# This is going to get us coming and going



## Puck it (Sep 28, 2014)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...icity-rates/gVya8QtLFa4nCRJLmy0SIJ/story.html

This going to screw us and the resorts.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 28, 2014)

Puck it said:


> This going to screw us and the resorts.




We have a winner!  But this will save us from the CO2 "pollution" as mandated by executive order.


----------



## x10003q (Sep 28, 2014)

This is a bad job by ISO New England making sure the suppliers had enough natural gas before they switched. They are supposed to make sure this doesn't happen. There is a glut of natural gas in the US right now and prices have continued to  fall in NY State while they rise in New England.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 28, 2014)

http://ens-newswire.com/2014/08/03/massachusetts-landowners-block-pipeline-surveyors/


----------



## drjeff (Sep 28, 2014)

Yup, let's just put our proverbial heads in the sand and deny that natural gas, oil and nuclear power generation are the stalwarts of ample, cheap, clean power generation and job creation in favor of the NIMBY crowd!! Argh!! :smash:


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 28, 2014)

Vermont relies almost entirely on nuclear and hydro power (long term contract with Quebec), so ski areas should see a smaller impact.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 28, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Yup, let's just put our proverbial heads in the sand and deny that natural gas, oil and nuclear power generation are the stalwarts of ample, cheap, clean power generation and job creation in favor of the NIMBY crowd!! Argh!! :smash:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who was paying attention.
Clean air is a noble goal , but there should have been a reasonable phase in time. 
The people who can least afford it are the ones paying the price.


----------



## ss20 (Sep 28, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Vermont relies almost entirely on nuclear and hydro power (long term contract with Quebec), so ski areas should see a smaller impact.



Right.  Because VT wasn't affected at all last year (sarcasm)


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 28, 2014)

It's stupid shit like this that's part of the reason I left Mass......Every state has some stupid politics in one form or the other, but MA was out of control. 

"What do we want?"
-We don't know!
"When do we want it?"
-Now now now!


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 28, 2014)

"What do we want?"
-We don't know!
"When do we want it?"
-Now now now![/QUOTE]

Great Quote !!!


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 28, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Vermont relies almost entirely on nuclear and hydro power (long term contract with Quebec), so ski areas should see a smaller impact.


Hate to tell you but Vermont Yankee (nuclear power plant) is slated to close by the end of *this* year.

Furthermore this is a quote from last year by Jeff Temple, head of Mountain Operations at Killington, VT.:

"Also in January, energy prices skyrocketed to be consistently three to five times higher than normal. While many resorts gave up snowmaking, our energy management meetings intensified. To complicate this never before seen challenge, the inflated prices overflowed into “off peak” periods like nights and weekends, when it’s typically cheaper to make snow."


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 28, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> It's stupid shit like this that's part of the reason I left Mass......Every state has some stupid politics in one form or the other, but MA was out of control.



The remarkable thing about the idiocy of this, is that even if you do believe in man-made Global Warming, the net planetary effect from this would be about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.   

But they're going to do this nonsense anyway regardless of how much it hurts, because......well........far-left ideology.   

And yes, as mentioned before in this thread it's the poor and the middle class that will be disproportionately HAMMERED by this, because energy is something everyone requires.


----------



## yeggous (Sep 28, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Hate to tell you but Vermont Yankee (nuclear power plant) is slated to close by the end of *this* year.
> 
> Furthermore this is a quote from last year by Jeff Temple, head of Mountain Operations at Killington, VT.:
> 
> "Also in January, energy prices skyrocketed to be consistently three to five times higher than normal. While many resorts gave up snowmaking, our energy management meetings intensified. To complicate this never before seen challenge, the inflated prices overflowed into “off peak” periods like nights and weekends, when it’s typically cheaper to make snow."



Vermont does not exist in a bubble. ISO New England sets rates for all of New England. The spot electric rate in Vermont will vary just like Massachusetts or any of the other New England states.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## drjeff (Sep 28, 2014)

yeggous said:


> Vermont does not exist in a bubble. ISO New England sets rates for all of New England. The spot electric rate in Vermont will vary just like Massachusetts or any of the other New England states.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



And unfortunately over the last decade or so, for various reasons, all too often with "climate change" or  "green energy" cited, the New England ISO power generating grid has seen far more megawatts of generating capacity taken offline than come online! It takes a cr@upload of typically 1.5-2 megawatt wind turbines to be approved and built, often with plenty of NIMBY opposition to replace the typical 300-500 megawatt coal fired plant that gets closed all too often, let alone what VT Yankee can, and could with retrofit and upgrades, generate - Argh!!!


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The remarkable thing about the idiocy of this, is that even if you do believe in man-made Global Warming, the net planetary effect from this would be about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
> 
> But they're going to do this nonsense anyway regardless of how much it hurts, because......well........far-left ideology.
> 
> And yes, as mentioned before in this thread it's the poor and the middle class that will be disproportionately HAMMERED by this, because energy is something everyone requires.


If we had listened to the far left in the 70's we'd have been running on a much higher percentage of consistently priced cleaner energy.  Here you are 40 years later still kicking the can down the road.  Your beloved party is far more guilty, yet once again you play the victim.  Typical dishonest egomaniac Republican crybaby.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 28, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> *If we had listened to the far left in the 70's we'd have been running on a much higher percentage of consistently priced cleaner energy. * Here you are 40 years later still kicking the can down the road.  Your beloved party is far more guilty, yet once again you play the victim.  Typical dishonest egomaniac Republican crybaby.



And be bankrupt.

Unfortunately, unicorn tears & magical fairy powder aren't forms of energy capable of powering a nation with a GDP in excess of $15 Trillion dollars.  Typical uneducated liberal financial fantasy.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)

Just put on a sweater as Carter used to say.
Some one said on here that Vt wouldn't be hurt by this but next year when the Nuke plant shuts down they will be. NH relies on mostly coal and Nuke. We also have a few wood burning plants kicking around. We will still be screwed because most of our power is supplied by Northeast Utilities which supplies a lot of MA power.
Also for those who heat with natural gas how will it effect them?


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 29, 2014)

Glad I switched to solar at my house!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 29, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> It's stupid shit like this that's part of the reason I left Mass......Every state has some stupid politics in one form or the other, but MA was out of control.
> 
> "What do we want?"
> -We don't know!
> ...



We're glad you left too


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 29, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> Glad I switched to solar at my house!



I would say 20% of the people on my street have solar and that's not an exaggeration


----------



## Tin (Sep 29, 2014)

I'm seeing more individuals with schizophrenia having grandiose delusions about having a solution to all our energy problems but having paranoia about the government or OPEC being out to get them because of their ideas to solve the problem. I wonder sometimes if they are telling the truth.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 29, 2014)

Tin said:


> I'm seeing more individuals with schizophrenia having grandiose delusions about having a solution to all our energy problems but having paranoia about the government or OPEC being out to get them because of their ideas to solve the problem. I wonder sometimes if they are telling the truth.



Not much difference between AZ folks and your clients eh?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 29, 2014)

Meanwhile in the rest of Atlantic states NG prices are dropping.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> Glad I switched to solar at my house!



I'm assuming you are still tied into the grid like most people and not fully off?  If that's the case, how does the rise in rates affect how your local electric company compensates you for the power your system generates?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 29, 2014)

FYI.  To get solar installed on your roof.  I have heard the roof has to less than five years old or they won't install panels.


----------



## mister moose (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> But they're going to do this nonsense anyway regardless of how much it hurts, because......well........far-left ideology.
> 
> And yes, as mentioned before in this thread it's the poor and the middle class that will be disproportionately HAMMERED by this, because energy is something everyone requires.





bobbutts said:


> If we had listened to the far left in the 70's we'd have been running on a much higher percentage of consistently priced cleaner energy.  Here you are 40 years later still kicking the can down the road.  Your beloved party is far more guilty, yet once again you play the victim.  Typical dishonest egomaniac Republican crybaby.



The reason we aren't on more "consistently priced cleaner energy" is because it was more expensive.  And the reason we had price spikes last year is due to shutting down operating plants without enough reserve capacity on line.

Price spikes work very well to motivate voters, it is when consequences of poor short term decisions get fixed.  Hopefully more capacity is the result.


