just tied to tell
us that net metering, where the electric company pays you for the excess
energy you put in the grid is illegal. IDK how lib minds work, like why
one would ever think a govt would do that. But then libs like to see govt
do all kinds of stupid things, so I guess there is that angle.



They don't charge everyone the same because people would scream.

Distant generation capacity costs a lot to distribute to our locality; but widespread
solar on residential rooftops doesn't mean you have to build new long links.

I'm not sure you can say that with any significance. You can't really add solar to drop the "distant" generation. You need both since solar is not available all the time. Adding solar also does not reduce the need for "distant" generation. What it does is use the demand following generation less creating less carbon pollution.

--

Rick C.

Bingo. Which is why most solar in the US is being heavily subsidized by
the neighbors paying for the distribution, why the solar folks get mostly
a free ride.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:1c7c66e4-961d-48b7-
8133-f0104fde3211@googlegroups.com:

In your example, even if A and B traded energy back and forth
between themselves, they wind up with near zero bills, yet they are
using the distribution network that others are paying for.

You can't do math either apparently.

"trading energy"?

Distribution charges are from the gen to the load.

That is for what one uses. If your meter metered it, you used it
from the gen, over the distribution, into the load.

Putting it back onto the same grid is not "using the distribution
network", it is PUMPING INTO it. The fucking inverse, idiot.

You should find a topic that does not tax the two working neurons
you have.

The only load you know about is the one you oozed from your ass and
keep creamed between your lower ass cheeks.

You keep trying to spew your upper ass cheek loads in here though.
You stink, boy!

Go over to the kervorkian group and ask for instructions.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:94548e3b-fa8b-4604-
8c2a-a68d54f796e9@googlegroups.com:

No it doesn't. It just depends on being able to do basic math
and understand income and expenses into a business.

In both cases of which, you fail.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:27:49 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:80cf2716-e3c8-430c-
bd0c-effd75e04deb@googlegroups.com:

ROFL

Still lost in the wilderness.

You always mouth immature, petty, stupid baby bullshit like this.

It is one of your most pathetic major malfunctions.

Guys like you should feed ants out in the desert somewhere.
That would be a great contribution on your slut mother's part.
You fed some ants. Pretty much all fucktards like you are good for.

Instead of three crosses on a hill where you are one of the
thieves, it would be three ant hills in the desert with a final
destination for your souls being Hell.

You, the dippy dumbfuck on the right, and KRW on the left, and
Donald J. Trump feeding the ant hill in the middle.

Of course at the neckline. That way, they start feeding from the
ear canals in.

The above coming from the guy that started off with this:

"You always mouth immature, petty, stupid baby bullshit like this."

And I see you've now graduated to making threats against the president.
Together with all you other violent suggestions, maybe it's time for
a visit by the Secret Service.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:50:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:1c7c66e4-961d-48b7-
8133-f0104fde3211@googlegroups.com:

In your example, even if A and B traded energy back and forth
between themselves, they wind up with near zero bills, yet they are
using the distribution network that others are paying for.


You can't do math either apparently.

"trading energy"?

Distribution charges are from the gen to the load.

No shit Sherlock.

That is for what one uses. If your meter metered it, you used it
from the gen, over the distribution, into the load.

No shit Sherlock.

Putting it back onto the same grid is not "using the distribution
network", it is PUMPING INTO it. The fucking inverse, idiot.f

Going in reverse is obviously still using the distribution system, stupid.
And let's just ignore that part. What happens with a solar home at
night or when it's cloudy? They use the GRID, the DISTRIBUTION system,
but they aren't paying for it or paying very little, an insufficient amount.
Their neighbors, including the poor, with at typical $150 bill are
paying about half that to cover DISTRIBUTION, to cover the system that
the solar home still needs. Capiche? That dummy Rick, he thinks his
$15 meter charge is covering the cost of the whole big distribution
system. If that's what every residence paid, the system would soon
go down, first big storm, the utility would be broke.


Wrong, always wrong. (And note that isn't a label as you falsely claim.
It's an observation and fact, based on what you just posted)

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:32:00 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:50:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:1c7c66e4-961d-48b7-
8133-f0104fde3211@googlegroups.com:

In your example, even if A and B traded energy back and forth
between themselves, they wind up with near zero bills, yet they are
using the distribution network that others are paying for.


You can't do math either apparently.

"trading energy"?

Distribution charges are from the gen to the load.

No shit Sherlock.

You are both wrong here. Distribution is the local network owned by the local utility, transmission is for the long distance network potentially owned by another company although often utilities have both, but transmission charges are often billed separately.

That is for what one uses. If your meter metered it, you used it
from the gen, over the distribution, into the load.

No shit Sherlock.

You are correct for the small number of people who have zero net bills, they pay nothing or little for distribution. They pay nothing for transmission or generation because they are net using nothing.

They pay nothing for transmission or generation because the guy buying their electricity which only goes through distribution, not transmission or generation, is billed at the full rate to the user. If they are going to bill the user on net metering for the generation and transmission he is actually using, the other users of the energy he generates should NOT be billed for the energy he creates. Rather he should be able to bill the users of his energy. Otherwise all the leaches get a free ride from his expensive solar installation.

Net billing is a way to uncomplicate this.

