To clarify - you are getting charged an additional monthly fee besides the connection fee everyone pays to cover distribution line maintenance? A smart meter lease fee, perhaps, when everyone is being given smart meters anyway?
Here's a long article that I stupidly didn't get a URL for. But it's a quick read and has salient points regarding personal solar arrays.
In a hearing last month in Arizona, an expert witness for the state’s largest utility said he agrees with the idea that utilities oppose rooftop solar because it is a threat to their profits.
If ever there was an occasion for a “record scratch” sound effect to be played at a regulatory hearing, this was it.
The comment was stunning because it’s something renewable energy advocates have long been saying but that utilities have danced around.
For me, the statement and the reaction to it shows a need to address a related question: How can the regulatory system be reformed so that the economic interests of utilities can coexist with the need to build lots of rooftop solar and other customer-owned power generation?
The Aug. 25 hearing before state regulators was about a rate increase proposal by the utility, Arizona Public Service.
APS called Roger Morin to testify in favor of raising rates. Morin is a consultant who has written about the finances of regulated companies and has spent decades traveling the country to testify on behalf of utilities in cases like the one in Arizona.
He was being cross-examined by Court Rich, an attorney who represents solar companies. Rich used the word “prosumer,” which in this context meant consumers who have their own electricity generation systems.
The following starts at about the 1:09:00 mark in the hearing if you want to see it.
“Would you agree,” Rich said, “that one of the dangers to utility shareholders from the increasing growth of the prosumer is that the investments made by the prosumers with their own money may supplant investments that the utility may otherwise have been able to make and earn a return on, for the benefit of their shareholders?”
Morin said, “It makes it a lot riskier and it’s even much harder to forecast demand, given the uncertain impact of prosumers.”
“OK, so you agree with my statement?” Rich asked.
Morin said, “Yeah, I agree.”
“OK. And in fact, this is one of the many reasons that we’ve seen utilities around the country oppose many customer-sited technologies, correct?” Rich asked.
Morin said, “That is correct.”
Cue the record scratch.
Court Rich, an attorney for solar companies, cross examines Roger Morin, an expert witness for the utility APS at a hearing on Aug. 25 in Phoenix. Source: Arizona Corporation Commission
The exchange might have gone unnoticed, but Joe Dana, a reporter for KPNX television in Phoenix, did a story about it. Clips of Morin’s comments then showed up on social media, and were greeted with a mix of surprise and amusement by renewable energy advocates.
I emailed Morin to ask about his testimony, and he referred me to APS. Jill Hanks, an APS spokeswoman, sent me a statement that doesn’t address the substance of what Morin said.
“APS is committed to serving our customers with energy that is reliable, affordable and clean,” she said. “In addition to utility-scale generation, we support customers interested in protecting the environment and reducing their energy bills by installing their own behind-the-meter technologies, like rooftop solar and energy storage systems, at their homes, schools and businesses.”
She said the company now gets 51 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources and has committed to getting 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. And, she noted that APS has a lot of rooftop solar in its territory, with about 170,000 customer-owned systems.
I asked Rich about his exchange with Morin and he replied with this:
“The entire anti-rooftop solar and anti-customer technology campaign from utilities has always been and will forever be about utilities trying to protect their bottom line from utility customers that are looking to take greater control of their own energy destiny,” he said in an email. “Utilities like to misdirect and set up counter-narratives to try to plausibly argue they are not fighting their own customers just to protect utility profits, but as Dr. Morin makes clear, it’s all about the money for the utilities.”
I’ve written about utilities for a long time and seen how companies obfuscate when talking about their stance on rooftop solar. Utilities will often support policies that put caps on how much rooftop solar can be built, or, as a fallback, reduce the financial benefits of solar by coming up with new charges and modifications to rates. Despite these actions, the companies say they support rooftop solar, or at least do not oppose it.
Utilities have a good reason to oppose rooftop solar. The growth of customer-owned electricity generation will reduce the need for services from the utility, undercutting profits. If profits take a hit, then investors won’t want to own the utility’s stock. Investors will get mad. Executives will lose their jobs.
If we want to make a smooth transition to clean energy, it will need to include a mix of utility-scale renewable energy sources (which utilities like) and customer-owned sources (which utilities don’t like). And, something needs to change so that utilities feel less of a need to impede customer-owned sources.