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 29, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm assuming you are still tied into the grid like most people and not fully off?  If that's the case, how does the rise in rates affect how your local electric company compensates you for the power your system generates?




We are still on the grid and have a 2 way meter. Not sure how the rise in rates will affect us as we've only been solarized since April 1st. My impression is that we will be reimbursed for our credits to the grid based on an average kwh price over the period which would translate into additional $$ if the rates were to rise. Regardless the system was designed to basically generate enough power over the course of the year to offset our usage. We're running way ahead on credits but will wait to see what happens in the remaining months of our first year.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

Nice.  I've got a couple other friends who have done solar grid tie in projects over the past couple years and they've been very happy with the decision financially.


----------



## wa-loaf (Sep 29, 2014)

Puck it said:


> FYI.  To get solar installed on your roof.  I have heard the roof has to less than five years old or they won't install panels.



That's actually something I've wondered about. How hard is it going to be to replace your roof once you have it covered with solar panels?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I would say *20% of the people on my street have solar* and that's not an exaggeration



I hope they thanked you for it.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

http://vtdigger.org/2014/09/26/entergy-outlines-post-shutdown-plans-vermont-yankee/

"The spent nuclear fuel from Vermont Yankee will remain on-site indefinitely in dry cask storage containers because there is currently no repository to store spent nuclear fuel in the United States."


----------



## hammer (Sep 29, 2014)

In my town there has been a lot of talk about (and against) the proposed gas pipeline expansion.  Not sure if there are a lot of legitimate concerns or if it's just a lot of NIMBYs complaining.

Just posting the Kinder Morgan link on the project here for basic info.  At this point I'm somewhat neutral on it.

http://www.kindermorgan.com/business/gas_pipelines/east/neenergydirect


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Vermont relies almost entirely on nuclear and hydro power (long term contract with Quebec), so ski areas should see a smaller impact.



Maybe in Vermont but with Yankee shutting down, I got to think that hydo alone will not do the trick.  Here in NH - the increase will be felt.  I work for a utility company and we just increased the power generation part of the bill by 3 cents per KWH.  We have 6 ski areas in our service area.  Since power generation is deregulated in NH the customer get to choose an alternate power source and we anticipate many will opt for alternate/cheaper generation.



skiNEwhere said:


> It's stupid shit like this that's part of the reason I left Mass......Every state has some stupid politics in one form or the other, but MA was out of control.
> 
> "What do we want?"
> -We don't know!
> ...



NH will be effected as well as other New England states.




Tin said:


> I'm seeing more individuals with schizophrenia having grandiose delusions about having a solution to all our energy problems but having paranoia about the government or OPEC being out to get them because of their ideas to solve the problem. I wonder sometimes if they are telling the truth.



I think it is funny that so many cry for clean air solutions to energy, yet complain about the appearance of it.   When wind turbines are going in people complain saying they are unsightly, when solar farms are being put in people complain about how it looks, when hydro power is available, no one wants the powers lines since they to not look nice either.  The utility I work for is looking to build a mega watt solar farm in NH.  The objective is to pay for a power source that will have a fixed price.  We are looking for locations that are not publicly visible since no one wants these dotting the land scape.  We cannot have it both ways.  Want clean energy - pay the visual price.  Needless to say, solar and Wind are not perfect sources either since there are days with no wind and days that have limited sun, as a result other power generation is required to supplement.

On a final note, what we really need is bigger infrastructure to allow more NG to be distributed in the Northeast.  However the cost of doing that is so great at this point that it is not being considered.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 29, 2014)

The wind turbines haven't solved the problem???????  I'm SHOCKED!!!!!!!


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> The wind turbines haven't solved the problem???????  I'm SHOCKED!!!!!!!




I know! It is shocking!


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> The wind turbines haven't solved the problem???????  I'm SHOCKED!!!!!!!



not yet nor ever fully, but there will be more of it.  mock away

http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article/20140924/NEWS/140929982


----------



## Tin (Sep 29, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> not yet nor ever fully, but there will be more of it.  mock away
> 
> http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article/20140924/NEWS/140929982




You communist....tree hugging....


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 29, 2014)

Re: Vermont

I really feel bad for resorts and businesses there.  Vermont's energy rates went from one of the lowest to one of the highest in a couple years.  I'm not an expert, but there are some other things that have "coincidentally" (perhaps) occurred in that same timeframe.  One is that GMP purchased CVPS and now controls the wide majority of Vermont.  GMP/GazMetro have been "big supporters" of the current State Administration.  Coincidence?  Also, GMP/Vermont Gas/GazMetro are the ones who have been pushing for an extension of a natural gas pipeline from BTV down to Middlebury.  The NIMBY's lined up for that one...claiming that they were on a mission to stop this "fracked gas line".  After a bitter fight, the State (loe and behold) approves the pipeline.  Within weeks of the approval, Vermont Gas quietly announces that said project will now be *40% more in cost than estimated.*  The regulators have said that they will review this latest development, but it seems to me that the "regulators" who are supposed to be working to protect consumers have been bought.  

Add this to the fact that a certain "green energy" developer was caught self-dealing state funds (and nobody cared) and you see that right now in Vermont nobody is manning the station as certain folks are robbing the public.  

Cynical?  Perhaps.  But in my lifetime I have never seen so much self-dealing and downright robbery as with the crew running things in the State.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

hammer said:


> In my town there has been a lot of talk about (and against) the proposed gas pipeline expansion. * Not sure if there are a lot of legitimate concerns or if it's just a lot of NIMBYs complaining.*



It's part NIMBY and part ideological zealots who only want Wind & Solar even though it's not possible (and dont understand how or why it's not possible).



VTKilarney said:


> The *wind turbines haven't solved the problem???????  I'm SHOCKED!!*!!!!!



Yeah, wind is the worst of all the solutions from a realistic cost/benefit standpoint.  Not to mention, it's ugly.  The beautiful Vermont landscape is currently being ruined by these hideous towers, and at great cost.

This contest is already over.  Natural Gas is the future of energy in America.  No ifs, ands or buts.  

Sadly, however, because of political and ideological reasons, we're going to waste BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars from taxpayers paychecks anyway.


----------



## hammer (Sep 29, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Also, GMP/Vermont Gas/GazMetro are the ones who have been pushing for an extension of a natural gas pipeline from BTV down to Middlebury.  The NIMBY's lined up for that one...claiming that they were on a mission to stop this "fracked gas line".  After a bitter fight, the State (loe and behold) approves the pipeline.  Within weeks of the approval, Vermont Gas quietly announces that said project will now be *40% more in cost than estimated.*  The regulators have said that they will review this latest development, but it seems to me that the "regulators" who are supposed to be working to protect consumers have been bought.


Hmmm...makes me wonder about the proposed project in Mass.  Actually I've had a lot of issues with cost estimates for projects in my town recently but that's an entirely different soapbox.


----------



## Tin (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's part NIMBY and part ideological zealots who only want Wind & Solar even though it's not possible (and dont understand how or why it's not possible).



I love when people try to sound intelligent.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 29, 2014)

How much is this a play to get approval of the Northern Bypass that is bogged down in New Hampshire?


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: Vermont
> 
> I really feel bad for resorts and businesses there.  Vermont's energy rates went from one of the lowest to one of the highest in a couple years.  I'm not an expert, but there are some other things that have "coincidentally" (perhaps) occurred in that same timeframe.  One is that GMP purchased CVPS and now controls the wide majority of Vermont.  GMP/GazMetro have been "big supporters" of the current State Administration.  Coincidence?  Also, GMP/Vermont Gas/GazMetro are the ones who have been pushing for an extension of a natural gas pipeline from BTV down to Middlebury.  The NIMBY's lined up for that one...claiming that they were on a mission to stop this "fracked gas line".  After a bitter fight, the State (loe and behold) approves the pipeline.  Within weeks of the approval, Vermont Gas quietly announces that said project will now be *40% more in cost than estimated.*  The regulators have said that they will review this latest development, but it seems to me that the "regulators" who are supposed to be working to protect consumers have been bought.
> 
> ...



Actually Vermont's Average rate per KWH hours is in lock step with NH.  So Vermont get ready!

