Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

geffe71 t1_jdsel2g wrote

She should move to California if she wants their shit so bad.

−22

geffe71 t1_jdsp2mn wrote

Replying to Guyincognito4269 (#2,378,141)

Have fun freezing your ass off with electric heat

I’m pro renewables, however New England needs to be tactical when implementing it.

Being gung ho about it will end with blackouts and people freezing to death

−13

infiniti30 t1_jdsp4vc wrote

I winder which family member owns a solar installation business?

43

midas617 t1_jdt1prm wrote

Replying to Status_Silver_5114 (#2,378,274)

I have three neighbors on my block who have solar panels. and they don't get free electricity. only "discounted rates"

no electric Bill because living in the parents basement is not the same as the solar panel delusion. again, delusional. thanks for proving my point.

−14

Chance_Bad_7437 t1_jdt24wb wrote

Replying to Status_Silver_5114 (#2,378,274)

My co-worker says the same thing. In the spring and summer, especially, he produces enough power to zero out his electricity bill and actually sell electricity back to power company. Says it all kind of evens out, though, because of the payment on the panels.

8

Proper_Boss523 t1_jdt2pu7 wrote

good, it's about time. and by about time, i mean far too late.

3

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jdt2qkg wrote

Replying to midas617 (#2,379,919)

They probably have a leased system which is tied to lower rates. We own ours outright and haven't had a bill since installation in 2016. So much for your reading comprehension skills and assumptions. But you do you. A leased system the company that installed them is getting most of the credit - buy your system and it's a better deal in the long run.

7

Chance_Bad_7437 t1_jdt34k9 wrote

Replying to GhostOpera406 (#2,378,062)

To be fair... no one in the Biden administration is working hard on anything. Case in point, our secretary of transportation. Did nothing about the airlines when they violated the terms of the PPP loans, and most recently, he was busy speaking about how construction crews are too white, instead of hammering Norfolk Southern into bankruptcy over the East Palestine derailment. Really focusing on the important stuff.

−2

stosyfir t1_jdtbcjq wrote

Add $20k+ to the already ridiculous cost of a new home yeah that’s great. Which one of her cousins is running solar city?

15

Swamp_yankee_ninja t1_jdtm2tl wrote

Wow, just when you think Government couldn’t reach any further in your pocket and transfer funds into theirs. Be careful who you elect they could be this guy.

−10

DesignRemote t1_jdtyk41 wrote

Replying to darkrom (#2,383,563)

The price of electricity doesn’t go down. It goes up every month.

Let’s say the system cost 20,000 total. After government rebates . Let’s use say the Current electric bill is $200 a month. That’s 2,400 a year. Plus the electric company pays me monthly for the power I create about $100 a month. So 1200 per year.

So it would take you about 5/6 years to break even. At todays electricity prices

5

barsoapguy t1_jdun1kg wrote

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen that map of world regions where solar really isn’t worthwhile when it comes to cost effectiveness vs other solutions.

I thought RI being in the northern hemisphere meant that other solutions should be taken before solar like Wind.

−1

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jdurbfp wrote

Replying to DesignRemote (#2,384,590)

We were already paying less than our Monthly bill has averaged out to since day 1 so were already saving money. Paid off in year 4. So yes we have free electricity. Not to mention the environmental impact. Healthy tax credits for installation and a state grant as well made paying it off even easier.

7

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jdurpcx wrote

Replying to darkrom (#2,383,563)

We’ve been paid off since 2019. Before tax credit and grants I think it was 12k? Break even point was 2020 (we paid it off early) but we were already paying less per month to pay it off then we had been paying on pre solar elec. so it wasn’t costing us “more” to finance it. The money was going out to NG anyway even if we hadn’t bought a system so it’s not like skipping it was going to “save” money. And tax credit is now even higher than it was. When we installed it was only 22% now it’s 30%.

3

Status_Silver_5114 t1_jdus66n wrote

Replying to DesignRemote (#2,384,590)

Also we make so Much extra by the summer we have $100-200 in credits to work off of even before it gets super sunny so the price increase doesn’t impact negatively- our net metering credits take care of that. As I said we don’t lease. A lease says company x puts your system in for free and you pay a lower fixed amount (ie we have friends in Wakefield who leased and pay 70 a month which is still lower and they didn’t have install costs).

We’re getting a battery this month and RIE then sends us 1400 a year to have us run on battery when there’s stress on the grid on hot days.

3

Coincel_pro t1_jdv82fr wrote

Replying to midas617 (#2,378,166)

I don't pay for electricity anymore because of my solar array. My current finance payment on the array is less than my average electric bill was before the rate hike last year. My financing will be paid off in 6 more years and I will have at least another 19-21 years of array output. If you can't see the savings here (and their inflationary resistance) then maybe you're not smart enough to buy a home.

2

Coincel_pro t1_jdv8c6d wrote

Replying to darkrom (#2,383,563)

My current finance payment on my solar array is slightly less than my average NGrid bill was before the big rate hike. I have 6 years left to pay on that and another ~20 years after that of a functioning array.