John Farrell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minnesota, has spent a lot of time thinking about this challenge, and I knew he’d have some thoughts on the comments in the APS case.
“I think the investor-owned utility model is broken, because the incentives that we give them lead them exactly down the path you’d expect from that APS witness,” he said. “There’s a litany of things that we can talk about as examples of how when you keep giving them the wrong incentives, they’re going to keep behaving in exactly the way that you expect, which is to fight competition from things that we want.”
He has written about the shortcomings of investor-owned utilities and the need to align utilities’ incentives with the kind of conduct that is most beneficial to society. One option is for the public to take over their utilities and convert them into nonprofits, which usually involves legislation or a referendum. Another is for state legislators to change the law to tie utilities’ incomes to performance standards on things like expanding rooftop solar and improving fire safety.
Until such changes, we will see examples big and small of utilities using their vast resources to hinder the growth of customer-owned generation. Farrell has seen this so often and for so long that he’s almost numb to it. (On a recent episode of his Local Energy Rules podcast, he put the spotlight on a situation in Rhode Island in which the Episcopal Diocese is suing the local utility to challenge charges for installing solar at a church camp.)
So what does Farrell think of Morin’s testimony?
“It’s wonderful that somebody actually is telling the truth out loud on the utility side,” he said. “I guess maybe we’ve all just become too cynical that we expect they never will tell the truth out loud because they have every incentive not to do it.”
I'm fortunate that my beach property at least, is served by CCEC - a co-op supplier. Profits are returned to the users. My supplier in Raleigh alas, is Dominion of the offshore wind turbines. Maybe I should buy stock and start dogging them.
My supplier is a co-op that is run by corrupt cronies. Not only are profits not returned to the users, they charge those of us with solar panels a monthly fee, in my case, $33/month whether I'm supplying or using. If I had the energy (no pun intended) to do it, I would start a law suit against them.
Energy policy is the one item that will have the biggest impact on the livelihoods of ordinary Americans over the next four years. The Republicans certainly lead on energy policy, but people don't vote for policies, they vote for people, and the GOP has thrown away a huge opportunity by selecting a decrepit old misogynist as their candidate. Trump is not fit to represent America on the world stage, so Americans will very likely have to suffer another four years of rising energy costs and lower living standards.
My wife is Canadian-American but grew up in Long Island New York and is familiar with DT over many decades. In her opinion, if anything he likes women too much. As soon as crazy accusations started to surface in the wake of his candidacy, many women who had worked for him leapt to defend him on social media. He championed women in industry, and other minorities in many arenas for decades. His kindness to individuals in need over decades is unpublicized but legendary among those who have gotten at all close to him. Under his presidency HBCs received permanent funding and minority unemployment reached historical lows. Don't believe a word the media has to say about him.
In all seriousness, are you as sick as I am of ANY politician promising to solve every problem they create, but never admitting to creating them? Our political class should be flogged!
I long for the days when it was fashionable, even admirable, to make the statement, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Here's this. A video follows detailing the population density, car usage etc. We who know what we know know that this is a result of the SAI and SRM programs. Rural New Mexico has less density, but the same visual of a pollution dome.
Have y'all checked out how the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy has been engaged during the Biden Admin. Also consider listening to House Committee on Energy and Commerce sessions. This committee (established 1795) is the at the forefront of all issues and policies powering America’s economy, including our global competitive edge in energy, technology, and health care. Is your state elected representatives engaged in collaborative, bipartisan efforts to improve or revise inadequate policy legislation or just blowing hot air into dog whistles.
My dem state reps are paid/supported by the nuclear bomb industry via Los Alamos National Lab and Sandia National Lab. Whatever papa wants we, the people get.
I'm in Washington so aware of how nuclear weapon development and nuclear energy got convoluted. NGOs like Sierra Club promote the convoluted disinformation because of Hanford nuclear weapons development waste cleanup. Papa?
Yep, those are the years I chose to study it for environmental law classes. A lot has been done since then, but I won't enumerate all here. However, one example is vitrification of weapons development liquid waste: https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/WTP_Fact_Sheet.pdf
I have always believed the DOD should have responsibility for the Hanford accumulated nuclear weapons development waste. Liquid nuclear weapons development waste and solid nuclear energy production spent fuel are different end products.