This about Vermont:


> None of our major utilities (in Vermont) agreed to buy power from Vermont Yankee after the 2012 end of the plant's NRC license. Instead of buying Vermont Yankee power, they basically *bought grid power*. They bought one million megawatt-hours more grid power per year than they had purchased when they had contracts with Vermont Yankee.  Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership wrote Vermont Electricity At A Glance in March 2013, showing how much grid power Vermont utilities now purchase.  They buy a lot of grid power, and  they are partially vulnerable to the same wholesale electricity market prices that affect the utilities in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
> 
> Yeah, Vermont has Hydro Quebec Power.  The jewel-in-the-crown of Vermont power purchases are the utility contracts with Hydro-Quebec.  See, it's not all grid power in this state.  But...those contracts don't matter.  Vermont contracts with Hydro Quebec are market-follow contracts.  If the grid price goes up, the rate that Hydro Quebec charges Vermont also goes up.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 29, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> We are still on the grid and have a 2 way meter. Not sure how the rise in rates will affect us as we've only been solarized since April 1st. My impression is that we will be reimbursed for our credits to the grid based on an average kwh price over the period which would translate into additional $$ if the rates were to rise. Regardless the system was designed to basically generate enough power over the course of the year to offset our usage. We're running way ahead on credits but will wait to see what happens in the remaining months of our first year.




What at is the cost breakdown for it if you do not mine? I have looked at it and return was just not there at least a few years ago?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 29, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> We're glad you left too




We? I did not realize you were the official spokesman for the site. 

How are the pay and benefits? Do you at least get free vouchers for Ski Sundown?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 29, 2014)

One thing people don't realize about solar is that if you are building solar for power completely off the grid, you have to buy like 10-15k extra in equipment. Not to mention, a lot of banks are uneasy about solar power. If you have off the grid solar, the bank may not be willing to grant a loan to a potential buyer because of it, so you could have issues selling your house. That may and probably will change, but that is where the housing market stands now in regards to that.


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 29, 2014)

Puck it said:


> What at is the cost breakdown for it if you do not mine? I have looked at it and return was just not there at least a few years ago?



I'm actually in a lease program. No initial investment, no maintenance. Hard to say what the cost savings will be but I'm estimating around 40% annually.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 29, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> I'm actually in a lease program.




SolarCity?


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Puck it said:


> What at is the cost breakdown for it if you do not mine? I have looked at it and return was just not there at least a few years ago?



Well, if you look at this website, it apparently is 0.5 years to 1.4 years in the Europe!!!!! They must have some killer electric rates over there.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/26/solar-energy-payback-time-charts/

In the USA, the payback is variable and depends on were you are located, did you finance them, what federal and state subsidize you took  and how much your electric cost. In the northeast, you are looking at around 15 years (very average). This is dropping pretty quick, since panels are getting a lot cheaper with the influx of oversees manufactures.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 29, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> I'm actually in a lease program. No initial investment, no maintenance. Hard to say what the cost savings will be but I'm estimating around 40% annually.




What does the lease cost?


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Well, if you look at this website, it apparently is 0.5 years to 1.4 years in the Europe!!!!! They must have some killer electric rates over there.
> 
> http://cleantechnica.com/2013/12/26/solar-energy-payback-time-charts/
> 
> In the USA, the payback is variable and depends on were you are located, did you finance them, what federal and state subsidize you took  and how much your electric cost. In the northeast, you are looking at around 15 years (very average). This is dropping pretty quick, since panels are getting a lot cheaper with the influx of oversees manufactures.



Do you mean the overseas manufacturers that used to be in the united states that took some of our money and beat it over seas?


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 29, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Do you mean the overseas manufacturers that used to be in the united states that took some of our money and beat it over seas?



Ranking
2011Market
ShareSolar Module
CompanyRanking
2010Market
ShareCountry15.8%Suntech18.1%

 China25.7%First Solar27.9%

 USA34.8%Yingli Solar46.4%

 China44.3%Trina Solar56.1%

 China54.0%Sungen Solar65.3%

 China62.8%Sharp3[SUP][4][/SUP]

 Japan72.8%Sunpower8[SUP][4][/SUP]

 USA82.7%Hanwha Solarone7[SUP][4][/SUP]

 South Korea92.3%Jinko–[SUP][4][/SUP]

 China101.9%REC10[SUP][4][/SUP]

 Norway


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Unfortunately, First Solar dropped to 7th in 2013 and Sunpower dropped out of the top 10. 9 out of the 10 ten firms were oversees.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Do you mean the overseas manufacturers that used to be in the united states that took some of our money and beat it over seas?



I'm not sure of that. I don't think any of top 10 producers were initially making them in the US and moved oversees.


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 29, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> SolarCity?



Yes


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 29, 2014)

Puck it said:


> What does the lease cost?




Based on the KWH generated by the panels. The KWH rate is lower than my current provider and is minutely variable over the course of the lease period.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 29, 2014)

No coal, no nuclear, no wind, no Northern pass. Get out your wallets.

Our utility applied for a 50% increase for the winter.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 29, 2014)

WoodCore said:


> Yes



Good company - I have stock in them. If this keeps up they might be paying us a visit here too.


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

We have three solar scenarios.  Two options are net metering based where the meter detects how much power is received by the utility and how much is delivered from the utility.  There are no fancy switches that have to be installed.  It is called net metering since the rec and del are netted.  


*Scenario 1*: Simple net metering (backyard solar - could be wind) - If the net amount is power received by the utility at the end of the month then our approach is to bank and build a credit of KWHs.  The bank can then be used to balance off the months where the utility actually delivered.  Some utilities are actually not balancing but instead are providing a one time offset for the bank.

*Scenario 2*: Group Net Metering (backyard solar garden) - In this case a person builds so much renewable energy capacity that they generate more power than they actually use for the entire year.  In these cases, the person with extra capacity distributes excess KWH to other utility customers for a reduction in their bill and they become members of the group.  As a result the KWHs are balanced and the person who set up the Solar garden gets a check for power above what he needed. 

*Scenario 3*: Community Solar - the utility builds a large solar farm.  The panels are are sold to the utility customers at a calculated costs that covers maintenace, panel costs, build out etc.  the built out panel cost maybe around $900 - $1400.  The advantage is the panels "production" (actually a percentage of the solar farm) provides the customer with greater savings over time since it locks them into today's rate and and for the KWHs being saved in the future they do not pay higher rate costs.  Any panels not sold are considered power generation for the utility

In each of these scenarios you are never "off the grid".   True "off the grid" would require no dependency on the utility during low generation days.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Newpylong said:


> No coal, no nuclear, no wind, no Northern pass. Get out your wallets.
> 
> Our utility applied for a 50% increase for the winter.



Do you guys have a competitive electric provider market? I'm guessing not. Down in PA, you have the option to pick who provides your electric. Transmission and distribution stays with the local company.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 29, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Do you guys have a competitive electric provider market? I'm guessing not. Down in PA, you have the option to pick who provides your electric. Transmission and distribution stays with the local company.



Vermont no longer believes in competition.  :roll:


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 29, 2014)

I am in New Hampshire,  not Vermont. But yes we have the option of competitive electric supplier. Time to look at rates again.


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 29, 2014)

"Under my plan energy rates will necessarily skyrocket".  Can't say we weren't warned.  Hold on to your wallet

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 29, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> We? I did not realize you were the official spokesman for the site.
> 
> How are the pay and benefits? Do you at least get free vouchers for Ski Sundown?



Can't complain about pay or benefits. No vouchers to Sundown....pretty sure I'd be chased away with pitch forks


----------



## dlague (Sep 29, 2014)

Newpylong said:


> I am in New Hampshire,  not Vermont. But yes we have the option of competitive electric supplier. Time to look at rates again.



NHEC will have the first solar farm in NH - trying to beat the Solar City concepts.  Funny thing is - independent Solar Companies are being blocked by the Public Utilities Commission by putting in rules that hinder then ie. 99KW provides the greatest revenue potential anything over that is technically penalized.  They are trying to encourgae the utilities to drive this model.

In VT, a company CEC is planning on a 4 megawatt farm after the utility turned then down as their solar partner and now are going rogue right in that utilities territory.


----------



## jaytrem (Sep 29, 2014)

Newpylong said:


> Good company - I have stock in them. If this keeps up they might be paying us a visit here too.



Solar City gets some pretty bad reviews.  You really need to read the fine print when getting involved with them.  Some of the negatives of their program include...

