# Solar required on New Homes.



## Gymschu

I will claim that I don't know much about the solar panel industry, but, I've always heard that the manufacturing process to make them is very caustic with all the chemicals needed and used to make them. My buddy's wife retired early from a company that makes them because she was exposed to some pretty harmful chemicals and she wanted to get out as soon as she could afford to do so. If that's truly the case, then the money saved on energy is fool's gold in a way because of the harm to the environment in making solar panels.


----------



## ZZZZZ

This is nothing more than a politically-motivated subsidy to the solar industry.

If solar makes sense, why is there a need to mandate it? If solar makes sense, every responsible home-buyer would demand it.
.
.


----------



## Oso954

If you are going to make the leap from “uses caustic chemicals” to “environmental damage” maybe you should give up your cell phone, any computers/iPads, and any other silicon wafer semi conductor devices that you might have. (Not to mention many other things in this world)

Used responsibly and disposed of properly, there is not problem with caustic chemical use. Irresponsible use or disposal is a problem.


----------



## Oso954

> If solar makes sense, why is there a need to mandate it? If solar makes sense, every responsible home-buyer would demand it.


There are many things that make sense in this world that the buying public doesn’t buy until you mandate them. 

I can remember when cars didn’t come with seat belts. Very few people wanted them. You often had to buy them at the auto parts store because the dealer might not carry/install them.

California has a 100% renewable energy goal by 2045. Putting solar in on every home built during/after 2020 will help in progress towards that goal.


----------



## SeniorSitizen

Harmful chemicals shouldn't be a problem for CA residents because they will probably be made in china and we'll all get the drift.:vs_laugh:


----------



## Nealtw

I guess if a country doesn't have the skill level to produce and dispose of these things safely they should leave it to countries that have the smarts.


----------



## ZZZZZ

Oso954 said:


> There are many things that make sense in this world that the buying public doesn’t buy until you mandate them.
> 
> I can remember when cars didn’t come with seat belts. Very few people wanted them. You often had to buy them at the auto parts store because the dealer might not carry/install them.
> 
> California has a 100% renewable energy goal by 2045. Putting solar in on every home built during/after 2020 will help in progress towards that goal.


Transportation safety is a very different subject than electricity generation.
.
.


----------



## SPS-1

Gymschu said:


> ... I've always heard that the manufacturing process to make them is very caustic with all the chemicals needed and used to make them.


 
Making silicon cells uses similar processes as making silicon computer chips. Possibly you are referring to acids used for cleaning and etching. Does not stop you or others from buying computers or cell phone.


First Solar makes different type of cells --- cadmium telluride. These are not as common though. Cadmium is toxic, not used so much anymore --- used to be used for plating steel and Nickel Cadmium batteries.


----------



## ChuckF.

So will the environmentalists give you permission to cut down enough trees to light up your solar panels for more than a few hours a day? What if there's an owl nesting in one of those trees?


----------



## SPS-1

ChuckF. said:


> So will the environmentalists give you permission to cut down enough trees to light up your solar panels for more than a few hours a day?


???????


----------



## user_12345a

This is what happens when politicians deal with something they don't understand.

PV being required is absolutely silly.

There's little evidence grid tied solar actually reduces fossil fuel consumption even though power is produced. The supply is often out of sync with demand and too unreliable to maintain a stable grid.

So you can have surpluses of power that push the price down below the cost of production, causing issues for conventional power plants. It's often exported at a loss.

Often, when demand is at it's highest, in the late afternoon and early evening, the output of the panels starts to go down.


Regulation is important to keep builders accountable; energy performance doesn't sell houses, nice counter-tops do. Don't regulate and the builders will to the bear minimum for the house to be habitable.

However, it doesn't make sense for a government to mandate using a certain technology over another technology. Though if they are going to mandate the use of one form of renewable energy, it should be solar thermal for hot water, not pv especially for all electric houses.

Solar thermal makes far more sense than pv and is far more efficient with less toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing.

The energy can easily be stored for use without expensive and toxic batteries.

I believe israel requires solar hot water.

But rather than pushing for renewable energy, I would much rather see heating/cooling capacity loss through ductwork regulated in the southern us than than renewable energy mandated. Attic duct systems need to be banned.

So much energy is wasted as a result of poorly designed and installed hvac systems.

Take the typical cookie cutter cheaply built suburban home, throw solar electric panels on it and it will still be as grid and fossil fuel dependent as the same house without.

The new housing developments also tend to be very car dependent. I don't see the value in building a super energy efficient house with solar pv if the occupants have to drive 50 to 100km per day.


----------



## mark sr

Reminds me of when fla instituted a handicap accessible new house policy. They mandated all bath rms had to have at least a 32" door to every bath rm. So the builders I painted for [track homes] put in the wider door and made the vanity narrower. On some of the homes a wheelchair would fit thru the doorway but that was all! I always thought it would have made more sense for the gov't to give builders a permit discount for a handicap accessible floor plan [one that made sense] and maybe charge a little extra for the rest to create a fund to help out disabled folks retrofit their homes.


----------



## Oso954

> PV being required is absolutely silly.


Where you live, I agree with you.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

ChuckF. said:


> So will the environmentalists give you permission to cut down enough trees to light up your solar panels for more than a few hours a day? What if there's an owl nesting in one of those trees?


if you read the text, you'll see that they have exemptions/alternatives for houses that are in highly shaded areas. almost seems like someone looked outside and said "but trees" before they wrote it!


----------



## user_12345a

mark sr said:


> Reminds me of when fla instituted a handicap accessible new house policy. They mandated all bath rms had to have at least a 32" door to every bath rm. So the builders I painted for [track homes] put in the wider door and made the vanity narrower. On some of the homes a wheelchair would fit thru the doorway but that was all! I always thought it would have made more sense for the gov't to give builders a permit discount for a handicap accessible floor plan [one that made sense] and maybe charge a little extra for the rest to create a fund to help out disabled folks retrofit their homes.


In my province they mandated smoke alarms for the visually impaired in every bedroom and on every floor - they have to have strobes.

The rules drive the cost of a house up by hundreds if not a couple thousand dollars and most people aren't visually impaired.

Builders should just be required offer upgrade packages for handicapped people and do the changes at cost. (ie - no huge markup)


----------



## Doelman

ZZZZZ said:


> This is nothing more than a politically-motivated subsidy to the solar industry.
> 
> If solar makes sense, why is there a need to mandate it? If solar makes sense, every responsible home-buyer would demand it.
> .
> .


The problem is, the average home-buyer isn't educated enough to understand the complexities of atmospheric science and while the climate changing is happening very quickly on a geological scale, it's happening too slowly to see it on a daily basis from an individual's perspective. We all have a very narrow perspective on life and we don't always want what's best for everyone because it isn't best for us personally. Without any outside regulation, we will destroy ourselves and everything around us. See the United States before the clean air and water acts, literal rivers on fire.


----------



## Nealtw

100 years ago people complained because that had to wire their new house for electricity. Oil lamps work just fine, thank you.


----------



## user_12345a

Nealtw said:


> 100 years ago people complained because that had to wire their new house for electricity. Oil lamps work just fine, thank you.


I don't think anyone really complained.

The panels on the other hand, at least the way they're used aren't of much value because don't provide power if the grid goes down, unless the owner invests a lot of $$$ in storage. 

You only get having to pay more up front and then the electric bills are lower. 

I'll start believe pv is the future of power generation if/when something much better than the battery comes out.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

Nealtw said:


> 100 years ago people complained because that had to wire their new house for electricity. *Oil lamps work just fine, thank you.*


Sure, until someone knocks one over and sets Chicago on fire.


----------



## Nealtw

user_12345a said:


> I don't think anyone really complained.
> 
> The panels on the other hand, at least the way they're used aren't of much value because don't provide power if the grid goes down, unless the owner invests a lot of $$$ in storage.
> 
> You only get having to pay more up front and then the electric bills are lower.
> 
> I'll start believe pv is the future of power generation if/when something much better than the battery comes out.


 Just pump the water back up the hill. :devil3:


----------



## SPS-1

user_12345a said:


> The panels on the other hand, at least the way they're used aren't of much value because don't provide power if the grid goes down, unless the owner invests a lot of $$$ in storage.


 
That is something that probably a lot of people don't understand. A battery system would be required to get full benefit. 

But inverters with a 2 kW outlet that stays powered even if the grid goes down, are available. In Japan, such inverters are pretty much standard -- not sure why they are not universal over here. After a natural disaster, they can be life-savers. They would at least allow you to recharge your phone, and turn on TV or computer to try to find out when power will be back on.

Recall that the original post mentions that the new requirement for solar on homes is in California. The big one will hit some day.


.


----------



## HenryMac

Government over reach in California? Shocking! :wink2:

There's probably an exemption though if it's "Sanctuary Housing".


----------



## SeniorSitizen

This sounds similar to the political wind generation agenda. When reading, the word *"potential production"* is frequently read but the word "*actual* *production*" seems to be mostly or completely omitted in most writings.


----------



## Deja-vue

I have Solar since 2015, DIY Install, 44 Panels, 2 Inverters. Since, I have never paid more than $10/month in electricity, actually it is more like a "connection fee".
Obviously, I over-produce a lot and the power company gives me a Check once or twice a year, $220 - $300 sometimes. I over built the System with a future E-Car in mind, to charge that as well.

Also, if the Grid goes down, my Inverters have a "Emergency Plug" from which you can get 3KWh, as long as the Sun is up.
So we're not totally without power.
Home Batteries are a bit too expensive today, but they will fall quickly, as more manufacturers coming out with new Systems.
My Power Bill used to be around $300/month and Solar has been nothing but good to me. YMMV, however.


----------



## user_12345a

The new inverter technology sounds interesting. I wonder how stable the power output is, how it handles inrush current in excess of what panels can supply from motors starting.


----------



## lenaitch

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/don-sadoway-david-bradwell-battery-invention-1.4945615


----------



## u3b3rg33k

lenaitch said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/don-sadoway-david-bradwell-battery-invention-1.4945615


There's basically 0 info about the battery there. lots of musing on stuff though.


----------



## SPS-1

Liquid metal anode, liquid metal cathode, liquid electrolyte. Probably accurate that the metals used are inexpensive, but seem to have a problem with the seal surviving at elevated temperature.


When they start building them and selling them, its news. Until then it only deserves a few lines in sciencedaily.com


http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1497163/26853855/1455290007250/ambri_brochure_feb16.pdf?token=%2Bb2dETO7McLWV8p4hFHMUkVGByw%3D 


.


----------



## tmittelstaedt

This is a good mandate. I live in a home that has good southern exposure and I have solar companies that would put panels on my home without charge. The problem is that because there were no regulations requiring it back in 1911 the attic uses the cheapest bracing possible and as a result cannot support the weight of panels.

Solar works very well when the producers are feeding power back to the grid. During the day when the sun is out power demand is at the highest particularly for industrial uses, and the residential owners are often at work and their electrical use is the lowest, as a result the surplus power from the tens of thousands of empty homes is fed to the grid powering industry.

With enough homes doing this that can save the cost of a power plant. Utilities have to build generation capacity for peak usage during the day so much of their generation capacity is unused during the night. The checks from the utility company will over time reimburse the home purchaser for the additional cost of the home and then some. The builder shouldn't be complaining because the buyer pays for it.

It's far smarter than mandating low-flow toilets that people have to flush 2-4 times to get all the stuff to go down and the bowls are always filthy and smeared brown because there's not enough water to wash them in a flush.

When enough homes have solar the variations on generation will be smoothed out by the sheer number of homes.


----------



## KPDMinc

How does a contractor building a new home determine what size PV system to install? Every family is going to be different. When i had mine installed, it was determined by 12 months of previous SDGE bills...


----------



## u3b3rg33k

KPDMinc said:


> How does a contractor building a new home determine what size PV system to install? Every family is going to be different. When i had mine installed, it was determined by 12 months of previous SDGE bills...


what fits on the roof? what's the Cali "book" say for design target?

there's no such thing as too much solar if the buyback price is right.


----------



## KPDMinc

u3b3rg33k said:


> what fits on the roof? what's the Cali "book" say for design target?
> 
> there's no such thing as too much solar if the buyback price is right.


But there IS such thing as too much - Local utility companies basically govern how much you install. Even though the 'buy back' is so small, they still dont want to owe anyone anything... I fought for 4 additional panels on my roof, and had to prove the additional plan for usage as i had gotten a hot tub the same month i signed the papers for the PV system... what a headache.. I can only think the new construction is not going to be allowed to install enough panels that would bring their net usage to zero...


----------



## u3b3rg33k

KPDMinc said:


> But there IS such thing as too much - Local utility companies basically govern how much you install. Even though the 'buy back' is so small, they still dont want to owe anyone anything... I fought for 4 additional panels on my roof, and had to prove the additional plan for usage as i had gotten a hot tub the same month i signed the papers for the PV system... what a headache.. I can only think the new construction is not going to be allowed to install enough panels that would bring their net usage to zero...


'Round these parts there's no mandatory "net zero" in effect. category 1 installs are 20kW or under, and are basically rubber stamp approval if all the basics are met (inverter disconnect switch, UL listed anti-islanding inverter, meter socket, etc). 

over 20kW they look deeper, and somewhere there's a "maximum" feed back limit for single phase, probably to avoid unbalancing things. those categories you might be able to prove a need/justify your consumption, but I don't own enough roof to worry about getting into those categories.


----------



## user_12345a

Net zero homes - what a joke. As soon as the sun goes down or gets blocked by a cloud they're 100% reliant on grid power plants which must stay running whether the panels produce or not.

oh yah, net zero homes can burn natural gas as long as the solar "offsets" the usage. As if all energy sources are equal.

The green movement needs to stop blowing green smoke up their collective behind.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

A+ contribution to the thread!


----------



## Deja-vue

> or gets blocked by a cloud they're 100% reliant on grid power


That is the most ridiculous post I have seen yet. 
My System produces power even when it is raining. Very little, of course.
Clouds don't block 100%, they will lower production by some degree.
You obviously don't have Solar power.


----------



## user_12345a

> My System produces power even when it is raining. Very little, of course.
> Clouds don't block 100%, they will lower production by some degree.
> You obviously don't have Solar power.


Very little is as good as nothing if you're trying to actually power base as well as peak loads.

Who cares whether output drops to 0% or 20% suddenly for a couple of minutes due to a cloud.

A engine that randomly while accelerating dropped it's max hp from the normal 100+ to 5hp wouldn't be tolerated, especially if it had to be backed up with a second engine which had to idle constantly and waste fuel.

Those who want to turn the meter back can do so with solar. It works well for that - as a financial investment, it's very viable now.

But if you're actually trying to reduce fossil or nuclear fuel use, forget it. 

People would be so much better off simply putting in solar domestic hot water systems which have tank storage. These systems are simple and work great.

But society wants expensive "high-tech" solutions - few are interested in simple technologies that work well.

The power plants still have to stay running at the same capacity because of how unreliable the output is. The system operators can't predict output reliably and adjust power output from large plants accordingly.