Also, noted in Harris campaign message last night she included nuclear. IMHO if people aren’t listening to anything other than their own preconceived or biased opinions they are missing the nuances of that message. The middle of a campaign is not the time to get the “green washing” NGOs riled up and spewing their brand of misinformation and fear mongering. Note that Robert Bryce’s “green energy” rejection data base is getting bigger by the day; communities are seeing the light (pun intended). I’m a disappointed ‘60s vintage California environmentalist, who is hoping real world physics, ecosystem degradation reality checks, and common sense pragmatism might be coming into play.
papa - whoever the hell is running things. Not the puppet faces. DOD, WEF, DARPA, or their controllers.
Oh, I went to the NM legislative sessions to oppose a "cloud-seeding" bill. The Sierra Club controls much of the legislation that gets passed for useless environmental "solutions". Tax breaks for electric vehicles. Tax funds for hot dry rock geothermal energy, and so on.
Calling nucular a mispronunciation is revisionist history. Early on (probably int he 30's), scientists working in this new field used this pronunciation to distinguish between the "molecular" level and the "nucular" level. From there using this pronunciation, became a symbol of being in the inner circle. People who used the nukleear pronunciation were outsiders much like saying "lee-ward" instead of looard shows you don't know anythign about sailing,
Interesting. I retired from a National Lab, the one who conceived the design of and created the A bomb and subsequently the H bomb at another National Lab. Everyone I knew there said nukleear. Scientists, managers, techs, secretaries. That was 1975 thru 1994.
Yeah, the old pronunciation fell out of favor surprisingly quickly , just as the proper pronunciation of buoy (boy) did. But it lasted a little longer in teh military. Carter was still using it at TMI in 1979.
A purely personal observation from an old codger who's seen several of these circuses (brilliant quote, BTW), two other distinctions can be made between the candidates.
First, Ms. Harris wants us to believe that she can "tackle the climate crisis." Rubbish. Moses might have split the waters, but he couldn't stop climate change had he stayed on the mountain 400 days, and Ms. Harris is certainly no Moses.
Second, the RNC preamble starts with these words: "Common sense." America has two great deficits - a financial debt, and a deficit of common sense. I'm not saying the RNC is blessed with this attribute (some of their other platforms are senseless), but they recognize that it is something we need to restore.
Your conclusion is spot-on: like him or hate him, Trump is the only candidate who understands the importance of energy to America and its economy.
If she were 150 yards away, and draped in an era-appropriate shroud, in the right light, and you squinted (and Moses had been walking around with long hair that day), I could see how she could be confused with Moses. From that distance. :)
Another great piece! When are you going to turn on the “payment” on Substack. If the statistics on party affiliations are correct ( I think it’s much higher) finding independents to inform themselves could be more challenging than wading thru the bs spewed by the new Presidential candidate VP Harris. Oh btw just how did she get the nomination without having any primaries? Asking for a few friends. We’re not too smart, but we’re trying to be informed. Best 16 minutes I’ve had today thank you!
And free is why I can read and learn. You are definitely and thank you. There are hundreds of substacks now and growing on a daily basis as every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that what they have to say is worth a payment or thinks this is a way to get rich working from home. God journalism should get paid. The question is what substack is replacing costs $100 or less per month. I have been saying this for months. Substack needs to have an alternative to a yearly subscription. A "if you enjoyed this article or found it helpful, please buy me a coffee or whatever you can afford.' I say this because many won't subscribe and then miss out on great info that helps our 'common sense to recognize our common sense'. I'd have missed this article and all the comments and the attached links if it was another $100 US. Besides why not have a donate button so when an article is enjoyed and worthy ( cause not all are interesting nor worthy) there is a button what can hit and offer a donate or ? Especially for seniors.....don't make me turn on msn, hahahaha. I think you get my drift. This $100 a year payment for every substack may be it;s downfall.
You've been with us for a while now. We appreciate your support. After going behind paywall, I'll be retired so we'll increase the pace to 3-4 month. We won't charge $100/year. We will be less.
FYI, just the pics used in posts cost us about $1,000 or so/year. No other real costs, though.
But, as a data point, you've read our work. What would you pay/months (or annual) to subscribe. If the answer is -0- we can live with that. Just curious.
