Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]

The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.

At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.

Can we fire these imbeciles yet?

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
>rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
>video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]

>The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
>farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
>are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
>especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
>poison everyone accessing that water.

Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.

>At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
>rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
>Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
>are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
>of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
>driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
>these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
>necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.

>Can we fire these imbeciles yet?

I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
That keeps it out of sewers.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:46:53 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
> >rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under
> >this video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like
> >Halifax.
>
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
>
> >The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
> >farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar
> >farm are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar
> >panels, especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the
> >groundwater and poison everyone accessing that water.
>
> Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
>
Good one! You should have your own comedy show ;-)

> >At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
> >rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
> >Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how
> >they determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes
> >they are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for
> >the amount of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like
> >roofs, driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain
> >landing on these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow
> >makes it necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach
> >the sewers.
>
> >Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
>
> I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's
> any fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting
> rainwater? That keeps it out of sewers.

They seem to be operating on the principle that "anything that
happens, whether we in the government are responsible or not, is
taxable". I can't see any other conceivable rationale.

--
Rhino

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 21:08:10 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
>rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
>video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
>
>The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
>farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
>are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
>especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
>poison everyone accessing that water.

Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
any costs associated with the broken solar panels?

>At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
>rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
>Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
>are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
>of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
>driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
>these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
>necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.

Um, I hate to point this out for fear they take it into account, but
in any city that can get significant rainfall the water is going to
soak into the porous ground and then start heading to the sewers. I
see it here every time it rains. Though the problem is here is that
much of the soil is full of clay which tends to only absorb water on
the top layer and then let the rest run off. Toronto should have
better soil that will absorb more water but still run off is going to
be an issue.

So who makes the decision on how much each property owner should pay
in tax and just how much is their salary? Better to just increase the
water/sewer taxes and avoid all of this addition infrastructure to
track run off.
>Can we fire these imbeciles yet?

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
>> rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
>> video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
>
>> The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
>> farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
>> are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
>> especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
>> poison everyone accessing that water.
>
> Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
>
>> At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
>> rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
>> Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
>> determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
>> are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
>> of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
>> driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
>> these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
>> necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
>
>> Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
>
> I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
> fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
> That keeps it out of sewers.
>

My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard. Every
year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill – thousands
of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all water used goes down
the drain. They assess us something like one sixth our water bill for
sewer.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:46:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
>>rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
>>video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
>
>>The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
>>farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
>>are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
>>especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
>>poison everyone accessing that water.
>
>Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.

Yeah that toxic waste they become when being disposed of should be
ignored?

Eyeroll.

>
>>At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
>>rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
>>Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
>>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
>>are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
>>of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
>>driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
>>these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
>>necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
>
>>Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
>
>I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
>fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
>That keeps it out of sewers.

Because it increases government control and money. That's why.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time
> >> in rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments
> >> under this video, is already being levied in other Canadian
> >> cities, like Halifax.
> >
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
> >
> >> The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
> >> farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar
> >> farm are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar
> >> panels, especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the
> >> groundwater and poison everyone accessing that water.
> >
> > Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
> >
> >> At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the
> >> proposed rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is
> >> levied on Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not
> >> clear on how they determine that people are collecting rainwater
> >> and what volumes they are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are
> >> assessed tax for the amount of non-porous surfaces they have on
> >> their property, like roofs, driveways, and concrete patios, on the
> >> theory that rain landing on these surfaces will end up in the
> >> sewers, which somehow makes it necessary to charge homeowners for
> >> what they allow to reach the sewers.
> >
> >> Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
> >
> > I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's
> > any fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting
> > rainwater? That keeps it out of sewers.
> >
>
> My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
> Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
> – thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
> water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
> sixth our water bill for sewer.
>

That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>:

>>>. . .
>>My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
>>Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
>>– thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
>>water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
>>sixth our water bill for sewer.

>That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
>pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
>went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?

How? Taxes and fees have do not measure consumption nor benefit and they
are never fair. It's fairly common that sewer charges are simply
surcharges on water bills. The fact that water exiting the house into
the main drain to the sanitary sewer isn't measured is of no interest.