This is the case unless systems are installed with batteries as a buffer. Maybe one day capacitors will be used.

I had to take renewable energy courses and almost everything I learned about PV turned me against it for all but special applications.

Biggest disadvantages: The cost and complexity of all the equipment. The intermittent, highly variable nature of the output. The need for batteries and a backup generator or the grid.

The best examples of successful 100% solar I've heard of are all off grid applications. But because it's so expensive to produce and store large amounts of electricity, off the grid houses pretty much use propane, natural gas and or wood for all of their major heating loads and only use electricity for lighting, electronics, small appliances.

Usage is well under 10 kwh per day, often under 5 to keep the battery and inverter costs down -> far from the 40++ kwh per day houses with electric hot water, central air or heatpump units use. 



But then if you're using such a small amount of electricity, there's no point of dumping thousands on equipment when you can just pay a low electricity bill each month in the first place and most of your energy comes other sources -> 60 to 80% of household energy is used for heating, hot water and cooling.

It only makes sense for:
a) people who are too far from the grid and it's cheaper to to put in a pv system than extend the lines
b) People who want a backup other than a generator (still need one though) for if the grid goes down, want to be as energy self sufficient as possible.

You can forget about running electric stoves, central air conditioning/heatpumps, driers, charging electric cars reliably off 100% solar without conventional power plants at a reasonable cost.

*You can only cheat* and make it look like you are by feeding the surplus power produced on to the grid (which is so unreliable/unpredictable they can't throttle down power plants in response), then buy the same amount of electricity produced by conventional power plants back and *feel good about it.*

Fossil and nuclear fueled power plants are here to stay.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

so you're not ok with batteries + solar, but you ARE ok with the ridiculously complex infrastructure required to source, purify, distributed and consume gas/oil fuels? not sure I can fathom that except with a "that's how we've always done it" viewpoint. 

there's a reason those solar hot water systems never gained mass acceptance. they're not economically viable, and require significantly more maintenance than solar electric.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

We need to abandon the .gov/utility mandate for solar systems to be 100% south facing. part of the problem is that we disincentivized randomized generation. there's plenty to be gained by facing panels east and west. yes, the efficiency goes down a bit, but if you want to eliminate the problem with all of the solar power generation hitting during the same window, the solution seems pretty obvious. more even generation = easier to manage and less storage is required.


----------



## user_12345a

u3b3rg33k said:


> so you're not ok with batteries + solar, but you ARE ok with the ridiculously complex infrastructure required to source, purify, distributed and consume gas/oil fuels? not sure I can fathom that except with a "that's how we've always done it" viewpoint.


It's a really silly question, because solar pv can't replace oil and natural gas in most applications.

PV makes electricity, not portable transportation fuels. It makes electricity so unreliably, on the grid, it's usually backed up by natural gas generation.

Off the grid, it's backed up by fossil fuel generators - diesel, gasoline, propane or natural gas.

If anything, it takes oil and natural gas to make, ship and install solar panels and, batteries and other equipment.

Oil is used a lot to make chemicals used in paints, pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics. So is gas.

The roads are literally paved with an oil product - what's left over after refining, bottom of the barrel.

As far as using pv power in transportation applications, batteries charged by solar panels can not replace a tank of gasoline or diesel on a practical level.

PV does not produce enough electricity reliably to supply cars and trucks which use massive amounts of energy. (transportation is only second to heating in energy use)

The energy density is poor, the charge time ridiculous. The batteries, very expensive to replace.

There are some electric cars but are only good for shorter distances.

There are no electric trucks trucks on the road - to get decent range, batteries would weigh more than the load to be delivered.

As far as replacing gas for heating, in a cold climate, electrically heated houses can burn like 60 to 100 kwh per day if heated by heatpumps, and well in excess of 100 kwh per day if heated by resistance heaters.

There isn't a chance in hell pv could ever be used to replace natural gas for heating applications.

Hydro can, but only if you have a lot of sites available to dam up. Quebec, canada uses a lot of electricity for heating, but it comes from hydro, not gimmicky pv systems. (toys for rich people!)

But solar thermal can for domestic hot water. We aren't using it because natural gas is widely available and very cheap. If the alternative was electricity, oil or propane, solar thermal would be very common especially in hotter climates.

Solar thermal hot water used extensively in israel - in fact it's legally required. The technology works very well and doesn't require exotic materials.

So in the end, solar electric is not a substitute for oil and natural gas in heatingand transportation applications.


In most areas, it's not even a substitute for natural gas fired power plants used to generate peak electricity, on demand. Nor can it replace hydro dams and nuclear reactors.

It's a waste of money and natural resources ----> snake oil.

We use coal/nuclear/gas sources for generating electricity and gas for heating, oil for transportation, put up with the risks and pollution because they work great!

PV and wind don't.

When you add loads of pv and wind to an electricity grid, the conventional power plants don't have their output reduced and the price of electricity skyrockets paying for unusable surplus power that gets exported at a loss.

It's been an absolute disaster where I am - ontario, canada. 

Anyone who thinks grid tied pv and wind is any solution to our energy woes needs to study what's been going on in ontario.

Want to save the earth's resources for real? People who have the means need to top driving a cars, stop traveling, reduce standard of living, not buy any unnecessary consumer goods, retrofit their houses and buildings for tens of thousands of dollars to reduce energy use to begin with.

There's no magic technology coming that will allow us to live the way we do off of renewables.

When the remaining fossil fuels become too poor quality and too expensive to extract, taking as much energy to extract as you get out of them it'll be game over for industrial society. 

We're already scraping the bottom of the barrel, doing fracking and mining bitumen which has to be blasted with steam to melt the oil out of it. 

Reality has mandates of its own.


----------



## Deja-vue

> We use coal/nuclear/gas sources for generating electricity and gas for heating, oil for transportation, put up with the risks and pollution because they work great!


Boy, what century are you from? Solar is here to stay, like it or not.
Crawl back into your Stone-cave.
Coal/Nuclear/gas is destroying our planet. So do Folks like you.
Clean energy is the Future. Learn it. Live it.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

user_12345a said:


> It's a really silly question, because solar pv can't replace oil and natural gas in most applications.


That's a matter of opinion, and I disagree with you there. 


user_12345a said:


> PV makes electricity, not portable transportation fuels. It makes electricity so unreliably, on the grid, it's usually backed up by natural gas generation.


the source doesn't matter, PV = electricity. the "grid" has double the capacity it does for distributed PV as it does for over-generation, because what you consume locally never hits your local transformer. Thus, whatever you consume, you can effectively produce double that amount without overloading any existing equipment. 


user_12345a said:


> Off the grid, it's backed up by fossil fuel generators - diesel, gasoline, propane or natural gas.


sure. any time you don't have enough capacity to meet demand, it's met another way. there are many business with on-site generation the power companies pay to run their generators to curtail their consumption during peak loads. 



user_12345a said:


> If anything, it takes oil and natural gas to make, ship and install solar panels and, batteries and other equipment.


maybe today. what about tomorrow?



user_12345a said:


> Oil is used a lot to make chemicals used in paints, pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics. So is gas.


what do raw materials for other processes have to do with power generation? off topic.



user_12345a said:


> The roads are literally paved with an oil product - what's left over after refining, bottom of the barrel.


asphalt is a terrible product for roads. just like asphalt roofing, it's basically a subscription style product. 



user_12345a said:


> As far as using pv power in transportation applications, batteries charged by solar panels can not replace a tank of gasoline or diesel on a practical level.


Sir, Tesla, and now VAG would apparently like to differ with you there. their business models are shifting in the direction you say isn't practical. 



user_12345a said:


> PV does not produce enough electricity reliably to supply cars and trucks which use massive amounts of energy. (transportation is only second to heating in energy use)


any data to support this position?



user_12345a said:


> The energy density is poor, the charge time ridiculous. The batteries, very expensive to replace.


I can make electricity in my backyard. making gasoline in my backyard on a scale that would get me to/from work on a daily basis isn't something I can afford. transportation is expensive. what else is new?



user_12345a said:


> There are some electric cars but are only good for shorter distances.


again, check with Mr Musk. he apparently thinks otherwise.



user_12345a said:


> There are no electric trucks trucks on the road - to get decent range, batteries would weigh more than the load to be delivered.


you really aught to watch the news. Mr Musk is spending billions on what you say isn't possible. 



user_12345a said:


> As far as replacing gas for heating, in a cold climate, electrically heated houses can burn like 60 to 100 kwh per day if heated by heatpumps, and well in excess of 100 kwh per day if heated by resistance heaters.


I consumed about 4700kWh of heat energy last month. my family doesn't care how the kWh are delivered, only that they are. 



user_12345a said:


> There isn't a chance in hell pv could ever be used to replace natural gas for heating applications.


why not?



user_12345a said:


> Hydro can, but only if you have a lot of sites available to dam up. Quebec, canada uses a lot of electricity for heating, but it comes from hydro, not gimmicky pv systems. (toys for rich people!)


PV/wind/hydro are the only sources of electricity that have a positive ROI. otherwise you're indebted to someone else. 


user_12345a said:


> But solar thermal can for domestic hot water. We aren't using it because natural gas is widely available and very cheap. If the alternative was electricity, oil or propane, solar thermal would be very common especially in hotter climates.


PV is superior to solar thermal. Grid tie PV+a HPWH means all your PV generation provides useful ROI. solar thermal is only useful if you produce and consume the energy that's generated, when it's generated. 



user_12345a said:


> Solar thermal hot water used extensively in israel - in fact it's legally required. The technology works very well and doesn't require exotic materials.


thermal power generation works a lot better when it's hot outside most of the time. the average temperature in israel is relevant how? that's around 20C. that doesn't do people off grid in Maine much good. electricity doesn't care about the average outdoor temp.



user_12345a said:


> So in the end, solar electric is not a substitute for oil and natural gas in heating and transportation applications.


more opinion and supposition. 



user_12345a said:


> In most areas, it's not even a substitute for natural gas fired power plants used to generate peak electricity, on demand. Nor can it replace hydro dams and nuclear reactors.


show me a profitable nuclear reactor. go on, i'll wait. 



user_12345a said:


> It's a waste of money and natural resources ----> snake oil.


one of the few affordable and reliable methods of electric generation is snake oil? tell me more!



user_12345a said:


> We use coal/nuclear/gas sources for generating electricity and gas for heating, oil for transportation, put up with the risks and pollution because they work great!
> 
> PV and wind don't.


PV and wind work great with some storage. it doesn't even have to be batteries. nuclear is a much bigger farce than PV/wind. 



user_12345a said:


> When you add loads of pv and wind to an electricity grid, the conventional power plants don't have their output reduced and the price of electricity skyrockets paying for unusable surplus power that gets exported at a loss.


so because entity A's business model is not compatible with entity B, entity B's product is garbage?



user_12345a said:


> It's been an absolute disaster where I am - ontario, canada.
> 
> Anyone who thinks grid tied pv and wind is any solution to our energy woes needs to study what's been going on in ontario.


 go on...



user_12345a said:


> Want to save the earth's resources for real? People who have the means need to top driving a cars, stop traveling, reduce standard of living, not buy any unnecessary consumer goods, retrofit their houses and buildings for tens of thousands of dollars to reduce energy use to begin with.


so people need to stop living beyond their means? i'll check in with Little House on the Prairie. 



user_12345a said:


> There's no magic technology coming that will allow us to live the way we do off of renewables.


magic? now you have my attention. straw man much?



user_12345a said:


> When the remaining fossil fuels become too poor quality and too expensive to extract, taking as much energy to extract as you get out of them it'll be game over for industrial society.
> 
> We're already scraping the bottom of the barrel, doing fracking and mining bitumen which has to be blasted with steam to melt the oil out of it.
> 
> Reality has mandates of its own.


we are there now. economies of scale always seem to find a way. funny thing Mr Musk found his way out via the same economies of scale. all that matters is $/kWh. the rest is bluster.


----------



## ron45

Who cares.......


----------



## Windows on Wash

This thread needs to get put into the CBR. I love it.


----------



## Oso954

> Boy, what century are you from? Solar is here to stay, like it or not.
> Crawl back into your Stone-cave.
> Coal/Nuclear/gas is destroying our planet. So do Folks like you.
> Clean energy is the Future. Learn it. Live it.


Solar power is a threat to the grid system as it is being built very rapidly in Calif. We run a tremendous risk of destabilizing the grid. So far, we have managed to control it by building a lot of natural gas turbine and combined cycle plants to ramp up the generation as the solar is losing power towards late afternoon/ evening. 

Burning natural gas (or other fossil fuel) in a jet turbine to accommodate solar isn't exactly green.

During the solar peak production, it is now diving into a overproduction period where the base load generation cannot be cut back enough to accommodate the solar. There have been days where the wholesale power rate goes negative for a number of hours. Industrial users can actually be paid for using more electricity.

Here is a good paper on the problem.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/burnett2/

As many won't read it, here is the California "Duck curve" that illustrates the problem.


----------



## Deja-vue

Oso954 said:


> Solar power is a threat to the grid system as it is being built very rapidly in Calif. We run a tremendous risk of destabilizing the grid. So far, we have managed to control it by building a lot of natural gas turbine and combined cycle plants to ramp up the generation as the solar is losing power towards late afternoon/ evening.
> 
> Burning natural gas (or other fossil fuel) in a jet turbine to accommodate solar isn't exactly green.
> 
> During the solar peak production, it is now diving into a overproduction period where the base load generation cannot be cut back enough to accommodate the solar. There have been days where the wholesale power rate goes negative for a number of hours. Industrial users can actually be paid for using more electricity.
> 
> Here is a good paper on the problem.
> http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/burnett2/
> 
> As many won't read it, here is the California "Duck curve" that illustrates the problem.


Well, let them get busy dealing with the Problem. The Power-grid here in LA is overloaded, anyways. Power-lines from the 70's, when 8 million People lived here, no we got 13 million.
The Power Company has no problem paying me $0.03 for my over-productions and selling it to customers for $0.35 to $0.45. That alone is a ripoff.
Other Countries have dealt with the problem, like Germany selling their production to neighboring Countries. They are Leaders in renewable Energy. 
Germany will also shut down the last Coal-mine in existence. All Nuclear Plants will be down by 2022.

Are you telling me renewable energy is bad for us?
:vs_laugh:


----------



## Oso954

No renewable isn’t bad, but too much intermittent power (solar&wind) is bad. 
It requires backing off base load plants, which then requires peaking plants because you can’t make the base load (thermal) plants respond quick enough in the short time (approx 3 hours) accommodate the dropout of the PV solar.

While there are a few solar thermal plants that can store the heat for later release/electric generation after dark, there are not enough of them.


----------



## 195795

Hey treehugger -

First, global warming, oh, that didn't work so well for you, so whatta call it now, climate change, is a bunch of BS - mankind cannot effect the climate, it's the climate for God's sake, and please don't use your halfas data over the last xx years to support your point, the earth is what, thousands of years old.