What a shame. We have a big generac here, but it burns 4-5 gallons of propane/hour. The stupidity is incredible. I see your new government/bankers are all in on killing North Sea E&P
I have a personal large solar array on my garage roof. It's still working fine after 9 years. I'm told by the unbiased that it should continue working for at least another 20 years. I have a back up generac that doesn't use much propane because the electric grid doesn't go down that often. I would love to be off the grid entirely but I was told the batteries were problematic. The crap electric co-op we have charges all of us who have solar a base fee whether we are providing or using electric (on the days the planes creating clouds are particularly busy). My base fee is $33/month. I talked to someone else who, I assume, has a bigger array. His base fee is $55/month. This should be and probably would be, if we would muster enough people to object, illegal. At best, it is unethical. The co-op is run by a bunch of corrupt people and their relatives.
Clearing forests and using farm land for large solar arrays and the corruption of the electric "providers" are my only negatives for solar arrays.
Do you generate enough, put on the grid, and get a high enough price for what you put on grid to offset the $33/mo. fee? Ergo, are you net up or losing money b/c of this?
I get nothing for putting electricity on the grid except a discounted electric bill. I have to pay the $33/mo fee no matter what. It is in addition to my electric bill on the occasions when my solar does not generate enough to pay for my entire bill. I don't feel I am losing money. The solar array cost $34,000 in 2014. My bills have been as high as $200 since then. Most often they are much lower than what we used to be charged. After I went to a meeting of the corrupt electric co-op, my bills suddenly went down to the base $33/month.
When I've talked to other people who don't have solar panels, I find out that some of the high usage folks are paying as much $400 to $600/month.
I guess I could live in a cave and eat insects, but I don't want to. I have 2 refrigerated air conditioners and a swimming pool pump. Yet this summer my bills were most often at the $33 mark. This is after I went to one of the electric co-op meetings and voiced my displeasure at the way things were going. Do you honestly trust those in charge after the past 4 - 5 years? I DO NOT.
The base fee you are paying is for the privilege of connecting to the grid and having electricity when your solar array is not providing enough. It only covers part of the grid costs. Other people are subsidizing your solar power, if you don't like it, get off the grid
If utilizing the public grid to support your solar investment is creating a personal hardship, check into programs offering assistance offered by your public or co-op utility. Base fees cover maintenance for downed utility infrastructure caused by storms and just general roadside maintenance. Every time the Olympic Peninsula surfers a storm outage, we thank the crews out in it working to get the lights back on.
I would love to get off the grid. Other people are subsidizing the corrupt people at the corrupt electric co-op. PNM the big electric company pays people for the electricity they generate. Our co-op charges people for the electricity we generate. Prove me wrong. Thanks.
Doesn't your co-op pay a much higher rate for the electricity you generate than they charge you for what you consume? (Setting aside the $33, and recognizing that if you're like most, you generate less than you consume most months, if not all of them).
That's a good question. I haven't checked, but in other conversations with them about El Paso Electric. the company from which they get their electricity, I am fairly sure the answer is no. I will check into that. I want to post a long article that I stupidly didn't get a url for so I have to post the whole thing. It's quite interesting, to me at least regarding electric companies and home solar.
I'm looking at my bills. The first 700 KWH are at a lower rate than whatever else you use. That's true for all users with or without solar.
There's a rate rider and a solar administration fee that makes up part of the $33/month. There are taxes on top of that of course.
To clarify - you are getting charged an additional monthly fee besides the connection fee everyone pays to cover distribution line maintenance? A smart meter lease fee, perhaps, when everyone is being given smart meters anyway?
Here's a long article that I stupidly didn't get a URL for. But it's a quick read and has salient points regarding personal solar arrays.
In a hearing last month in Arizona, an expert witness for the state’s largest utility said he agrees with the idea that utilities oppose rooftop solar because it is a threat to their profits.
If ever there was an occasion for a “record scratch” sound effect to be played at a regulatory hearing, this was it.
The comment was stunning because it’s something renewable energy advocates have long been saying but that utilities have danced around.
For me, the statement and the reaction to it shows a need to address a related question: How can the regulatory system be reformed so that the economic interests of utilities can coexist with the need to build lots of rooftop solar and other customer-owned power generation?
The Aug. 25 hearing before state regulators was about a rate increase proposal by the utility, Arizona Public Service.
APS called Roger Morin to testify in favor of raising rates. Morin is a consultant who has written about the finances of regulated companies and has spent decades traveling the country to testify on behalf of utilities in cases like the one in Arizona.
