From the link:
"...A $2.5 billion fund to homeowners and businesses for one-time rebates over 10 years, An increase in the cap on net metering from 0.5% of a utility peak load to 5%, allowing a million new customers to receive a credit on their electric bill for any excess power generated by their solar panels, A requirement that new, large single-family housing developments make solar panels a standard offer, similar to marble counter tops, to all new home buyers,
A 10% carve-out in the fund for solar on affordable housing and low-income homes and exemption for low income ratepayers from paying into the fund..."
Now let's go elsewhere on solar buzz. Let's try the home page.
We see the price in the US: $5.16 per "watt," up one cent per "watt" recently. This means $516 to light a light bulb during peak daylight hours. Worse, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the claim of this actually being a "watt" is completely disingenuous.
Here is a blurb from the solar industry touting it's "132 kilowatt" 15,000 square foot solar plant in Hopland, California:
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/SEPA_Member_News/index_detail.cfm?LinkAdvID=14943According to the link, and I quote, "The 15,000-square-foot plant generated more than 163,000 kilowatt-hours in its first year of operation. 'That's 7% above our predictions for the year, so we could not be happier with the plant's performance,' said AstroPower Vice President, Premium Power, Howard Wenger. "This plant is one more example of how solar power delivers energy price stability and does so with zero pollution."
As I repeat time and time again in deflating the solar PV magical thinking, I point out that the conversion factor between a kilowatt-hour and a watt is 3,600,000 seconds/hour (the extra zeros dealing with the "kilo" prefix). Thus 163,000 kilowatt hours is roughly 587 billion joules. A sidereal year is 31558149 seconds.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Comments/c3-5.htm Thus to find the actual output of this solar industry plant, we need only to divide 587 billion joules by 31,500,000 seconds since a real watt (as opposed to a solar "watt") is merely the energy in joules divided by the time in seconds.
The envelope please...
Roughly 19,000 watts, or 19 kilowatts.
Now, is rich spoiled brat land, 19 kilowatts is just the same as 132 kilowatts apparently but for everyone else, this represents about a 14% capacity loading for this particular plant.
Thus the cost of the solar capacity is not really $5.16/"watt". It is really $5.16/0.14 = $37.00/watt. We are now up to $3,700 to light our 100 watt light bulb.
According to the magical thinking hype of the Repuke "subsidize the rich as usual bill" there is going to be a $2.5 billion dollar subsidy of which - as further window dressing and misrepresentation -10% or $250,000,000 is going to be allocated to low income homes.
Let us imagine, in spite of any sense of reality that there are really poor people in California who will take advantage of this dubious "offer." Let's also ignore the usual Repuke "administrative" corruption that will eat half (or more) of this money. How many watts will a $250,000,000 subsidy provide
as a 100% subsidy? The answer: About 6 megawatts for all the poor people in California. This is 0.06% of a single nuclear power plant, to be divided among all the poor in California.
Sounds more and more Repuke by the minute.
How much will the remaining $2.25 billion dollar subsidy provide at $37/watt? 60 Megawatts, 6% of a single nuclear plant.
I very much doubt that the so called "Million Solar Roofs Bill" ("Healthy Forests?" "Clear Skies" anyone?) is actually going to result in the ordering of 60.6 megawatts, never mind 4000 Megawatts (see below). Of course, nuclear power provides only a small fraction of California's electrical demand, about 17%. With a constant load in the neighborhood of 25,000 megawatts, the much fussed over 60.6 megawatts of solar capacity is...well you do the math - if you can.
http://www.nei.org/documents/maps/statebystate/california.htmlNuclear energy provided about 35,000 million kilowatt-hours to California in 2003 or 126 petajoules. (1 petajoule = 10^15 Joules) Dividing by 31,500,000 seconds per year we have the actual power output of California nuclear production, 4000 megawatts.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statesca.htmlOf course, the government of California is not going to really subsidize poor people at 100%. Nor is it going to subsidize rich people at 100%. And therefore the whole deal is going...no where. People love to sign petitions for this sort of thing, but when it comes to actually reaching into their pockets, well, let's get real. I predict that until (and most likely after) the next "feel good," "sound good" bill to announce a do nothing strategy, few people rich or poor are going to actually shell out the difference between the subsidy and the real cost. Most people, when push comes to shove, can add or subtract. The rest join Greenpeace.
This is merely an exercise in pretending, like in Disneyland. Disneyland, of course, is a California original.