Second, as far as the electric grid goes, there are 3 electrical grids in the US, one on the east coast, one on the west coast, and of course we here in Texas have our own grid - so when you all in the dark, don't even think of coming down here.

You know now that I think about it, I suppose ancient man killed off the dinosaurs by burning fossil fuels in there caves, yeah, that must of been what happened.

Go sell stupid somewhere else, we're all stocked here :bangin:


----------



## SPS-1

Texasdiyer said:


> Go sell stupid somewhere else, we're all stocked here.



That is very clear.


----------



## Deja-vue

Texasdiyer said:


> Hey treehugger -
> 
> First, global warming, oh, that didn't work so well for you, so whatta call it now, climate change, is a bunch of BS - mankind cannot effect the climate, it's the climate for God's sake, and please don't use your halfas data over the last xx years to support your point, the earth is what, thousands of years old.
> 
> Second, as far as the electric grid goes, there are 3 electrical grids in the US, one on the east coast, one on the west coast, and of course we here in Texas have our own grid - so when you all in the dark, don't even think of coming down here.
> 
> You know now that I think about it, I suppose ancient man killed off the dinosaurs by burning fossil fuels in there caves, yeah, that must of been what happened.
> 
> Go sell stupid somewhere else, we're all stocked here :bangin:


Your ignorance is astounding.
Why are there so many uneducated Folks on this Board? There should be a minimum IQ test in place for Folks to join.
Global Warming is real.
Coal mining destroys the Planet.
The Poles are melting.
World wide weather is changing.
Get out of your Trailer or Cave and see some Facts.
:vs_cool:


----------



## 195795

Deja-vue said:


> Your ignorance is astounding.
> Why are there so many uneducated Folks on this Board? There should be a minimum IQ test in place for Folks to join.
> Global Warming is real.
> Coal mining destroys the Planet.
> The Poles are melting.
> World wide weather is changing.
> Get out of your Trailer or Cave and see some Facts.
> :vs_cool:


Get ur head out of the sand - 

Global Warming is *NOT* real - Al Gore made that BS up !

Coal mining does *NOT* destroy the Planet - it provides jobs and the fuel necessary to run our economy !

The Poles are *NOT* melting - and even if they are, who cares - nobody lives there except polar bears and baby seals, and they only club the baby seals they need for food - Genesis 1:26 - man shall rule over all the animals of the world 

World wide weather is changing - so what, it always has and always will

What I don't get about you treehuggers is why you're so concerned with this type of thing; as long as there is enough gasoline at a decent price for us now, who cares about 50 or 100 years from now, that's those folks problem


----------



## 195795

Deja-vue said:


> Other Countries have dealt with the problem


Hello McFly :bangin:

What about China, India and Russia ?


----------



## u3b3rg33k

Oso954 said:


> Solar power is a threat to the grid system as it is being built very rapidly in Calif. We run a tremendous risk of destabilizing the grid. *So far, we have managed to control it by building a lot of natural gas turbine and combined cycle plants to ramp up the generation as the solar is losing power towards late afternoon/ evening. *
> 
> Burning natural gas (or other fossil fuel) in a jet turbine to accommodate solar isn't exactly green.
> 
> During the solar peak production, it is now diving into a overproduction period where the base load generation cannot be cut back enough to accommodate the solar. There have been days where the wholesale power rate goes negative for a number of hours. Industrial users can actually be paid for using more electricity.
> 
> Here is a good paper on the problem.
> http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/burnett2/
> 
> As many won't read it, here is the California "Duck curve" that illustrates the problem.


the answer to this seems obscenely simple. 

Stop subsidizing south facing panels. 
Start subsidizing west facing panels.

no other changes needed.

yeah it means total production goes down somewhat. but why would you subsidize your way INTO a problem? currently subsidies apply ONLY to systems that maximize production/ROI. .gov is literally paying to exacerbate the problem at this point.


----------



## beenthere

https://www.diychatroom.com/f114/diy-chatroom-community-rules-281002/


2. Users shall treat each other with respect at all times on DIY Chatroom.com. Ideas and opinions may be challenged, but name calling, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior will not be allowed and may cause your account to be banned. Harassment will not be tolerated in this community. *This includes private messages, Avatars, Facebook and/or social media and user emails.*


----------



## 195795

beenthere said:


> https://www.diychatroom.com/f114/diy-chatroom-community-rules-281002/
> 
> 
> 2. Users shall treat each other with respect at all times on DIY Chatroom.com. Ideas and opinions may be challenged, but name calling, personal attacks, or other inappropriate behavior will not be allowed and may cause your account to be banned. Harassment will not be tolerated in this community. *This includes private messages, Avatars, Facebook and/or social media and user emails.*


Then why don't you remove all of the posts here in this thread that don't meet this requirement ? Why do you allow me to be harassed ? Why did you remove my post and leave those that are harassing towards me ? Do we need to get the lawyers involved here ?


----------



## beenthere

Texasdiyer said:


> Then why don't you remove all of the posts here in this thread that don't meet this requirement ? Why do you allow me to be harassed ? Why did you remove my post and leave those that are harassing towards me ? Do we need to get the lawyers involved here ?





I believe that was explained to you in the PM you received.


Please reread the site rules, thank you. You may have missed a part.





> *2a*. Users shall not question or debate a moderator decision publicly on the message board. In the event of a disagreement or questioning of a moderator's decision or action users should contact the moderator(s) or admin(s) via PM.


----------



## user_12345a

Oso954 said:


> Solar power is a threat to the grid system as it is being built very rapidly in Calif. We run a tremendous risk of destabilizing the grid. So far, we have managed to control it by building a lot of natural gas turbine and combined cycle plants to ramp up the generation as the solar is losing power towards late afternoon/ evening.
> 
> Burning natural gas (or other fossil fuel) in a jet turbine to accommodate solar isn't exactly green.
> 
> During the solar peak production, it is now diving into a overproduction period where the base load generation cannot be cut back enough to accommodate the solar. There have been days where the wholesale power rate goes negative for a number of hours. Industrial users can actually be paid for using more electricity.
> 
> Here is a good paper on the problem.
> http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/burnett2/
> 
> As many won't read it, here is the California "Duck curve" that illustrates the problem.


Wind and solar have been a complete disaster in ontario, canada too.

All the problems you mentioned, we're having but more so with wind than solar. We're actually paying above market price for wind/solar and selling the power off at a loss to keep the grid stable.

We have nuclear and hydro base load plants that work best and more cost effectively at 100% capacity. Over 70% of our power comes from these sources. 

We use natural gas plants as peakers. We used to use coal for this purpose (as well as some base load) but they decided coal is evil so it's all gas now.

Wind output is highest mostly when demand is at it's lowest here - spring and fall evenings, mild weather. To take advantage of the wind, nuclear reactors have to be shut off in the spring and fall, hydro water diverted and wasted.

But the wind is inconsistent and tends to drop during peak demand periods; nuclear and hydro aren't very dispatch-able, actually taking advantage increases natural gas use.

The wind turbines are useless when there's high demand for a/c. The solar does better but still not good; peak sun intensity is like at 1pm but peak demand occurs between 4 and 8pm in the summer.

Electricity commodity prices have more than doubled in the last 10 years as a result of this garbage. 

For political reasons, the government is borrowing money at high interest rates against opg assets (the power generation crown corporation) to give a 25% reduction in electric bills.

It's going to come and bite us in the ass in the form of astronomical electricity prices. The principle has to be paid back along with interest, the money will be collected via massive rate increases above and beyond increases over the last 10 years.


I must also mention, we have 3 multi-unit nuclear power plants and one is going to be shut down in the mid 2020s due to age. The others need to be refurbished and will still need to be shut down 20 years after refurbishment.

There are no plans to build new nuclear and the lead time is 10 years once shovels are in the ground. They had plans but opted out, saying we have enough electricity and new reactors are too expensive. But green energy and gas fired peaker plants - not too expensive.

So we'll be stuck with useless intermittent renewables, natural gas plants and some hydro. 

If the price of natural gas skyrockets again and or there are shortages, we'll be so screwed!

Thanks green energy charlatan lobbyists! 

Green energy charlatans aren't interested in how grids actually operate. They aren't interest in reality. They repeat the same lies over and over - they may even believe their own lies.

Grid tied green energy with no backup can't reduce conventional power on the grid or replace oil or natural gas used for heating, transportation, chemical feedstocks.


----------



## Windows on Wash

Deja-vue said:


> Your ignorance is astounding.
> Why are there so many uneducated Folks on this Board? There should be a minimum IQ test in place for Folks to join.
> Global Warming is real.
> Coal mining destroys the Planet.
> The Poles are melting.
> World wide weather is changing.
> Get out of your Trailer or Cave and see some Facts.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

Seems to me that most of the personal attacks of posters in this case is both unwarranted and unnecessary. 

There is a reasoned and rational debate to have here about man's impact on the climate via carbon output, but I am not sure how any of these personal attacks move that needle forward. 

If we are going to place IQ restraints on speech, most of Congress is going to have a shut up as well.


----------



## chiraldude

I have no doubt that someday the planet will get 90% or more of its energy from renewables like solar and wind. However, that is a long way off (50 years?).
As others have noted, the variable output of these energy sources put a strain on the existing power grid. The "do gooder" politicians have forgotten to check the facts and now we have the cart in front of the horse. We need to scale back funding of solar and wind and shift spending to development of power storage. Unfortunately, it looks like this will prove to be the more expensive part of the system. Building batteries big enough to power entire cities is really difficult.


----------



## Windows on Wash

This guy right here....












That is 100% of the issue with renewables right now as it pertains to storage. I also tend to think that the sooner the federal government gets out of the solar and wind energy business, the more that the free market can steer innovation and expansion. 

While the majority of his enterprise if propped up by federal dollars and a guilt centered consumer base, what Musk is doing to drive battery storage is going to drive the future of renewables and make them much more doable for folks.


----------



## SPS-1

Windows on Wash said:


> I also tend to think that the sooner the federal government gets out of the solar and wind energy business, the more that the free market can steer innovation and expansion.


 
I think that is already happening. The subsidies to home solar are long gone in Ontario. We have time of use meters, so power is more expensive in the middle of the day than the middle of the night. Not sure if power that is fed back into the grid is on a variable rate, but seems like that would be easy to do ---- pay a higher rate for power at 5:00 PM than at noon, and they will start to get people putting panels on their west roof rather than south (as usb3rg33k suggested). Make the price difference significant enough and maybe Deja-vue will finally invest in that battery pack.


----------



## user_12345a

We're still suck with 20 year contracts at ridiculously high rates.

And heavy reliance on natural gas.

The severe damage has already been done.

I say stay nuclear and hydro, invest in new reactors and burn a little bit coal to meet peak demand at a affordable price of around 5 cents per kwh. Use scrubbers to reduce pollution and invest in smoothing out demand by shifting it to keep coal use to a minimum.

Nuclear power reduces pollution, even over solar because the amount of material that has to be mined and disposed of is of far lower volume than other sources. Less land is required to generate the power. The energy density is incredible.

The waste volume is very low gets safely stored rather than dumped into the environment. Solar panels are made with some nasty heavy metals and chemicals and we have no disposal plans. Every step of making and disposing of solar panels is environmentally destructive, and in the end, the power isn't very useful on the grid without storage -> not being good for base load or peak demand.

watch this:


----------



## SPS-1

user_12345a said:


> .....heavy reliance on natural gas.
> 
> I say stay nuclear and hydro, invest in new reactors and burn a little bit coal to meet peak demand.......



What are you talking about? 2017 natural gas was 4% of Ontario's production (most recent figures). Ever since fracking has been developed, natural gas has been cheaper than coal. Nuclear already provides the baseload in Ontario -- any additional production needs to be variable. 


Biggest cost we have is the bloated salaries for the folks that spent a billion to NOT build two natural gas power plants and more recently paid $130 million to NOT buy Avista Energy.


----------



## user_12345a

New nuclear will have to be built to replace the plants that close. This is what I was getting at.

Pickering is going offline around 2024.

The others need to be refurbished to extend lifespan by 20 to 30 years.

It takes 10 years to build new reactors once construction actually starts; it can take 5 to 10 years or more to get the approvals so there needs to be a discussion about building new nuclear to maintain the base load capacity now.


Reliance on natural gas will go up dramatically otherwise.

Even with just shutting pickering, and having a couple reactors at a time down for refurbishment, gas use will have to increase to fill the gap.

IESO predicts electricity shortfall -> https://www.airdberlis.com/insights...sts-electricity-shortfall-of-1-400-mw-by-2023



That chart is very deceptive. Numbers at face value mean little because different energy sources are not of equal value and capacity will be lost.

What it doesn't show is how a lot of the output from renewables has been exported at a loss. We've paid inflated prices for wind and solar thanks to be contracts and sold the power for next to nothing due output being high when demand is low without any legal way to not buy the power.

Plus that 10% has costed us a lot in needing redundant inefficient gas plants built just to try and compensate for the variable output of renewables.

Plus transmission lines have been built just to try and accommodate wind.

It also doesn't show that the price of natural gas fired power in ontario is very high due to the fact that the stations sit idling at low or no output most of the time yet the capital cost of building the plant is included in the rate. In addition, they're privately owned, meaning there's rate payer dollars being skimmed off to pay share-holders.

It's around 17 cents per kwh I believe. (i can't find a source right now) Coal used to be under 4 cents and would be like 6 today had we kept it and not put intermittent renewables, the plants being old,* paid for and publicly owned by OPG vs being private*. The fuel may be cheap right now, but the power from these plants is not.

Right now the cost of the fuel is artificially low due to shale over-production. The shale is being subsidized by junk bonds and the wells deplete very fast, so low natural gas prices will not last. 

Historically coal as a fuel has been cheap. It's abundant and could save limited natural gas reserves to heat homes and make fertilizer/chemicals.

It's also worth noting that 2017 had a very mild summer so peak demand was low. So that 4% means little.


----------



## SPS-1

I don't have a problem with Nuclear. But I don't think Ontario has the people in place to do a set of nuclear reactors --- they can't even build a natural gas plant --- and that's just a few part numbers out of the General Electric catalog. Toshiba/Westinghouse Nuclear went belly up trying to build two nuclear plants in South Carolina. Price of Britain's Hinkley Point C reactors keeps going up and latest estimates at $C 34 Billion. 


You want to give our Bozos in Toronto the OK to see how bad they can screw it up? Those windmills start looking better, don't they? Elon, how much for a big battery?


----------



## user_12345a

> You want to give our Bozos in Toronto the OK to see how bad they can screw it up? Those windmills start looking better, don't they? Elon, how much for a big battery?


Those wind mills will never replace nukes. As for those batteries, i don't think the earth has enough lithium for mass energy storage nor can we afford the cost.

If it's too expensive to build reactors, the labour/regulatory environment needs to be dealt with. Why is it so expensive? Where's the money going? Too much regulation? A shortage of skilled trades people? Political interference?

Ontario built 20 commercial reactors from the 1960s to the early 90s with far less knowledge than we have today and relatively primitive controls technology. CANDU was developed in ontario - Now we can't build 4 at darlington to maintain base load capacity as the older ones are shut down?

