Renewable Energy Is The Future

[NeilBlanchard]

This makes so much sense, for many, many reasons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqXQbqheKos

https://thesolutionsproject.org/why-clean-energy/

We save $11 TRILLION each year.

We have a cleaner world, and we are all much healthier. People will live longer and better lives.

We have farming that IMPROVES the soil (rather than degrading it).

We have many more good jobs, because we make things to last, and we make everything we need locally.

We can reverse our climate crisis - by sinking carbon into the soil. This will improve the fertility of the soil, and the water cleaning properties of the soil, and the drought resistance, and the flood resilience of the soil.

We can save even more money because we don't need nearly as much military - no need to defend the sun and the wind. Nobody can corner the control of renewable energy.

[redpoint5]

I might watch if they present some interesting design ideas.

That said, these guys show little effort to "steel man" their arguments, meaning they rarely (ever?) present the problems associated with their opinion. It makes for a weak presentation since the whole time the viewer is thinking to themselves "what are the chances these 2 randos know more than the market". The argument is always made that "clean" energy is cheap energy, and then no evidence exists to show that except in cases where the market has already found that solution, like geothermal energy in Iceland.

If renewables are cheaper, my utility would invite me to pay less for wind and solar, not more.

[RedDevil]

It is a positive approach.

Irrespective of climate change, non-renewable fuels will eventually run out because they are, of course, non-renewable.
By focusing on how the world would be powered then we get a target to work towards.

I mean, why not?
It is not too far in the future. If we can't get there in our lives, we will in our kids lives.

There's a lot we can do if you get creative.

We are saving money for my son's high school. He will likely need special care, it can easily run into 6 digits. We may have to move house.
I wanted solar panels on the house but why invest if we have to move within a year? We would lose part of that investment. We might need the money even if we don't move.

But I transferred some of our savings to green investments. I'll diversify to reduce the risk, but the yield has been positive so far; especially my handful of TSLA doubled, that's encouraging.
While this does not lower my own power usage it does some good elsewhere.

[redpoint5]

Appreciate the comments RD.

Regarding investments though, after an initial IPO, I don't see how investing in green stock supports the green cause. It represents a bet that those companies will succeed, but those companies don't get your money. Perhaps that's a bit of an oversimplification since those companies can hold some of their own stock, and by making a purchase, you increase the value of all stocks held.

Here's a comment I left on an EV forum today regarding an Email I received from Tesla Solar:

"Solar panels capture the solar energy generated by the sun to power your home — at one of the lowest costs per watt of any national provider.

With a sleek aesthetic and low-profile design, each panel stays close to your roof and close to each other — while simple installation minimizes impact.

Add Powerwall to your order and receive an incentive to reduce your installation costs. Powerwall stores your excess solar for 24/7 clean energy to help secure against power outages.

Start your order with a $100 deposit — and use a friend’s referral link to earn a $250 award after system activation. All installations are eligible for a federal tax credit up to 26 percent of the cost of the system."

I received this email today, which was unexpected. I thought Solar City was Tesla's child company. Did they drop that name and absorb the Solar business under the Tesla umbrella?



Here's what was offered for Oregon/Washington:



Small - $7030 after $2470 federal subsidy

3.8 kW1,000 - 2,000 sq ft home

Produces an average of 8-12 kWh per day
Best suited for a home with an average electric bill of $20-$30 /mo
Medium - $12,580 after $2470 federal subsidy

7.6 kW2,000 - 3,000 sq ft home

Produces an average of 17-24 kWh per day
Best suited for a home with an average electric bill of $50-$70 /mo
Large - $18,500 after $2470 federal subsidy

11.4 kW3,000 - 4,000 sq ft home

Produces an average of 25-35 kWh per day
Best suited for a home with an average electric bill of $70-$100 /mo
X-Large - $23,680 after $2470 federal subsidy

15.2 kW4,000+ sq ft home

Produces an average of 34-47 kWh per day
Best suited for a home with an average electric bill of $100-$130 /mo
Add a 13.5 kWh Powerwall for $7,770



... I probably average 13 kWh per day, and according to Tesla the small size would mostly cover that. It would be nice to go off-grid, but there's simply too many overcast days in a row to rely on battery power to get through those days. Quick math says the payback period would be about 15 years, which seems extreme.

