W
Whoey Louie
Guest
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
I've added that to your file of threats.
I've added that to your file of threats.
W
Whoey Louie
Guest
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Well duh! But it illustrates the point. Which is that solar
customers are dependent on the grid, they use the grid, they need it
at night, but most are paying little or zero for the distribution grid.
And with solar customers having zero or close to zero bills, the
distribution costs are being paid by those without solar. Capiche?
No shit Sherlock.
Wrong, always wrong. Per the example above, the cost of the grid then
gets divided up over less customers, so those homes without solar pay
an ever increasing percentage of the cost of the grid. As the percentage
of solar homes increases, the problem gets worse and increasingly unfair.
Small or zero. Small or zero bill, ie not paying for the grid.
He also gets credit for his
Zero or small is indeed what it is, which again means they are not paying
much, if anything for the grid, for all the infrastructure that they
need and that they use. Their non-solar neighbors are paying and getting
hosed.
IDK, you sure do have problems with simple math.
Wrong, always wrong.
Well duh! But it illustrates the point. Which is that solar
customers are dependent on the grid, they use the grid, they need it
at night, but most are paying little or zero for the distribution grid.
And with solar customers having zero or close to zero bills, the
distribution costs are being paid by those without solar. Capiche?
No shit Sherlock.
Wrong, always wrong. Per the example above, the cost of the grid then
gets divided up over less customers, so those homes without solar pay
an ever increasing percentage of the cost of the grid. As the percentage
of solar homes increases, the problem gets worse and increasingly unfair.
Small or zero. Small or zero bill, ie not paying for the grid.
He also gets credit for his
Zero or small is indeed what it is, which again means they are not paying
much, if anything for the grid, for all the infrastructure that they
need and that they use. Their non-solar neighbors are paying and getting
hosed.
IDK, you sure do have problems with simple math.
Wrong, always wrong.
W
Whoey Louie
Guest
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
No they don't stupid. If the net bill is zero, then they aren't
paying anything, including for the distribution system that they
use at night. Their neighbors without solar are footing the bill
for the distribution system.
Wrong, always wrong.
No they don't stupid. If the net bill is zero, then they aren't
paying anything, including for the distribution system that they
use at night. Their neighbors without solar are footing the bill
for the distribution system.
Wrong, always wrong.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 2:09:45 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
In Australia, feed-in tariffs are lower than consumption tariffs, and there's a whole bureaucratic rigmarole before you can feed anything back into the grid. I ran into a project to build a home battery backup system that could be guaranteed not to feed power back into the grid (and electrocute the utilities maintenance guys when they were working on chunks of the grid that had been isolated from the utility's generators so that they could work on them).
You made a whole lot of different mistakes.
> Wrong, even with that.
Trader4 does suffer from this persistent delusion that he knows what he's talking about.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
In Australia, feed-in tariffs are lower than consumption tariffs, and there's a whole bureaucratic rigmarole before you can feed anything back into the grid. I ran into a project to build a home battery backup system that could be guaranteed not to feed power back into the grid (and electrocute the utilities maintenance guys when they were working on chunks of the grid that had been isolated from the utility's generators so that they could work on them).
You made a whole lot of different mistakes.
> Wrong, even with that.
Trader4 does suffer from this persistent delusion that he knows what he's talking about.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:52:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
<snip>
Trader4 has these moronic mantras. He doesn't know what it means, but he thinks it sounds good.
It won't be zero if they don't push a good deal more power back into the net than they use - realistic feed-in tariffs are lower than consumption tariffs.
So it isn't going to happen. Extrapolating from an introductory subsidy designed to get roof-top solar going to a situation where most people have it is exactly the kind of unrealistic nonsense that Trader4 goes in for.
Utilities have accountants, and more sense than Trader4.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
Trader4 has these moronic mantras. He doesn't know what it means, but he thinks it sounds good.
It won't be zero if they don't push a good deal more power back into the net than they use - realistic feed-in tariffs are lower than consumption tariffs.
So it isn't going to happen. Extrapolating from an introductory subsidy designed to get roof-top solar going to a situation where most people have it is exactly the kind of unrealistic nonsense that Trader4 goes in for.
Utilities have accountants, and more sense than Trader4.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:31:38 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
Trader4 is dim. If the hypothetical zero is the sum of a positive charge a repayment there isn't any multiplication going on.
Nobody is multiplying anything, and Trader4 is too dumb to have noticed.
In part, the generated power that the solar home has to feed back into the grid to come out with a small bill.
The utility doesn't have to generate that power at the time it is being fed back into the grid, which saves them generation cost.
> Wrong, always wrong. Maybe Bill can explain it to you, he seems to get it.
