How come you all can find time to talk about this, a topic with no chance of being funded, but you can't spend any time on basic ed, the largest piece of the budget?

You all? Where y'all from?

@1) So true. We never write about education funding. You can google for education funding and Slog and nothing comes up on the subject.

It's as if there wasn't a law that required a certain percentage of all new energy projects, or maybe even buildings, to achieve some kind of energy independent level.

Maybe someone in Leeds, England, will have something to say about this.

Charge energy companies for pollution they cause and solar makes fiscal sense really fast!

It's very easy and inexpensive to make new residential construction. "Solar ready" - just run conduit to a DC disconnect and production meter base, and conduit from that base to the service panel, (making sure you have room for a double-pole circuit breaker at the bottom of the panel). When you're ready, add the PV array, micro-inverters, wire, and you're all set.

It would be even easier and less expensive if HB 1301 had passed, but unfortunately, it didn't.

I-937 mandated that the state get 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. And it seems to be working.

I-937 better approach than singling out a particular technology, especially one that's finicky from a cost-benefit perspective in this region.

Weird, Slog posted my comment before I was done. Anyway, I was going on to say that homeowner subsidies for RE production are great if they pencil in the long run, but it's not fair to say that we're not doing anything at the state level. Acknowledge success!

Patrick Dear, as you undoubtedly know, the production incentive for solar is a state program. Sure, it's administered by the local utilities, but that money comes out of the state utility tax, and the DOR is the department who certifies the installations.

I-937 has nothing to do with customer-owned generation.

"All you'd have to do would be to amend building codes to make that mandatory in new construction."

"All you'd have to do . . . "

You have no friggin idea.

Alright Dominic, I'll call your bluff. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22education+fu…. Huh, nothing there on basic ed funding. Let's try http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22education+%2…. Lots in there about guns in schools, dream act, Senator Tom (who is, I will admit, a dickbag)... but the most recent thing I could find on basic ed funding was a Goldy post from Jan 10, 2012 right after the McCleary decision came out.

Basic ed is 43% of general fund dollars, and you haven't written about it in fifteen months.

Catalina,
Thank you, and understood. I think that individual incentives are important and, for example, I'm a fan of legislation that authorizes financing agreements that allow homeowners to install RE capacity at no up-front cost, to be paid back over some subsequent time frame with the energy provided by said RE. But I think it is a mistake to give blanket subsidies to specific RE technologies and not the outcome (e.g. cost-beneficial CO2 reduction). That mutes the incentive to pick the most efficient sustainable technology for one's site (important in our climate) and smacks of protectionism to boot.

But Patrick dear, unless I am missing something (after all, I am a 70's mannequin who lives in a Beaon Hill basement) there is no "up-front" incentive to install renewable energy. It's all terribly dependent on the whims of the leg - and right now, the existing program stops at 2020. And it is by no means limited to solar. Wind, biomass, small hydro and geothermal are also eligible for the incentive.

And as far as I-937 is concerned, I personally feel that certified low impact hydro (like the Skagit hydro project) should be counted towards renewable. That would encourage the other hydro operators to clean up their act.

You're right , I-937 is not limited to solar. That's why I like it: it's about outcomes and not outputs. Ms. Minard's post referred to solar power "fans" (companies?) who want the legislature to enact a solar-specific incentive. By all means, let's extend I-937. And tweak it to include low-impact hydro if warranted. And make it easier for individual homeowners to install RE capacity. I'll be out there like I was in 2006. But governments should focus on rewarding results, not picking winners out of a wildly dynamic marketplace.

Lovely hat, btw.

Thank you dear. It's from Frederick & Nelson.

@5 and @7 are very insightful.

However, it is also true that solar power is about 80 percent efficient in Seattle, regardless of the relatively thin cloud cover that sprinkles mist on us.

Solar makes no sense here. It requires 8:1 subsidies, and even then the payback is 10 years. If people actually want to reduce carbon emissions, there are much, much more effective ways to do it than to shove money at solar.

But, as with so many other things in Seattle, solar has little to do with any environmental goals. This is one more example of how this city's hipster fuckwits want to make themselves feel better, not to mention being a fashion fad. The science and economics of any of this are no match for fuckwits in a frenzy.

However, it is also true that solar power is about 80 percent efficient in Seattle, regardless of the relatively thin cloud cover that sprinkles mist on us.

Pray tell, please give us your unique definition of "efficiency," given that everyone else will tell us that the maximum theoretical efficiency of a solar cell is 29%, and that the best ones now on the market are in the mid 20% range.

Or, #17, maybe you just did what ever other Seattle hipster fuckwit does and pulled a number out of your ass, figuring that no one would actually know what they're talking about and tell you how full of shit you are?

http://exploringgreentechnology.com/sola…