PG&E could be gone in five years

|
(181)

There's a new map of solar-power cost projections that estimates that San Franciscans could replace PG&E power with local distributed solar as early as 2017. Sfist reported on the map today -- and it adds to the clear evidence that San Francisco needs to devote resources to building its own clean-energy infrastructure. Because if the city starts planning to build solar arrays today, and starts designing a plan to help local residents and businesses put solar on their roofs, the day when the cost of that energy will be lower than the cost of PG&E's fossil-fuel and nuclear power is rapidly approaching.

 

Comments

Are ou seriously suggesting that it should borrow, tax and spend even more to get into a business it has no expertise in?

Can we vote on that please?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

because solar installation is already being done privately (and for profit no less) at zero up front cost, paid off over time through savings generated by the panels

and once the price parity that the article reports on is achieved, the process of replacing PG&E with renewables will not only be cash neutral, it will be cash positive

but by all means 'Anonymous', in your own house, feel free to continue living in the pathetically forgettable 20th century

if you use the internet cleverly you can watch only television shows and movies from before the year 2000 as well, and remain cozy in your decaying capitalist illusions

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

has been swelling since the 70's.

I think the swell has reached a few inches, in 100 years it should be a foot or two high.

To think that SF could survive on solar in the near or medium future is too much? It would take a sea of panels that our environmentalists would never allow.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 10:16 pm
Har

I'm all environmental and liberal and all, in kind of an incomprehensibly contrarian way. Progressive solutions might work, except that progressives will be opposed to them, which is why I'm for it. But if it turns out they're for it, then I'll be against it.

Har.

Harumph.

Posted by Meatlick on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:32 pm

dollars and the city doesn't have any.

Moreover, the city would still have to use PG&E power lines and distribution network, or else find even more upfront cash to buy them.

In a budget crisis, this is insanity. The city should focus on its core services and try and do them right before getting fancy with stuff they know nothing about

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:13 am

look up the company Solar City for an example

private solar installation for no money down

it's happening all over the place, and has nothing to do with the city government whatsoever

you clearly don't know what the fuck you are talking about

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:16 am

which just failed spectacularly?

Word to "Anon". There's no such thing as a free lunch. Even solar advocates admit it's more expensive than conventional power and consumers don't like paying more for something that looks the same at the point of delivery.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:35 am

which is one of many which is now installing solar panels all over the place, at the same or lower cost than traditional electrical utilities - it's not a free lunch, and is instead the simple economics that electricity generation which doesn't burn fuel, costs far less over time

as I pointed out before, you haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about, and you are making a complete idiot of yourself

it's pretty easy to look up Solar City

why don't you take a second to do so you dumb fucking asshole?

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:49 am

Let's judge by what the market says.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 11:57 am

why don't you look it up and tell us all about it

by all means, educate us...

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:29 pm

Just wanted everyone to see that.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

-for the past decade, I am sure they are doing just fine. if you want to be enough of an anal dweeb to go look up the actual numbers, suits me - i have no such need since I have been watching them sell solar panel installations incessantly all over San Francisco.

but.. whatever you need to fantasize about so that you can pretend to yourself that 'won' the debate, you go right ahead there sparky

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

While First Solar is down over 80% in the last year.

Way to go.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:36 pm

here is it's web site

http://www.solarcity.com/

and here is an article detailing how Google just invested $280 million in Solar City

http://thestockmarketwatch.com/stock-market-news/recent-events/google-in...

i'm glad you never get tired of making a complete fool of yourself

it makes you an endless source of amusement

care to do it again?

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

With the quoted stocks down 80%, they're stuck

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 12:20 am

i see

you are actually claiming that Google just stupidly invested over a quarter of a BILLION dollars in a supposedly failing solar company

you know man

i have been in internet thread discussions since 1992 when the internet was nothing but BBS's, uunet, etc

and in that entire 20 year period, i can say with absolute confidence that

you

are

the

stupidest

troll idiot

of

them

all.

you win the booby prize

i have never seen someone more adept at placing his own foot directly in his own steaming piles of troll shit

than you

congratulations

at least you are good for a raucous laugh :)

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 12:51 am

Are they invincible, or something?

They can actually afford to lose that amount and not care. But it's not clear to me why a search engine company would know anything about energy.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 3:58 am

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 6:38 am

You're assuming a given investor is always right. On what basis?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 8:18 am

:)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)>)

have you ever seen the movie Sybil..?

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

that's when I know I have won the argument.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

does that apply to the 5 million times or so that you responded with "LOL..."???

your turn last word addict

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

Lets sign up for this solar proposal and watch as the lights go out in the city because of thousands of NIMBY neighbor lawsuits and CEQA challenges over light/air/noise/shadow.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 9:48 am

San Francisco has passed legislation streamlining home solar panel approval and strictly limiting challenges on their installation.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:19 am

mess with their million dollar views.

Solar is a nice fringe industry but until and unless the costs come down, it can't compete on price with more conventional sources.