​

So, getting the array alone and switching a high monthly electric bill to a slightly lower finance bill it's already providing savings.

2

MoreLab5278 t1_jdv8kwy wrote

As a person who worked in solar, this legislation is outright silly. I’m theory, sure it sounds nice. In practice, there will be loads of properties who are required to build solar, but due to their location, surrounding around their homes, putting solar on a home that is covered i shade from either trees or nearby buildings, is like trying to sail a boat with zero wind.

6

ChronicCumShots t1_jdvbd7f wrote

I could see requiring it for commercial builds but requiring it for residential is ridiculous at this point

0

HistorianOk142 t1_jdvlr3a wrote

This is actually a great regulation to have in place. They have it in CA already and they are also trying to get it passed in MA. Doesn’t make sense to build a home without solar at this point. Especially with the 30% rebate from the feds for solar panels & installation. This will help RI get to 100% renewable electricity faster.

2

Sovereign-State t1_jdvwaov wrote

I would be ok if this was for new commercial construction over XX amount of square feet.

1

fishythepete t1_jdvxf7z wrote

Replying to HistorianOk142 (#2,392,778)

No, it’s not. This is going to make homes take longer to build, and it’s going to make the purchase price higher (even if the ownership cost is neutral, the bank doesn’t care that you’re saving money on your electric bill when they’re underwriting the loan). Neither of those are good things when there is a housing crisis, or in general. If solar power is a slam dunk financially, you don’t need to pass a law to get it built. You need to educate consumers.

5

FourAM t1_jdw6w58 wrote

Replying to fishythepete (#2,394,407)

Climate won’t wait for a more equitable housing market. Costs will be made up later by lower or non-existent utility bill. Consumers are fed misinformation (just read some of the takes in this thread by brainwashed morons).

It doesn’t really matter because nobody can afford a house now anyway. You think landlords or NIMBYs gonna let prices come down? Hell no the want us all to rent forever and get rich off our backs. So if they’re the only ones that are going to be able to afford new housing at least let’s make them offset the ecological damage.

1

fishythepete t1_jdxjumw wrote

Replying to SweatyCockroach8212 (#2,402,424)

Cool story. Site isn’t suitable for solar? You’re going to need a variance. That takes time. There’s also a huge difference between the time it takes to get a single job done, and how that job impacts a construction schedule. Blew your install date because roofers didn’t start on time? It’s not gonna be two days once the roof is done. And that’s before even considering the rest of the bill. Don’t plan on buying an EV? Too bad - garage has to be wired for charging.

Again - the financial case is there. You don’t need a law. Educate consumers, and maybe solar companies could get some sales folks who aren’t total shysters.

1

SweatyCockroach8212 t1_jdxmwy5 wrote

Replying to fishythepete (#2,402,704)

Except for the part where you don't get paid to go solar. I don't get paid. You pay for panels, you get electricity.

Your argument is people should be free to decide to do what they want. If they want panels, buy em. If they want lead paint, buy it. If not, don't. Same logic.

1

fishythepete t1_jdxnrb7 wrote

Replying to SweatyCockroach8212 (#2,403,023)

>Except for the part where you don't get paid to go solar. I don't get paid. You pay for panels, you get electricity.

What a silly argument. It’s like saying I don’t get paid for work. My employer puts money in the bank, and I get to use it.

I bought my system outright, but if I had financed it over 6 years, I would have saved a little money every month, and then stopped paying anything for electricity after 6 years. If you are net cash flow positive with no upfront investment, you are getting paid, and that’s what solar is for most people with a decent sunroof.

>Your argument is people should be free to decide to do what they want. If they want panels, buy em. If they want lead paint, buy it. If not, don't. Same logic.

My argument is people have a strong financial incentive to do this already. Less so with heroin and lead paint.

I have seen more solar panels go up in the last 3 years than I have in my life until then, and I am middle aged. The incentives are there, and working. Given our legislators and those who will need to implement this law have limited resources, maybe those resources would be better directed at solving a problem that wasn’t already solving itself before some kind savior from Barrington decided we needed her enlightened wisdom.

1

ChronicCumShots t1_je0x26b wrote

Replying to Status_Silver_5114 (#2,402,727)

North facing roofs will not benefit from solar, and in addition this bill ignores the challenges of adding a whole bunch of micro grids interconnected to the utility. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea but there’s more that needs to be taken into consideration

1

Status_Silver_5114 t1_je168q6 wrote

Replying to ChronicCumShots (#2,421,160)

It's addressed in the bill .

"Developers could apply for an exemption if they can demonstrate solar would be impractical, if they provide alternative forms of renewable energy generation or if they are constructing affordable housing and don’t have sufficient funding."

1

OldSchoolStitcher t1_je1dyzy wrote

Replying to Status_Silver_5114 (#2,402,727)

Fabricating solar panels requires caustic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and hydrofluoric acid, and the process uses water as well as electricity, the production of which emits greenhouse gases. It also creates waste. Yeah, no impact here...

0