1.  You must buy all the energy that your panels produce whether you use it or not.  For example, if they installed my friend's proposed system at my place, and it did indeed generate the estimated amount, it would actually cost me about $150 more than I paid to my regular electric company last year.
2.  The own the solar credits, if you don't know what they are you should read up.
3.  They can't guarantee you won't be taxed on the panels or produced energy in future years.
4.  The rules vary by state on what the regular electric company gets to do with the extra you generate.  Apparently NJ is on of the better ones for the consumer.  I don't think they ever actually pay you though, you only have energy "banked".  One thing i could never figure out is if they still get to charge you the "delivery" portion of the bill.  I suspect they do, if anybody knows the answer to that one please let me know.  Thanks.
5.  There are a few others that I don't recall, but I ended up finding a lot of negatives and my friend decided not to go with them.

Don't get me wrong, in the long run the Solar City deal might work out.  For me it makes more sense to lock in a rate with a 3rd party provider for a year or two.  I also play the "bonus" game where I change providers in exchange for airline miles and gift cards.  Eventually I might go solar, but for now I'll watch the prices and see where things go.


----------



## yeggous (Sep 29, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Do you guys have a competitive electric provider market? I'm guessing not. Down in PA, you have the option to pick who provides your electric. Transmission and distribution stays with the local company.



Yes, you have the option of picking but few do.

The electric prices in New England are being driven by the huge increase of dependence on natural gas. This is largely because our demand is very variable within the day. Coal and nuke a great at providing a base load, but you can't turn up production during the day to provide your peak load. Gas is very good for this which is one reason it has grown in popularity. You can throttle up and down hydro production, but there are other problems with hydro.

A large part of the natural gas price spikes are because of the rising price of heating oil. This has driven lots and lots of people to convert to natural gas for heat, but this increase in demand has not been offset by new distribution capacity. When it gets cold the demand of natural gas for heating goes sky high, which is what you're really seeing in your electric bill.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

Newpylong said:


> I am in New Hampshire,  not Vermont. But yes we have the option of competitive electric supplier. Time to look at rates again.



The reason I asked is down in PA the deregulated electric providers a couple years back. The information spreading like wildfire stated rates are going to skyrocket. However, that never happened and rates stayed pretty low. In addition, you typically locked in with a provider for a 2 year period, at a set rate.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

yeggous said:


> Yes, you have the option of picking but few do.
> 
> The electric prices in New England are being driven by the huge increase of dependence on natural gas. This is largely because our demand is very variable within the day. Coal and nuke a great at providing a base load, but you can't turn up production during the day to provide your peak load. Gas is very good for this which is one reason it has grown in popularity. You can throttle up and down hydro production, but there are other problems with hydro.
> 
> A large part of the natural gas price spikes are because of the rising price of heating oil. This has driven lots and lots of people to convert to natural gas for heat, but this increase in demand has not been offset by new distribution capacity. When it gets cold the demand of natural gas for heating goes sky high, which is what you're really seeing in your electric bill.



Well, when they end up paying a 50% increase in cost, they might start picking. That fear of huge increases is what got the ball rolling down here in PA. It appears to be a reality up in NH, with two of the suppliers already posting 50% increases in the coming winter. 

I think another reason for switching coal plants over to natural gas is the huge amount that we have in the US, at least more so than its ability to fill in peak demand times. Also, the natural gas that is purchased and sold for heating purposes is not the same as the natural gas bought for electric generation. Natural gas bought for heating purposes is purchase in greater volumes at set longterm prices. Natural gas purchased for electric generation is purchased in short term smaller volumes and it's cost is highly variable (market fluctuations).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

4aprice said:


> *"Under my plan energy rates will necessarily skyrocket".  Can't say we weren't warned.  Hold on to your wallet*



They need to make common, traditional forms of energy extremely expensive so that they're economically unsustainable and not-ready-for-primetime "rainbows & unicorns" forms of energy can survive.  At least he was honest about it, one of the few times that's happened.


----------



## mbedle (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> They need to make common, traditional forms of energy extremely expensive so that they're economically unsustainable and not-ready-for-primetime "rainbows & unicorns" forms of energy can survive.  At least he was honest about it, one of the few times that's happened.



Very true - and "rainbows & Unicorns" forms of energy will never be able to solely replace conventional forms of energy. Remember, the sun don't shine at night and the wind does stop every once and a while.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Very true - and *"rainbows & Unicorns" forms of energy will never be able to solely replace conventional forms of energy. *Remember, the sun don't shine at night and the wind does stop every once and a while.



Natural Gas will win in the end.  It's going to be increasingly difficult to "hide" that fact from the masses for too much longer.  Once that happens the tipping point will be reached.  It's just a shame we're going to plunge ourselves more & more billions into debt wasting money on these "pretender energies" before that happens.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 29, 2014)

Tin said:


> You communist....tree hugging....




I am all for getting off fossil fuel but wind power is not the viable alternative.  It can supplement only.  Wind power cost is still like 2X NG if the data that I have is still up to date.


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Natural Gas will win in the end.  It's going to be increasingly difficult to "hide" that fact from the masses for too much longer.  Once that happens the tipping point will be reached.  It's just a shame we're going to plunge ourselves more & more billions into debt wasting money on these "pretender energies" before that happens.



Amen...
Natural gas is having an effect on oil market as well. much reduced demand , prices are starting to decline gradually.
That being said timing is everything , the push for the premature attepted murder of coal is going to be very painfull for alot of consumers.
Myself being one , I spent a lot of money on a Geo system and went from a $3K oil bill to $800 electric bill.
but if electric rates sky rocket I may shut it off and burn oil. :angry:
Air Products and Chemicals is building a lot of LNG condensers . When they are up and running Nat gas will be eazier to transport ...also overseas...That could be bad for the US . but for now there is a glut.
chart is a little dated oil is down to $2.95
Yes I pay aprox .09 KWH


----------



## jack97 (Sep 29, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> That being said timing is everything , the push for the premature attepted murder of coal is going to be very painfull for alot of consumers.



As mentioned in the article, the shutdown of coal fire plants in US is another factor in driving the demand for natural gas. That being said, that US coal is being shipped to China, so the EPA/executive mandate is doing diddly squat in terms of CO2 "pollution". All it is doing is driving up short term cost of energy. 

The only bright spot is that it may make a dent in the trade imbalance.... China needs coal and oil. Due to the high cost of oil, it has become competitive to extract oil and gas from US soil, we may be able to even things out.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 29, 2014)

mbedle said:


> Very true - and "rainbows & Unicorns" forms of energy will never be able to solely replace conventional forms of energy. Remember, the sun don't shine at night and the wind does stop every once and a while.



Until they make better energy storage devices then this is true. Once they do these sources make more sense.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 29, 2014)

jack97 said:


> As mentioned in the article, the shutdown of coal fire plants in US is another factor in driving the demand for natural gas. That being said, that *US coal is being shipped to China, so the EPA/executive mandate is doing diddly squat* in terms of CO2 "pollution". All it is doing is driving up short term cost of energy.



It's unbelievably stupid.   All it's doing is hurting the Americans least able to absorb financial pain.


----------



## jack97 (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's unbelievably stupid.   All it's doing is hurting the Americans least able to absorb financial pain.



yes it is hurting the Americans who can least absorb this hit... all it is a feel good policy for the rich.

btw, the US coal companies are trying to find ports and an infrastructure to ship large quantities China, most likely for cost reasons. If not, it will be exported to other places so net effect... it does nothing for curbing global CO2 emissions.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/09/26/british-columbia-cities-want-to-know-risks-of-dirty-cheap-u-s

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303563304579447582374789164


----------



## drjeff (Sep 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's unbelievably stupid.   All it's doing is hurting the Americans least able to absorb financial pain.



Same concept that those behind the green movement can't fathom that those "average" families would rather pay far less $$ for say a Chevy Cruze, a Nissan Sentra or even a Toyota Corolla gas powered car that gets most of the mileage that a far more expensive Toyota Prius gets.  

Nobody wants to actively pollute, but the majority of folks also want to pay as little as possible for their gas, heating costs and electric bill, regardless of what type of energy generation is involved


----------



## jack97 (Sep 30, 2014)

^^^

Yes nobody wants to actively pollute. IMO the green movement has it priorities mixed up or maybe I'm interpreting them the wrong way. 