Putting it back onto the same grid is not "using the distribution
network", it is PUMPING INTO it. The fucking inverse, idiot.f

Going in reverse is obviously still using the distribution system, stupid..
And let's just ignore that part. What happens with a solar home at
night or when it's cloudy? They use the GRID, the DISTRIBUTION system,
but they aren't paying for it or paying very little, an insufficient amount.
Their neighbors, including the poor, with at typical $150 bill are
paying about half that to cover DISTRIBUTION, to cover the system that
the solar home still needs. Capiche? That dummy Rick, he thinks his
$15 meter charge is covering the cost of the whole big distribution
system. If that's what every residence paid, the system would soon
go down, first big storm, the utility would be broke.

Yes, pumping electricity into distribution is "using" the distribution network, but not by the supplier, by the user of the electricity. Should the power company bill twice for the same electricity?

Some are wrong about some things, others are wrong about other things. It's not like you are right about everything. You just adamantly refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong in spite of the facts. You refuse or are unable to "see" what is put in front of you.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:12:53 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:32:00 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:50:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:1c7c66e4-961d-48b7-
8133-f0104fde3211@googlegroups.com:

In your example, even if A and B traded energy back and forth
between themselves, they wind up with near zero bills, yet they are
using the distribution network that others are paying for.


You can't do math either apparently.

"trading energy"?

Distribution charges are from the gen to the load.

No shit Sherlock.

You are both wrong here. Distribution is the local network owned by the local utility, transmission is for the long distance network potentially owned by another company although often utilities have both, but transmission charges are often billed separately.

Now you want to pick nits. Typical.

That is for what one uses. If your meter metered it, you used it
from the gen, over the distribution, into the load.

No shit Sherlock.

You are correct for the small number of people who have zero net bills, they pay nothing or little for distribution. They pay nothing for transmission or generation because they are net using nothing.

They pay nothing for transmission or generation because the guy buying their electricity which only goes through distribution, not transmission or generation, is billed at the full rate to the user.

Someone with solar has a net bill of ZERO or close to it. So, they are
not paying for the DISTRIBUTION system, that they depend on when the
sun goes down or it's cloudy. IT's really very simple. They are being
subsidized, enjoying the use of the DISTRIBUTION system, without which
they would have no electric at night. Their neighbors, including the
poor family with an electric bill of $150 are SUBSIDIZING them because about
half that $150 bill is to cover the distribution system costs. Electric towers,
poles, transformers, wire, cutting trees, crews, etc don't come for free.





>If they are going to bill the user on net metering for the generation and transmission he is actually using, the other users of the energy he generates should NOT be billed for the energy he creates. Rather he should be able to bill the users of his energy.

They are being paid, it's called net metering, the electric company
typically pays them, but you claimed it's somehow banned. I guess libs
just like to ban all kinds of things, whether they make any sense or not?
I mean, what possible purpose would there be for govt, regulators, to
ban an electric company paying for solar electric you supply to the grid?





Otherwise all the leaches get a free ride from his expensive solar installation.

Net billing is a way to uncomplicate this.

It does nothing to address the costs of the distribution system
and that the poor schmucks that don't have solar are paying an ever
increasing share, while the solar guy gets a free ride. We call that
a "subsidy", a real one.

Putting it back onto the same grid is not "using the distribution
network", it is PUMPING INTO it. The fucking inverse, idiot.f

Going in reverse is obviously still using the distribution system, stupid.
And let's just ignore that part. What happens with a solar home at
night or when it's cloudy? They use the GRID, the DISTRIBUTION system,
but they aren't paying for it or paying very little, an insufficient amount.
Their neighbors, including the poor, with at typical $150 bill are
paying about half that to cover DISTRIBUTION, to cover the system that
the solar home still needs. Capiche? That dummy Rick, he thinks his
$15 meter charge is covering the cost of the whole big distribution
system. If that's what every residence paid, the system would soon
go down, first big storm, the utility would be broke.

Yes, pumping electricity into distribution is "using" the distribution network, but not by the supplier, by the user of the electricity. Should the power company bill twice for the same electricity?

What happens at night? A cloudy day?

Some are wrong about some things, others are wrong about other things.

And then there is you who's wrong about many things. Claiming that power
companies can't and don't pay for electric that a home solar system
puts into the grid. Thinking that your $15 meter fee covers the cost
of distribution.


It's not like you are right about everything. You just adamantly refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong in spite of the facts. You refuse or are unable to "see" what is put in front of you.
>

I was right about what I posted here, but you drone on.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 8:59:53 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 6:28:33 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 4:12:53 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:32:00 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 10:50:01 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:1c7c66e4-961d-48b7-
8133-f0104fde3211@googlegroups.com:

snip

It's not like you are right about everything. You just adamantly refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong in spite of the facts. You refuse or are unable to "see" what is put in front of you.

I was right about what I posted here, but you drone on.

Trader4 is always convinced that what he has posted is right, no matter how silly the right-wing propaganda he was recycling happened to be, and has no way of learning that he might be wrong (as he often is).

Funny, I never knew the concept of net metering, where solar home installs
get paid for putting electric into the grid was right wing propaganda.
I never knew that the fact that solar homes are not paying much, if anything,
for the distribution grid that they need was right wing propaganda either.

ROFL

I did know that you're full of BS though.

He suffers from the same kind of mental defect as krw - the total incapacity to imagine that he might be wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Except of course, I'm not wrong here, stupid.