If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
And it should be driven by the free market not by a corrupt government with an agenda. And what the F does it have to do with national security? Want security? Keep our fossil fuel in this country, screw Europe and everyone else. Don't give away our technology, bring back steel production, secure our borders and build back our military. That is national security. Guess I'm one of those dick sucking conservatives.
Yup, trying to talk a friend out of a $70,000 roof solar panel install so they can be net neutral on their electric bill.
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
I'm asking him the same thing. Even at $500 a month in electric bills it's a 10 year spot just to BREAK EVEN... Not to mention most of these companies cannot guarantee what they are installing will make you net neutral. Pure scammers
Agreed. But government needs to stay out. You and I both know that individuals and large companies alike (including the big bad fossil fuel guys) are working on alternatives. Not for the good of the world, but because it could be worth trillions. Free market may have its flaws, but it works. This country proved it; something just went sideways that past thirty or forty years though. Oh right, government
What is that - a 50-panel system or the like, all with independent inverters, including all labor and wiring? That's about the only way I get up to that price. Even then, it seems excessive (price-wise, as well as on several other fronts).
Kinda difficult to fit a nuclear reactor in the trunk or backyard.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
The truth is that with the new standards for EVs having bidirectional power control, they can and will be able to stabilize the grid while power stations ramp up and down.the only one giving poor arguments is you.
You did say EV will give power back to the grid and that is how the grid will improve.
I am not making this up, I am just repeating what you have posted.
But I am glad you see that it is a really bad argument. Making progress, that is good.
For skinflint econoboxes this is true.
Is their monthly bill over $300 on average? then it will only take them the entire lifetime of the array to get to zero.Yup, trying to talk a friend out of a $70,000 roof solar panel install so they can be net neutral on their electric bill.
Then lets just mandate everyone buy battery packs and install them in their garage.
My garage is already full thank you.
That's what the virtual power plants (VPP) are. I think we all agree mandates are bad.
I assumed as much.
LOL.
10-13 years is my norm to keep a new vehicle - bought by 2004 Ram in '07 got rid of it in '19 because the frame rotted out and gas was killing me on a 72 daily commute.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Morons. And we are bigger morons for voting for them. We will get all the stupidity we deserve.Western World’s Energy Folly in a New York Nutshell
Why should Europe have all the fun? The Empire State tries to sabotage its grid with renewables.
From Saturday's WSL.
Oops, the truth and the facts hurt.
"The latest report from New York state’s grid operator is a master class in everything wrong with the Western world’s approach to climate change.
That is: everything wrong with an approach that consists of throwing money at green business interests in defiance of any practical consideration. If you think something else is going on, such as abating climate change, think again.
To meet a legislated goal of emissions-free electricity by 2040, New York will need up to 45 gigawatts of what it delicately calls DEFRs, or dispatchable emissions-free resources. Not only is that more than the state’s total current generating capacity of 37 gigawatts, these DEFRs, which are carbon-free like wind and solar yet not interruptible like wind and solar, don’t exist and have no prospect of existing in the next decade. Starting very much sooner than 2040, New York’s real choice will be Third World electricity reliability vs. paying fossil-fuel operators large fees to keep their plants up and running in a highly inefficient part-time fashion.
Many involved in the state’s energy “transition” might question whether purging the last 10% or 5% of fossil fuels from the system is worth the exorbitant cost. Don’t expect anyone to admit the bigger problem: The transition won’t likely do much to reduce global emissions.
This is the great unmentionable. When New Yorkers use less coal, oil or gasoline because of environmental mandates, the market price transmits the benefit to other global users, who then use more. Even more unspeakable is the corollary: Emission-spewing activities simply relocate from one part of the world to another. China’s emissions growth, from half the U.S.’s to almost 300% of the U.S.’s in 30 years, is partly the product of a transplant of emissions from the U.S. and Europe.
If pressed, Biden officials will privately revert to gobbledygook about carbon taxes that appear immaculately without anyone having to advocate them. The media fill the gap with wishful thinking and Soviet econometrics, confusing inputs with outputs. Yes, world-wide investment in renewables in the past two years has exceeded investment in fossil fuels. Supposedly this proves fossil fuels are on their way out. No, it proves fossil fuels are a better deal, consuming less investment to meet their share of the world’s growing power needs.
Again, the Biden administration quietly acknowledges the truth. Its own studies show that solar delivers 25% of its rated output in electricity, wind 35%, and natural gas 57%. As recently as 2010, coal delivered 67% but has fallen precipitously to 40%. Why? According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, America’s coal plants increasingly are operated in inefficient, stop-start fashion to support wind and solar, magnifying the national risk of breakdowns and blackouts, which are also highlighted in the New York state report.
New England may well experience blackouts this winter. For the Europeans, of course, everything is worse, having pretended that generous wind and solar handouts made them green while relying on cheap Russian gas to slow the transfer of heavy industry to China. Kaboom.