If I ever did solar, I'd probably homebuild it to save money and for the experience.

[jjackstone]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... I probably average 13 kWh per day, and according to Tesla the small size would mostly cover that. It would be nice to go off-grid, but there's simply too many overcast days in a row to rely on battery power to get through those days. Quick math says the payback period would be about 15 years, which seems extreme.

If I ever did solar, I'd probably homebuild it to save money and for the experience.

Are you on the super cheap hydro-electric rates in your part of the country? Here in central California we are already paying over $.20/kwh base rate. It goes up quickly from there if you are anything but a low use user. Additionally, we obviously have more sun hours than you would so pay back time here can be as little as 7 or 8 years. The hard part is always the storage. Even at $100/kwh for storage I don't think I would ever break even unless I were grid connected and had more panels installed than I actually need to run the house.

But, some things are worth paying for even without economic return. I don't ride a bike, play baseball, or go to concerts because I'm looking for payback. I do those things because I enjoy them. I have panels and battery storage for the same reason. I enjoy the fact that I don't contribute as much to polluting the world and that I don't have to continuously pay someone else for all my energy usage.
JJ

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jjackstone

Are you on the super cheap hydro-electric rates in your part of the country? Here in central California we are already paying over $.20/kwh base rate. It goes up quickly from there if you are anything but a low use user. Additionally, we obviously have more sun hours than you would so pay back time here can be as little as 7 or 8 years. The hard part is always the storage. Even at $100/kwh for storage I don't think I would ever break even unless I were grid connected and had more panels installed than I actually need to run the house.

But, some things are worth paying for even without economic return. I don't ride a bike, play baseball, or go to concerts because I'm looking for payback. I do those things because I enjoy them. I have panels and battery storage for the same reason. I enjoy the fact that I don't contribute as much to polluting the world and that I don't have to continuously pay someone else for all my energy usage.
JJ

$0.08/kWh for Clark Public Utility, and $0.10/kWh on PGE (Portland General Electric) flat rates. $10 fixed monthly fee, and no other fees.

I wanted to build my own solar system for the fun of it, even if it doesn't save that much money. That, and if I do it myself, it will get done correctly... eventually.

[oil pan 4]

With China pumping double the CO2 the United States and showing no signs of slowing. Producing good locally and switching to green power won't even slow down the rate at which CO2 increases.

The United States mines hardly any Li, Ni or Co to keep up with battery demand and we're running out of Helium to make higher tech devices and metamaterials .
So still going to need the military to negotiate contracts.
200 years ago the US Navy and marines slaughtered pirates to ensure intercontinental trade routes stayed open, they still do that today. The notion that the US military is only out there for the oil is incredibly ignorant.

They say non renewables will run out.
Well fission power will eventually run out too, but there's something like 800 years worth of depleted uranium sitting above ground in storage in Idaho, left over from the cold war.

[NeilBlanchard]

I like that Zack and Jessie are thought provoking; but they are not always right, by any stretch. In this video, I think their points about desalinization are not accurate - though there are solar powered systems, that are very promising. Traditional desalinization produces a LOT of super saturated brine, that is a BIG pollution problem; that pretty much eliminate any permanent installations.

[redpoint5]

I like freebeard's idea to tunnel to the ocean from Death Valley and throw a turbine in between to generate electricity. Let Death Valley become the Dead Sea, which always looked like fun. The evaporation will drive a continuous need to backfill from the ocean. Perhaps the evaporation will produce more rainfall, a natural desalination process.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I might watch if they present some interesting design ideas.

That said, these guys show little effort to "steel man" their arguments, meaning they rarely (ever?) present the problems associated with their opinion. It makes for a weak presentation since the whole time the viewer is thinking to themselves "what are the chances these 2 randos know more than the market". The argument is always made that "clean" energy is cheap energy, and then no evidence exists to show that except in cases where the market has already found that solution, like geothermal energy in Iceland.

If renewables are cheaper, my utility would invite me to pay less for wind and solar, not more.

If your utility had to price their fossil-fuel-sourced power, to include its actual social costs,it would be hard pressed to compete with renewables.The price you currently pay is a corporate fiction.Brought to you by the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment.And the enormous war chest of the fossil fuel industry lobbyists.