He was being cross-examined by Court Rich, an attorney who represents solar companies. Rich used the word “prosumer,” which in this context meant consumers who have their own electricity generation systems.
The following starts at about the 1:09:00 mark in the hearing if you want to see it.
“Would you agree,” Rich said, “that one of the dangers to utility shareholders from the increasing growth of the prosumer is that the investments made by the prosumers with their own money may supplant investments that the utility may otherwise have been able to make and earn a return on, for the benefit of their shareholders?”
Morin said, “It makes it a lot riskier and it’s even much harder to forecast demand, given the uncertain impact of prosumers.”
“OK, so you agree with my statement?” Rich asked.
Morin said, “Yeah, I agree.”
“OK. And in fact, this is one of the many reasons that we’ve seen utilities around the country oppose many customer-sited technologies, correct?” Rich asked.
Morin said, “That is correct.”
Cue the record scratch.
Court Rich, an attorney for solar companies, cross examines Roger Morin, an expert witness for the utility APS at a hearing on Aug. 25 in Phoenix. Source: Arizona Corporation Commission
The exchange might have gone unnoticed, but Joe Dana, a reporter for KPNX television in Phoenix, did a story about it. Clips of Morin’s comments then showed up on social media, and were greeted with a mix of surprise and amusement by renewable energy advocates.
I emailed Morin to ask about his testimony, and he referred me to APS. Jill Hanks, an APS spokeswoman, sent me a statement that doesn’t address the substance of what Morin said.
“APS is committed to serving our customers with energy that is reliable, affordable and clean,” she said. “In addition to utility-scale generation, we support customers interested in protecting the environment and reducing their energy bills by installing their own behind-the-meter technologies, like rooftop solar and energy storage systems, at their homes, schools and businesses.”
She said the company now gets 51 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources and has committed to getting 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050. And, she noted that APS has a lot of rooftop solar in its territory, with about 170,000 customer-owned systems.
I asked Rich about his exchange with Morin and he replied with this:
“The entire anti-rooftop solar and anti-customer technology campaign from utilities has always been and will forever be about utilities trying to protect their bottom line from utility customers that are looking to take greater control of their own energy destiny,” he said in an email. “Utilities like to misdirect and set up counter-narratives to try to plausibly argue they are not fighting their own customers just to protect utility profits, but as Dr. Morin makes clear, it’s all about the money for the utilities.”
I’ve written about utilities for a long time and seen how companies obfuscate when talking about their stance on rooftop solar. Utilities will often support policies that put caps on how much rooftop solar can be built, or, as a fallback, reduce the financial benefits of solar by coming up with new charges and modifications to rates. Despite these actions, the companies say they support rooftop solar, or at least do not oppose it.
Utilities have a good reason to oppose rooftop solar. The growth of customer-owned electricity generation will reduce the need for services from the utility, undercutting profits. If profits take a hit, then investors won’t want to own the utility’s stock. Investors will get mad. Executives will lose their jobs.
If we want to make a smooth transition to clean energy, it will need to include a mix of utility-scale renewable energy sources (which utilities like) and customer-owned sources (which utilities don’t like). And, something needs to change so that utilities feel less of a need to impede customer-owned sources.
John Farrell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minnesota, has spent a lot of time thinking about this challenge, and I knew he’d have some thoughts on the comments in the APS case.
“I think the investor-owned utility model is broken, because the incentives that we give them lead them exactly down the path you’d expect from that APS witness,” he said. “There’s a litany of things that we can talk about as examples of how when you keep giving them the wrong incentives, they’re going to keep behaving in exactly the way that you expect, which is to fight competition from things that we want.”
He has written about the shortcomings of investor-owned utilities and the need to align utilities’ incentives with the kind of conduct that is most beneficial to society. One option is for the public to take over their utilities and convert them into nonprofits, which usually involves legislation or a referendum. Another is for state legislators to change the law to tie utilities’ incomes to performance standards on things like expanding rooftop solar and improving fire safety.
Until such changes, we will see examples big and small of utilities using their vast resources to hinder the growth of customer-owned generation. Farrell has seen this so often and for so long that he’s almost numb to it. (On a recent episode of his Local Energy Rules podcast, he put the spotlight on a situation in Rhode Island in which the Episcopal Diocese is suing the local utility to challenge charges for installing solar at a church camp.)