There's typically a second surcharge for "infiltration" which is all the
water that enters the sanitary sewer that cannot be related to water
bills. That has absolutely nothing to do with you.

On 3/31/2024 11:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>> Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
>>> Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
>>> – thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
>>> water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
>>> sixth our water bill for sewer.
>
>> That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
>> pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
>> went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
>
> How? Taxes and fees have do not measure consumption nor benefit and they
> are never fair. It's fairly common that sewer charges are simply
> surcharges on water bills. The fact that water exiting the house into
> the main drain to the sanitary sewer isn't measured is of no interest.
>
> There's typically a second surcharge for "infiltration" which is all the
> water that enters the sanitary sewer that cannot be related to water
> bills. That has absolutely nothing to do with you.

The really stupid part of all this is they should have simply increased
the sewage fee WITHOUT saying "this is a new charge for being rained
on". People would have grumbled for a bit and paid but the way this was
handled apparently comes across as a punishment for the weather.

Thought, would this new "rain tax" apply to a home lot entirely covered
by a geodesic dome, diverting away before it reaches the property? :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <0fri0j57rt9ujmt1q38rs5vh3osn1lgp97@4ax.com>,
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:46:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
> >>rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
> >>video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
> >
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
> >
> >>The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
> >>farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
> >>are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
> >>especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
> >>poison everyone accessing that water.
> >
> >Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
>
> Yeah that toxic waste they become when being disposed of should be
> ignored?
>
> Eyeroll.

Just like the batteries in EVs. Mining the rare earth minerals for them
is an environmental nightmare. There's a whole swath of Canada that
looks like the surface of the moon where they mine for EV battery
components. Plus the majority of it is mined by child labor all over
Africa. Instead of wondering whether your engagement gem is a blood
diamond, you'll be wondering whether your EV battery is a blood battery.

And the disposal of millions of those batteries is going to make our
nuclear waste disposal problems look like child's play.

> >>At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
> >>rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
> >>Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
> >>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
> >>are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
> >>of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
> >>driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
> >>these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
> >>necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
> >
> >>Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
> >
> >I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
> >fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
> >That keeps it out of sewers.
>
> Because it increases government control and money. That's why.

In article <uucbis$1ure2$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 3/31/2024 11:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >> Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>:
> >
> >>>> . . .
> >
> >>> My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
> >>> Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
> >>> – thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
> >>> water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
> >>> sixth our water bill for sewer.
> >
> >> That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
> >> pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
> >> went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
> >
> > How? Taxes and fees have do not measure consumption nor benefit and they
> > are never fair. It's fairly common that sewer charges are simply
> > surcharges on water bills. The fact that water exiting the house into
> > the main drain to the sanitary sewer isn't measured is of no interest.
> >
> > There's typically a second surcharge for "infiltration" which is all the
> > water that enters the sanitary sewer that cannot be related to water
> > bills. That has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>
> The really stupid part of all this is they should have simply increased
> the sewage fee WITHOUT saying "this is a new charge for being rained
> on". People would have grumbled for a bit and paid but the way this was
> handled apparently comes across as a punishment for the weather.
>
> Thought, would this new "rain tax" apply to a home lot entirely covered
> by a geodesic dome, diverting away before it reaches the property? :P

Okay, settle down, Mr. Burns.

On 3/31/24 3:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <0fri0j57rt9ujmt1q38rs5vh3osn1lgp97@4ax.com>,
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:46:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
>>>> rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
>>>> video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
>>>
>>>> The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
>>>> farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
>>>> are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
>>>> especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
>>>> poison everyone accessing that water.
>>>
>>> Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
>>
>> Yeah that toxic waste they become when being disposed of should be
>> ignored?
>>
>> Eyeroll.
>
> Just like the batteries in EVs. Mining the rare earth minerals for them
> is an environmental nightmare. There's a whole swath of Canada that
> looks like the surface of the moon where they mine for EV battery
> components.

Where are the pictures of such a thing? Do I need to show you zero hits
on Google again?