Oh, I do. Trader4 doesn't, and has deluded himself into misunderstanding what I've posted as if it supported his arguments, which is more or less his trademark.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Trader4 is dim. If the hypothetical zero is the sum of a positive charge a repayment there isn't any multiplication going on.
Nobody is multiplying anything, and Trader4 is too dumb to have noticed.
In part, the generated power that the solar home has to feed back into the grid to come out with a small bill.
The utility doesn't have to generate that power at the time it is being fed back into the grid, which saves them generation cost.
> Wrong, always wrong. Maybe Bill can explain it to you, he seems to get it.
Oh, I do. Trader4 doesn't, and has deluded himself into misunderstanding what I've posted as if it supported his arguments, which is more or less his trademark.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 23/9/19 9:11 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
Not with my supplier, Amber Electric. Feed-in rate and consumption
tariff is precisely the moment-by-moment wholesale rate. Then I pay a
separate fixed monthly charge for the distribution network, plus $10 for
Amber to do all that.
Which is exactly what our government should have done rather than
privatise the whole network.
Clifford Heath.
Not with my supplier, Amber Electric. Feed-in rate and consumption
tariff is precisely the moment-by-moment wholesale rate. Then I pay a
separate fixed monthly charge for the distribution network, plus $10 for
Amber to do all that.
Which is exactly what our government should have done rather than
privatise the whole network.
Clifford Heath.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 9:43:52 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
<snip>
But the "moment-by-moment" wholesale rate is a lot higher at night, when you are consumer, than it is during the day when you might be generating, so the effect is that feed-in rates are lower than consumption rates.
During the day the South Australian Tesla battery buys in cheap power to charge the battery for a lot less than it charges for the same power (actually 85% of it) when it sells it back to the grid at night.
When I last got educated on the subject, the "moment-by-moment" rate was actually calculated on half-our chunks, much to the disgust of the guy that had designed the system, and had wanted a ten-minute-by-ten-minute auction.
Probably true, but politicians are fashion-driven, and it takes more than one Enron to get it through to them that that particular fashion made them look ridiculous.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
But the "moment-by-moment" wholesale rate is a lot higher at night, when you are consumer, than it is during the day when you might be generating, so the effect is that feed-in rates are lower than consumption rates.
During the day the South Australian Tesla battery buys in cheap power to charge the battery for a lot less than it charges for the same power (actually 85% of it) when it sells it back to the grid at night.
When I last got educated on the subject, the "moment-by-moment" rate was actually calculated on half-our chunks, much to the disgust of the guy that had designed the system, and had wanted a ten-minute-by-ten-minute auction.
Probably true, but politicians are fashion-driven, and it takes more than one Enron to get it through to them that that particular fashion made them look ridiculous.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Guest
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:03f38c8c-85d4-437f-b100-c453c9fa2f1e@googlegroups.com:
"file of threats"
BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Bwuahahahahahahahahahahah!
Tell it to your therapist. Maybe you'll get that remedial reading
comprehension course assistance you so need.
news:03f38c8c-85d4-437f-b100-c453c9fa2f1e@googlegroups.com:
"file of threats"
BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
Bwuahahahahahahahahahahah!
Tell it to your therapist. Maybe you'll get that remedial reading
comprehension course assistance you so need.
Guest
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:721db584-4fca-48b8-b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:
No, it does not, idiot. It proves that you are full of shit.
Bullshit. They *use* "a little at night" THAT is what they pay
for because that is all they owe.
Damn you are thick, boy!
NO! you fucking idiot. They DO pay! goddamn boy!
The goddamned monthly statement shows it perfectly.
You are a fucking retard.
No, you retarded fuck. They are being paid by ALL customers,
including those GETTING CASH CREDIT against their soalr generation.
WAKE THE FUCK UP AND SMELL THE PAY OUT, DUMBFUCK!!!
Fronm that PAY OUT, the bill is REDUCED by whatever number.
That does not mean that it was zero. You are fucking stupid to
think it does.
> Capiche?
Fuck you, retarded twit! HOAD!
news:721db584-4fca-48b8-b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:
No, it does not, idiot. It proves that you are full of shit.
Bullshit. They *use* "a little at night" THAT is what they pay
for because that is all they owe.
Damn you are thick, boy!
NO! you fucking idiot. They DO pay! goddamn boy!
The goddamned monthly statement shows it perfectly.
You are a fucking retard.
No, you retarded fuck. They are being paid by ALL customers,
including those GETTING CASH CREDIT against their soalr generation.
WAKE THE FUCK UP AND SMELL THE PAY OUT, DUMBFUCK!!!
