Comments on: Texas's "Solar Session" Fails to Enact Renewable Mandate #3 (a reality check for a federal RES?)

By: Nolan

Nolan — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:42:56 +0000

They should look at geothermal. It pays for itself in a short time. It's explained in an article on this page http://geothermalservice.net/residential_systems.html .

By: wildlillie

wildlillie — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:49:12 +0000

The cost per output ratio on solar doesn’t justify its use. We would be much better off giving property tax rebates on residential windturbines and cysterns. Also, the new generation nuclear plants use a fraction of the water and the technology to recycle vertually all waste from nuclear is operational now. What is not talked about by the evironmentalist is the amount of pollution caused by mercury strip mining which is needed in large quantities for solar cells and lithium batteries in electric cars. If we just switched from diesel generators and trucks to natural gas, we would cut the co2 emmisions almost in half at very little cost.

By: Florida, Like Texas, Rejects Renewables Push (solar and sugarcane proposals attract nuclear and offshore drilling tie-in’s in the Sunshine State) — MasterResource

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:01:43 +0000

[...] post at MasterResource described the failure of the 81st Texas Legislature (aka the “solar [...]

By: rbradley

rbradley — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:37:42 +0000

Paul:

Hurricane risk is a major risk for proposed offshore Texas wind farms, an issue that was debated in the 81st session (wind industry trying to get a state subsidy for wind insurance).

One government intervention begets another….

By: rbradley

rbradley — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:35:13 +0000

Yes, $4.9 billion worth, or $4 per month for every Texas electricity ratepayer, like it or not. That’s $48 a year for all ratepayers for a transmission system that no private entrepreneur would ever build short of an inescapable surcharge.

The Texas PUC approved this last summer.

By: Barry Klein

Barry Klein — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:08:22 +0000

Next session we will see the same sort of proposals. I would like to see a free market oriented campaign start now to educate and mobilize consumers about plans to raise their cost of living. I believe that this year that has begun, with a fee added to our electric bills to pay for transmission lines from wind farms to the power grid that was mandated in an earlier session of the legislature. Am I Correct?

By: Paul Roberts

Paul Roberts — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:58:32 +0000

The push for a separate mandate for solar was ludicrous. I have no objection to solar energy and may, in fact, decide to install some myself. However, asking someone else to subsidize it is absurd.
Solar power has some real advantages (providing energy on-peak). The installation of new meters will lead to a pricing regime that raises prives for on-peak demand. That alone will provide additional incentives for solar power – so why create more mandates and subsidies?
Lastly, can you imagine the disputes over claime for damage to solar panels when the next hurricane arrives?