Plus the majority of it is mined by child labor all over
> Africa. Instead of wondering whether your engagement gem is a blood
> diamond, you'll be wondering whether your EV battery is a blood battery.
>
> And the disposal of millions of those batteries is going to make our
> nuclear waste disposal problems look like child's play.
>
>>>> At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
>>>> rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
>>>> Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
>>>> determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
>>>> are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
>>>> of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
>>>> driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
>>>> these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
>>>> necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
>>>
>>>> Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
>>>
>>> I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
>>> fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
>>> That keeps it out of sewers.
>>
>> Because it increases government control and money. That's why.

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 21:08:10 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
>rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
>Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
>are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
>of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
>driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
>these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
>necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.

Really? I have a rubber coated steel roof and I certainly don't pay a
tax surcharge. (We formerly had a cedar shake roof some 20 years ago
that had needed to be replaced and it was the year after the Kelowna
forest fire of 2003 - which for the benefit of Americans reading this
came uncomfortably close to wiping out one of Canada biggest wine
grape growing areas.)

Now we are on the edge - literally - of a large forest and had heard
from a city councillor (now our mayor) that hot embers could fly up to
1/2 mile through the air in the "right" conditions so I got estimates
for a cedar shake roof and our steel roof and found the difference was
about $100 - so I told my missus - "Steel it us - think of it as cheap
insurance!"

(The purpose of the rubber coat is so if you have flying embers they
would burn through the rubber and burn out on the steel without damage
to the house)

It goes without saying stainless steel is about as non-porous as it
gets!

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 22:23:08 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>They seem to be operating on the principle that "anything that
>happens, whether we in the government are responsible or not, is
>taxable". I can't see any other conceivable rationale.

I agree with your interpretation but that's just plain dumb.

Was this City of Toronto or one of the burbs?

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
>harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
>So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
>any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
>

Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance
contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
that specific charge was on you)

(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
kids not me)

On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:48:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
>>harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
>>So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
>>any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
>>
>
>Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
>company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
>their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance
>contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
>that specific charge was on you)
>
>(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
>would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
>kids not me)

Yes, we are still at a point where I don't see a solar system being
useful from a cost savings. Where it does shine is being able to keep
your home power going if you are in an area with unreliable power
subject to hours long black outs or even brown outs.

In article <jugn0j5urnlllccvpomu7sgmf2505uo5s1@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:48:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
> ><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
> >>harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
> >>So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
> >>any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
> >>
> >
> >Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
> >company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
> >their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance
> >contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
> >that specific charge was on you)
> >
> >(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
> >would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
> >kids not me)
>
> Yes, we are still at a point where I don't see a solar system being
> useful from a cost savings.

And the big selling point-- that not only will you eliminate your own
electric bill, but you can make money by selling the extra electricity
back to the power company-- is going away.

Here in CA, the assembly passed a bill which Newsom signed, which cuts
the amount of power the utility has to buy back from you in half and
they're expected to eliminate the requirement altogether in coming years.

Strange move for a state government that is constantly preaching the
Climate Cult catechism. One would think they'd strengthen incentives to
go solar, not eliminate them. Kinda shows where their interests really
lie-- in money and perks and whores provided to them by lobbysists for
electric utility industry.

> Where it does shine is being able to keep your home power going if you
> are in an area with unreliable power subject to hours long black outs
> or even brown outs.

Here in CA, we have a law that requires your home solar system to shut
down if the power grid goes down. So you have to suffer through a
blackout with everyone else even if you have solar power.

I always thought that would be one of the great benefits of a solar
system in your home-- that if the power went out, you'd still be up and
running. But the state requires that such systems must be configured so
that if the grid loses power, the homes with solar panels have to go
dark, too.

It supposedly has something to do with the problems that homes that are
still powered will cause to the grid and dangers to work crews trying to
make repairs.

I really hope the reasoning is something like that-- that powered homes
electrify the lines or something-- and that it's not some 'social
justice' bullshit where it's not 'fair' if some people have electricity
when everyone else doesn't. We already have the usual suspects bitching
about how solar power is racist because the majority of homes with
panels are in white/rich neighborhoods.