Instead of curbing the CO2 pollution, curb the actual pollution that is really harmful to human health. Case in point, London has encourage the use of diesel since it would emit less CO2, the problem is the real pollution is causing health issues in the city.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...secret-pollutes-like-beijing-airpocalyse.html


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 30, 2014)

jack97 said:


> *the green movement has it priorities mixed up or maybe I'm interpreting them the wrong way. *



My greatest confusion is that, IF they genuinely believe in man-made Global Warming, why are their "solutions" so entirely ineffectual and useless?   You cant have it both ways.  

You either believe in the science and call for dramatic changes based on IPCC findings like calling on people to eat less meat or become vegetarian, focus doggedly on China and India, tell people they shouldn't own pets, etc.... OR you dont.  

 But the things they currently lobby for to help "make a difference" are in actuality generally entirely useless IF you believe the science.  Worse?  They tend to be financially crippling and will hurt America's economy and cost jobs, while simultaneously having no impact on Global Warming IF you believe the science.  

Yeah, lets make a multi-BILLION dollar change that affects our output .000000000000000000001% per day, while China and India are increasing same output 1% per week, etc...  Lets make everyone drive expensive, crappy, hybrid cars that have a ridiculously SLIGHT net beneficial impact versus a regular car, while the developing world is adding vehicles on the road at a record pace per day. Lets make gas more expensive and worse for your cars, because of some absurdly small perceived environmental "benefit", which is highly debatable to begin with.  Lets stop using cost-effective energy and intentionally drive up the price of less-favored energies to make our Solar and Wind lovechild projects more plausible.    

The "changes" that the Green movement tends to rally around are generally useless IF you believe in man-made Global Warming science, but they are extremely expensive.  I personally think they're being led about by the nose, and the motive is usually $$$$$$.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> My greatest confusion is that, IF they genuinely believe in man-made Global Warming, why are their "solutions" so entirely ineffectual and useless?   You cant have it both ways.
> 
> You either believe in the science and call for dramatic changes based on IPCC findings like calling on people to eat less meat or become vegetarian, focus doggedly on China and India, tell people they shouldn't own pets, etc.... OR you dont.
> 
> ...



Well put BG!!


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The "changes" that the Green movement tends to rally around are generally useless IF you believe in man-made Global Warming science, but they are extremely expensive.  I personally think they're being led about by the nose, and the motive is usually $$$$$$.



While I don't entirely disagree with the above, it is only fair to mention that the motive behind the 'pro-development' and 'climate change-denying' machine is also $$$$$$.  There are actually very very few decision makers that are really concerned with the welfare of middle-class families.

The basis of all environmental problems on earth is pretty much the same - we are too many, and we consume too much.   Climate change is only part of this mess.


----------



## dlague (Sep 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> My greatest confusion is that, IF they genuinely believe in man-made Global Warming, why are their "solutions" so entirely ineffectual and useless?   You cant have it both ways.
> 
> You either believe in the science and call for dramatic changes based on IPCC findings like calling on people to eat less meat or become vegetarian, focus doggedly on China and India, tell people they shouldn't own pets, etc.... OR you dont.
> 
> ...



You also got to love the activist celebrities that hold concerts that people drive to and get stuck in traffic where they idol, or they fly planes or drive buses with road crews, or promote products whose very making could involve chemicals and pollution.  Or they act in movies that people go watch at hundreds of thousands of theaters or cinemas worldwide, or think of the production of a movie and what is involved.  Or politicians who discuss global warming and live in large houses, drive big cars (have more then one) and fly air force one to play golf.

This group is trying to tell us how to live but they themselves never set the example.  F' that!  The green movement has their head up their ass and is conflicted as to how best get change to take place.  They are fractured but different interests just as our society is - it will only get worse.


----------



## dlague (Sep 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> While I don't entirely disagree with the above, it is only fair to mention that the motive behind the 'pro-development' and 'climate change-denying' machine is also $$$$$$.  There are actually very very few decision makers that are really concerned with the welfare of middle-class families.
> 
> The basis of all environmental problems on earth is pretty much the same - we are too many, and we consume too much.   Climate change is only part of this mess.



We will only become more and consume even more product that is dependent on factories of some sort!


----------



## jack97 (Sep 30, 2014)

dlague said:


> We will only become more and consume even more product that is dependent on factories of some sort!



While I don't agree nor do I do agree entirely with the above...... I'll throw out something that is counter intuitive. The population trends for developed countries have plateaued. According to the numbers, women in these places do not have many children, hence the growth is stagnate. It's the developing countries where population is growing; they still live in the old backdrop of infant mortality. Medicine is expensive and its availability is not guaranteed. So on average, they have six children hoping that two will survive to adult hood and look after them when they get old. However, once a country develops, infant mortality drops and the cost of raising kids skyrockets. Researchers who have been tracking this say it takes about 1 to 2 generations for women to produce less children which stabilized the growth.

BBC vid which talks about this trend.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 30, 2014)

jack97 said:


> While I don't agree nor do I do agree entirely with the above...... I'll throw out something that is counter intuitive. The population trends for developed countries have plateaued. According to the numbers, women in these places do not have many children, hence the growth is stagnate. It's the developing countries where population is growing; they still live in the old backdrop of infant mortality. Medicine is expensive and its availability is not guaranteed. So on average, they have six children hoping that two will survive to adult hood and look after them when they get old. However, once a country develops, infant mortality drops and the cost of raising kids skyrockets. Researchers who have been tracking this say it takes about 1 to 2 generations for women to produce less children which stabilized the growth.
> 
> BBC vid which talks about this trend.




In the mean time:


----------



## Not Sure (Sep 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> In the mean time:



If that was a Stock Market chart the voices would be screaming unsustainable.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 30, 2014)

That is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen and pretty much useless.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 30, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> That is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen and pretty much useless.



Feel free to post one you like.   It will nonetheless show that it ain't getting better anytime soon.   And those billions new people, they all want to live (and consume) like us (barring the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, that wants us to go back to the middle age...)


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 30, 2014)

What I mean is the graph does not need to go back before 1850 let alone to the year 0. Does the graph show that the quality of life has increased with the invention of the internal combustion engine letting more people survive to breeding age?


----------



## Puck it (Sep 30, 2014)

Fuck fossil fuels and nukes, let's just go back to the pre-Victorian Era.   Because if we rely on solar and wind, that is where we would be. Just sayin'. And none of us would be skiing.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 30, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> What I mean is the graph does not need to go back before 1850 let alone to the year 0. Does the graph show that the quality of life has increased with the invention of the internal combustion engine letting more people survive to breeding age?



Fair enough.  I picked the first image on google.  Oil consumption is a good proxy for 'consumption' in general which was the point I wanted to make.   Despite all the talk about sustainable development, the way this planet is going is definitely not sustainable.  And while I understand the '_don't wreck the economy_' crowd, pretending everything will fix itself in the future is not helping.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Fair enough.  I picked the first image on google.  Oil consumption is a good proxy for 'consumption' in general which was the point I wanted to make.   Despite all the talk about sustainable development, the way this planet is going is definitely not sustainable.  And while I understand the '_don't wreck the economy_' crowd, pretending everything will fix itself in the future is not helping.


Don't you get it, we move to other planets when we run out of stuff here. Hollywood has gotten right.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 30, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Fuck fossil fuels and nukes, let's just go back to the pre-Victorian Era.   Because if we rely on solar and wind, that is where we would be. Just sayin'. And none of us would be skiing.



Nobody wants to go back to the Victorian Era and nobody believe we can solely rely on solar and wind (beside the idiots and the morons). 
But may be we can we find some middle ground between the apocalyptic world of Al Gore and the '_don't do anything in case we wreck the economy_' approach ?  (especially since 2009 has shown that the economy can wreck itself without having to invoke any environmental measure).


----------



## Puck it (Sep 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Nobody wants to go back to the Victorian Era and nobody believe we can solely rely on solar and wind (beside the idiots and the morons).
> But may be we can we find some middle ground between the apocalyptic world of Al Gore and the '_don't do anything in case we wreck the economy_' approach ?  (especially since 2009 has shown that the economy can wreck itself without having to invoke any environmental measure).



