State rebates lead more people to go solar

[XemaSab]

California has added enough solar power to its electrical grid this year to light a small town, according to an update released Monday on the state's solar rebate program.

Those rebates, which go to businesses and homeowners who put solar panels on their roofs, have funded enough new installations this year to generate 59.4 megawatts of electricity, about enough to juice up 44,550 homes. All told, that's more solar power than was installed in all of 2006, according to the update from the California Public Utilities Commission.

The rebates are the heart of the Go Solar California campaign, which is part of California's larger fight against global warming. Over the campaign's 10-year span, the state will pump $3.3 billion into financial incentives for Californians who go solar, with the money drawn from utility bills. By the end of that time, the program should fund roughly 3,000 megawatts of new solar generation.

The Go Solar rebates were first offered in January 2007. Since then, the PUC has received 11,653 active applications, for projects capable of generating 251.5 megawatts. If approved, those projects will receive $635 million of incentives.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/14/BUNL11OVEF.DTL

[Dead_Parrot]

1. "Enough solar... to light a small town"

Although, presumably, not at night when it might be useful.

:hide:

[kristopher]

2. When you're hooked up to a grid,

When you're hooked up to a grid, and you displace natural gas during the day, then the energy is fully utilized.

Perhaps you have a less sophisticated grid as a conceptual model; or perhaps you just have problems with complex conceptualization itself.

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Oh dear

your ability to think is actually so small that you don't realise when I'm poking a bit of fun at crap reporting?

Nevermind.

Since you raised the issue, though: Let's pretend, just for a second, that the planet is on the brink of an environmental collapse and you don't actually want to burn NG at night, either. Or, if you prefer, let's pretend it's getting too expensive and you don't want to burn it. Or, indeed, let's pretend it's a finite resource and you don't want to burn it becuse you might run out and leave future generations with nothing but dust a bitter taste in their mouths.

What then?

[kristopher]

4. Well, let's see...

If the environmental collapse is due to a deficiency in an extremely complex, highly integrated essential system, you have to figure out how to transition to a system that that overcomes the deficiency. For example you augment the potential of the dwindling culprit in any way you can as you rebuild the complex system from the ground up. Keyword: transition.

You also select alternatives that avoid replicating the same type of deficiency. For example, you want one with an overall low environmental impact, not one that just solves the single deficiency you are presently concerned about while ignoring equally catastrophic potentials implicit nature of the replacement.

It can be a difficult choice because often the risks are difficult to quantify - who'd have thought that "the breath of life for plants" would be such a bitch do deal with?

[Dead_Parrot]

5. I think "switch" is more appropriate

"transition" implies we have a period of grace in which to act (rather like the 100-years-plan Bananas is so fond of). We need to act sort of now-ish.

Other than that, you've pretty much got it right. :)

Which is why I'm against burning gas - that's exactly the deficiency that's got us into this shit.

[ElectricGrid]

6. Get a grip pal... this is not an on or off solution

to this problem. We have to take the change where we can get it. If we could get to where we only burn fossils at night that would be a huge step. Walk back from the ledge and think a little.