Solar users still must pay for the grid

Let me take a stab at tackling letter writer John Bauman’s statement that he still hasn’t “had anybody satisfactorily explain to me how my having a solar system that generates all my electricity would cost non-solar customers more money” (Saturday Review-Journal).

Being connected to the grid is not a “free” right. The grid comprises very expensive infrastructure requiring a large financial support stream. In addition, whether or not a kilowatt of power is consumed from the grid, the distribution infrastructure must still be funded.

Solar installations function only during the day. So nighttime generation capacity needs to be near that of the grid’s total daytime production (minus the statistical off-hours usage decline). What does this mean? If one wants a solar system with the availability of the grid as a backup, the financial support of both is required.

The reality of “pay for both” is the true financial penalty of solar. There’s also the issue of power generation itself. Power plants do not throttle well. They operate efficiently at 100 percent capacity. They take hours — sometimes days — to get up to proper operating parameters, like a steam boiler. One does not just “turn on” a plant for nighttime use and “turn it off” during the day because of solar.

Of course, if a solar homeowner wants to be completely free of grid expenses, unfair cost-shifting and imbalanced subsidies, a *huge* investment in battery systems must be made.

Nothing is free. Having solar and access to the grid is a “pay twice” proposition.

Russell D. Stephan

Las Vegas

Rude attorney

I’m confused. What was Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen supposed to do (“Judge erred in handcuffing public defender,” Monday Review-Journal)? He asked attorney Zohra Bakhtary several times to stop interrupting him. It appeared that she had no regard for the rules of the courtroom and certainly no regard for the judge.

I appreciate that she was trying to defend her client, but disobeying the judge was a poor way to do it.

Darlien C. Breeze

Las Vegas

Basic instinct

Congratulations to Basic High School for winning the Nevada high school baseball championship. Finally a legitimate Nevada high school wins a state title. It was fitting they beat Centennial for the title, a lesser-of-two-evils school, the other being Bishop Gorman, a school known for recruiting and big-money backers.

Maybe some Las Vegas ex-pro athletes will be looking to send their offspring to Basic instead of Gorman. Go Wolves.

Frank DiNicola

Henderson

Drugged driving

Kudos to letter writer Richard Shengulette for calling out the drug users who imperil innocent drivers on our highways (May 31 Review-Journal). Back in my day as a police officer, booze was the drug of choice and almost 50 percent of fatal traffic accidents were attributed to it. In this new age of the millennial, we can now add heroin, pharmaceuticals, cocaine, and of course, marijuana, to the list of causation factors.

Mr. Shengulette ended his letter by stating that the public should know who the politicians are that promote the legalization of such drugs. I can give him the name of one politician whose name pops up constantly here in Las Vegas as a chief supporter for the legalization of marijuana movement: state Sen. Tick Segerblom.

For all of Mr. Segerblom’s promoting of marijuana, I’ve never once heard him propose a test or method to determine when a person is under the influence of the drug.

As always, it will be up to the police to make that determination at the scene of an accident. But, tragically, it will often be too late for some innocent driver or pedestrian.

Ron Moers

Henderson