So what does Farrell think of Morin’s testimony?
“It’s wonderful that somebody actually is telling the truth out loud on the utility side,” he said. “I guess maybe we’ve all just become too cynical that we expect they never will tell the truth out loud because they have every incentive not to do it.”
I'm fortunate that my beach property at least, is served by CCEC - a co-op supplier. Profits are returned to the users. My supplier in Raleigh alas, is Dominion of the offshore wind turbines. Maybe I should buy stock and start dogging them.
My supplier is a co-op that is run by corrupt cronies. Not only are profits not returned to the users, they charge those of us with solar panels a monthly fee, in my case, $33/month whether I'm supplying or using. If I had the energy (no pun intended) to do it, I would start a law suit against them.
Energy policy is the one item that will have the biggest impact on the livelihoods of ordinary Americans over the next four years. The Republicans certainly lead on energy policy, but people don't vote for policies, they vote for people, and the GOP has thrown away a huge opportunity by selecting a decrepit old misogynist as their candidate. Trump is not fit to represent America on the world stage, so Americans will very likely have to suffer another four years of rising energy costs and lower living standards.
TDS is a terrible affliction. Seek help.
My wife is Canadian-American but grew up in Long Island New York and is familiar with DT over many decades. In her opinion, if anything he likes women too much. As soon as crazy accusations started to surface in the wake of his candidacy, many women who had worked for him leapt to defend him on social media. He championed women in industry, and other minorities in many arenas for decades. His kindness to individuals in need over decades is unpublicized but legendary among those who have gotten at all close to him. Under his presidency HBCs received permanent funding and minority unemployment reached historical lows. Don't believe a word the media has to say about him.
Could be.
"196 words of sheer pablum."
Wow! You earned an A+ in self-restraint!
In all seriousness, are you as sick as I am of ANY politician promising to solve every problem they create, but never admitting to creating them? Our political class should be flogged!
I long for the days when it was fashionable, even admirable, to make the statement, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
"word salad"? platitudes? bullshit? What would you have liked better there than "pablum"? ;)
yes, sick as you of the same damn thing.
Pablum was perfect!!!
Thanks!
Harris platform and its ability to meet and adjust to ever changing technical innovation and social landscapes seems pretty well defined here. https://youtu.be/slFJdY5ZO0g?si=Ie_RtaPBiiMNhcIi
not getting that from the link.
Here's this. A video follows detailing the population density, car usage etc. We who know what we know know that this is a result of the SAI and SRM programs. Rural New Mexico has less density, but the same visual of a pollution dome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heK3YegGXp8
Have y'all checked out how the DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy has been engaged during the Biden Admin. Also consider listening to House Committee on Energy and Commerce sessions. This committee (established 1795) is the at the forefront of all issues and policies powering America’s economy, including our global competitive edge in energy, technology, and health care. Is your state elected representatives engaged in collaborative, bipartisan efforts to improve or revise inadequate policy legislation or just blowing hot air into dog whistles.
https://www.youtube.com/@energyandcommerce/featured
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/newly-signed-bill-will-boost-nuclear-reactor-deployment-united-states
My dem state reps are paid/supported by the nuclear bomb industry via Los Alamos National Lab and Sandia National Lab. Whatever papa wants we, the people get.
I'm in Washington so aware of how nuclear weapon development and nuclear energy got convoluted. NGOs like Sierra Club promote the convoluted disinformation because of Hanford nuclear weapons development waste cleanup. Papa?
The Hanford site was a disaster back in the 70s and 80s. Nothing was done. Nothing is done.
Yep, those are the years I chose to study it for environmental law classes. A lot has been done since then, but I won't enumerate all here. However, one example is vitrification of weapons development liquid waste: https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/WTP_Fact_Sheet.pdf
I have always believed the DOD should have responsibility for the Hanford accumulated nuclear weapons development waste. Liquid nuclear weapons development waste and solid nuclear energy production spent fuel are different end products.
You must read the 'Doomberg' latest piece.
