Utilities vs. solar
Lou Kilzer's news story “Scientist: Renewable energy sources won't supplant fossil fuels by 2035” (Oct. 28 and TribLIVE.com) caught my attention. I'm glad to see a responsible report that quotes scientists stating it is “probably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming” in the Trib. This balance in Trib reporting on the subject is commendable. I would also agree that natural gas is positioned to be our short-term energy solution. The economics are undeniable.
The analysis of solar power missed important news from this summer. California and Arizona are in the midst of policy changes to limit payments for homeowners who sell power from rooftop solar panels under a program called “net metering.” Solar installations multiplying like rabbits are causing profit concerns among power utilities. This economic reality contradicts Norwegian doctoral candidate Schalk Cloete's contention that “(s)olar technology has advanced about as much as it can.” Solar has advanced as much as the utilities want it to. Now they are pushing back with negative public-relations campaigns toward solar.
In my case, 5 kilowatts' worth of solar panels provided over half of our electricity in 2013. I still buy power, but much less than last year. This is the reason utilities seek to limit solar technology and change the rate structure for guys like me.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- LCB: Asset to modernize
- Appalling advice
- Wrong on immigration I
- ATI’s broken promises
- When not to obey cops
- Little League lights
- Holiday spirit intact
- Pass GMO label bill
- ‘Affordable’? Not for him
- Arnold’s garbage
- Immigration & jobs