• jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You mean 120% of what it was? 20% of what it was means way cheaper, and I’m sure you mean more expensive.

    Sure but it’s self defeating, making things more expensive. Putting that whole state/country at a disadvantage against those who use cheap clean power instead of fighting it.

    • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think you’re unfamiliar with California’s new policy it doesn’t change the cost to install but how much you pay and make for electricity. Basically now you sell electricity to the grid for 3-5 cents and buy it for like 10-15 but then they tack on like 20 cents in transmission fees. So it has made solar not cost effective anymore in most residential cases. So the total number of yearly installs has decreased to 20% compared to last year. But my point was a radical government can do plenty of stuff to sabotage progress in order to keep themselves and friends in power.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t sell to the grid if you can avoid it. Charge a house battery, charge a EV, run all your stuff for the day. Always better to use than sell back to the grid anyway.

        But my larger point was that by harming green energy, you harm energy costs and harm the economy. It becomes less competitive to economies who ride reality instead of fight it.

        And yes, I don’t know California policies. Hand up, I’m a Brit who just champions green energy transitions. I watch https://grid.iamkate.com with glee.