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:42:46 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>I really hope the reasoning is something like that-- that powered homes
>electrify the lines or something-- and that it's not some 'social
>justice' bullshit where it's not 'fair' if some people have electricity
>when everyone else doesn't. We already have the usual suspects bitching
>about how solar power is racist because the majority of homes with
>panels are in white/rich neighborhoods.

Which of course given it's California probably IS the "rationale"

On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:42:46 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <jugn0j5urnlllccvpomu7sgmf2505uo5s1@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:48:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
>> ><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
>> >>harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
>> >>So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
>> >>any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
>> >company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
>> >their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance
>> >contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
>> >that specific charge was on you)
>> >
>> >(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
>> >would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
>> >kids not me)
>>
>> Yes, we are still at a point where I don't see a solar system being
>> useful from a cost savings.
>
>And the big selling point-- that not only will you eliminate your own
>electric bill, but you can make money by selling the extra electricity
>back to the power company-- is going away.
>
>Here in CA, the assembly passed a bill which Newsom signed, which cuts
>the amount of power the utility has to buy back from you in half and
>they're expected to eliminate the requirement altogether in coming years.

Why would they do that? Is there some sort of problem with buying this
extra power that is being produced.

>Strange move for a state government that is constantly preaching the
>Climate Cult catechism. One would think they'd strengthen incentives to
>go solar, not eliminate them. Kinda shows where their interests really
>lie-- in money and perks and whores provided to them by lobbysists for
>electric utility industry.

That would be sad if that's the reason for the change. Not exactly
surprising but still sad to see them so easily bought.

>> Where it does shine is being able to keep your home power going if you
>> are in an area with unreliable power subject to hours long black outs
>> or even brown outs.
>
>Here in CA, we have a law that requires your home solar system to shut
>down if the power grid goes down. So you have to suffer through a
>blackout with everyone else even if you have solar power.

I can see that there might be a need for you to not keep putting power
in to the system if everything else is down, but that should not
require your home solar system to shut down. Just stop putting power
into the grid if it detects the power in the grid is down.

>I always thought that would be one of the great benefits of a solar
>system in your home-- that if the power went out, you'd still be up and
>running. But the state requires that such systems must be configured so
>that if the grid loses power, the homes with solar panels have to go
>dark, too.
>
>It supposedly has something to do with the problems that homes that are
>still powered will cause to the grid and dangers to work crews trying to
>make repairs.

Yes, but cutting off that power getting in to the grid shouldn't be a
problem. Also the utility people already know they need to cut off
power when working on the lines so it shouldn't be an issue for them
to do that and then only have to worry about power to the small area
they are working on.

>I really hope the reasoning is something like that-- that powered homes
>electrify the lines or something-- and that it's not some 'social
>justice' bullshit where it's not 'fair' if some people have electricity
>when everyone else doesn't. We already have the usual suspects bitching
>about how solar power is racist because the majority of homes with
>panels are in white/rich neighborhoods.

It's racist to have money.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time
>>>> in rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments
>>>> under this video, is already being levied in other Canadian
>>>> cities, like Halifax.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?vwrYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
>>>
>>>> The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
>>>> farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar
>>>> farm are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar
>>>> panels, especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the
>>>> groundwater and poison everyone accessing that water.
>>>
>>> Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
>>>
>>>> At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the
>>>> proposed rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is
>>>> levied on Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not
>>>> clear on how they determine that people are collecting rainwater
>>>> and what volumes they are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are
>>>> assessed tax for the amount of non-porous surfaces they have on
>>>> their property, like roofs, driveways, and concrete patios, on the
>>>> theory that rain landing on these surfaces will end up in the
>>>> sewers, which somehow makes it necessary to charge homeowners for
>>>> what they allow to reach the sewers.
>>>
>>>> Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
>>>
>>> I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's
>>> any fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting
>>> rainwater? That keeps it out of sewers.
>>>
>>
>> My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
>> Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
>>  thousands of dollars  that is based on the assumption that all
>> water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
>> sixth our water bill for sewer.
>>
>
> That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
> pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
> went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
>

Apparently only on a case, by case basis, which they win, every year.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.