Posted on 02/08/2022 4:26:43 AM PST by Kaslin
There are few things in America today that are as big of a scam as the so-called “green” movement. When people joke that “Green is the new Red,” as in communist, you laugh because it’s true. Hilariously, the people who have anointed themselves as heroes of the planet also label themselves as social justice warriors fighting for the little guy. Yet, curiously, so much of what they advocate for benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
I try to keep up with the news everywhere, but where I have family is of particular interest. Michigan, where I grew up and my family all still live, is on top of the list. Right behind it is Florida, where my wife’s family is from and, if I’m being honest, is appealing as a place to possibly live one day because they’re free and have no income tax, though the oppressive humidity most of the year is a strike against it.
But even in the free state of Florida, where Republicans control the government, the Green Menace is creeping. I saw this op-ed the other day entitled, “Time to end Florida’s outdated rooftop solar free ride,” and clicked the link. I didn’t know what to expect, but I should have.
Florida, like a lot of places, is encouraging people to “go green!” with their houses. If you, for example, put solar panels on the roof of your house, you not only will save money on your electric bill, you can “sell” back to the power company and pay almost nothing for your electric bill. Due to a program called “net metering,” the power company is forced to pay those homeowners with rooftop solar a “retail” price for the excess electricity they put back onto the power grid. This makes sense…unless you think about it a little deeper.
As the “solar free ride” column points out, people selling excess energy back to the power company aren’t disconnected from the power grid. They use the grid to sell their excess power back to the electric company and the grid is also there for their use when the Sun doesn’t shine.
That’s all well and good, if you’re one of the rich people who own their homes and can afford the reported $20,000 for the solar panels. If you rent or don’t have piles of cash laying around, it’s a different story. Those folks who don’t have solar panels are forced to pay for almost the full maintenance of the electrical grid. Never mind that people with solar panels are also using the power grid; those rich folks just get to use it for free thanks to everyone else.
According to some reports, Floridians without solar panels are subsidizing those with solar panels to the tune of $30 million a year. Unless net metering is fixed, this subsidy will only continue to grow.
This situation in Florida also reminds me of the electric car boondoggle.
The people who buy electric cars tend to be wealthier and more liberal than the general public. In the long run, they save a lot of money, especially now, by not having to buy gasoline. But if electric cars are so wonderful, why do they need to be subsidized to the tune of thousands of dollars?
Do rich people really need a $7,500 tax credit to buy an electric car? I realize it’s available to everyone, but electric cars are expensive. So qualifying for $7,500 off a $50,000 car is great, if you can afford to drop $42,500 out of your pocket on a car. Most people can’t, so they become virtue-signaling toys for the rich.
Add to that the additional pressure liberal politicians always put on raising the gas tax to “pay to maintain the roads,” and you begin to see how this seemingly environmental cause becomes a redistribution scam for wealthy liberals. Government incentivizes the purchase of cars that don’t use gas, gas tax revenues go down, government calls for an increase in the gas tax to make up the difference.
You can add in new cars and how they get significantly better, government mandated gas mileage. Rich people are much more likely to be driving new cars with better mileage than everyone else who buy older used cars. That increases the burden of the cost of the gas tax on those least likely to be able to afford it.
So much of the Green agenda, either intentionally or not, is a wealth shift from the poor to the rich, all in the name of “progress.” All these subsidies, local, state or federal, should be wiped off the books. If you want to drive an electric car, good for you, go do it. Just don’t ask everyone else to help pick up the tab. If you want to use solar panels to power your house, knock yourself out, but don’t expect us to cover any of the costs and pick up your part of the load for a power grid you still use when the Sun goes down.
All of this makes sense once you realize communism is the ultimate wealth-shift from the poor to rich. Stalin, Mao, all the Kims, etc., were fat while the people they ruled over were starving. We aren’t there…yet, which is why we have to keep the concept in check everywhere it pops up its ugly head. Because, as I said at the start, “Green is the new Red.”
And yet, based on the results I've had from the first year, my solar system will pay for itself at about the 10th year. And that includes paying on the interest of the HELOC I took out to buy the solar system and also replace my natural gas appliances with electric ones (to get me off of the ever-increasing Brandonized natural gas prices).