You mean idiots and morons like most liberal progressives, like $7 a gallon gas like most progressives want.  Our beloved ski resorts would crumble to disrepair.  

The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.


----------



## fbrissette (Sep 30, 2014)

Puck it said:


> You mean idiots and morons like most liberal progressives, like $7 a gallon gas like most progressives want.  Our beloved ski resorts would crumble to disrepair.



In all fairness, you should also mention the idiots and morons conservative extremists who believe in wild capitalism, faith-based science and think that women should stay home and have kids.




Puck it said:


> The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.



No one wants to meet in the middle on any topic nowadays (except when it comes to bombing muslims).


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 30, 2014)

You can't be right & I can't be right because you're wrong.


----------



## marcski (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> You mean idiots and morons like most liberal progressives, like $7 a gallon gas like most progressives want.  Our beloved ski resorts would crumble to disrepair.
> 
> The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.



Doesn't Europe have $7 gas?  There are still ski resorts over there.

(Not saying I agree or want $7/gal gas...just raising a point).


----------



## twinplanx (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Don't you get it, THEY will move to other planets when we run out of stuff here. Hollywood has gotten right.



fixed it for ya. The meek shall inherit the Earth. While the elite blast off on THERE spaceships that WE built/funded for them...

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## Edd (Oct 1, 2014)

I hear theories sometimes about a future WWII level shift to our economy, in which we mobilize to build stuff less harmful to the environment. Careers would be abandoned. Massive sacrifice for the common good. Nobody gets away unscathed. 

Sounds ridiculous comfortably sitting on my couch typing on my iPad but these things happen. It sounds about as plausible as ISIS coming to get me because they hate my Western ways.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> In all fairness, you should also mention the idiots and morons conservative extremists who believe in wild capitalism, faith-based science and think that women should stay home and have kids.



Point about the BBC vid was to educate kids especially girls that having more children restricts the choices they have with their lives.



fbrissette said:


> No one wants to meet in the middle on any topic nowadays (except when it comes to bombing muslims).



IMO, some of the alarmist have or are taking IS approaches. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> *That is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen and pretty much useless*.



LOL.  Hold that thought.  I'll create a graph showing the explosion of internet usage during the last 20 years, and my 'X' axis will start in the Precambrian era.  Boom!  Winner!



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> *If that was a Stock Market chart the voices would be screaming unsustainable*.



The stock market (currently) is unsustainable.



Edd said:


> Sounds ridiculous comfortably sitting on my couch typing on my iPad but these things happen. *It sounds about as plausible as ISIS coming to get me because they hate my Western ways*.



Wait, what?   Given ISIS claims one of their goals (literally) is to state terrorist attacks in America, I'm not exactly sure why you wouldn't believe them, let along claim it's implausible.


----------



## Tin (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.



Ding, ding, ding...best post in this thread.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> LOL.  Hold that thought.  I'll create a graph showing the explosion of internet usage during the last 20 years, and my 'X' axis will start in the Precambrian era.  Boom!  Winner!



Gee, you guys are a tough crowd.  How about this one ?  if you take a small enough slice, it will hide the exponential growth and shows it to be linear.

Does it make you feel any better ?   Using both graphs, we nevertheless arrive at the same inescapable conclusion which is that at least 3.5 billions more people will inhabit the earth 30 years from now (it took 4.5 billions years to get the population up to 3.5 billions - circa 1965).


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 1, 2014)

Tin said:


> Ding, ding, ding...best post in this thread.



Yep.  That is the sad truth.


----------



## Tin (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> LOL.  Hold that thought.  I'll create a graph showing the explosion of internet usage during the last 20 years, and my 'X' axis will start in the Precambrian era.  Boom!  Winner!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you wear a tin foil helmet?


----------



## mister moose (Oct 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> While I don't entirely disagree with the above, it is only fair to mention that the motive behind the 'pro-development' and 'climate change-denying' machine is also $$$$$$. *There are actually very very few decision makers that are really concerned with the welfare of middle-class families.*
> 
> The basis of all environmental problems on earth is pretty much the same - we are too many, and we consume too much. Climate change is only part of this mess.



I actually agree with all this, but from a different vantage point.  Yes, there is $$ behind each agenda.  However, is it better to have $$ flow to people who manufacture the goods we need every day, or to the people who in the name of "doing something good" are actually lining their own pockets?  I drive a smaller, older, cheaper car than I can afford.  Why can't Al Gore do the same thing?   

I agree that middle class families are not on the mind of most decision makers (at the national level, or at the boardroom level)  At the national level, they should be concerned with trade policy, defense, immigration.  These important functions protect everyone, and are not the domain of any class, middle or otherwise.  Why Washington has a bloated education department is beyond me.  Their solutions have not been effective.  Return control, funding and standards to a more local level.  If the bottom 10% of the school districts need federal help, so be it, but get out of the top 90%.  But I digress.

There are 2 ways to help anyone advance in life.  More education, (which includes on the job training) and unfettered access to the marketplace and workplace.   Tell me this:  Why do we have a system where Joe works 40 hours a week for $10 an hour, and pays X in taxes.  Bob works 2 jobs, and works 80 hours for the same $10/hr, so why should his share of the tax burden be 2X?  Why isn't Bob and Joe's tax burden equal?  And to make it worse, Bob pays MORE than 2X, Bob pays 2X plus 20% because he gets thrust into a higher tax bracket than Joe.  Does this make any sense to anyone here?  You actually have a built in disincentive to work harder. 







Edd said:


> I hear theories sometimes about a future WWII level shift to our economy, in which we mobilize to build stuff less harmful to the environment. Careers would be abandoned. Massive sacrifice for the common good. Nobody gets away unscathed.
> 
> Sounds ridiculous comfortably sitting on my couch typing on my iPad but these things happen. It sounds about as plausible as ISIS coming to get me because they hate my Western ways.



The very fact that you write this _sitting on your couch_ instead of working illustrates why your socialist "massive sacrifice" wouldn't work.  No one works as hard for the community as they do for themselves.  This is not the same as generosity.  Generosity is giving part of what you make.  How hard you work is not generosity.  And I am not motivated to work 50 hours so you only have to work 35.  I'm not, and you're not.  And when I start working only 35 hours, I produce less.  I invent less.  I lose drive.  I stop dreaming and striving to excell.  That will never change, and trying to base a societal structure based on 'common good' will never work.  Never.



fbrissette said:


> In all fairness, you should also mention the idiots and morons conservative extremists who believe in wild capitalism, faith-based science and think that women should stay home and have kids.



Wild capitalism is what got us here.  Don't be so quick to dismiss it.  Feel free to live in non capitalistic countries.  Cuba is just a short hop from here.  (I wonder what the immigration rate is there....)

Faith based science is the right of those who choose to believe it.  You calling them morons identifies you as the extremist.

Women should stay home and have kids, _if they want to have kids_.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 1, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Wild capitalism is what got us here.  Don't be so quick to dismiss it.  Feel free to live in non capitalistic countries.  Cuba is just a short hop from here.  (I wonder what the immigration rate is there....)



The world is not black and white.  There is a lot of middle ground between unbridled capitalism and pure socialism.  




mister moose said:


> Faith based science is the right of those who choose to believe it.  You calling them morons identifies you as the extremist.



I have no problem with faith.   'Faith-based science' however is an oxymoron. Trying to impose faith-based science (as is currently being done in several states by US extremists)  puts you on the same side of the fence with those nice folks from ISIS.  

My use of 'morons' was in jest to a previous post about the 'liberal morons'.  Sorry if you could not see that.




mister moose said:


> Women should stay home and have kids, _if they want to have kids_.



Men should stop telling women what they should do.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> The world is not black and white.  There is a lot of middle ground between unbridled capitalism and pure socialism.



There is no middle ground between "yours" and "ours".



fbrissette said:


> I have no problem with faith.   'Faith-based science' however is an oxymoron. Trying to impose faith-based science (as is currently being done in several states by US extremists)  puts you on the same side of the fence with those nice folks from ISIS.
> 
> My use of 'morons' was in jest to a previous post about the 'liberal morons'.  Sorry if you could not see that.



I never advocated imposing one set of beliefs upon another.  Sorry I missed your humor.  It's a long thread.



fbrissette said:


> Men should stop telling women what they should do.