Thanks, did read it, I’m a huge Doomberg fan. Also see the last week Decouple podcast with Mark Nelson https://youtu.be/UrDv2XQEg9E?si=x7PlR3fOpU5SIvWV
Also, noted in Harris campaign message last night she included nuclear. IMHO if people aren’t listening to anything other than their own preconceived or biased opinions they are missing the nuances of that message. The middle of a campaign is not the time to get the “green washing” NGOs riled up and spewing their brand of misinformation and fear mongering. Note that Robert Bryce’s “green energy” rejection data base is getting bigger by the day; communities are seeing the light (pun intended). I’m a disappointed ‘60s vintage California environmentalist, who is hoping real world physics, ecosystem degradation reality checks, and common sense pragmatism might be coming into play.
papa - whoever the hell is running things. Not the puppet faces. DOD, WEF, DARPA, or their controllers.
Oh, I went to the NM legislative sessions to oppose a "cloud-seeding" bill. The Sierra Club controls much of the legislation that gets passed for useless environmental "solutions". Tax breaks for electric vehicles. Tax funds for hot dry rock geothermal energy, and so on.
the one we love to see when we're looking for a good laugh:
Gravity batteries. Genius!
Mental,
Calling nucular a mispronunciation is revisionist history. Early on (probably int he 30's), scientists working in this new field used this pronunciation to distinguish between the "molecular" level and the "nucular" level. From there using this pronunciation, became a symbol of being in the inner circle. People who used the nukleear pronunciation were outsiders much like saying "lee-ward" instead of looard shows you don't know anythign about sailing,
Our main point was to become President you don't have to understand it or even pronounce it correctly.
But thanks for the color. Never would have guessed "nucular" was actually use/preferred by insiders.
Interesting. I retired from a National Lab, the one who conceived the design of and created the A bomb and subsequently the H bomb at another National Lab. Everyone I knew there said nukleear. Scientists, managers, techs, secretaries. That was 1975 thru 1994.
tomayto, tomato..
Yeah, the old pronunciation fell out of favor surprisingly quickly , just as the proper pronunciation of buoy (boy) did. But it lasted a little longer in teh military. Carter was still using it at TMI in 1979.
Well said, thank you.
A purely personal observation from an old codger who's seen several of these circuses (brilliant quote, BTW), two other distinctions can be made between the candidates.
First, Ms. Harris wants us to believe that she can "tackle the climate crisis." Rubbish. Moses might have split the waters, but he couldn't stop climate change had he stayed on the mountain 400 days, and Ms. Harris is certainly no Moses.
Second, the RNC preamble starts with these words: "Common sense." America has two great deficits - a financial debt, and a deficit of common sense. I'm not saying the RNC is blessed with this attribute (some of their other platforms are senseless), but they recognize that it is something we need to restore.
Your conclusion is spot-on: like him or hate him, Trump is the only candidate who understands the importance of energy to America and its economy.
Thanks.
If she were 150 yards away, and draped in an era-appropriate shroud, in the right light, and you squinted (and Moses had been walking around with long hair that day), I could see how she could be confused with Moses. From that distance. :)
Another great piece! When are you going to turn on the “payment” on Substack. If the statistics on party affiliations are correct ( I think it’s much higher) finding independents to inform themselves could be more challenging than wading thru the bs spewed by the new Presidential candidate VP Harris. Oh btw just how did she get the nomination without having any primaries? Asking for a few friends. We’re not too smart, but we’re trying to be informed. Best 16 minutes I’ve had today thank you!
Thanks, Dave. Because I am still working full time thru next September, we’ve decided to remain free until then. Enjoy!
And free is why I can read and learn. You are definitely and thank you. There are hundreds of substacks now and growing on a daily basis as every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that what they have to say is worth a payment or thinks this is a way to get rich working from home. God journalism should get paid. The question is what substack is replacing costs $100 or less per month. I have been saying this for months. Substack needs to have an alternative to a yearly subscription. A "if you enjoyed this article or found it helpful, please buy me a coffee or whatever you can afford.' I say this because many won't subscribe and then miss out on great info that helps our 'common sense to recognize our common sense'. I'd have missed this article and all the comments and the attached links if it was another $100 US. Besides why not have a donate button so when an article is enjoyed and worthy ( cause not all are interesting nor worthy) there is a button what can hit and offer a donate or ? Especially for seniors.....don't make me turn on msn, hahahaha. I think you get my drift. This $100 a year payment for every substack may be it;s downfall.
All fair points, LB.
You've been with us for a while now. We appreciate your support. After going behind paywall, I'll be retired so we'll increase the pace to 3-4 month. We won't charge $100/year. We will be less.