The chinese built two of them in only 5 years.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

SPS-1 said:


> I think that is already happening. The subsidies to home solar are long gone in Ontario. We have time of use meters, so power is more expensive in the middle of the day than the middle of the night. Not sure if power that is fed back into the grid is on a variable rate, but seems like that would be easy to do ---- pay a higher rate for power at 5:00 PM than at noon, and they will start to get people putting panels on their west roof rather than south (as usb3rg33k suggested). Make the price difference significant enough and maybe Deja-vue will finally invest in that battery pack.


I think the whole "locked-in power rates" is part of the problem. when it doesn't cost people more to run their AC on the hottest day of the year, they feel entitled to the consumption. they just pay the average cost and expect to be able to use all the power whenever they want. 

Personally, I use Time of Use. they used to have a 3 tiered system here that went from as low as $0.05/kwh to $0.30/kwh (for two hours during the peak load time). they've dialed it back to two tier $0.19/$0.089, or flat rate at $0.14. 

I intentionally schedule my AC to pre-cool the house when it's going to be hot the next day. pretty easy to do from my phone, and it means I save money two ways. one, by using cheaper, base load power. two, by running the AC when it's cooler outside, which makes it more efficient to operate. my thermostat is also able to be programmed with pricing information. 

The few days a summer it gets hot enough inside to warrant running the AC during the day before prices come down I'm OK with paying the extra. It doesn't hit me that much on my average monthly bill. I've yet to have a month that didn't save me money on TOU since I started 4 years ago. 

Here, buyback is at your consumption rate, including TOU if you've opted in. seems to me that could help ROI on non-south facing installations. the tax breaks/grants only apply to south facing installs still. that's a problem.

my options for solar would be on my garage (south facing), and house roof (east facing). won't help much with the end of the day, but it would still spread the generation out better than 100% south facing. my east facing roof has too many dormers and windows to make it cost effective to install, nevermind it would be hideous due to the way the house shades itself (i'd end up with the letter _t_ or _j_ in italics on the roof).


----------



## SPS-1

user_12345a said:


> As for those batteries, i don't think the earth has enough lithium for mass energy storage nor can we afford the cost.



Actually, Lithium ion batteries don't use much Lithium. (And Lithium is not rare anyways.) Elon has a bit of a problem with the cost because a handful of companies control the great majority of the supply, but its still a rather small portion of the cost. Those adds on BNN for companies developing Lithium mines is a sucker's bet --- there is no shortage. There are various chemistries for Li batteries, but one of the most common uses lithium and cobalt. The cobalt is a bigger proportion of the cost. 


But I figure the flow batteries will win out anyways, for large storage systems.


----------



## Oso954

Batteries are not good for storage of large blocks of power.

Most of the big battery systems you hear about are built for power stabilization. They are designed to function for a span of minutes to possibly an hour, not hour after hour.

If you are going to store usable blocks of power, pumped storage, underground compressed air storage, thermal storage (molten salt) are the methods that work currently.

Any battery system that can supply 6 or 8 hours of battery power to block of customers is dealing with a load that is considered small by utility standards.


----------



## Bondo

Ayuh,..... The cuttin' edge battery technology seems to be goin' to liquid metal batteries,.....


----------



## beenthere

user_12345a said:


> The chinese built two of them in only 5 years.



But they have slowed down on their building of nuc plants since the Fukushima melt down in Japan.





https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/


----------



## Bud9051

Apology for not reading the entire thread to see if this or similar was mentioned but the article looks recent and relevant so I'll add it. 
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/

With more and more people adding solar, these long term contracts that get attached to the deed don't seem like the best option.

Bud


----------



## Windows on Wash

Bud9051 said:


> Apology for not reading the entire thread to see if this or similar was mentioned but the article looks recent and relevant so I'll add it.
> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-sunrun-solar-panels/
> 
> With more and more people adding solar, these long term contracts that get attached to the deed don't seem like the best option.
> 
> Bud



Nothing makes a person easier to fleece...than guilt...said every hustler in the world.


----------



## Bud9051

They tried a similar program here (and all over the country) for energy audits. The cost of the audit would be $350 and if you agreed to undergo the renovations they suggested all would be rolled into a loan where the town would add the payment to your taxes. Idea being the resulting savings would exceed the increase in yearly taxes. After a few years they discovered the projected savings didn't always materialize and home owners were left with the same energy bills plus the increase in taxes. And then when they wanted to sell that super deal was attached to their house.

Bud


----------



## DallasCowboys

Deja-vue said:


> Well, let them get busy dealing with the Problem. The Power-grid here in LA is overloaded, anyways. Power-lines from the 70's, when 8 million People lived here, no we got 13 million.
> The Power Company has no problem paying me $0.03 for my over-productions and selling it to customers for $0.35 to $0.45. That alone is a ripoff.
> Other Countries have dealt with the problem, like Germany selling their production to neighboring Countries. They are Leaders in renewable Energy.
> Germany will also shut down the last Coal-mine in existence. All Nuclear Plants will be down by 2022.
> 
> Are you telling me renewable energy is bad for us?
> :vs_laugh:


Germany imports most of its oil and their hydro resources are limited. 

They pay .30 KWH for electricity in Germany, as opposed to the average of .12 in the U.S. 

Germany also subsidizes their solar industry to encourage installations

The only area in the U.S. that has electrical rates as high as Germany are Alaska and Hawaii. They are about .28-.30. kwh.


Hawaii uses a lot of solar panels and there are so many that they have reached a point of overwhelming the grid with their over production.


Alaska does not use them as much because they are not appropriate. More cloud coverage and cold weather reduces the efficiencies of solar when temperatures dip below freezing.

But, if you include a lot of the combined solar subsidies available, the cost of solar has reached a level of .30 or so...per kwh. That level is parity for Germany and Hawaii, but it is still double or triple the cost of most areas in the U.S.

The good news is that the cost of solar is still coming down and even if it does not reach parity, if it is 'close' then it will be more attractive to consumers. Articles I have read have suggested that homes with solar panels have better resale value.

It's getting better. I guess that solar still qualifies for the 'early adopters' theory for most people outside of California and Arizona where it is most appropriate.


----------



## DallasCowboys

I am not sure that it is appropriate to require solar panels on homes across the country but I do think that much more can be done to reduce our electrical impact. 

Homes consume 30 percent of all electrical consumption.


I think it is more important to reduce the initial consumption. 

We should have national standards for different zones. Walls should be at least 6 inches not 4, more insulation, better standards to resist earthquakes and high winds, national standards for appliance efficiencies, more efficient windows......etc
We should use what we have more efficiently. 



I like the idea of solar, but it's too expensive for most areas. And the panels are tacky looking. I like Musk's solar shingles but he is having problems ramping up the production line. His storage batteries are a great idea, but he shifted production of the storage batteries to batteries for his cars to reduce the backlog and increase profits ( more profits for cars, than storage batteries).


I have even seen flexible, roll-on solar panels for metal roofs, and even solar grids built into windows. Great ideas, but they are not terribly efficient and too expensive.


But I think we are moving in the right direction. I would love to see each home be able to produce its own electricity and have some storage batteries in your garage to store electricity at night. 



If we generated our own electricity at home, and were not reliant on the utility company or the oil companies, everyone would be a bit freer, more independent.


But.... every solar panel that gets installed, or every additional wind turbine that goes up; is one less soldier that has to come back home in a body bag from the Middle East.




https://www.tesla.com/energy


----------



## Deja-vue

@DallasCowboys,

I used to pay here in CA at 

Tier 1 $0.17 (only a couple of Days, lol)
Tier 2 $0.25
Tier 3 $0.33
Tier 4 $0.44
Tier 5 $0.52 

Basically, I always reached Tier 4 in less than three Weeks, totaling my Electricity Bill to $280-$310 per Month.
Mind you I run my own Computer Business from the House.

So before Solar = ~$3200 per Year
And after Solar = ~$0.00

There is a $9.00 connection fee per month but my Power Company sends me a Check for about $180 - $230 per Year for "over-production." so that is pretty much covered.

Installed in January of 2016 by myself, my ROI will come up in August 2020.
After that, it is all free power to me.

Note that the Power company pays me a measly $0.03 per over-production and turns around selling it for $0.17 - $0.52 to my Neighbors.
Now that is not fair.
:sad:


----------



## Nealtw

@Deja-vue do you think it would be worth doing for some one that never used more than tier 2, they would need less than you have, so cost would be less.


----------



## Deja-vue

Nealtw said:


> @Deja-vue do you think it would be worth doing for some one that never used more than tier 2, they would need less than you have, so cost would be less.


That all depends on how much do you really pay per month for your Electricity.
And how much will you be paying in, let's say 10 years?

Here in CA we already paying twice as much as we did in 2006.
Some Day soon, I'll drive an Electric Vehicle. Already have a Battery Lawnmower, (80V), bought a electric Dryer.
Will be purchasing a 36 Inch electric Stove soon.

I installed Solar on one of my Neighbors Home, she only paid between $90-$150 per month for electricity.
I put 14 Panels on her Roof, 72Cells, 300 Watt each. Big, industrial Size Panels.
Now her Bill is a couple of Bucks.


----------



## riles246

Nealtw said:


> @Deja-vue do you think it would be worth doing for some one that never used more than tier 2, they would need less than you have, so cost would be less.



I live in a state where my electricity costs about the same as Tier 2 in CA and I installed a 12KW solar system. I pay .215 per KwH. I didn't even DIY the solar panels, and my breakeven is between 6 and 7 years and they are warrantied out to 25 years.


If you DIY, it's really a no-brainer. Even without DIY, at .25 per KwH, it's still a no brainer.


I understand this new law. In warm states where AC usage is relatively constant year-round when the sun is shining, the grid needs all the help it can get from solar since that's also when AC usage is at its peak.


----------



## Nealtw

Deja-vue said:


> That all depends on how much do you really pay per month for your Electricity.
> And how much will you be paying in, let's say 10 years?
> 
> Here in CA we already paying twice as much as we did in 2006.
> Some Day soon, I'll drive an Electric Vehicle. Already have a Battery Lawnmower, (80V), bought a electric Dryer.
> Will be purchasing a 36 Inch electric Stove soon.
> 
> I installed Solar on one of my Neighbors Home, she only paid between $90-$150 per month for electricity.
> I put 14 Panels on her Roof, 72Cells, 300 Watt each. Big, industrial Size Panels.
> Now her Bill is a couple of Bucks.


I have only seen a few houses here with panels and haven't heard anything about how they are doing with it.


----------



## DallasCowboys

Deja-vue said:


> @*DallasCowboys* ,
> 
> I used to pay here in CA at
> 
> Tier 1 $0.17 (only a couple of Days, lol)
> Tier 2 $0.25
> Tier 3 $0.33
> Tier 4 $0.44
> Tier 5 $0.52



.33 , .44, .52 for a kwh? Holy Cow..........what determines the tier level? Is it the time of day ?


If I paid .52 a kwh all day long.....I would be living in the dark and no tv....that is outrageous.


On second thought, no......I would just leave California like a lot of other people. It's getting more popular, It' not unusual to see a California license plate in the Dallas area now.


----------



## Deja-vue

DallasCowboys said:


> .33 , .44, .52 for a kwh? Holy Cow..........what determines the tier level? Is it the time of day ?
> 
> 
> If I paid .52 a kwh all day long.....I would be living in the dark and no tv....that is outrageous.
> 
> 
> On second thought, no......I would just leave California like a lot of other people. It's getting more popular, It' not unusual to see a California license plate in the Dallas area now.


New Tier Rates:


----------



## Deja-vue

Quick Add on:

My Neighbor just emailed me her new Energy Bill: -$30.87
That is right, minus.
And that with Record Rainfalls here in SoCal. (18 inches + in just two months)


----------



## DallasCowboys

Deja-vue said:


> New Tier Rates:





Do they allocate x kwh hours based on the size of your home?


This is new to me.


----------



## DallasCowboys

Deja-vue said:


> Quick Add on:
> 
> My Neighbor just emailed me her new Energy Bill: -$30.87
> That is right, minus.
> And that with Record Rainfalls here in SoCal. (18 inches + in just two months)





Nice............:smile:


----------



## ktownskier

I am not a "TreeHugger" nor am I a Climate Change denier. To my mind, climate change is real. However, the cause of climate change is up to debate. I believe that it is a natural phenomenon. A little over 150 years ago, we were just coming out of a mini ice-age that started 3-500 hundred years before. Don't believe me, look it up. 

Now, with that out of the way. I will express my views on energy production. 

I have believed for a long time that we need to do all we can to maximize renewable energy. When I look at all the flat roofed buildings I think that they should be covered with PV panels. Malls, Targets, Walmarts, Home Depots, Corporate centers, etc.. 

The more PV panels built and installed, the lower the cost to build them. Economies of scale. 

Living in Colorado, we have 300 days of sunshine. It is more than that. But it is not all day. And most homes don't have a lot of tree cover that are not in the mountains. I would love to have solar on my house and have looked into it. It would cost me over 10K to have it installed.

I also think we need to expand other types of generation plants. Wave energy, small hydro, water current energy, high level wind energy. Small stream hydro. 

Wind Turbines for homes should also be explored. I live in an area where we have wind every day. A small turbine could generate power at every home in my town. 

Tesla's Energy wall concept is a great idea and solves some of the issues with PV energy production, how to store excess, and what to do at night. 

There is another company that is working on the storage battery concept as well. StorEn Technology. A startup company in New York. Unlike Tesla's use of Lithium Ion, StorEn uses liquid vanadium. And a 25 year life expectancy versus 10 year for Tesla. 

I also believe that we should build more nuclear power plants. 

We need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Not to reduce their impact on the environment, but to save them for future usage that only fossil fuels work best for. 

I know that my views will incite some people, enrage others, and cause some to laugh. But there are a few who may read it and may cause them pause to think.


----------



## DallasCowboys

ktownskier said:


> I am not a "TreeHugger" nor am I a Climate Change denier. To my mind, climate change is real. However, the cause of climate change is up to debate. *I believe that it is a natural phenomenon. *A little over 150 years ago, we were just coming out of a mini ice-age that started 3-500 hundred years before. Don't believe me, look it up.
> 
> 
> I have believed for a long time that we need to do all we can to maximize renewable energy. When I look at all *the flat roofed buildings *I think that they should be covered with PV panels. Malls, Targets, Walmarts, Home Depots, Corporate centers, etc..
> 
> The more PV panels built and installed, the lower the cost to build them. Economies of scale.
> 
> 
> I also think we need to expand other types of generation plants. Wave energy, small hydro, water current energy, high level wind energy. Small stream hydro.
> 
> Wind Turbines for homes should also be explored. I live in an area where we have wind every day. A small turbine could generate power at every home in my town.
> 
> 
> There is another company that is working on the storage battery concept as well. StorEn Technology. A startup company in New York. Unlike Tesla's use of Lithium Ion, StorEn uses liquid vanadium. And a 25 year life expectancy versus 10 year for Tesla.
> 
> I also believe that we should build more nuclear power plants.
> 
> We need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Not to reduce their impact on the environment, but to save them for future usage that only fossil fuels work best for.


