Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: freakazoid on May 09, 2018, 08:28:49 PM
-
Looks like it will be implemented by 2020. This will surely not have any negative consequences. Current low estimate is that it will add another $10k to new homes. But that's ok because these will totally pay themselves off "over the life of the solar energy system".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/09/california-solar-panels-state-may-require-them-new-homes/594364002/
-
Which California lawmaker(s) has ties to solar power industry people?
-
Grid-tied or stand alone systems? Battery storage for the excess power?
I can see grid-tied systems really screwing up the power supply chain.
-
Which California lawmaker(s) has ties to solar power industry people?
All of them. It's California, for *expletive deleted*ck's sake. I'm surprised that they're not also requiring lunar panels, as well.
And warning labels that solar and lunar power can cause cancer. Because everything is known by the state of California to cause cancer.
-
Which California lawmaker(s) has ties to solar power industry people?
That was MY very first thought upon reading the thread title.
With good reason.
I remember when MN first required that gasoline be diluted with ethanol - one of the local papers did a survey and found that virtually every state legislator supporting the ethanol requirement had received campaign money from Archer-Daniels Midland, then the largest ethanol fuel producer in the upper Midwest.
"Always follow the money. Always." is a good maxim to keep in mind when trying to discern the true motivations of a politician.
-
"Always follow the money. Always." is a good maxim to keep in mind when trying to discern the true motivations of a politician any person.
-
And warning labels that solar and lunar power can cause cancer. Because everything is known by the state of California to cause cancer.
Am I the only one who hopes those labels are one day found to cause cancer?
-
That was MY very first thought upon reading the thread title.
With good reason.
I remember when MN first required that gasoline be diluted with ethanol - one of the local papers did a survey and found that virtually every state legislator supporting the ethanol requirement had received campaign money from Archer-Daniels Midland, then the largest ethanol fuel producer in the upper Midwest.
"Always follow the money. Always." is a good maxim to keep in mind when trying to discern the true motivations of a politician.
We have a state legislator that owned an ethanol plant.
-
All of them. It's California, for *expletive deleted*ck's sake. I'm surprised that they're not also requiring lunar panels, as well.
And warning labels that solar and lunar power can cause cancer. Because everything is known by the state of California to cause cancer.
They need cancer warning labels at the maternity ward of the hospital. That might shortcut things a bit.