Farm Solar Scam

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Ok Chuck Did you install it yourself or hire it done?

Chuck, you missed a prime opportunity to insert an LOL or HAHAHA in response to Hamloc's joke, do it yourself, what a comedian.

[tweety]

If solar is an absolute must for people and they want to ignore nuclear or avoid real investment into fusion, then its going to have to be put into orbit to take up the smallest footprint and access 100% of the sun every day every year.

There are orbital launches every month, they could be stringing together an array up there anytime. I think the technology is closer to that than fusion.

If the industry goes that direction, I am fully on board because it solves all the problems.

Agree. Nuclear could also be so much more with changes in policy that limit spent fuel reactors etc. I think often there is the assumption, as posted already several times here, that you either have to abandon the traditional electric grid and go all solar, or not have any solar at all. That is like saying i will buy one machine to do all my farming.

I have solar on the holiday trailer - works great. About 20% loss occurs converting DC to house AC, why not make more DC appliances, LED DC lights, water heaters, furnaces that have BLDC efficient motors. Most furnaces already take the AC and convert to DC to run the furnace motor. DC compressors for fridges. Grain aeration and heating. So many things. Solar is local so there is no need for transformers, little need for AC.

Humans won't change till the last minute, problem is we are still quite far away from that.

Change the payment structure of electricity !!!!!!

[LEP]

Talk about completely missing the point. Do i have a pipeline line item and refinery line item monthly if i buy no diesel?

Power should be priced based on use, no power used, no cost. Around here that cost is about 35 cents per kwh. Solar can easily compete with that. That is the scam. And that is what makes renewable energy almost impossible to incorporate along side the grid.

Make that one little legislative change and there will be solar/wind/fuel cell/microturbines everywhere.

Take a look at your power bill, mine shows 150 for distribution, 30 for actual power. If i used 5$ in power the distribution is still 150. Actual power cost, 33 cents per kwh.

Sure I will talk about you missing the point. By being hooked to the grid it has to be built to handle your theoretical needs. It's immaterial if you use them or not the cost of potential supply and distribution are spent. It's is like insurance, there if you need it.

However if you don't want to pay for that insurance, disconnect from the grid and POOF, no more bill.

[Guest]

Sure I will talk about you missing the point. By being hooked to the grid it has to be built to handle your theoretical needs. It's immaterial if you use them or not the cost of potential supply and distribution are spent. It's is like insurance, there if you need it.

However if you don't want to pay for that insurance, disconnect from the grid and POOF, no more bill.

well the problem is , LEP
they want their cake and eat it too
they think we should all pay for their inefficient systems

[furrowtickler]

well the problem is , LEP
they want their cake and eat it too
they think we should all pay for their inefficient systems

Maybe they have shares in certain solar companies they promote?
There is a place for solar I agree tweety .
But it is a fraction of what is needed , especially in Canada ..... winter for 5 months a year kinda puts a damper on yearly efficiency.
Chuck talks about Australia Solar constantly ..... that’s apples and oranges

And case your bang on with “we should all pay for their inefficient systems”. Just like we should all support their grain sales through the CWB ... same mentality

[tweety]

well the problem is , LEP
they want their cake and eat it too
they think we should all pay for their inefficient systems

No one is asking you to pay for anything.

[Oliver88]

No one is asking you to pay for anything.

It would be nice to have an option to opt out of subsidizing inefficient and unreliable forms of power generation. Unfortunately we don’t have a choice so all the vanity projects including solar or wind will increase everyone’s SaskPower rates.

[ALBERTAFARMER4]

It would be nice to have an option to opt out of subsidizing inefficient and unreliable forms of power generation. Unfortunately we don’t have a choice so all the vanity projects including solar or wind will increase everyone’s SaskPower rates.

I agree.

https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-canadian-its-got-to-stop/ https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies-amount-to-1650-per-canadian-its-got-to-stop/

[sumdumguy]

Remember the saying about assumptions making an ass out of you and me?

Well lets make a broke ass out of western civilization. What you talking bout?