Wow, I could have written this myself. 

Climate Change is a cycle, it's not a man made phenomena that we have been led to believe. Man only contributes about 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere. Volcanoes emit more CO2 than all of mankind. So do cows. And the cargo ships that travel the world's oceans emit more pollution than all the world's cars combined. That doesn't mean that we should pollute the Earth, but I think that most people are fair and reasonable with recycling and disposing of trash.


The U.S., Canada and the EU do an excellent job of energy conservation and controlling pollution. It's China, Russia, India and other developing nations that need to 'up their game' and raise their standards to the ones we have been living with for 50 years. We are not as evil as many people (to include A.O.C), think we are. 



I would like to see solar panels on flat roofs or retail centers and parking decks as well. It is still $$$, but like you suggested, the price would decline with economies of scale. But you know what is more expensive.....the 600 military bases overseas to keep the 'peace' at our expense. 


Most people are not aware of micro hydro generators, but the creeks and rivers are an untapped resource. They may not provide 100 percent of your electrical needs but they may supplement it. Every time you reduce your consumption of energy or increase your personal production with solar wind, or hydro; you are 'that much' freer and less dependent on 'the man' and utility companies. Everything cannot be measured in dollars and cents.


Nuclear power plants are the most efficient and safest energy alternative we have........but......all it takes is one accident. ...example: Chernobyl.
My blood was boiling on 9-11, but if they wanted to do lasting damage, they should have slammed into a nuclear power plant. That would have contaminated an area of several thousand miles for hundreds of years. 

I think that we are living on borrowed time, before it happens.

Wind Turbines for home use are great if you live in the right area, otherwise, the cost per KWH is prohibitive.


I wish there was a momentum to create national standards for efficient appliances, efficient homes and eventually net zero homes that produce their own energy and store the excess in storage batteries. Then, we would be independent of the utility companies and the politics of the Middle East.


Check out Martin Armstrong's blog. The man is a near-genius, self made man. He is a Finance guy - International Consultant; but he is talented enough to look at events objectively and tie everything together.













https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/blog/


https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...imate-change-as-if-it-was-supposed-to-change/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...blame-game-has-been-going-on-since-the-1890s/


https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...climate-change-a-tool-to-eliminate-democracy/


https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...iberate-fraud-to-increase-governmental-power/


----------



## Windows on Wash

Great information in this thread. 



I agree, solidly, with the last two posts.


----------



## ktownskier

One thing I also want to say is that humankind may not be the cause of climate change, they are probably contributing to it's accelerated current cycle. Or not. Only the future will tell. 

I am a voracious reader, at least I was until my brain injury. I read every chance I could. Even the back of the cereal box until I got a cell phone and a tablet. Mysteries, thrillers, and my favorite since I stole my brothers Stranger in a Strange Land at 12 years old, Science Fiction.

I love science fiction because it makes you think, what if... What if there was a bed for patients who were in a coma that helped prevent bed sores and other problems, that floated the patient on a cushion of gel or something. (Described by Robert A Heinlein in his book "Door into Summer" published in 1957"

Think of how many other things that have come true because they were first thought of in books, movies or stories or articles. Cell Phone, Video Phone, CAD/CAM, Hydroponics, Self Driving Cars. 

People have been outspoken against NASA. saying it is a waste of money. But they don't understand all the benefits that have come from it. 

First and foremost: What you are reading this on. Computers, Tablets and Smart Phones. 
If you have any kind of watch on that is run by a battery, thank NASA. 

It is all due to the effort of trying to get more things done in a smaller package. Or Miniaturization and Microminiaturization. Your kids basic calculator has more capabilities than any computer on any Apollo mission. I have attached a sample of memory used on the Apollo missions. It was made to do one thing, built by hand and took months to do. 

Without all the effort to make things smaller, the integrated chip from 1959 wouldn't have made much of an impact on modern society as it did. The effort to put instructions on a smaller and smaller piece of silicon gave us CT and MRI, SSD, Plasma Cutters, and the list goes on. 

By now you are wondering how this relates to the topic at hand. Well, let me explain. 

We have to start somewhere. Like most advancements, things go through a process or phases before it's adopted: "Arthur C. Clarke, who is credited as the father of the communications satellite, once wrote that every revolutionary idea seems
to evoke three stages of reaction which may be summed up by the
phrases (1) it’s completely impossible; don’t waste my time, (2) it’s
possible, but it’s not worth doing, (3) I said it was a good idea all along."

We are in Phase 1 and 2. We need to get to Phase 3. 

A corolary to this is what Wilbur Wright put it back in 1909, “There
are three classes of people: one class thinks the flying machine is
going to do everything, the second class thinks it’s going to do
nothing, and the third class gets in the air and sees what it can
do.”

You can substitute pretty much anything for "Flying Machine" and get the gist of it. 
We have a lot of the first two classes on this thread. We need more of the third class. 

America has always been a land of exploration. A land of "What if?" if you will. We seem to have lost that for the most part. We have some extraordinary thinkers and doers here. Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs come to mind at the moment. And then there are the amazing unknowns. The people who look at things and say, what if I add this, tweek that, etc. will it make that tool work better?

The only way to get Solar, in all it's forms is to explore what works and what doesn't, and to see if we can tweek it to work a bit better. Solar roads were thought to be the next big thing. Even with tweeking, they weren't. But, they tried. 

What I see that has always been a major problem with electric energy is what do you do with the excess? And there is always excess. Since energy was so cheap for so long, no one did anything about it, or if they did, too many Phase 1ers spoke out. (Why do we need to store energy? We can just make more.)

Now, that it costs a lot more, and the infrastructure is in such a horrible way, we have companies developing means of storing energy on a mass scale. We just need that one A-Ha moment that jumps us to that next level. StorEn Technologies did a small jump, we just need a quantum jump. 

Now, back to your regularly scheduled program. 

Dan


----------



## Oso954

> Wind Turbines for homes should also be explored. I live in an area where we have wind every day. A small turbine could generate power at every home in my town.


Wind turbines for homes have been explored, there have even been scams envoving them.

Problems with home wind turbines in a residential setting.
They make noise. You may not hear it during the day, but you often can during the night. Small turbines make proportionately more noise than large ones.

Wind turbines don’t do well in turbulent air. The rule of thumb is the turbine should be at least 30 feet above the highest object within 300ft. 

Wind turbine towers have been known to topple over either in extreme winds, or during raising/lowering a tower to work on the turbine. (Many towers are hinged. Most people are not going to climb 60-100 ft to work on a turbine.)

Wind turbines are known to throw blades on occasion. They can be launched quite a distance. While rare, having a 21 ft fiberglass spear (or any significant piece of onej launched in the neighborhood is not a risk you want to take.

Because of the noise, tower, and blades, some communities have outlawed wind turbines in residential properties. You need enough land to contain the risks to your own property.

The other thing is that you probably don’t have as much wind as you think you have. Take a drive around the countryside near your town. If you are not seeing wind turbines (not old water pumping windmills), you probably don’t have enough wind to justify the cost.


----------



## Nealtw

@ktownskier Well said sir. 

Early immigrants brought wind power technology with them from Europe and farmers used it to pump water for hundreds of years before they had power. Between wind sun and methane few farmers should be on the grid today. 

Forty years ago a friend that owned a mink farm, he fed feed them free with outdated milk, ice cream, waste from food possessors and any road kill the police needed removed. 

He had a system to take the methane out of the manure make the manure valuable as a fertilizer, he had a generator, running on the methane big enough to run the farm buildings and the three houses on the property. 

He was green long before there was anything known as green.


----------



## Oso954

> They pay .30 KWH for electricity in Germany, as opposed to the average of .12 in the U.S.
> Germany also subsidizes their solar industry to encourage installations


Anyone see a connection between those sentences ?

The German Energiewende (Energy Transition) and its subsidies for PV and wind have driven up the cost of electricity dramatically. 

Too much wind and solar has destabilized the grid. The grid operator used to intervene to stabilize the grid 3-4 times a year. They are now averaging about 3 corrections a day.

Here is an article on some of the not so great news about The Energiewende.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/30/germanys-energiewende-program-exposed-as-a-catastrophic-failure/

The scariest part of this is the the Green New Deal now being promoted here, is based upon the Energiewende.


----------



## Nealtw

@Oso954. Is there a simple way to understand how extra power is feed back to the grid with out the grid overpowering the system at the house?


----------



## ktownskier

Oso954 said:


> Wind turbines for homes have been explored, there have even been scams envoving them.
> 
> Problems with home wind turbines in a residential setting.
> They make noise. You may not hear it during the day, but you often can during the night. Small turbines make proportionately more noise than large ones.
> 
> Wind turbines don’t do well in turbulent air. The rule of thumb is the turbine should be at least 30 feet above the highest object within 300ft.
> 
> Wind turbine towers have been known to topple over either in extreme winds, or during raising/lowering a tower to work on the turbine. (Many towers are hinged. Most people are not going to climb 60-100 ft to work on a turbine.)
> 
> Wind turbines are known to throw blades on occasion. They can be launched quite a distance. While rare, having a 21 ft fiberglass spear (or any significant piece of onej launched in the neighborhood is not a risk you want to take.
> 
> Because of the noise, tower, and blades, some communities have outlawed wind turbines in residential properties. You need enough land to contain the risks to your own property.
> 
> The other thing is that you probably don’t have as much wind as you think you have. Take a drive around the countryside near your town. If you are not seeing wind turbines (not old water pumping windmills), you probably don’t have enough wind to justify the cost.


@os094

I am not attacking your views, they are yours as much as @Nealtw's are his and @DallasCowboys are his. But I am wondering why you are such a naysayer on most everything that others have posted. Which leads me to ponder what you would have thought about other things from different eras.

The crossbolt over the long box, the trebuchet over the catapult, the telephone over the telegraph. The telegraph over the Pony Express. The Railroad over the carriage. Please, take this in the tongue in cheek manner it was written as. I am not meaning to disparage your views, or thoughts or person. 

You tend to speak in generalities. "some communities have banned wind turbines in residential areas." How many, where and why? 
Wind chimes make a lot of noise as well. 

"Wind turbines are known to throw blades on occasion." How often has this happened? How many incidents per wind turbines installed. Any injuries or deaths reported? How severe the injuries? 

Nothing does well in turbulences, unless it is designed to take advantage of it. 

The point I have been trying to make is that you don't make advancements without at least trying. And when you try, you make mistakes. And mistakes are painful and sometimes result in death. And that is tragic. But at least you tried and hopefully you and others can learn from mistakes. A quote attributed to Edison states: "I learned 99 ways to NOT make a light bulb!"

And like @Nealtw said about his Mink Farmer friend, he made small advances until he was self sustaining. A wind turbine pumping water, converting manure into methane and fertilizer. Two valuable commodities.

I am not saying that we all should go live in BC and become Mink Farmers (It does sound like it would be fun for about a week). I am saying that we need to all do our part. 

Also, I do not understand what the problem with stabilizing the grid, two or three times a day is. Isn't that what the POCO is supposed to do? 

Isn't having having everyone switch to LED's, more energy efficient appliances, better more efficient HVAC systems. helping them? Reducing their need to build more power plants?

Then having Solar Panels on our roofs, in the desert, on flat roof tops anywhere that they can generate power should be even more of a benefit to them. 

Yes, I am passionate about this, just as you are about your views. I look at it on a more hopeful side that even a little bit is better than nothing. 

Dan


----------



## Deja-vue

> I also believe that we should build more nuclear power plants.


You have got to be kidding me.
Other Countries are trying to get rid of them, and you want to build more.
:surprise:


----------



## Nealtw

Our nat gas supplier is working with dairy farmers and using food waste to make gas now. 

https://www.fortisbc.com/services/s...-gas/meet-our-renewable-natural-gas-suppliers


----------



## Oso954

> Is there a simple way to understand how extra power is feed back to the grid with out the grid overpowering the system at the house?


Electricity flows from high voltage to low voltage. It doesn't have to be a great difference, but it is there. 

Your house loads are self regulating. They are only going to draw the watts that they need to operate (when things are working correctly). If they did not self regulate, you would be experience over currents simply by dialing up a light dimmer or turning up the stove. 

So, just as an example with made up round numbers. 
Your utility power is 120v per leg. Your house load has drawn the power voltage to 119. Your inverter kicks in and it will pick a higher voltage than what it sees, perhaps 121. 

If we break it into steps, it's going to fill the lower voltage house load first. When it has cranked enough watts into the house load, the house load voltage will climb and be equal to the grid. As the voltage of the inverter climbs above grid, power will start to flow out onto the grid simultaneously. As more watts are crank out from the inverter, a few watts extra in the house load forces house voltage sightly above the grid voltage, so the bulk of extra wattage all goes out to the lower voltage grid.

Once it's up on the pole, it will first supply other local demand (houses on same transformer). If the local demand doesn't use the power, it will backfeed the transformer and flow out on the primary side.

I slowed it down, hopefully to make it more understandable. In reality, these things happen within a cycle or so.


----------



## Oso954

ktownskier said:


> @os094
> 
> I am not attacking your views, they are yours as much as @Nealtw's are his and @DallasCowboys are his. But I am wondering why you are such a naysayer on most everything that others have posted. Which leads me to ponder what you would have thought about other things from different eras.
> 
> The crossbolt over the long box, the trebuchet over the catapult, the telephone over the telegraph. The telegraph over the Pony Express. The Railroad over the carriage. Please, take this in the tongue in cheek manner it was written as. I am not meaning to disparage your views, or thoughts or person.
> 
> You tend to speak in generalities. "some communities have banned wind turbines in residential areas." How many, where and why?
> Wind chimes make a lot of noise as well.
> 
> "Wind turbines are known to throw blades on occasion." How often has this happened? How many incidents per wind turbines installed. Any injuries or deaths reported? How severe the injuries?
> 
> Nothing does well in turbulences, unless it is designed to take advantage of it.
> 
> The point I have been trying to make is that you don't make advancements without at least trying. And when you try, you make mistakes. And mistakes are painful and sometimes result in death. And that is tragic. But at least you tried and hopefully you and others can learn from mistakes. A quote attributed to Edison states: "I learned 99 ways to NOT make a light bulb!"
> 
> And like @Nealtw said about his Mink Farmer friend, he made small advances until he was self sustaining. A wind turbine pumping water, converting manure into methane and fertilizer. Two valuable commodities.
> 
> I am not saying that we all should go live in BC and become Mink Farmers (It does sound like it would be fun for about a week). I am saying that we need to all do our part.
> 
> Also, I do not understand what the problem with stabilizing the grid, two or three times a day is. Isn't that what the POCO is supposed to do?
> 
> Isn't having having everyone switch to LED's, more energy efficient appliances, better more efficient HVAC systems. helping them? Reducing their need to build more power plants?
> 
> Then having Solar Panels on our roofs, in the desert, on flat roof tops anywhere that they can generate power should be even more of a benefit to them.
> 
> Yes, I am passionate about this, just as you are about your views. I look at it on a more hopeful side that even a little bit is better than nothing.
> 
> Dan


So I am a naysayer. There’s no possibility that I might have experiance and recognize some of the drawbacks, right?
There is no need for me to sing the benefits. They are over sung by promoters and people that have bought into it.