Oh, and by the way, depending on actual demand, more than 50% of the energy supplied by PG&E is already renewable.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:37 am

-under the new law

and PG&E is both physically incapable of, and has never in history, provided more than 18% renewable energy

you really are making an idiot of yourself

by all means please continue

I will be happy to keep helping you highlight the fact that you are moronic Fox News educated jackass

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 10:55 am

over 50% of their source energy is renewable. Check your facts.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 11:58 am

'cause PG&E has never lied to the ratepayers before.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 12:34 pm

haven't provided a shred of evidence or any stats. and you're biased against PG&E, so why would anyone believe you?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

-you complete fucking idiot

here it is again

http://tinyurl.com/c82f469

you are obviously not even reading these posts before you respond to them

what a moron................

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 8:55 pm

where do you get this crap?

The PG&E 2010 power mix graph (the most recent full year available) shows 15.9%, which falls a full 4% below the current State mandate that it was supposed to be providing 20% in 2010. And this percentage grew by about 1% in 2011.

You can see PG&E's own graph at:

tinyurl.com/c82f469

clearly, you are completely full of shit

but by all means continue your efforts to make an idiot out of yourself

Posted by anonymous on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 1:13 pm

Laughable. A claim on a public relations insert is a "fact" according to Anonymous. And Ed Lee gets it done, right?

Posted by Michael W. on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

then,

try to retype, word for word, what it says in that supposed '50% renewable' line

as soon as you do, you will see that you are being tricked by a deceptive sentence which doesn't use the word 'renewable' at all...

go ahead

type it and post it

right here on the blog

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

You started out saying it wasn't true and have now changed your mind.

Any discrepancies may be due to different definitions of "renewable". For example, does it include hydro? I'd say yes, but you may differ. Ditto for nuclear.

The word "renewable" is in the document. See for yourself.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 12:22 am

which explains why the 50% figure is bullshit and the 15.9% renewable number is the right one

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 12:55 am

He hates PG&E, which makes him completely lacking in any credibility or authority on this topic.

But maybe Eric has a very different definition of "renewable". For instance, I'd say nuclear is renewable - he may not.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 3:56 am

instead of resorting to an ad hominem and thus dodging the dispute of your claim ?

Posted by Michael W. on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

Anyone on record "hating" on PG&E is too biased for us to blindly believe any stats or "facts" they trot out.

The PG&E documentation shows that PG&E's energy is mostly renewable. I 've seen nothing here to counter that fact.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 10:35 pm

i notice i am actually posting the PG&E insert, and you, are not...

here it is again, http://tinyurl.com/c82f469

on the pie graph right next to the word "Renewable" it clearly says

15.9%

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

because mine says 54% renewable.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 3:14 am

if you have such an insert, show it to us, post a link to it here on the blog

if you can't do that, why should believe one word of your all to typical lying idiocy

everyone can see the insert I posted

no one can see your bizarro insert

because it doesn't exist

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

You look really stupid right now

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

i also hear that airplanes made of solid cement carry more passengers and get better fuel mileage

your turn

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

PG&E renewables is in fact at least 60% according to the data previously cited.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

you are clearly lying

if you weren't, you would have posted a copy of it a long time ago

anyway, that ceased to be the topic a long time ago

now the topic is:

in Anonymous so psychologically fucked up that he is literally incapable of ceasing his responses on this thread, no matter how much of a clownish idiot he makes out of himself by continuing to reply with total fucking nonsense, over and over and over again

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

Even if he did disagree with the classifications.

Obviously I can't include a link to a piece of paper, idiot.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 11:43 pm

how many hours did it take for you to come up with that lame ass rebuttal?

and there is no PG&E insert anywhere which makes even the false claim of 54% renewable

you are lying

and I assume you have a scanner or a camera or can at least borrow one

are you such a moron that you can't put the image on a web or FaceBook site and then post the link so we can all see it

i eagerly await whatever lame excuse you are now going to use to duck out of that easy solution

because you are lying

Posted by 'anonymous' on Jan. 01, 2012 @ 4:23 am

Your 15.9% plus

23.8% nuclear
15.6% hydro

Also the "unspecified" at 22.9% could also be partly renewable. We don't know because, er, it's not specified.

So that's at least 60% renewable. Way to go, PG&E!!

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 3:18 am

nuclear and large hydro are legally no longer allowed to be classified as renewable because they have huge negative impacts on the environment

and "unspecified" is obviously just another new PG&E deception

if you look at the same pie charts from previous years (which have natural gas at around 44%) it becomes clear that PG&E has found some bullshit trick by which to classify half of its polluting natural gas electricity as "unspecified"

indeed the whole concept of "unspecified" electricity sources is utterly ridiculous and I feel sorry for anyone stupid enough to fall for such a juvenile deception

the very idea that an energy corporation somehow can't account for the source of almost one fourth of thousands of megawatts of electricity it is selling is laughable on its face

Posted by 'anonymous' on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

You exclude clean energy sources like nuclear and water.

Duh!

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2011 @ 2:10 pm