I agree whole-heartedly with getting rid of net metering, at least from a forcing it on the utility companies issue. If the utility company and the solar users are in a situation where it's best for everybody to buy excess power at a good rate (i.e. maybe here in the south buy back excess power during peak hours in the summer to allow the power company to hold off on building another power plant for another couple of years) then the utility company ought to be allowed to do it, just not forced to do it.
Being able to afford $20,000 for the solar system does not mean you are rich.
BTTT!
Agreed. And my solar system cost almost $33K -- almost all of which I paid with a HELOC. With the 26% tax credit it cost over $24K. My system will pay for itself in about 10 years, including the interest on the HELOC. That assumes only a 3% inflation rate on power costs. If the Dims keep hiking energy costs to make us pay for absolution from our cow farting sins then my system will obviously pay for itself sooner.
“The people who buy electric cars tend to be wealthier and MORE LIBERAL than the general public.”
Certainly the case here, with our EV spokesmen personally attacking all who disagree.
I am considering solar. In my area we have a 1:1 net metering agreement with the utility co, but it is supposed to be phased out after 10 years. I assume you have a battery backup? what brand system did you go with? Thanks.
I find the opposite to be true. Usually, the shrillest voices come from the EV-haters. Personally, I’ve owned EVs and hybrids, and I’ve also owned lifted diesel trucks and supercars. You should drive what you want, when you want, and what’s appropriate for your use case.
Is it naive to sign up? A salesman came along. Installation was free. $75/mo to pay for the system-25 years. Everyone involved KNOWS they’ll get paid. The home is the collateral. Will the solar company deliver? Will the system last 25 years. By then the homeowners will be too poor to fight or else they’ll be dead.
If it’s so wonderful why doesn’t everyone have it?
“I find the opposite to be true. Usually, the shrillest voices come from the EV-haters. Personally, I’ve owned EVs and hybrids, and I’ve also owned lifted diesel trucks and supercars. You should drive what you want, when you want, and what’s appropriate for your use case.”
As long as you guys don’t attack us for bitching about the mandates and taxpayer money being shoved at EVs, then I’m good. But yes, you guys can attack us oil users for the $50/year (roughly, per car) that we gasoline/diesel drivers get through oil company subsidies.
What “you guys?” I’m opposed to any type of government subsidies.
“What “you guys?” I’m opposed to any type of government subsidies.”
Plenty here support them or at least try to rationalize them against Big Oil. Subsidies on BOTH SIDES pisses us off.
Haven’t seen that myself. Anyone promoting subsidies for anyone needs to hike off outta here and head to DU.
“Haven’t seen that myself. Anyone promoting subsidies for anyone needs to hike off outta here and head to DU.”
Good and likewise, you aren’t one of the nasty people here that I remember. Those people have to understand that we will NEVER validate their choice, no matter how ‘ignorant’ they claim we are.
Never mind that people with solar panels are also using the power grid; those rich folks just get to use it for free thanks to everyone else.
//////
Not exactly “for free” if the panels cost $25,000 and have to be maintained and eventually be replaced but I do get the author’s point.
I’ve lived in my home for 30+ years here in central Illinois and about every 5 or 6 years I have to get my “30 year” roofing replaced due to hail damage and my home owner’s insurance pays, with no deductible.
My questions: How susceptible are solar panels to hail damage and do regular types of home owners insurance policies cover it?
We don’t get much hail here. Ostensibly the panels are supposed to withstand hail, but I don’t know from experience. Yes, my home owner’s insurance covers the entire solar system because it’s built onto/into the house (the panels on the roof, the inverter mounted onto the wall, and the battery bank hard wired into the inverter). I had to increase my coverage because they added value to the house, but nothing different insurance wise from if you added value another way. The exception would be if your solar panels weren’t roof mounted, but were on a free standing rack in your yard or perhaps on a roof of a separated building like a shed or garage. Your insurance has a low coverage on those things by default, so you’d have to get a rider to increase that type of coverage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.