 Agreed.  But not what you said at first.


----------



## Edd (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Wait, what?   Given ISIS claims one of their goals (literally) is to state terrorist attacks in America, I'm not exactly sure why you wouldn't believe them, let along claim it's implausible.



Yes, that is one of their loudly stated goals. They've become a scary brand overnight. Free, unlimited PR courtesy of our actual-news starved media.  Defense contractors across the globe must be toasting ISIS nightly as their stocks go through the roof. 

I simply doubted that they're coming to get ME.  On my list of daily worries I am not finding ISIS.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 1, 2014)

mbedle said:


> The reason I asked is down in PA the deregulated electric providers a couple years back. The information spreading like wildfire stated rates are going to skyrocket. However, that never happened and rates stayed pretty low. In addition, you typically locked in with a provider for a 2 year period, at a set rate.



Totally. Up here, it hasn't traditionally made sense to shop the supply because none of them actually make power, it all comes from the same place. So you're locking into a plan that could bite you in the a$$, or it could work out. It's not a given like when I contract 1500 gallons of Propane from Irving every summer for like $1.90/gallon vs paying over $3/retail every fill.

These people can't have their cake and eat it too. There needs to be a balance between environmental protection and common sense, and I feel the trend has been moving away from common sense.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

Since when do we have unbridled capitalism?  Government sets rates on power, insurance.  They are now involved in healthcare.  


I forgot since I am fiscal conservative and morally liberal.  I am classifed as a moron.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> *we nevertheless arrive at the same inescapable conclusion which is that at least 3.5 billions more people will inhabit the earth 30 years from now* (it took 4.5 billions years to get the population up to 3.5 billions - circa 1965).



You think we're going to get there?  I don't.  There's always some unforeseen disease, wars, etc..., not to mention birth rates are already declining.  I'm not so sure.  



mister moose said:


> The very fact that you write this _sitting on your couch_ instead of working illustrates why your *socialist "massive sacrifice" wouldn't work.  No one works as hard for the community as they do for themselves.  This is not the same as generosity.  Generosity is giving part of what you make.  How hard you work is not generosity.  And I am not motivated to work 50 hours so you only have to work 35.  I'm not, and you're not.  And when I start working only 35 hours, I produce less.  I invent less.*  I lose drive.  I stop dreaming and striving to excell.  That will never change, and trying to base a societal structure based on 'common good' will never work.  Never.



Well said; though all common sense.  Sadly, the Socialist desire of imposing one's will on others in the name of "fairness" or "common good" is a powerful idea to some, especially for those who frankly aren't financially savvy.



Edd said:


> Yes, that is one of their loudly stated goals.* They've become a scary brand overnight. Free, unlimited PR courtesy of our actual-news starved media.  Defense contractors across the globe must be toasting ISIS nightly as their stocks go through the roof. *



I somehow doubt the thousands of Atheists, Christians, and not-correct-brand of Muslims that they've murdered for not converting to Islam, or the women being forced into sexual slavery, or the children being handed AK-74 rifles and told to fight, feel their "scariness" is quite as phoney as you do.



Puck it said:


> *Since when do we have unbridled capitalism?  *Government sets rates on power, insurance.  They are now involved in healthcare.



Never in our history.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Never in our history.



It was tongue in cheek.


----------



## ss20 (Oct 1, 2014)




----------



## bobbutts (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Since when do we have unbridled capitalism?  Government sets rates on power, insurance.  They are now involved in healthcare.
> 
> 
> I forgot since I am fiscal conservative and morally liberal.  I am classifed as a moron.


I think you have it backwards.  The energy, insurance, and health care industries are involved in government, legislating themselves monopoly power and lax regulations.

Folks should read Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire from this month's Rolling Stone Magazine.  
This is your "conservative" GOP.


----------



## Edd (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I somehow doubt the thousands of Atheists, Christians, and not-correct-brand of Muslims that they've murdered for not converting to Islam, or the women being forced into sexual slavery, or the children being handed AK-74 rifles and told to fight, feel their "scariness" is quite as phoney as you do.



No, I don't imagine they do. I won't be booking flights over there. I'm not sure what sets them apart from the countless horrible terrorists and tyrants that have come before and we ignore but there's something special here.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 1, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> I think you have it backwards.  The energy, insurance, and health care industries are involved in government, legislating themselves monopoly power and lax regulations.
> 
> Folks should read Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire from this month's Rolling Stone Magazine.
> This is your "conservative" GOP.



Might as well read "Liberal Magazine for liberals". And no I am not a GOP member. I have a hard time getting information from RS or Fox and taking it seriously.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

Edd said:


> *I'm not sure what sets them apart from the countless horrible terrorists and tyrants that have come before *and we ignore but there's something special here.



That's painfully obvious.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 1, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> I think you have it backwards.  The energy, insurance, and health care industries are involved in government, legislating themselves monopoly power and lax regulations.
> 
> Folks should read Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire from this month's Rolling Stone Magazine.
> This is your "conservative" GOP.



Is big industry actually "regulating" themselves via government intervention or are they "forced" to try and regulate themselves (and often this comes by working to regulate competitors out of their business market) because of government regulation, often in the form of overreaching actions?

And for all the left's cries of "Koch brothers this" or "Koch brothers that" they're (the left) sure are awfully quiet about the actions of Soros, Buffet, etc to push their agenda - its a 2 way street if you really want to have a conversation about big money donor influences


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Lets make gas more expensive and worse for your cars, because of some absurdly small perceived environmental "benefit", which is highly debatable to begin with.



You're an idiot.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> I think you have it backwards.  The energy, insurance, and health care industries are involved in government, legislating themselves monopoly power and lax regulations.
> 
> Folks should read Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire from this month's Rolling Stone Magazine.
> This is your "conservative" GOP.




Great source of info. The mag that put the Marathon bombers on the cover.


----------



## twinplanx (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.



That sums up this entire thread.

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.




You are an idiot.  The Feds mandate ethanol in our gas which lowers the efficiency and inflating corn prices.  Great idea.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Is big industry actually "regulating" themselves via government intervention or are they "forced" to try and regulate themselves (and often this comes by working to regulate competitors out of their business market) because of government regulation, often in the form of overreaching actions?
> 
> And for all the left's cries of "Koch brothers this" or "Koch brothers that" they're (the left) sure are awfully quiet about the actions of Soros, Buffet, etc to push their agenda - its a 2 way street if you really want to have a conversation about big money donor influences



Not entirely 2 ways.  1 party wants citizens united and to keep money in politics.  1 doesn't


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Not entirely 2 ways.  1 party wants citizens united and to keep money in politics.  1 doesn't




You really believe that.  And which side is which.

Two words -  George Soros.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> *I think you have it backwards.  The energy, insurance, and health care industries are involved in government*, legislating themselves monopoly power and lax regulations.



LOL.  The cows run the farm, not the farmer!




drjeff said:


> *And for all the left's cries of "Koch brothers this" or "Koch brothers that" they're (the left) sure are awfully quiet about the actions of Soros*, Buffet, etc to push their agenda - its a 2 way street if you really want to have a conversation about big money donor influences



It's not even a two-way street.  Soros is like Godzilla and the Koch brothers are like Bambi if you compare total political donations.   

The reality is the Koch brothers are just the left's new fund-raising boogeyman designed to scare.  Every political mailer to registered Democrats now is "donate $xx to help us fight the Koch brothers" money to "big business" etc... = lulz.  Effective spoon-fed messaging.



Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.



Look who showed up to join the party with his usual high-brow intellectualism.   The guy who cant comprehend why future skier visits and skier revenue are not going to be a perpetually climbing staircase!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2014)

The vote just happened.  1 side wants citizens united to go away one doesn't.  Fact not opinion.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Not entirely 2 ways.*  1 party wants *citizens united and *to keep money in politics.  1 doesn't*



Holy crap.  Really?  You seriously believe this?  Honestly, I could write "War & Peace" on this subject, but I'm weary from debunking Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert show with a side of New York Times talking point myths in one day.   

