Solar, Wind Renewable Energy

[Beststash]

Well how about saving the earth or starving?


I saw this 'short' recently and it has to make you wonder what the future holds as far as food. Do I think we can use science and technology to avoid this, maybe, but it is not just flipping a switch, it will take a lot of time.

This is by Jordan Peterson, please don't spend the 1 minute it takes to watch if that troubles you.

Do you work for the American Petroleum Institute or maybe the State of Texas?

Fossil fuels will be around forever. The less impact on Planet Earth the better. That should be the goal.

 

[ERD50]

... This is by Jordan Peterson, please don't spend the 1 minute it takes to watch if that troubles you.

I don't know who Jordon Peterson is, or why that might make me think this video would trouble me, but first:

I do not watch YouTube 'shorts'. They are an ill-conceived idea with absolutely zero redeeming qualities. They never should have seen the light of day. The 'short' format basically removes all control from the viewer, and adds nothing in return. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

But there is a solution. Replace 'shorts' with 'watch' in the url, and it is back to 'normal' format, with a scrub/progress bar, screen controls, FW/REV, etc. Here you go:

(I'll start another thread on this shorts/watch subject later.)

That said, I hate this video format too. The guy sits in a chair and reads to you. This is far better presented as plain text.

OK, I think is point is that we need to think before we just eliminate fossil fuels. Agreed.

-ERD50

 

[mpeirce]

The less impact on Planet Earth the better. That should be the goal.

I have to disagree.

"The goal” should be to maximize human flourishing.

If minimizing the impact humanity has on the earth is the goal, I doubt we can continue the recent trend to lift more people out of extreme poverty. And plain old poverty as well.

A high quality of life depends on cheap and plentiful energy.

 

[Beststash]

I have to disagree.

"The goal” should be to maximize human flourishing.

If minimizing the impact humanity has on the earth is the goal, I doubt we can continue the recent trend to lift more people out of extreme poverty. And plain old poverty as well.

A high quality of life depends on cheap and plentiful energy.

I'm speaking from a "local" perspective. The last few decade in Texas has not been pleasant and climate has probably been the major factor.

I do agree with your global perspective. ☮

 

[Chuckanut]

If you ever toured Mammoth Cave, the NPS offered specific tours using kerosene lanterns. This was intentional, to put you in the mood of an early explorer. At times they could flick on hard-wired installed lights so you could see the good stuff because the lantern light was way, way dim.

I see that these tours are on hiatus, and I'm going to guess they are done, never to be seen again.

They also did boat tours in the cave. They are now a thing of the past.

 

[NW-Bound]

Here's a video on the gas mantle lanterns/lamps and some of the history behind them. Fairly interesting for nerds (I have phases of nerdness). We had one of those when I was growing up and took it on a couple of camping trips that I can remember.

I like this YouTuber, and have watched a few of his very good videos, such as the one above that I missed.

And he had a follow-up where he went beyond the Aladdin lamp, and talked about the pressurized lanterns running on gasoline, and then the harder-to-light kerosene mantle lantern. See below.

This fellow's videos are better than the other ones I saw on mantle lamps.

At the end, he compared the efficiency of the mantle lamp and modern electric bulbs. Bright as it is, the mantle lamp consumes 1 kW to produce 100 lumens. The incandescent bulb takes 100W. And the LED light takes 10W.

 

[Samsung4321]

compared the efficiency of the mantle lamp and modern electric bulbs. Bright as it is, the mantle lamp consumes 1 kW to produce 100 lumens. The incandescent bulb takes 100W. And the LED light takes 10W.

Which is why there are many variations of look-alikes which use LED:
Camping Lantern Rechargeable LED

More light, less heat, less bushfire risk.

 

[explanade]

Six months ago, I shared the info regarding a gigantic solar power project in Northern Australia, with a long cable to provide power to Singapore.




Unfortunately, that project is now defunct. It appears that the billionaire backers of this project could not come to an agreement on how to proceed. One source said that the dispute is over whether the harvested solar juice should be transmitted over the unprecedented long cable to be built, or to use to make hydrogen and ammonia to transport to the end users.

I don't think it's quite over yet.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/17/billionaires-battle-over-sun-cable/

Sounds like one or the other side may seek other funding and buy each other out.

If not, maybe they would export it to another country or to other parts of Australia.

However, maybe the investment was based on being able to get a price premium from Singapore, which would make it lucrative for the investors.

 

[NW-Bound]

Well how about saving the earth or starving?


I saw this 'short' recently and it has to make you wonder what the future holds as far as food. Do I think we can use science and technology to avoid this, maybe, but it is not just flipping a switch, it will take a lot of time.

This is by Jordan Peterson, please don't spend the 1 minute it takes to watch if that troubles you.

Yes, the world is more dependent on natural gas than most people realize.

This makes me shudder to think of what happens when we run out, which is inevitable and only a matter of time.

Still, it takes time to ramp up the alternate sources. Haste makes waste. People are still sorting out the different approaches to see what makes the most sense.

 

[Bigdawg]

I'm speaking from a "local" perspective. The last few decade in Texas has not been pleasant and climate has probably been the major factor.

I do agree with your global perspective. ☮

Your comment peaked my interest. I spent about 20 minutes on google looking at Texas weather/climate history. Droughts, hurricanes, etc... Even in the early 1800's when Stephen Austin brought some settlers down there the weather/climate was noted to have been erratic. No thread hijacking. My point is that energy usage/needs change depending on location. My needs (energy/heat/A/C) here on the moderate (climate) mid Atlantic/Chesapeake Bay area are not as threatened as when I lived on the shores of Lake Superior. If I loss power here I most likely will not die because of the weather. Not the case when I lived up north.

 

[Another Reader]

Back to the solar panel discussion...California is about to gut the incentives for rooftop solar panels on houses. Almost no notice.

https://solarrights.org/faqnem3/

There are optimistic contractors that say that they can get it done before the deadline, but I'm not entirely convinced, given PG&E's history and the apparent desire of the CPUC to cut this off.

I was thinking of doing this, but it was always "maybe next year." Thoughts?

 

[ERD50]

Back to the solar panel discussion...California is about to gut the incentives for rooftop solar panels on houses. Almost no notice.

https://solarrights.org/faqnem3/

There are optimistic contractors that say that they can get it done before the deadline, but I'm not entirely convinced, given PG&E's history and the apparent desire of the CPUC to cut this off.

I was thinking of doing this, but it was always "maybe next year." Thoughts?

Well, IMO, the new rules make sense.

Solar users under NEM3 will get 75% to 80% less from the utility for the extra solar energy they share with the grid. Compensation for that extra energy will go from an average of $.30 / kWh to around $.05 / kWh.

Under the current rules, the utility is paying retail rates for electricity from residential solar panels. And with the 'duck curve', maybe at a time that the utility can't even handle more solar. That doesn't make sense, the utility needs to buy at wholesale, sell at retail, or they go out of business. It's a shell game of other customers footing the bill for those with panels.

And as I've stated many times, if you are a fan of solar, you should be against residential solar. Remember that money is a limited resource as well. To get the most solar production, we want the most for the buck. And the economies of scale mean solar should go onto roofs of large commercial type buildings - flat roofs, safer for the installers (solar is actually far more relatively dangerous than nuclear - workers fall off roofs, etc - look it up), one set of plans, permits, etc, and the flat open roofs allow for more production than a residential roof that may get shade, is often not at the optimal angle, etc. And those big building are going to be close to large demand, so transmission losses are minimized.

CA should discourage residential solar (at least not incentivize it - if you want it, that should be your choice alone). And that should be the viewpoint of someone who is in favor of maximizing overall solar production. Because it makes sense!

-ERD50

 

[Another Reader]

Well, IMO, the new rules make sense.



Under the current rules, the utility is paying retail rates for electricity from residential solar panels. And with the 'duck curve', maybe at a time that the utility can't even handle more solar. That doesn't make sense, the utility needs to buy at wholesale, sell at retail, or they go out of business. It's a shell game of other customers footing the bill for those with panels.

And as I've stated many times, if you are a fan of solar, you should be against residential solar. Remember that money is a limited resource as well. To get the most solar production, we want the most for the buck. And the economies of scale mean solar should go onto roofs of large commercial type buildings - flat roofs, safer for the installers (solar is actually far more relatively dangerous than nuclear - workers fall off roofs, etc - look it up), one set of plans, permits, etc, and the flat open roofs allow for more production than a residential roof that may get shade, is often not at the optimal angle, etc. And those big building are going to be close to large demand, so transmission losses are minimized.

CA should discourage residential solar (at least not incentivize it - if you want it, that should be your choice alone). And that should be the viewpoint of someone who is in favor of maximizing overall solar production. Because it makes sense!

-ERD50

I would be acting in self interest. It's a financial decision. PG&E is a financial and economic disaster, subsidized by the state. I'm not interested in what benefits them.

I'm interested in thoughts on doing this, at this point in time.

 

[Montecfo]

Back to the solar panel discussion...California is about to gut the incentives for rooftop solar panels on houses. Almost no notice.

https://solarrights.org/faqnem3/

There are optimistic contractors that say that they can get it done before the deadline, but I'm not entirely convinced, given PG&E's history and the apparent desire of the CPUC to cut this off.

I was thinking of doing this, but it was always "maybe next year." Thoughts?

It should not need subsidies since I keep hearing it is "cheaper" than other energy sources.

And local utilities buying solar at retail just puts cost on other ratepayers-unfairly.

 

[ERD50]

I would be acting in self interest. It's a financial decision. PG&E is a financial and economic disaster, subsidized by the state. I'm not interested in what benefits them.

I'm interested in thoughts on doing this, at this point in time.

Understood - in that case, it's tough to predict whether a ruling will pass or not. And it's tough to predict whether you can get your system installed (and approved?) before the deadline (many others will be thinking the same). And will the install be a quality install, or rushed to get as much business as they can before the deadline (that one is easier to predict!)?

Maybe some other posters in your area can offer their opinion, but I guess that's all it's gonna be. Good luck!

-ERD50

 

[Samsung4321]

I would be acting in self interest. It's a financial decision. PG&E is a financial and economic disaster, subsidized by the state. I'm not interested in what benefits them.

I'm interested in thoughts on doing this, at this point in time.

The capital cost is a / the most important determinant of time to both payback and payoff.

California: ~$USA 2.65 / W
https://www.energysage.com/solar-panels/ca/

Australia: $A 1.00 / W (=$USA 0.70 / W)
https://www.canstarblue.com.au/solar/solar-installation-cost/#cost

Perhaps when the electricity subsidies in USA disappear there will be less demand for PV installation and the price will be closer to the actual cost.

 

[Koolau]

Yes, the world is more dependent on natural gas than most people realize.

This makes me shudder to think of what happens when we run out, which is inevitable and only a matter of time.

I don't worry much about running out of methane. NOT allowing people to use methane - now, that worries me.

Exploiting methane hydrates (methane clathrate) would mean we'd probably never run out of methane - at least we'd have to find some other way to destroy ourselves than running out of methane. We don't really need it now, so there has been relatively little effort along these lines. YMMV

 

[NW-Bound]

I would be acting in self interest. It's a financial decision. PG&E is a financial and economic disaster, subsidized by the state. I'm not interested in what benefits them.

I'm interested in thoughts on doing this, at this point in time.

PG&E does not and cannot exist as a money-losing business. No corporations can. If they just shut down, everybody loses.

If PG&E is forced to overpay for power from residential solar homeowners, they have to raise the rate to people who live in apartments or who do not have a solar system. And that's why the state came up with NEM 3.

You cannot hurt PG&E. But you can hurt other fellow Californians.

This is just another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", when they tried to promote residential solar.

 

[Jenna]

Wave Energy looks fascinating!

 

[Sunset]

Pre electrical grid: ammonia / water absorption cycle kerosene powered 'fridge plus 'free light' wind turbine & lead acid batteries. While listening, turn off the lights and read by the light of the valve radio.

Or just keep an extra small efficient electrically powered freezer, or in cold weather, keep the food frozen outside, hang the washed clothes outside to freeze dry.

My Cousin has one of those, it's been used every summer for 60 years.

 

[Yoheadden]

In case anyone was wondering, just how a solar panel actually works.

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/what-are-solar-panels

 

[NW-Bound]

Back in 2000 when I first thought of having my own solar array, I found out that the panels cost $5/Watt, and $5 back then is worth $9 now. The cost is now less than $1/Watt. And these prices are retail, not wholesale.

We need lots of cheap batteries to store all that juice. Solar energy is cheap to produce when the sun shines, but still expensive to store.

 

[Beststash]

I don't worry much about running out of methane.

Neither do I....Methane leaks spewing out of the Permian Basin could provide enough energy to power 7 million households in Texas for a year.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/methane-permian-basin-oil-gas-climate-change/

 

[Another Reader]

PG&E does not and cannot exist as a money-losing business. No corporations can. If they just shut down, everybody loses.

If PG&E is forced to overpay for power from residential solar homeowners, they have to raise the rate to people who live in apartments or who do not have a solar system. And that's why the state came up with NEM 3.

You cannot hurt PG&E. But you can hurt other fellow Californians.

This is just another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences", when they tried to promote residential solar.

PG&E has been an economic outpatient of the state for decades. They have killed people in accidents and fires resulting from poor maintenance and the state has done nothing. The taxpayers end up paying for their irresponsible behavior. They have had little reason to run the business in a responsible manner. Their cousins to the south seem to be better at the business.

This is not about hurting PG&E. This is about my economic self interest. However, reviewing the bills, the bigger problem for me is the gas bill in the winter months. I would have to build a big enough system to make up for that, including storage, to make this worthwhile today. Between my age and the Long Covid, that's not likely to happen.

 

[NW-Bound]

PG&E has been an economic outpatient of the state for decades. They have killed people in accidents and fires resulting from poor maintenance and the state has done nothing. The taxpayers end up paying for their irresponsible behavior. They have had little reason to run the business in a responsible manner. Their cousins to the south seem to be better at the business.

This is not about hurting PG&E. This is about my economic self interest. However, reviewing the bills, the bigger problem for me is the gas bill in the winter months. I would have to build a big enough system to make up for that, including storage, to make this worthwhile today. Between my age and the Long Covid, that's not likely to happen.

I have been wondering, if PG&E is so inept and incompetent, why not let it go bankrupt and allow another entity to pick up the business to do a better job? In other businesses, that's how the weak companies die and the better ones thrive.

It seems to me there's something more complicated than that in this case.