Sadly, I doubt this would ever pass as it hits the poor the hardest. (Energy costs make up a larger % of their income). There are ways to fix this, but increased costs are never popular, even it is correcting previously incorrect costs.

Not only do we subsidize fossil fuels more now, but we have been doing so for hundreds of years, investing into research and infrastructure to support fossil fuels. Despite that fact, solar is still becoming the more cost effective option. Even in the northern state of Minnesota, solar won out over natural gas for a peaking facility: http://www.startribune.com/business/238322571.html

If solar can even get close to becoming cost competitive now, imagine what it could do if we got rid of the fossil fuel subsidies. My favorite energy policy is Rick Santorum’s, he advocates for removing all energy subsidies. On the other side of the coin, imagine what solar could do if we threw millions of dollars of inflation adjusted subsidies at it for 200 years like we did for fossil fuels.

A University of Delaware study found that we could power huge electric grids 99.9% with renewables by 2030 at electric prices very close to current prices. Detractors will always that solar isn’t here yet, but we do have a very simple choice: we can power the future with the fuel of the last 200 years, or we can power it with the fuel of the future.

Down the road additional shielding would be required to constrain possible vessel leaks.

BTW, taxpayers paid for a lot of the Yucca Mountain costs.

If recycling was a great idea the industry would be doing it already. And recycling applies only to used fuel. It does nothing for the millions of tons/gallons of non-fuel radioactive waste.​

Just because a solution doesn’t solve every problem is not a reason to discount it unless another solution that does solve more problems is found. This does improve our current situation and as such, should not be discounted.

I’m simply in favor a more consumer choices/rights – especially when they lower consumer costs and are more environmentally friendly.

I am in favor of ending retail monopolies and creating competitive retail electric markets… but I see no reason why we can’t do both that and allow consumers to have rooftop solar…

And I agree – they both go together, but I see no reason why we can’t have solar even in more compact locations.

Locking in a nice low price.

There are community solar farms in some cities/neighborhoods. A way for individuals to make a solar play without owning a roof.

ahem, for a lot less than solar rooftop installation, you can get a small brokerage account, buy some of the utility ETF or a utility stock, and be a utility investor.

“Solar is allowing the average joe to put panels on his roof and enter the ranks of a producer if he so chooses. ”

… except if he rents, doesnt have a few thousand to spare, or lives in a condo in the city, etc.

If you want consumer power wrt grid, end utility monopolies. Texas has done that with a competitive retail electrical market. The grid is a natural monopoly but power generation and retail of it are not.

I was thinking septic tank when I wrote it, but that’s the silliness. There isn’t really a political implication from a different form of infrastructure. IMHO, the term itself is silly, denoting a political implication that is imaginary.

But it does fit in this sense: The same places that could use septic would use solar rooftop. too spread out for being on the grid.

And in many places the sewer systems are democratized – it’s called a septic tank. If you live in a remote area you probably have one. Though, I should mention this is a bogus comparison anyway…

The manufacturing and installation industries would not have.

Perhaps you don’t know the history of computers. For example, you might not know how the computer industry was grown to the point at which the ‘computer on a chip’ was developed and manufactured which allowed the PC to be born.

The FiT program does cost some money, but it’s a wise investment which is leading to cheaper electricity in the future. We should all thank the German people for making that investment which is benefiting us all.

(I would not make the same “greedy people” statement now, a year later. I would be more specific and state that industry managed to dodge paying any of the renewable investment but is enjoying the dropping prices it is bringing. I would have more carefully described who the greedy people are.)