Green Assumptions:

1. Warmer climate is bad.
2. CO2 is the cause of warm climate and is the control knob.
3. Climate can be controlled by man-if he can control this one variable.
4. Lets form a religion around the belief that we can predict and control the climate a hundred, or thousand years from now.

Egocentric Manic Delusion

[tweety]

It would be nice to have an option to opt out of subsidizing inefficient and unreliable forms of power generation. Unfortunately we don’t have a choice so all the vanity projects including solar or wind will increase everyone’s SaskPower rates.

Then change the payment structure of electricity as well. Also remove the billions in subsidies for oil and gas. Also remove the subsidies for agriculture.

What you use is what you pay for on a per kw basis. NO subsidies would then be required or wanted as the local generation is actually much cheaper. In fact the advantage would be solar by a large margin. The only reason there is the subsidy to to make the unfair practice not look so bad.

It all comes down to one thing, disparity in how you pay for electricity set by careful lobbying and can be looked at as a subsidy of normal residential customers to pay for industrial distribution. ATCO and transalta have long been doing this deeply connected to government. Change that, you change renewables forever with no subsidies whatsoever.

You always jump to the same conclusion, subsidies for renewable as the problem - yet the real problem is a completely unfair, monopolistic, protectionistic pricing model for traditional grid that forces renewable local generation completely not competitive.

[furrowtickler]

Then change the payment structure of electricity as well. Also remove the billions in subsidies for oil and gas. Also remove the subsidies for agriculture.

What you use is what you pay for on a per kw basis. NO subsidies would then be required or wanted as the local generation is actually much cheaper. In fact the advantage would be solar by a large margin. The only reason there is the subsidy to to make the unfair practice not look so bad.

It all comes down to one thing, disparity in how you pay for electricity set by careful lobbying and can be looked at as a subsidy of normal residential customers to pay for industrial distribution. ATCO and transalta have long been doing this deeply connected to government. Change that, you change renewables forever with no subsidies whatsoever.

You always jump to the same conclusion, subsidies for renewable as the problem - yet the real problem is a completely unfair, monopolistic, protectionistic pricing model for traditional grid that forces renewable local generation completely not competitive.

But keep your hands out for CERB cheque’s right ?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Then change the payment structure of electricity as well. Also remove the billions in subsidies for oil and gas. Also remove the subsidies for agriculture.

What you use is what you pay for on a per kw basis. NO subsidies would then be required or wanted as the local generation is actually much cheaper. In fact the advantage would be solar by a large margin. The only reason there is the subsidy to to make the unfair practice not look so bad.

It all comes down to one thing, disparity in how you pay for electricity set by careful lobbying and can be looked at as a subsidy of normal residential customers to pay for industrial distribution. ATCO and transalta have long been doing this deeply connected to government. Change that, you change renewables forever with no subsidies whatsoever.

You always jump to the same conclusion, subsidies for renewable as the problem - yet the real problem is a completely unfair, monopolistic, protectionistic pricing model for traditional grid that forces renewable local generation completely not competitive.

Can you explain what legislative change would accomplish this? Local generation such as Chuck's is entirely reliant on using an interconnected grid as "storage" at no cost to the freeloaders such as Chuck. Remove the ability to do that, and the economics of solar or wind become impossible.

Unless you have been listening to Chuck for so long that you think that we can legislate away the laws of physics, or that the only thing stopping the renewable energy panacea is a conspiracy theory by big oil and big electricity? There are a lot of otherwise smart people who read uninformed media stories about renewable power, who come away thinking that the storage technology already exists, and can be installed and maintained at a cost remotely close to existing generation sources.

As soon as economic storage technology exists, no legislative changes will be required, the economics will dictate that local generation wins over centralized. But as of today, there is no such technology even on the drawing board. Remember in our climate, 3 months of storage is what is being installed for stand alone solar when blackouts are not permissible. And that the cost of storage technology needs to drop by a full order of magnitude to make solar competitive with fossil fuels. I expect we will eventually get there, but it won't be by decree from above.