Sometimes I speak in generalities because some people aren’t interested in a lot of statistics. In other cases, the statistics may be out of date or the source documents don’t clearly state what the case is. Is it an outright ban written into the zoning laws, or is the locality using other existing laws to effectively ban them ?
Here is a case where a homeowner was ordered to remove a turbine (VAWT, not HAWT) and went to jail over it. The real points are in the neighbors complaints.
It’s real easy for someone that has never lived or worked around wind turbines to dismiss the complaints as overblown.

The other complaint I didn’t list but the article points out is stöbe effect. If the shadow of the wind turbine falls on the neighbor property (or even yours) the shadow-light-shadow of the turning blades can be annoying as heck.

The grid is supposed to run and be stable. Stabilizing the grid usually means an unplanned corrective action to keep the system from browning out, blacking out, or the reverse (going to extreme over voltage). If the action isn’t taken, relay protective schemes will start automatic load shedding.

In the case of Germany (and California) there are independent Grid Operators. They decide in a competitive market what power to buy from whom, make operating decisions as to powerplants and major transmission lines.


----------



## Oso954

Here is the article I forgot to attach.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illegal-wind-turbine-leaves-green-energy-entrepreneur-spinning-in-jail


----------



## ktownskier

Of course you may be right. And you do bring up some valid points. But so do others. 

I forgot about the strobe effect. It is very annoying and can be very dangerous for some people. 

The reason I called you a naysayer was that you tend to say that you can't do this, that won't work, etc. I don't recall you saying that we should be doing "this" or "that". If I missed it, I do apologize. It was my error. 

I have always gone by the principle of you can't ***** about something until you come up with something to try and fix it. I got most of my promotions because I like to think outside of the box or look at things a different way. Of course not everything works, not even 1 in 10. But because we tried a new way, it may trigger someone else to get that "A-HA" moment. 

Thank you for enlightening me about the grid. Information is always good. 

Dan


----------



## Nealtw

Oso954 said:


> Electricity flows from high voltage to low voltage. It doesn't have to be a great difference, but it is there.
> 
> Your house loads are self regulating. They are only going to draw the watts that they need to operate (when things are working correctly). If they did not self regulate, you would be experience over currents simply by dialing up a light dimmer or turning up the stove.
> 
> So, just as an example with made up round numbers.
> Your utility power is 120v per leg. Your house load has drawn the power voltage to 119. Your inverter kicks in and it will pick a higher voltage than what it sees, perhaps 121.
> 
> If we break it into steps, it's going to fill the lower voltage house load first. When it has cranked enough watts into the house load, the house load voltage will climb and be equal to the grid. As the voltage of the inverter climbs above grid, power will start to flow out onto the grid simultaneously. As more watts are crank out from the inverter, a few watts extra in the house load forces house voltage sightly above the grid voltage, so the bulk of extra wattage all goes out to the lower voltage grid.
> 
> Once it's up on the pole, it will first supply other local demand (houses on same transformer). If the local demand doesn't use the power, it will backfeed the transformer and flow out on the primary side.
> 
> I slowed it down, hopefully to make it more understandable. In reality, these things happen within a cycle or so.


Thanks that was simple enough even for me.


----------



## Windows on Wash

Deja-vue said:


> You have got to be kidding me.
> Other Countries are trying to get rid of them, and you want to build more.



If you don't quote the poster in correct format, they will not get the notification and alert to reply. 

The fact is that we are way behind on nuclear in this country because the fossil fuel industry did a great job of demonizing the power sourcing via 3 mile island. Nuclear, if you subscribe to the carbon crisis logic, is the safest and most readily deployed source of power that could easily replace outdated combustion based power generation. It does give off water vapor via the cooling towers which does have a warming potential, but that is more readily converted back in to liquid via normal weather processes. 

Nuclear is also more easily ramp'ed up and down to contend with the fluctuations in grid demand. 

For the record, I absolutely thing that we should be growing renewable generation and especially as the battery technology evolves and gets to a point were "off grid" storage is more feasible. That said, I haven't seen anyone in this thread that was Anti-renewable. I have seen folks, present company included, that are anti-government propping up a minute sector of the nation's power generation.


----------



## SPS-1

Windows on Wash said:


> The fact is that we are way behind on nuclear in this country because the fossil fuel industry did a great job of demonizing the power sourcing via 3 mile island. Nuclear, if you subscribe to the carbon crisis logic, is the safest and most readily deployed source of power that could easily replace outdated combustion based power generation.



Nuclear probably is the safest form of power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#6e50884b709b


But its not the fossil fuel industry that is killing nuclear, its the cost. How are the new VC Summer nuclear plants in South Carolina coming along? Any cost number for building a new nuclear plant comes in at 11 figures. I don't think too many power companies are lining up for more of that kind of project. A natural gas power plant is a just a part number. If you were president of your local power company (a good paying gig for sure), would you risk your job by suggesting a new nuclear plant?


----------



## Windows on Wash

Scale drives the price of everything down. We aren't building them, so they are going to cost and arm and a leg beyond just their normal more expensive construction. 



That said, there are scalable versions of nuclear that would allow the areas to start producing power as the construction was going on and to switch off to reactors as they came on board. 



We are kidding ourselves if we don't think the fossil fuel industry forged a full scale war against nuclear during the time in which it should have been the thrust of our energy production.


----------



## Oso954

What drives the cost ? 
Most of the plants built were built larger than the last one. This meant that the design had to be tweaked at minimum, if not started from scratch. 

Bigger components means higher costs. The price tag on moving a single 600-1,200 ton load is astronomical as compared to loads less than 500 tons. 

Giving intervenors the chance to re-litigate the same issues every time a plant is built., and giving local regulatory bodies to much say in the process results in delays. If you are dealing with class 1 components, just one of your vendors can delay your entire schedule. (There are only so many work arounds) 
The carrying costs of delays (regardless of cause) is tremendous.

The great hope in the nuclear industry is the SMR (small modular reactor). A plant design in the 300-500MW range. Essentially all of it pre approved by the NRC. So, if all the the geotec work and local hazards fall within the design parameters, you are good to go.

Plants of this size could slip right in to replace a lot of aging coal plants. If you want more power, you build 2-3 of them rather than one big monster. Outages are easier to handle when a 300-500MW goes offline, rather than when a 1,000-1,200MW does.

VCSummer Units 2/3 ? Last I heard about 18 months ago, delays associated with the Westinghouse bankruptcy had pushed the operation dates out to about 2020/2021 (from 2017 & 2018). The revised cost estimates associated with the delays convinced the POCOs to abandon the project.

Unless I missed something, abandoned in place is still the current status for units 2&3. (It's not the first time that has happened to a Utility's Nuclear Plants)


----------



## Windows on Wash

I guy that I know via another friend (very removed) was from MIT and patented a modular nuclear reactor type set up that could do just that. Super smart dude on another level.


----------



## ktownskier

Windows on Wash said:


> I guy that I know via another friend (very removed) was from MIT and patented a modular nuclear reactor type set up that could do just that. Super smart dude on another level.


Aren't all people from MIT supersmart?

My brother got his BS in Computer science and his MS in EE/CS. He couldn't leave the country for awhile and couldn't even travel to certain cities. 

My sister-in-law is also from MIT for her Masters. Stanford for her undergrad. I got a lot of hats from Nuclear carriers and Subs she had to go to. 

I went to visit my brother in the early 70's. I played my first video game on a PDP-4. It was a dogfight game on a 6x6 green screen. It was so slow that when the plane turned, the tail of the plane curved. I was also allowed to go into their anechoic chamber. The quietest place in the world at the time. Pretty friggin amazing. He also gave me a piece of core memory. 12x12" of copper wire that held i think 6K of memory. 

You know how Al Gore was attributed as saying that he invented the internet? Well, I know people who actually worked on developing it. And on the massively parallel computers that are now running it. 

Sorry, had to extol the brains and the people I know with the brains at and from MIT.


----------



## Calson

Some things require a government mandate to level the playing field. It is much cheaper for the homeowner to have the installation and electrical and mechanical integration done during the initial construction of the house. 

What is a con job was when after the banksters crashed the economy in 2008 the pipe and valve companies saw their incomes plummet as there was very little new construction. So they lobbied successfully to make fire sprinklers mandatory for every new home being built. So instead of a solar panel array that would save them money there are fire sprinklers that accomplish nothing for the homeowner or renter. 


Car makers said seat belts were too expensive and then that airbags were too expensive and that ABS brakes were too expensive and rear cameras were too expensive and nobody would be able to afford to buy their cars. Same story with all the solar push back instigated by the likes of the Koch brothers.


A UC Davis study of California homes (which is available to download) found that homes with solar sold for on average $17,000 more than similar homes without solar and they sold in half the time. So homebuyers would prefer to buy a home with solar and save $6000 a year for as long as they own the house and to be able to sell their home faster and have it sitting on the market for months less time. 

Why do you think that is? It is not rocket science but it does require the ability to think critically and not simply parrot what some clown on Fox News or in the White House tells you to think.


----------



## Windows on Wash

I read the UC Davis study a while ago. Do you have a link to it. 

At the time, I found it to be lacking some equalization in details that could contribute to the price offset. Not all of it, but certainly some of it. 



What was not calculated was the "Green Guilt" factor in that type of home purchase.


----------



## tmittelstaedt

Nuclear power generation is dead. It's got application in military for submarines and in satellites but other than specialty areas, it's dead.

The issue is cost in dealing with the waste. Nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years. When you produce it you have to store it in a landfill or whatever for thousands of years, that means at the least someone is going to be paying landfill storage fees for thousands of years. The cost of storage when added up over those thousands of years dwarfs any economic return from the few years you were generating power from the nuclear material and it dwarfs the cost of any other alternative power generation scheme you can dream up. There is no argument that the nuclear proponents have ever come up with to answer that and until they do, it's not going anywhere.

The simple issue with electricity is this: the effort to produce it from fossil fuels is far lower than the effort to produce it from PV or wind or anything else. Humanity has gotten very, very, very used to cheap electricity and has been building and designing things that run off cheap electricity for a very long time now and a great many of those things are still around. There are plenty of electric induction AC motors that are a century old that are still running. They are inefficient designs but since they still work they are not being replaced because the cost of a newer more efficient design does not justify the work of replacing them because of cheap power.

We also waste a tremendous amount of AC power in just the transmission of it alone. You waste power when you generate it far away from where it's used.

As long as we have cheap fossil fuels we are going to have cheap power and we are going to continue building and using power inefficiently because it's cheaper. Say what you want about LEED certification and all that, when the cost of an office building that is LEED certified is 10% more than the same size office building that isn't - LEED works - when the cost is 200% more - LEED does not work. The LEED people know this which is why the LEED certification really doesn't require a tremendous amount of energy efficiency. Compared to an old style building it does - but compared to an absolute of what is possible - it doesn't, it's a joke.

Right now a LOT of things are a joke with "green" building because people want to pretend they are doing something about the environment. You want real green? OK design an office building so that the only elevator that goes all the way to the first floor is the freight elevator. Everyone else who works on the 2nd or 3rd floor has to climb a flight of stairs. Why not? They are probably all overweight so it will be good for them. Make it illegal to put in a fast-food greasy spoon deli on the first floor of that building so that the secretaries can't add to their spread bottoms at lunchtime. Design that same office building so that instead of the wall of windows it has a wall of PVs with just some small slit windows to let in light. Most of the users of the building are stuck in cubes and can't see out the windows anyway.

The one thing we do know is this - at the rate of use we have, fossil fuels ARE going to run out. Maybe not a decade from now, but eventually they will. We do not have thousands of years of fossil fuel left. We have hundreds at most. And of what is left a lot of it is very expensive to use such that the majority of power it creates will go into cleaning up it's output.

So like it or not eventually we won't have it. We will be forced to use other means of generating electric power. And that will force the cost of generating electric power to rise.

We almost certainly have enough energy in the simple temperature differential from the surface of the ocean to 50 feet down in the water to generate all the power we need. Constant reliable power from undersea cables to the shore. But it will be a lot more costly due to ongoing maintenance. But when more expensive power generation is all we have, then we are going to suck it up and use it and we are going to suck it up and pay for it. The era of cheap power will end, folks.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

I think i disagree with most of what you said.





tmittelstaedt said:


> Nuclear power generation is dead. It's got application in military for submarines and in satellites but other than specialty areas, it's dead.
> *there's nothing wrong with nuclear. problem is people keep using old designs that suck. LFTR is where we need to be, not power plants that produce bomb grade material. thorium is so cheap and safe its stupid*
> The issue is cost in dealing with the waste. Nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years. When you produce it you have to store it in a landfill or whatever for thousands of years, that means at the least someone is going to be paying landfill storage fees for thousands of years. The cost of storage when added up over those thousands of years dwarfs any economic return from the few years you were generating power from the nuclear material and it dwarfs the cost of any other alternative power generation scheme you can dream up. There is no argument that the nuclear proponents have ever come up with to answer that and until they do, it's not going anywhere.
> *waste isn't an issue in LFTRs, nor is safety. something goes wrong, physics turns it off instead of blowing it up and melting it down*
> 
> The simple issue with electricity is this: the effort to produce it from fossil fuels is far lower than the effort to produce it from PV or wind or anything else. Humanity has gotten very, very, very used to cheap electricity and has been building and designing things that run off cheap electricity for a very long time now and a great many of those things are still around. There are plenty of electric induction AC motors that are a century old that are still running. They are inefficient designs but since they still work they are not being replaced because the cost of a newer more efficient design does not justify the work of replacing them because of cheap power.
> 
> We also waste a tremendous amount of AC power in just the transmission of it alone. You waste power when you generate it far away from where it's used.*transmission power loss is about 6%. so the total quantity lost may be tremendous, but the percentage is not. *
> 
> As long as we have cheap fossil fuels we are going to have cheap power and we are going to continue building and using power inefficiently because it's cheaper. Say what you want about LEED certification and all that, when the cost of an office building that is LEED certified is 10% more than the same size office building that isn't - LEED works - when the cost is 200% more - LEED does not work. The LEED people know this which is why the LEED certification really doesn't require a tremendous amount of energy efficiency. Compared to an old style building it does - but compared to an absolute of what is possible - it doesn't, it's a joke.
> *it's funny because people run their AC while burning fuel to heat their hot water. they could all "just" install desuperheaters on their air conditioners and have free hot water all summer long...*
> 
> Right now a LOT of things are a joke with "green" building because people want to pretend they are doing something about the environment. You want real green? OK design an office building so that the only elevator that goes all the way to the first floor is the freight elevator. Everyone else who works on the 2nd or 3rd floor has to climb a flight of stairs. Why not? They are probably all overweight so it will be good for them. Make it illegal to put in a fast-food greasy spoon deli on the first floor of that building so that the secretaries can't add to their spread bottoms at lunchtime. Design that same office building so that instead of the wall of windows it has a wall of PVs with just some small slit windows to let in light. Most of the users of the building are stuck in cubes and can't see out the windows anyway.
> *old man ranting here?*
> 
> The one thing we do know is this - at the rate of use we have, fossil fuels ARE going to run out. Maybe not a decade from now, but eventually they will. We do not have thousands of years of fossil fuel left. We have hundreds at most. And of what is left a lot of it is very expensive to use such that the majority of power it creates will go into cleaning up it's output.
> *the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. we won't stop using oil because we run out of it, either.*
> 
> So like it or not eventually we won't have it. We will be forced to use other means of generating electric power. And that will force the cost of generating electric power to rise.
> 
> We almost certainly have enough energy in the simple temperature differential from the surface of the ocean to 50 feet down in the water to generate all the power we need. Constant reliable power from undersea cables to the shore. But it will be a lot more costly due to ongoing maintenance. But when more expensive power generation is all we have, then we are going to suck it up and use it and we are going to suck it up and pay for it. The era of cheap power will end, folks.