SHORT VERSION: Democrats are more than happy to keep the "correct" money fully IN politics (Unions, Lawyers, etc...), as long as the "incorrect" money (Oil, NRA, etc..) is excluded and impaired.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 1, 2014)

Thank god AZ doesn't allow political discussions. Otherwise this thread really could have gotten offtrack uke:


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> You are an idiot.  The Feds mandate ethanol in our gas which lowers the efficiency and inflating corn prices.  Great idea.



Then with inflated corn prices Mexicans have a hard time surviving and jump the boarder or start killing each other over drug territory. Also with high corn prices raising livestock becomes more expensive driving up meat prices.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Holy crap.  Really?  You seriously believe this?  Honestly, I could write "War & Peace" on this subject, but I'm weary from debunking Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert show with a side of New York Times talking point myths in one day.
> 
> SHORT VERSION: Democrats are more than happy to keep the "correct" money fully IN politics (Unions, Lawyers, etc...), as long as the "incorrect" money (Oil, NRA, etc..) is excluded and impaired.



And we have the winning answer!


----------



## Edd (Oct 1, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Thank god AZ doesn't allow political discussions. Otherwise this thread really could have gotten offtrack uke:



I like the increased permissiveness. I'd say nobody gets offended about 99% of the time but it's not like I'm the one fielding complaints so I wouldn't know.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Holy crap.  Really?  You seriously believe this?  Honestly, I could write "War & Peace" on this subject, but I'm weary from debunking Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert show with a side of New York Times talking point myths in one day.
> 
> SHORT VERSION: Democrats are more than happy to keep the "correct" money fully IN politics (Unions, Lawyers, etc...), as long as the "incorrect" money (Oil, NRA, etc..) is excluded and impaired.



Vote happened.  Spin it however you like.  Scoreboard doesn't lie.

And that's it for me.  Cannonball is right.  Sorry, the skiing Limbaugh gets me worked up.  I'll ignore.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 1, 2014)

Edd said:


> I like the increased permissiveness.



I'm not a big fan.  Although, if the comments in this thread represent a cross-section of the skiing community it will help motivate me to get more solo backcountry days


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> You are an idiot.  The Feds mandate ethanol in our gas which lowers the efficiency and inflating corn prices.  Great idea.



You too, are an idiot.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

drjeff said:


> *And we have the winning answer!*



To be completely fair, *BOTH *political parties will do virtually anything to gain an edge over the other party.  

But to honestly believe that the real reason the Democrats are against "Citizens United" has ANYTHING to do with keeping money out of politics as they claim, is, ......well.....I mean......



Edd said:


> I like the increased permissiveness. I'd say nobody  gets offended about 99% of the time but it's not like I'm the one  fielding complaints so I wouldn't know.



Agreed.  We're all adults here and even after arguments people generally get along, and even during arguments it's generally quite civil.

Well, other than the occasional troll who solely chimes in with, "you're an idiot" of course, but you'd have that same response from that same individual in a thread about sunshine and kittens.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Then with inflated corn prices Mexicans have a hard time surviving and jump the boarder or start killing each other over drug territory. Also with high corn prices raising livestock becomes more expensive driving up meat prices.



Wow.  You're also a massively under informed idiot.


----------



## Edd (Oct 1, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not a big fan.  Although, if the comments in this thread represent a cross-section of the skiing community it will help motivate me to get more solo backcountry days



Yeah, admittedly, this thread is a disaster.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> You're an idiot.





Puck it said:


> You are an idiot.  The Feds mandate ethanol in our gas which lowers the efficiency and inflating corn prices.  Great idea.





Highway Star said:


> You too, are an idiot.




I know you are but what am I???


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Wow.  *You're also a massively under informed idiot*.



Did you mean he's an "uninformed" idiot or perhaps an "underinformed" idiot?


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Great source of info. The mag that put the Marathon bombers on the cover.


Save the fake outrage.  You're looking for any excuse to avoid the subject.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 1, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Save the fake outrage.  *You're looking for any excuse to avoid the subject.*



Speaking of the above, I didn't see your response to the question as to why it's perfectly okay for George Soros to donate significantly more money to left-wing causes than the Koch brothers do to right-wing causes.

Seems contradictory.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Wow.  You're also a massively under informed idiot.



Hey jack provide your great all seeing information.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...in-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

Even major oil exporters that use their petrodollars  to purchase food  imports, such as Mexico, cannot escape the consequences of the  hikes in  food prices. In late 2006, the price of tortilla flour in Mexico, which   gets 80 percent of its corn imports from the United States, doubled  thanks partly  to a rise in U.S. corn prices from $2.80 to $4.20 a  bushel over the previous several  months. (Prices rose even though  tortillas are made mainly from Mexican-grown white  corn because  industrial users of the imported yellow corn, which is used for animal   feed and processed foods, started buying the cheaper white variety.) The  price surge  was exacerbated by speculation and hoarding. With about  half of Mexico's 107 million  people living in poverty and relying on  tortillas as a main source of calories,  the public outcry was fierce.  In January 2007, Mexico's new president, Felipe Calderón,  was forced to  cap the prices of corn products.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Might as well read "Liberal Magazine for liberals". And no I am not a GOP member. I have a hard time getting information from RS or Fox and taking it seriously.


So pick ANY source, you will find that corroborates basically everything in that article.  RS is biased for sure, but they often have good journalism.  It also doesn't hurt to view material that may not match your pre-existing biases exactly.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Hey jack provide your great all seeing information.
> 
> http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...in-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor
> 
> ...



Dumb-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb!


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Speaking of the above, I didn't see your response to the question as to why it's perfectly okay for George Soros to donate significantly more money to left-wing causes than the Koch brothers do to right-wing causes.
> 
> Seems contradictory.


It is not even close to equivalent, and regardless it doesn't make the Koch's actions any less concerning.  Even if the Dems were 100x worse, it wouldn't excuse the behavior.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Dumb-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb-Dumb!



Like having a discussion with a 3 year old. Peace out on this.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Like having a discussion with a 3 year old. Peace out on this.




You've memorized your brainwashing quite admirably. You can have a cookie.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> The vote just happened.  1 side wants citizens united to go away one doesn't.  Fact not opinion.




Missing something. Elaborate more. I am one of the right's morons.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> I'm not a big fan.  Although, if the comments in this thread represent a cross-section of the skiing community it will help motivate me to get more solo backcountry days




Without me?


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

HS wins the award for most thought put into a reply, yet again.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> HS wins the award for most thought put into a reply, yet again.



There's really no point in trying to change your mind - I just want you to be aware you an idiot.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> There's really no point in trying to change your mind - I just want you to be aware you an idiot.




And how do you know me?

Obviously you know nothing about me, except that I can blow you away on the mountain.  I have seen your vids.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Oct 1, 2014)

Puck it said:


> And how do you know me?
> 
> Obviously you know nothing about me, except that I can blow you away on the mountain.  I have seen your vids.



ANOTHER ski off?! I thought I was special...


----------



## Puck it (Oct 1, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> ANOTHER ski off?! I thought I was special...



You are still real special.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 1, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> It is not even close to equivalent, and regardless it doesn't make the Koch's actions any less concerning.  Even if the Dems were 100x worse, it wouldn't excuse the behavior.



So if its done with a liberal/progressive slant/intention its OK in your book, but if an "equivalent" action is done from a conservative slant/intention (and Soros & Co have done far more $$ donation wise than the Koch Brothers have BTW) that's not OK??

Talk about a hypocritical point of view. If you can't call a spade a spade, regardless of if it does or doesn't agree with YOUR desired point of view, then that's all that one needs to know


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 1, 2014)

drjeff said:


> So if its done with a liberal/progressive slant/intention its OK in your book, but if an "equivalent" action is done from a conservative slant/intention (and Soros & Co have done far more $$ donation wise than the Koch Brothers have BTW) that's not OK??
> 
> Talk about a hypocritical point of view. If you can't call a spade a spade, regardless of if it does or doesn't agree with YOUR desired point of view, then that's all that one needs to know


I think a system that allows money to purchase legislation is bad conceptually and in practice regardless of who is making the contribution.  Giving a private company license to trash the environment for extreme personal financial gain, what the Koch's are doing, is clearly not good for the country or you or me.  And somehow I'm a hypocrite for pointing that out.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 1, 2014)

Blah, blah, blah !!!


----------



## bvibert (Oct 2, 2014)

I'm pretty sure this thread has exhausted it's usefulness..


----------