FYI, just the pics used in posts cost us about $1,000 or so/year. No other real costs, though.
But, as a data point, you've read our work. What would you pay/months (or annual) to subscribe. If the answer is -0- we can live with that. Just curious.
Thanks for being a regular!
Thank you for asking…..$50 a year or less cause it will be US$. FYI, officially retired this Feb when I turned 65. It’s grrrreat.
Sorry to report that the link to the IER paper is not functioning.
Thank you for the quick report, Jeff!
Fixed!
-Mental
Thank you!
Here in the UK we are doubling down on net zero madness. I'm off to buy a generator.
I am envious, California has outlawed home generators.
Next home gardeners....
Madness to be sure. And still burning American and Canadian forests at Drax. SMH.
What a shame. We have a big generac here, but it burns 4-5 gallons of propane/hour. The stupidity is incredible. I see your new government/bankers are all in on killing North Sea E&P
Was wondering how much those burn. Thanks for the inside knowledge, Dave!
I have a personal large solar array on my garage roof. It's still working fine after 9 years. I'm told by the unbiased that it should continue working for at least another 20 years. I have a back up generac that doesn't use much propane because the electric grid doesn't go down that often. I would love to be off the grid entirely but I was told the batteries were problematic. The crap electric co-op we have charges all of us who have solar a base fee whether we are providing or using electric (on the days the planes creating clouds are particularly busy). My base fee is $33/month. I talked to someone else who, I assume, has a bigger array. His base fee is $55/month. This should be and probably would be, if we would muster enough people to object, illegal. At best, it is unethical. The co-op is run by a bunch of corrupt people and their relatives.
Clearing forests and using farm land for large solar arrays and the corruption of the electric "providers" are my only negatives for solar arrays.
The killing of generations of life. Nothing grows or lives under that land covered by solar panels. This greening thing is madness.
Do you generate enough, put on the grid, and get a high enough price for what you put on grid to offset the $33/mo. fee? Ergo, are you net up or losing money b/c of this?
I get nothing for putting electricity on the grid except a discounted electric bill. I have to pay the $33/mo fee no matter what. It is in addition to my electric bill on the occasions when my solar does not generate enough to pay for my entire bill. I don't feel I am losing money. The solar array cost $34,000 in 2014. My bills have been as high as $200 since then. Most often they are much lower than what we used to be charged. After I went to a meeting of the corrupt electric co-op, my bills suddenly went down to the base $33/month.
When I've talked to other people who don't have solar panels, I find out that some of the high usage folks are paying as much $400 to $600/month.
I guess I could live in a cave and eat insects, but I don't want to. I have 2 refrigerated air conditioners and a swimming pool pump. Yet this summer my bills were most often at the $33 mark. This is after I went to one of the electric co-op meetings and voiced my displeasure at the way things were going. Do you honestly trust those in charge after the past 4 - 5 years? I DO NOT.
Thanks for the color.
The base fee you are paying is for the privilege of connecting to the grid and having electricity when your solar array is not providing enough. It only covers part of the grid costs. Other people are subsidizing your solar power, if you don't like it, get off the grid
If utilizing the public grid to support your solar investment is creating a personal hardship, check into programs offering assistance offered by your public or co-op utility. Base fees cover maintenance for downed utility infrastructure caused by storms and just general roadside maintenance. Every time the Olympic Peninsula surfers a storm outage, we thank the crews out in it working to get the lights back on.
I would love to get off the grid. Other people are subsidizing the corrupt people at the corrupt electric co-op. PNM the big electric company pays people for the electricity they generate. Our co-op charges people for the electricity we generate. Prove me wrong. Thanks.
Doesn't your co-op pay a much higher rate for the electricity you generate than they charge you for what you consume? (Setting aside the $33, and recognizing that if you're like most, you generate less than you consume most months, if not all of them).
That's a good question. I haven't checked, but in other conversations with them about El Paso Electric. the company from which they get their electricity, I am fairly sure the answer is no. I will check into that. I want to post a long article that I stupidly didn't get a url for so I have to post the whole thing. It's quite interesting, to me at least regarding electric companies and home solar.
I'm looking at my bills. The first 700 KWH are at a lower rate than whatever else you use. That's true for all users with or without solar.
There's a rate rider and a solar administration fee that makes up part of the $33/month. There are taxes on top of that of course.
TDS is a terrible affliction. Please seek help.