----------



## chiraldude

So much of this comes down to the fact that the general population is really bad at applying logic to risk and money decisions. 
Nuclear is basically dead because the word "radiation" produces excessive fear and anxiety. Billions of $$ sounds like a huge number but when compared to the nation's GDP it's a tiny fraction.
Nuclear is one of several options that could fill in the gaps until we figure out how to store solar energy in a scaleable, reliable, and cost effective manner.


----------



## Oso954

> We almost certainly have enough energy in the simple temperature differential from the surface of the ocean to 50 feet down in the water to generate all the power we need.


Where are you getting your information from ?

As OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) stands today, you need a surface temp of 77 degrees. You are going deep below the thermocline after cold water of about 41 degrees. You aren't going to find it in the first 50 ft.

The current temperature limits rule out most of the US Coastline. The southern Atlantic coast, the gulf coast, and Hawaii are the only suitable locations.

The closed cycle OTEC plants are also dependent on a low boiling point working fluid such as ammonia or some other refrigerant. Particularly as you attempt to scale the plants up in size, the wisdom of utilizing these fluids where any leak will drain to the ocean, will become a larger environmental safety question.

http://www.otecnews.org/what-is-otec/

The above article has a typo in it. The say say that 20C is 36F. It isn't, 20C is 68F.

With only 2 operating plants in the world, I wouldn't call it a developed technology.


----------



## Windows on Wash

u3b3rg33k said:


> I think i disagree with most of what you said.



Didn't know the first thing about LFTR.


Looks awesome!!!


----------



## u3b3rg33k

Windows on Wash said:


> Didn't know the first thing about LFTR.
> 
> 
> Looks awesome!!!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY


and in the USA, .gov is scared of change. so we'll sit by and watch china do it first.


----------



## SPS-1

I have read China is making progress on thorium reactors. And India has been working on it for a long time. 
But a practical thorium reactor seems to follow a corollary to the fusion reactor ---- i.e a practical thorium reactor is five years away - and always will be.


----------



## DallasCowboys

SPS-1 said:


> I have read China is making progress on thorium reactors. And India has been working on it for a long time.
> But a practical thorium reactor seems to follow a corollary to the fusion reactor ---- i.e a practical thorium reactor is five years away - and always will be.





I think Thorium and other nuclear related fuel would have been a good idea 30 years ago but I still think that renewables are the way to go.


But.....people always talk about energy production but we don't hear too much about saving energy. There should be national standards for major electrical appliances......HVAC, TV's , Water Heaters, Refrigerators, Dishwashers etc...


Homes being built should be built to super energy insulation standards. 



Sales of light bulbs should be limited to LED's. They use significantly less energy than incandescent bulbs as well as the twisty ones. And they last 20, 30 years. They are $$$, but the increase in volume would reduce their price.


And new homes should be built to withstand basic levels of hurricane and earthquake protection. It does not cost that much to insert stainless steel rods into wet concrete for a sill plate or use tie down straps for joists when building a new home. But if they are not used, it cost$ big money to repair them in the event of a catastrophe.


Energy consumption in new homes constitutes about 30 percent of our energy production. If we could reduce home consumption, it would be a major impact on our energy needs. Less energy consumed, less need for new energy plants. 



I would like to see solar on every roof top. But I realize it is still $$$ for the cost and benefit of what you receive. Many areas are not suited for solar, at least at current prices. 


But, I think it might be a good idea to have every new home pre-wired for solar and storage batteries, just like my home was pre-wired for a security alarm ( I never subscribed for monitoring) or the way we have smoke alarms wired into every home ( my has gone off while cooking......it works fine).


More emphasis should be put on reducing the need for new energy, rather than creating solutions for creating new energy. 





Just my .02.




This is an excellent idea, if they can develop the technology. ......
Windows in our homes producing electricity. 



https://www.solarwindow.com/galleries/photos/


----------



## StGeorgeClean

Wow!!! It seems like they shouldn't be able to require that! Offer incentives, sure, but require??? Guess I'm not moving to Cali any time soon


----------



## Calson

Solar payback in most parts of the USA is less than 10 years and this includes areas up to latitude 48. Difference is that at higher latitudes the panels need to be at more of an angle but then the roofs have a steeper pitch anyway to shed snow. 

At least with solar there is a payback as with adding insulation to an older home. New homes are not required to have a fire sprinkler system and that was pushed through by the pipe and valve industry after they saw their sales and profits cut by more than half during the Great Recession that resulted from the massive fraud of the finance industry. Worst part is that in the event of a wildfire the sprinklers would kill the water pressure to the fire hydrants and make for a much worse problem for firefighters.


It is more than double the cost to upgrade a home once it have been built. Building codes have been changed to improve safety and reduce energy consumption and now with California the change is to offset home energy usage with home solar power production. We produce as much electrical power from our solar panels as we use during the course of the year and our panels have a useful life of more than 30 years and increase the resale value of our house by $17,000 (from UC Davis study of home sales in California). 

Adding solar panels should be a no-brainer as even going with a lease will save an owner money in the short and long run and electrical costs from the utilities will continue to increase with global warming. I hate paying more than half of my taxes to support the military so oil companies can take oil from people overseas or support despots like the Saudi family.


----------



## DallasCowboys

Calson said:


> Solar payback in most parts of the USA is less than 10 years and this includes areas up to latitude 48. Difference is that at higher latitudes the panels need to be at more of an angle but then the roofs have a steeper pitch anyway to shed snow.
> 
> At least with solar there is a payback as with adding insulation to an older home. New homes are not required to have a fire sprinkler system and that was pushed through by the pipe and valve industry after they saw their sales and profits cut by more than half during the Great Recession that resulted from the massive fraud of the finance industry. Worst part is that in the event of a wildfire the sprinklers would kill the water pressure to the fire hydrants and make for a much worse problem for firefighters.
> 
> Adding solar panels should be a no-brainer as even going with a lease will save an owner money in the short and long run and electrical costs from the utilities will continue to increase with global warming. I hate paying more than half of my taxes to support the military so oil companies can take oil from people overseas or support despots like the Saudi family.



There was some financial fraud from mortgage lenders but basically, the reason the economy imploded is because people had variable interest loans that came due and they could not pay the new premium. If homeowners had paid their mortgages, they would have kept their homes.


In some places like Alaska and Hawaii, parity has already been reached, because they pay .29-.32 for a kwh. But payback is much longer for other areas. The biggest drawback for solar is the large, upfront cost for a solar installation, regardless of a rebate. If you pay 30K for a solar installation and get 10K rebated......... the 10K rebate sounds nice, but you still have to write a check for 30K. It still comes out of your pocket. And 40% of Americans have less than 1K in the bank. So, that ain't happening.
But, even if they do, it can be hard to justify spending 30K to save 150 dollars a month on your electric bill. 



But, I am for anything that will move us closer to building homes that are energy independent and grid free.


----------



## NotYerUncleBob2

DallasCowboys said:


> The biggest drawback for solar is the large, upfront cost for a solar installation, regardless of a rebate. If you pay 30K for a solar installation and get 10K rebated......... the 10K rebate sounds nice, but you still have to write a check for 30K.


But your real cost is still $20k. 



DallasCowboys said:


> It still comes out of your pocket. And 40% of Americans have less than 1K in the bank. So, that ain't happening.


Funny, but a car costs upwards of $30k and people are buying those. A house costs upwards of $300k and people are buying those. Must be some kind of magic? Oh, right...financing. You can finance the panels and if you're buying a new home with them on the roof the cost (which is half a retrofit) can be rolled into your mortgage and instantly offset by savings on your utility bill. In real money terms at the end of the month you will have more money in hand with the solar panel on your roof than without it. 



DallasCowboys said:


> But, even if they do, it can be hard to justify spending 30K to save 150 dollars a month on your electric bill.


Well, even using your numbers it's only $20k and at $150/mo that investment will fully pay for itself in 11 years while leaving you with a $20k asset sitting on your roof. 



DallasCowboys said:


> But, I am for anything that will move us closer to building homes that are energy independent and grid free.


Whoa there bud! Let's not get rid of the grid just yet. The grid is a great way to distribute power and leverage some really cheap (and often green, like hydro) power to everyone.


----------



## NotYerUncleBob2

StGeorgeClean said:


> Wow!!! It seems like they shouldn't be able to require that! Offer incentives, sure, but require??? Guess I'm not moving to Cali any time soon


Somehow I get the feeling that you weren't planning on moving to California any time soon anyway. But, the thinking here is that as part of new construction solar costs half of what a retrofit does. That cost rolled into a mortgage is fully offset by the utility bill savings. By leveling the playing field with this requirement the banks are all going to allow a slightly higher dollar amount in the mortgage when a solar system is included because they know that their borrower will have more cash in hand every month. Without the requirement too many people would fall back on the shortsighted "whatever is cheapest right now" calculus.


----------



## DallasCowboys

NotYerUncleBob2 said:


> But your real cost is still $20k.
> 
> 
> Funny, but a car costs upwards of $30k and people are buying those. A house costs upwards of $300k and people are buying those. Must be some kind of magic? Oh, right...financing. You can finance the panels and if you're buying a new home with them on the roof the cost (which is half a retrofit) can be rolled into your mortgage and instantly offset by savings on your utility bill. In real money terms at the end of the month you will have more money in hand with the solar panel on your roof than without it.
> 
> 
> Well, even using your numbers it's only $20k and at $150/mo that investment will fully pay for itself in 11 years while leaving you with a $20k asset sitting on your roof.
> 
> 
> Whoa there bud! Let's not get rid of the grid just yet. The grid is a great way to distribute power and leverage some really cheap (and often green, like hydro) power to everyone.



People need cars but not solar.
I agree that it would be best to have it installed when a home is new and finance it with your mortgage. If it was done in a subdivision where everyone had them, you would probably save a few dollars.


I hope that Elon Musk follows through on his promise to produce those solar shingles to install on your home. This would be the best solution.....integrating solar power with shingles.


But, if solar is not required, perhaps we should require that homes be prewired for solar panels and 110volt outlets for recharging electric cars.


----------



## NotYerUncleBob2

Windows on Wash said:


> We are kidding ourselves if we don't think the fossil fuel industry forged a full scale war against nuclear during the time in which it should have been the thrust of our energy production.





Oso954 said:


> The great hope in the nuclear industry is the SMR (small modular reactor). A plant design in the 300-500MW range. Essentially all of it pre approved by the NRC. So, if all the the geotec work and local hazards fall within the design parameters, you are good to go.





SPS-1 said:


> Nuclear probably is the safest form of power.





Windows on Wash said:


> The fact is that we are way behind on nuclear in this country because the fossil fuel industry did a great job of demonizing the power sourcing via 3 mile island. Nuclear, if you subscribe to the carbon crisis logic, is the safest and most readily deployed source of power that could easily replace outdated combustion based power generation.





chiraldude said:


> Nuclear is basically dead because the word "radiation" produces excessive fear and anxiety.


Any of you guys watch Chernobyl on HBO?


----------



## NotYerUncleBob2

DallasCowboys said:


> People need cars but not solar.


People don't really need cars in a lot of places. Fewer people want them now than ever. For a lot of people in the cities cars are just a hassle to park and pay for while there are other alternatives to getting around. 
But people do need electricity. Though maybe not necessarily from solar panels. But the solar panel makes a lot of sense in a lot of places. 



DallasCowboys said:


> I agree that it would be best to have it installed when a home is new and finance it with your mortgage.


Bingo! That's what this California law incentivizes. Without it, it's just too easy to not pay a few bucks up front for it. If you weren't required to have any insulation in your house you can bet that a lot of builders wouldn't put any in to keep that upfront cost down.



DallasCowboys said:


> I hope that Elon Musk follows through on his promise to produce those solar shingles to install on your home. This would be the best solution.....integrating solar power with shingles.


Yeah, I like the idea of those too. There's been a couple attempts to make them work already, so hopefully whatever bugs have now been worked out to make it a reality.



DallasCowboys said:


> But, if solar is not required, perhaps we should require that homes be prewired for solar panels and 110volt outlets for recharging electric cars.


It's becoming more common for the electricians to do some of the wiring on new homes to make it "car charger ready" without having the actual charger in place. Not sure exactly what's involved, just something I've heard from one of the electricians that I've worked with.


----------



## Oso954

> I hope that Elon Musk follows through on his promise to produce those solar shingles to install on your home. This would be the best solution.....integrating solar power with shingles.


You may think it sounds like a great idea, but it really isn’t. When you want a product to do un-related features, you often have to make design compromises. 

Those compromises often mean you end up with a product that does a mediocre job of both.

A new roof plus solar panels costs less than solar shingles. The panels will produce more power than shingles. 

The only thing the solar shingles have going for them is appearance.

https://news.energysage.com/tesla-solar-roof-price-vs-solar-panels/


----------



## DallasCowboys

Oso954 said:


> You may think it sounds like a great idea, but it really isn’t. When you want a product to do un-related features, you often have to make design compromises.
> 
> Those compromises often mean you end up with a product that does a mediocre job of both.
> 
> *A new roof plus solar panels costs less than solar shingles. The panels will produce more power than shingles.
> 
> The only thing the solar shingles have going for them is appearance.*
> 
> https://news.energysage.com/tesla-solar-roof-price-vs-solar-panels/





All true, but you have to start somewhere. Ten years ago, they were charging 5K extra for a hybrid car and that's when the average coast of a car was 22K or so. Now, the average sales price of a new car is 30K and it is not unusual to only pay an extra $1500-$2500 for the hybrid version of a car.


Solar panels are cheaper and more efficient but they are not attractive and you have additional holes in your roof to secure them. 



Solar shingles will replace solar panels one day. 

New technology is often less efficient and more expensive than the standard but someone else will come along to build something similar.


DOW had a similar product a few years ago but they stopped production. Too expensive or too inefficient......I don't recall why.


But, we'll get there one day.