Fronm that PAY OUT, the bill is REDUCED by whatever number.
That does not mean that it was zero. You are fucking stupid to
think it does.
> Capiche?
Fuck you, retarded twit! HOAD!
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 23/9/19 10:03 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
Right, and that's rational pricing. It creates an incentive to install a
battery. Not yet a big enough incentive for me yet, but nonetheless, if
you want rational behaviour, you have to enshrine rational incentives.
We don't use much power, except for when we run the A/C during the hot
summer months. Rooftop solar make that effectively free, and any excess
gets sold to others who are doing the same.
Clifford Heath.
Right, and that's rational pricing. It creates an incentive to install a
battery. Not yet a big enough incentive for me yet, but nonetheless, if
you want rational behaviour, you have to enshrine rational incentives.
We don't use much power, except for when we run the A/C during the hot
summer months. Rooftop solar make that effectively free, and any excess
gets sold to others who are doing the same.
Clifford Heath.
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 6:56:07 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:
Yes, I suppose they do; a generator plant will have lights-on requirements
even if the on-site generator is not spinning. Why do you ask?
I'm sure not all bills from the electric utility are 'zero or near zero'
but if negative terms are in the bill, it's because the utility has good cause for them.
"The laborer is worthy of his wages"
I see no relevance. The 'double' number has no parents, it's an orphan.
The 'poor' who chose to buy electricity but not install a plant to generate it,
are making a decision that suits them, of the usual cost/benefit type.
Yes, I suppose they do; a generator plant will have lights-on requirements
even if the on-site generator is not spinning. Why do you ask?
I'm sure not all bills from the electric utility are 'zero or near zero'
but if negative terms are in the bill, it's because the utility has good cause for them.
"The laborer is worthy of his wages"
I see no relevance. The 'double' number has no parents, it's an orphan.
The 'poor' who chose to buy electricity but not install a plant to generate it,
are making a decision that suits them, of the usual cost/benefit type.
Guest
<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:ba384012-64d7-4e58-807c-
781edbcacba0@googlegroups.com:
You really need to understand that those credits are 100% equivalent
to cash.
They DO indeed pay. Just like all customers.
781edbcacba0@googlegroups.com:
You really need to understand that those credits are 100% equivalent
to cash.
They DO indeed pay. Just like all customers.
Guest
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:721db584-4fca-48b8-
b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:
No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a bat
eyes fail to see the money.
Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!
b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:
No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a bat
eyes fail to see the money.
Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!
Guest
krw@notreal.com wrote in
news
m9goe9e5ka37evl5maavps4lrchdebtj3@4ax.com:
Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.
Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.
You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?
news
m9goe9e5ka37evl5maavps4lrchdebtj3@4ax.com: Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.
Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.
You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?
Guest
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:48:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.
Always.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.
Always.
Guest
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
They're using the distribution system just as much as those who don't
have their own generation system. The distribution system is sized on
peak usage, not average. Depending on the system, peak usage may not
be when the sun is shining.
>Wrong, always wrong.
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:
They're using the distribution system just as much as those who don't
have their own generation system. The distribution system is sized on
peak usage, not average. Depending on the system, peak usage may not
be when the sun is shining.
>Wrong, always wrong.
Guest
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:50:16 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
AlwaysWrong, as always.
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
AlwaysWrong, as always.
Guest
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:04:52 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
Perhaps the government should buy them panels so they aren't exploited
by the rich. It _is_ the leftist's way.
wrote:
Perhaps the government should buy them panels so they aren't exploited
by the rich. It _is_ the leftist's way.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:30:00 AM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
It doesn't always look all that rational. On occasion the price gets bid up way high, which covers the interest on the big and expensive fast-start generators that exist mainly to back up the ageing base-line generators that break down from time to time.
Or find away to penalise freeloaders, who are messing up the climate by burning fossil carbon as fuel and dumping the CO2 produced into the atmosphere.
In Australia, reversed cycle air-conditioning is a sensible way of warming your house in winter. In Europe you'd need a much bigger heat pump to cope with the worst case thermal losses (or a super-insulated house, which isn't such a bad idea anyway).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
It doesn't always look all that rational. On occasion the price gets bid up way high, which covers the interest on the big and expensive fast-start generators that exist mainly to back up the ageing base-line generators that break down from time to time.
Or find away to penalise freeloaders, who are messing up the climate by burning fossil carbon as fuel and dumping the CO2 produced into the atmosphere.
In Australia, reversed cycle air-conditioning is a sensible way of warming your house in winter. In Europe you'd need a much bigger heat pump to cope with the worst case thermal losses (or a super-insulated house, which isn't such a bad idea anyway).
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney