Its definitely state by state at least partially. I have a friend in California who is a huge Tesla fan and has a power wall. He has it set to turn on do he doesn't buy any power from the grid during the "peak" pricing time.
Okay, but that's not being energy independent. That's a mechanism that lets you manage your electricity use more so than something that would allow you to be independent of the grid. Are they possibly on a Tesla lease for their solar panels? As a Tesla customer I can get the powerwall too, but I must still maintain the tie-in to the grid and pay for the monthly connection. Our system is sized for, and generates, 110% of the power our home needs, but we still have to pay for the grid tie-in. I cannot, and I doubt he could either, buy the powerwall, disconnect from the grid, and be self-sufficient. There are other solutions available that do the same, but you are still required to have that grid connection.
Okay, but that's not being energy independent. That's a mechanism that lets you manage your electricity use more so than something that would allow you to be independent of the grid. Are they possibly on a Tesla lease for their solar panels? As a Tesla customer I can get the powerwall too, but I must still maintain the tie-in to the grid and pay for the monthly connection. Our system is sized for, and generates, 110% of the power our home needs, but we still have to pay for the grid tie-in. I cannot, and I doubt he could either, buy the powerwall, disconnect from the grid, and be self-sufficient. There are other solutions available that do the same, but you are still required to have that grid connection.
No, they had solar prior to Tesla selling them, so they bought the power wall separately.
Do you have a bi-directional meter? Because if so the advantage of battery is that you can reduce the amount of energy you buy at the "buy" price and sell at the "sell" price. Since those are usually quite different there is still a benefit.
I agree that its bogus you can't disconnect from the grid if you want to though - why you should be mandated to buy something you don't want or need seems silly.
Yup, we have the bi-directional meter. We've been mulling over the powerwall for a couple years now. We may have to go that route. Thanks for the explanation of his use, because I never considered that as means to reduce our costs, which are just our connection fee right now. We might benefit more from the rebate.
It’s likely good public policy to require grid connection for everyone in cities.
People in general do not account for black swan events very wells so while these independent systems will work in the 99% eventually you will have failure and need to rely on government to bail the individuals out. Utility distribution is an area where forced collectivism has significant benefits.
Now Texas showed that the utilities are in a lot of ways are no better so that’s needs to work.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
It’s likely good public policy to require grid connection for everyone in cities.
People in general do not account for black swan events very wells so while these independent systems will work in the 99% eventually you will have failure and need to rely on government to bail the individuals out. Utility distribution is an area where forced collectivism has significant benefits.
Now Texas showed that the utilities are in a lot of ways are no better so that’s needs to work.
You'd definitely want to have some sort of backup. If I was going to go off grid I'd want:
Solar
Large battery
Small hydrocarbon backup generator (nat gas if available, propane or diesel if not)
Maybe it would be reasonable to make people sign a waiver of some kind, because I agree that government support for folks who screw this up is unwarranted.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
You'd definitely want to have some sort of backup. If I was going to go off grid I'd want:
Solar
Large battery
Small hydrocarbon backup generator (nat gas if available, propane or diesel if not)
Maybe it would be reasonable to make people sign a waiver of some kind, because I agree that government support for folks who screw this up is unwarranted.
This is the setup my in-laws have on Sidney Island. Obviously a grid connection is not an option.
I seriously doubt any urban or semi-rural family would pay for a fossil fuel generator when the cost of a grid connection is more cost effective. You only make that decision on principle.
Lanny could default on his bills to the point of disconnection. I doubt the authorities in AZ would pursue it.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
Actually, I can't. It's against the law. Unless I am on rural unimproved land I am NOT allowed to do whatever the hell I want. I am not allowed to disconnect from the grid and run under my own solar installation, because of the laws that protect the monopoly owned by the electric companies. I'm sure the same applies to you in Alberta. Once connected, they own you. They can arbitrarily disconnect you from the grid at their liking, but you are not allowed to disconnect and be self sufficient.
Yeah man, lots of the solar nerds I talk with have it as a major status symbol to be off the electric and gas grid out here. They tend to do it with PV, batteries, buried geothermal loops and heat pumps. No one brags about being off the water and sewage grid yet but those technologies are also abundant LOL
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
You can’t transition from fossil fuels without nuclear energy AND keep the 21st century modern societies that we’ve become accustomed to and are not giving up intact.
It smacks of ideological folly.
You would be correct, but here’s the rub - we can’t maintain modernity with our fossil fuel basket for much longer, either. Fission works because of the excessive return of energy available for the energy put in to get it in the first place.
Solar panel efficiency gains are meaningless because you’re only maximizing a small % of maximum capture available.
Fission plants today capture about 3% of the available energy present in the fuel used. We don’t force the industry to do more because it is so cheap to get new fuel. If there were constraints on mining and cumulative spent fuel volumes, this would change. It would make the fuel more costly but the cost of fuel for nuclear plants is minuscule, it wouldn’t put a dent in power costs to the consumer.
I think what really holds these dilemmas in place come down to how we tie our identity to “what we do”, and the degree to which our systems force us to cooperate with/consider others. Nuclear isn’t that old, so it’s not really a multi-generational “this is what we do” sort of job; and nuclear does require a high degree of cooperation and consideration to others. So, it’s not used to it’s proper potential. It’s truly unfortunate, because what humanity could be doing as a fission powered species is beyond the imagination of most.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
Seriously, the more you read about the policies and stupidity coming out the big meeting, the more you realize it is all just a schtick to funnel money from the taxpayers to 'green organizations' without any actual practical approach to fixing the problem.
They are completely delusional.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Seriously, the more you read about the policies and stupidity coming out the big meeting, the more you realize it is all just a schtick to funnel money from the taxpayers to 'green organizations' without any actual practical approach to fixing the problem.
They are completely delusional.
I need to buy some stocks in 'green organizations' to get my hands on some of that sweet sweet government cash...
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Seriously, the more you read about the policies and stupidity coming out the big meeting, the more you realize it is all just a schtick to funnel money from the taxpayers to 'green organizations' without any actual practical approach to fixing the problem.
They are completely delusional.
That’s all it could possibly be when you say “$131 trillion dollars” with a straight face and don’t immediately bring your pinky finger up to your mouth.
It’s like, tell me you have no idea how to solve a problem without saying “we have no idea how to solve this problem.”
No worries, we’ll just spend $131 trillion on it over the next 30 years.
Why $131 trillion? You can’t do it for $120 trillion? Or an even $100 trillion?
Or are you budgeting $15 trillion for cost overruns?
Why not spend $150 trillion? Or $200 trillion?
#### it, the planet’s at stake - why don’t we spend $1 whatever comes after a trillion dollars in the next 15 years and nip this in the bud?
This is fixing to be the biggest grift in human history.
It would be comical if it wasn’t going to kill off tens of millions of the poorest people on the planet.
Whatever the effects of climate change, rest assured we in the first world will feel them far less.
Last edited by GreenLantern2814; 11-08-2021 at 03:19 PM.
I'm sorry, but it really is a corrupt sham to funnel money from taxpayers to the coffers of the elite and the corporate overlords who lobby the government to make sure the technology that works is never in a position to make a positive difference unless they control it.
$131 trillion? On what? Its bloody insane.
And then those losers get on their private jets and fly back to their $100 million dollar villas and laugh at how bloody dumb we are for going along with their scam.
We've literally had the technology to fix this problem available for 50+ years, and all we've done is shut it all down.
Sadly, this green movement stupidity is also affecting the poor, and eliminating their ability to have reliable sources of energy. Fossil fuels changed the world as we know it and allowed us to become a productive society that CAN & HAS found a solution to this crisis.
By actively working to make sure that fossil fuels are not actively developed and used as energy sources in 3rd world countries the work green morons are simply not allowing the poor to transition to the next step in the social mobility chain.
But hey, lets listen to Greta!
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
The green proposal of 131 trillion over 30 years effectively doubles that expenditure. That doesn’t seem all that unreasonable of a number given the early retirement requirements of coal and gas assets.
Nuclear should be included but I don’t quite understand why people seem shocked at the sticker price of replacing all existing fossil fuel plants AND building new power plants to replace gasoline energy. 85% of the total energy being used needs replacing.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
The green proposal of 131 trillion over 30 years effectively doubles that expenditure. That doesn’t seem all that unreasonable of a number given the early retirement requirements of coal and gas assets.
Nuclear should be included but I don’t quite understand why people seem shocked at the sticker price of replacing all existing fossil fuel plants AND building new power plants to replace gasoline energy. 85% of the total energy being used needs replacing.
Because it doesn’t include nuclear.
And thus doesn’t solve the problem.
While still costing $131 trillion specifically.
A nuclear plant costs between $4-5B from what I’ve read - that $131 trillion could build 26,200 nuclear plants at $5B/pop.
It’s going to build zero.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
A nuclear plant costs between $4-5B from what I’ve read - that $131 trillion could build 26,200 nuclear plants at $5B/pop.
It’s going to build zero.
Which would give you about 26TW of energy, world wide energy use is about 160,000TWH obviously not all electricity so 131 trillion doesn’t seem out of step with the order of magnitude that needs to be spent.
Particularly if SMRs are the way forward. So far they're even more expensive per GW than traditional nuclear plants. Theoretically with mass production they could be made more efficiently, but that's far from a given. Nuclear energy has shown a negative learning rate over the last 50 years as traditional nuclear plants have just gotten more and more expensive to build. And smaller plants were generally more expensive to build and run relative to the energy they produced vs. larger ones (i.e. a 1 GW plant doesn't necessarily need 3x the workers and capital costs compared a 330 MW plant).
Nuclear has some real advantages over the alternatives, but cost isn't one of them.