----------



## SPS-1

Oso954 said:


> Those compromises often mean you end up with a product that does a mediocre job of both.



I have looked for details on the solar shingles, but details are few. I think Elon may not be quite finished designing them. If they are 10" x 18" panels, then do you have thousands of electrical connections on your roof? Or if they are 40" x 60" panels, are they really much different than existing panels?


----------



## Oso954

Too expensive or too ineffecient, or both. 
This resulted in low sales.

They have 3 huge hurdles to clear when it comes to efficiency. The aiming of the panel, sun angle vs roof angle, and heat buildup.

If you want to set a conventional solar panel at a single position, you aim it towards true south (or as close as you can get to it).

You then set the angle at your latitude. (Angle between the back of panel and horizontal line at bottom.) For me, that is about 39 degrees. I have a 4:12 roof. That's about 18 degrees. If I lay the panel on the roof, I lose efficiency vs racking it at the correct angle.

The other problem is that when you lay it down on the roof, you are trapping heat in the panel, which causes the panel to lose effiency. PV panels are more efficient at cooler temperatures.

If you don't have a solution for these problems (other than racking) for conventional PV panels, how do you expect to resolve them for PV shingles ?


----------



## NotYerUncleBob2

Oso954 said:


> If you don't have a solution for these problems (other than racking) for conventional PV panels, how do you expect to resolve them for PV shingles ?


Compromise. Like everything there is some compromise between quality, performance and cost. If a shingle is less efficient, that can be overcome by being able to cover more surface area than you could with a large panel. Ideal? no, but a viable solution nonetheless. 
I'm not sure that the shingles will be a great solution but I'm also not ready to dismiss them outright just yet. I'm hoping they do work out. If they find a way to make them cheap enough that it's only a slight upcharge over a standard composite architectural shingle? Game changer.


----------



## u3b3rg33k

i don't see them ever being "slightly" more expensive than asphalt shingles - those are basically a subscription product when looked at longer term.


----------



## beenthere

DallasCowboys said:


> All true, but you have to start somewhere. Ten years ago, they were charging 5K extra for a hybrid car and that's when the average coast of a car was 22K or so. Now, the average sales price of a new car is 30K and it is not unusual to only pay an extra $1500-$2500 for the hybrid version of a car.



Thats because they are sold as at a loss, so that they don't have to buy as many carbon credits to sell regular cars in California,


----------



## DIYBen

Hey guys any suggestion on the best place to fit your house with a power wall, similar to what tesla is offering?


----------



## DallasCowboys

beenthere said:


> Thats because they are sold as at a loss, so that they don't have to buy as many carbon credits to sell regular cars in California,



I never considered the carbon credit idea.
I thought that was limited to companies that used coal etc............


----------



## Oso954

The same thing is happening in Europe.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122496_fiat-chrysler-to-pay-tesla-hundreds-of-millions-for-emissions-credits


----------



## Calson

My solar installation cost me $17,000 with the tax credit. The operating cost is the alternative use of the $17,000. I could put it into a CD and earn 1% and so the opportunity cost is the $170 in interest I lose or actually more like $120 after taxes. So I pay a $10 monthly service fee to the utility and I lose $10 a month in interest income so my electrical costs are $20 a month.
5 years ago more than half my usage was billed at $.34 per kWh and I expected that this would only increase over the years. 

Even in Maine people are seeing a 10 year or less payback on solar panels. It is also easy to have someone from a solar installation company come out to your location. They have a special device that measures the light reaching your roof and they use it to determine placement of the solar and where to put it on the roof. 

What many people incorrectly assume is that the sunlight needs to hit the panel at a 90 degree angle to get the full output from the panel and that is not the case. The panels are designed to produce output from the cells at more extreme angles. They are also designed to bypass cells that are in the shade and not producing power so only a portion of the panel output is impacted. 

One thing I found when doing the installation was that if I replaced the roof it would cost me $3,000 or more to have the panels removed and then reinstalled. I decided to replace the roofing where the panels were going to be mounted to avoid that cost.

The propaganda against solar is being generated by the people working directly or indirectly for the Koch brothers. They make billions from the sale of oil and gas and coal and make nothing if homeowner generate electricity from solar. So they spend over $200 million a year to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.


----------



## user_12345a

> They make billions from the sale of oil and gas and coal and make nothing if homeowner generate electricity from solar. So they spend over $200 million a year to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.


Grid-tied solar with no storage does not pose a threat to fossil fuel companies.

Oil is not used to generate electricity, it's used mainly transportation. 

Natural gas plants are used extensively as swing generators to accommodate fluctuating demand and to a lesser extent inconsistent output from solar panels, wind turbines. 

Coal is being replace by gas, not solar. Gas is artificially cheap now due to the shale boom being financed by debt, making coal unattractive. 

Grid tied solar with no storage may make sense as a financial investment, but if the goal is to save the earth and conserve fossil fuels, forget it.

You are not powering your home via renewable energy for real even if the bill reads 0kwh due to turning back the meter. You're as dependent on conventional power plants as anyone else a lot of the time.

Only a/c load synchs up well with solar output. 

In many ways the equipment itself is just an extension of fossil fuel, not to mention the power plants that back up intermittent renewable generation.

Just look at all the energy required to mine and process the materials used in the panels and inverter, manufacture, transport the stuff, install. None of that is done right now exclusively with solar energy - especially the mining and transportation.

Efficient cost effective mass storage would be game changer. Until and unless we get that, solar electric panels will never replace fossil fuels.

Earlier in this thread I brought up solar thermal -> this is a technology that can directly replace natural gas in water heating applications. The storage is simple - just a tank of water. Yet there's no interest in north america.

Hydro and nuclear have done more to hurt the fossil fuel industry than pv panels.

In canada we have a company called enbridge - they own a lot of pipelines and profit off of distributing natural gas. 

They own wind farms across north america; https://www.enbridge.com/about-us/utilities-and-power/wind. 

Wind isn't hurting their natural gas distribution business one bit, otherwise they wouldn't have invested.


----------



## SPS-1

There has been an application to install a small nuclear reactor at Chalk River, Ontario. This would be one of the new "modular" reactors that would be factory built and then shipped to the site. Fully sealed -- it never gets refueled -- it has a 20 year supply of fuel, and when that's done, its time to be decommissioned. Supposedly can not melt down in the event of power loss. 

Cost is $US100 million for a 15MW (thermal capacity) reactor. The cost is a lot more palatable than the $10-20 billion for a conventional nuclear plant, but the small output and relatively short lifespan still puts some questions on the economics. 

https://business.financialpost.com/...-build-canadas-first-mini-nuclear-power-plant


----------



## user_12345a

15mw is tiny.


----------



## Oso954

That’s a maybe project.

It may start construction in 2021.
If that happens, it may be completed in 2023.
If both of those happen, it may cost about $100 million.

My guess is they are liable to miss on at least 2 of those marks, if not all 3.


----------



## SPS-1

I don't have a problem with them building it. Gotta explore new ideas if you want to advance. SNC Lavalin is heading up the proposal, so I have to figure my tax dollars are involved in this somewhere, but just the same, the investment is rather modest.

I think the common idea is that you daisy chain a number of these to get a more reasonable output, but the referenced article speaks of a reactor (singular).


----------



## Oso954

I don’t have a problem with it either, in fact I am in favor of it. 

I am just pointing out that there are many things that can delay it.

The first is that regulatory agencies can be agonizingly slow in approving license applications. 

Preliminary cost estimates are guesstimates, not detailed construction estimates. They are also predicated on meeting the existing licensing/design schedule, which are rarely met.
etc, etc.

This is essentially a prototype project. You only need one to prove the concept. There are many applications where a 5MWe plant would be sufficient. Putting in multiples is possible. (They would be paralleled, not daisy chained). 

Multiple small plants are often more desirable than one big one. A single failure eliminates part of your generation, not all of it.


----------



## SPS-1

Seems that the only country on the planet that has a plan for their nuclear waste is Finland.


----------



## tmittelstaedt

user_12345a said:


> Grid-tied solar with no storage does not pose a threat to fossil fuel companies.
> 
> Oil is not used to generate electricity, it's used mainly transportation.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Grid tied solar with no storage may make sense as a financial investment, but if the goal is to save the earth and conserve fossil fuels, forget it.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> Just look at all the energy required to mine and process the materials used in the panels and inverter, manufacture, transport the stuff, install. None of that is done right now exclusively with solar energy - especially the mining and transportation.
> 
> Efficient cost effective mass storage would be game changer. Until and unless we get that, solar electric panels will never replace fossil fuels.



More rubbish from the nuclear pushers.

There is no such thing as "cost effective mass storage" for electricity because EVERY STORAGE PROCESS OUT THERE consumes energy in the conversion from electricity to the storage medium and back again.

With fossil fuels you can store them before conversion because they are already liquid or gas, you do not have to put energy into the conversion process.

This is why AS LONG AS FOSSIL FUELS ARE AVAILABLE that they will be cheaper than solar for most things.

If you are doing direct electricity output of solar right into your electrical load, such as at a home, of course it will be cheaper because you do not have transmission or storage costs OR CONVERSION COSTS - the power source is already converted into the form you need it in.

But eventually the day will come when liquid and gas fossil fuels are used up. At that point a nuclear power plant is going to be useless because you can't stick it in your car trunk and use it to power your car.

The problem with energy is that you humans are used to being able to pull energy out of the ground and use it without paying conversion costs. Well I got news for you people most of the populations of other planets exhausted their already-converted power sources a long time ago and now they simply account for the conversion costs. For example planet Xandavegas ( you would love it, the entire planet is very much like your Las Vegas city ) uses vast farms of solar cells and the electricity produced is converted into hydrogen and then into methane with what you call the Sabatier reaction. The methane is then used in their vehicles. Of course, they are oxy-eaters just like you although their females have 3 breasts so you might not care for them...although come to think of it maybe you would....


----------



## BoBBuild

I think it is about time new buildings are following the green building practices. While the green building trend has been around for some time already, with solar panels being quite popular, like the Discovery Elementary School in Virginia, the adoption level is still low.


----------



## Calson

In the United States no insurance company will underwrite a nuclear power plant. When a plant has a problem it causes billions of dollars in damage as witnessed at Fukishima where an entire community has been displaced. When a plant is no longer in operation the radioactive waste remains a danger for centuries and no one has come up with an economically vialble plan for storing the waste for that period of time. 



It is a solution to a problem that does not exist as solar and wind and hydro power are adequate when buildings are efficient and transportation systems are efficient. Older generations would decimate an area and then move on with no thought for what they left behind for future generations. Incredibly self-centered thinking on the part of so many people. I have got mine and to hell with everyone else. Sad thing is that many of these people pretend to be good people and even Christians.


----------



## DallasCowboys

tmittelstaedt said:


> More rubbish from the nuclear pushers.
> 
> 
> 
> But eventually the day will come when liquid and gas fossil fuels are used up.
> 
> 
> *They will never be used up. The more expensive it becomes, the more fuel we find because the currently unprofitable sources of oil and natural gas become profitable.*
> 
> 
> At that point a nuclear power plant is going to be useless because you can't stick it in your car trunk and use it to power your car.
> 
> *You can if your car is electric and store batteries in the trunk.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with energy is that* you humans* are used to being able to pull energy out of the ground and use it without paying conversion costs. Well I got news for you people most of the* populations of other planets *exhausted their already-converted power sources a long time ago and now they simply account for the conversion costs. For example* planet Xandavegas* ( you would love it, the entire planet is very much like your Las Vegas city ) uses vast farms of solar cells and the electricity produced is converted into hydrogen and then into methane with what you call the Sabatier reaction. The methane is then used in their vehicles. Of course, they are *oxy-eaters* just like you although their *females have 3 breasts* so you might not care for them...although come to think of it maybe you would....





Hunh???? lain:


----------



## SPS-1

Deja-vue said:


> Also, if the Grid goes down, my Inverters have a "Emergency Plug" from which you can get 3KWh, as long as the Sun is up.


That's a great feature, but seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird.

I was looking on the SMA web site today, and noticed hardly a mention of the Secure Power Supply function. Very strange.

Seems that when you use the Rapid Shutdown functionality, you lose the SPS capability. I asked somebody more knowledgeable than myself about this and he said - yep, you need to have the rapid shutdown now, and that means you can't have the SPS. 

Fortunately, batteries are getting less expensive.


----------



## Deja-vue

SPS-1 said:


> That's a great feature, but seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird.
> 
> I was looking on the SMA web site today, and noticed hardly a mention of the Secure Power Supply function. Very strange.
> 
> Seems that when you use the Rapid Shutdown functionality, you lose the SPS capability. I asked somebody more knowledgeable than myself about this and he said - yep, you need to have the rapid shutdown now, and that means you can't have the SPS.
> 
> Fortunately, batteries are getting less expensive.


My System was not yet required (in late 2015) to have the Rapid Shutdown feature, that came out a couple of years later.
That may explain why there isn't any more Info on that.


----------



## Calson

There are solar panels produced in the 1970's that are still producing their original rated output. Batteries has a much more limited life span. The Tesla battery pack will be fine for 7-10 years and then it needs to be replaced and the lithium-ion batteries need to be somehow recycled by "somebody". Most "recyclable" materials bought in the USA end up in the landfill and very little is actually recycled into new products. 

My power company has so many failures from its not doing maintenance over the last 20 years that I am frequently without power. My choice was to pay $10,000 to install a natural gas powered generator and not go put that into a whole house battery backup system. Time will tell if that was the best choice. It was the safest choice though in terms of not having a massive collection of lithium-ion batteries mounted to a wall of my house. 

Most power consumption on the grid is for heating and cooling and pumping and these occur primarily during daylight hours. Conventional power plants do not operate 24x7 and that includes those burning natural gas and coal and those that are nuclear. But rate payers are billed for the cost to build and maintain these power plants even after they are decommissioned (shareholder profits must be preserved after all). 

The grid is also a fragile and very complex mechanism which is why there is increased risk of brown-outs and black-outs and what helps a great deal is having the power fluctuations dampened by having solar panels on the grid. Power companies have long known this but they will never admit this in public (it does come up in the trade press from time to time). 

At a personal level we now pay $60 a year to the utility company for all our electrical consumption. We get power at night and we provide them with cheap electrical power during the day that they resell at a profit of greater than 90% and with no investment on their part in additional capacity and no cost for maintaining that additional capacity. 

There is a much faster payback with a wind turbine or having hot water heated by solar but the advantage of solar panels is that they can go on existing roofs and carports. 

What is ignored or perhaps not known is that the carbon intense industries of coal and oil and natural gas and the nuclear power industry have received and continue to receive many billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and do not pay even a tiny fraction of the cost to deal with their pollution and damage to people's health and the cost of healthcare. Asthma admissions to hospitals in the U.S. cost taxpayers more than $15 billion each year and this is from emissions from coal plants and diesel engines and other industrial pollution. It is why European cities (London has the worst air pollution of any city in the world) that have many highly polluting diesel vehicles are now doing everything they can to get all electric cars on their roads as a last gasp effort.


----------

