I've been thinking regarding the things mentioned in the first piece referenced above.
I am pro nuclear power - but I don't want to live next to a nuclear plant. Mostly for aesthetic reasons. We can live farther away because one plant services many households (and transmission lines etc.).
That's not very different from a county that gets "saddled" with big solar plants.
Land use (zoning) laws (I think, but I'm not all that well-versed in these things) are the prerogative of the town or county, I thought.
If so, I don't like state imposed changes to that (though there may be some legal way to do that via eminent domain?).
Regardless, I think town/county should have a stronger say in things, allowing for less uproar by some parts of the folks living there.
I think a way in which less feathers would be ruffled would be to have incentives. NOT (more) for the companies installing the solar plant, but for the folks living near that plant.
I know the grid is one big thing, but if power is generated near where it is consumed, transmission costs will be lower. That (transmission) is a fair part of a power bill, at least here.
So why not give folks near (whatever range that may mean) a solar plant significant lower transmission cost? (Or, more arbitrary, xx kWh of free power per household, or x% lower power rate, or....) That should be offset with higher transmission cost for folks living farther away.
This would also incentivize people putting their own solar power on their roofs, especially when farther away from a power plant.
Lower power bills is an incentive based on which local (elected) authorities could decide to go or not go for a plant in their area, while representing their voter base. It would compensate those affected by decreased aesthetics of their surroundings. After all that's how we do things in a capitalist society.
Those incentives should only be for folks who already live there, and for 30 years or so - significant, but finite time. NOT for folks moving to the area after the power plant building has started, as they choose to live near the plant after it's already there, and hence it's not negatively impacting their lives while already being settled there.
Given that the state as a whole has a benefit if power plants exist (...), some of the below could be paid for by a broader base (i.e. consumers of power that are farther away). Some state regulation of such incentives would thus be needed.
Maybe these are idealistic thoughts that have practical issues, but I would think that things can be "done" in a way that is more equitable, and probably less contentious.
Now I'll dream on.
www.whec.com