The ironies are not small. Profit-oriented energy providers already have an incentive to incorporate low-cost solar and wind in ways that meet customer demand for cheap, reliable energy. It’s the pie-in-the-sky mandates concocted by legislators that drive utilities to adopt renewables in senseless ways unless the goal is to make every homeowner buy a carbon-spewing emergency generator.
For another day is the role of the Obama administration’s calculations about the political salability of green subsidies vs. carbon taxes; how climate change became a politics of personal transformation and utopianism; the high priestess Greta.
With its latest “assessment report,” the U.N. climate panel actually lowers its estimated odds of worst-case warming; it sees emissions flattening sooner than previously thought. By multiple models, the costs will be unwelcome but manageable. This good news goes unreported but reaches New York Times readers indirectly, as when podcaster Ezra Klein gently scolds his yuppie listeners that climate change isn’t an argument to forgo procreation. “No mainstream climate models suggest a return to a world as bad as the one we had in 1950, to say nothing of 1150. . . . Nothing in our near future looks so horrible that it turns reproduction into an immoral act.”
The track of future emissions and related costs might be further reduced with well-designed carbon taxes if doing so fitted with today’s dishonest, showy green politics, which it doesn’t."
They are brainwashed Leftists who don't study history and don't have a clue what they're talking about. Fossil fuels were the greatest discovery in the modern world which lifted more human beings out of poverty and allowed the Modern World to thrive and produce heat, fuel, crops/food, transportation, etc. These climate freaks have no idea what the world was like before fossil fuels, Ma. has 5x more trees now than it did 200 yrs ago, why's that Greenies?
Western World’s Energy Folly in a New York Nutshell
Why should Europe have all the fun? The Empire State tries to sabotage its grid with renewables.
From Saturday's WSL.
Oops, the truth and the facts hurt.
"The latest report from New York state’s grid operator is a master class in everything wrong with the Western world’s approach to climate change.
That is: everything wrong with an approach that consists of throwing money at green business interests in defiance of any practical consideration. If you think something else is going on, such as abating climate change, think again.
To meet a legislated goal of emissions-free electricity by 2040, New York will need up to 45 gigawatts of what it delicately calls DEFRs, or dispatchable emissions-free resources. Not only is that more than the state’s total current generating capacity of 37 gigawatts, these DEFRs, which are carbon-free like wind and solar yet not interruptible like wind and solar, don’t exist and have no prospect of existing in the next decade. Starting very much sooner than 2040, New York’s real choice will be Third World electricity reliability vs. paying fossil-fuel operators large fees to keep their plants up and running in a highly inefficient part-time fashion.
Many involved in the state’s energy “transition” might question whether purging the last 10% or 5% of fossil fuels from the system is worth the exorbitant cost. Don’t expect anyone to admit the bigger problem: The transition won’t likely do much to reduce global emissions.
This is the great unmentionable. When New Yorkers use less coal, oil or gasoline because of environmental mandates, the market price transmits the benefit to other global users, who then use more. Even more unspeakable is the corollary: Emission-spewing activities simply relocate from one part of the world to another. China’s emissions growth, from half the U.S.’s to almost 300% of the U.S.’s in 30 years, is partly the product of a transplant of emissions from the U.S. and Europe.
If pressed, Biden officials will privately revert to gobbledygook about carbon taxes that appear immaculately without anyone having to advocate them. The media fill the gap with wishful thinking and Soviet econometrics, confusing inputs with outputs. Yes, world-wide investment in renewables in the past two years has exceeded investment in fossil fuels. Supposedly this proves fossil fuels are on their way out. No, it proves fossil fuels are a better deal, consuming less investment to meet their share of the world’s growing power needs.
Again, the Biden administration quietly acknowledges the truth. Its own studies show that solar delivers 25% of its rated output in electricity, wind 35%, and natural gas 57%. As recently as 2010, coal delivered 67% but has fallen precipitously to 40%. Why? According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, America’s coal plants increasingly are operated in inefficient, stop-start fashion to support wind and solar, magnifying the national risk of breakdowns and blackouts, which are also highlighted in the New York state report.
New England may well experience blackouts this winter. For the Europeans, of course, everything is worse, having pretended that generous wind and solar handouts made them green while relying on cheap Russian gas to slow the transfer of heavy industry to China. Kaboom.
The ironies are not small. Profit-oriented energy providers already have an incentive to incorporate low-cost solar and wind in ways that meet customer demand for cheap, reliable energy. It’s the pie-in-the-sky mandates concocted by legislators that drive utilities to adopt renewables in senseless ways unless the goal is to make every homeowner buy a carbon-spewing emergency generator.
For another day is the role of the Obama administration’s calculations about the political salability of green subsidies vs. carbon taxes; how climate change became a politics of personal transformation and utopianism; the high priestess Greta.
With its latest “assessment report,” the U.N. climate panel actually lowers its estimated odds of worst-case warming; it sees emissions flattening sooner than previously thought. By multiple models, the costs will be unwelcome but manageable. This good news goes unreported but reaches New York Times readers indirectly, as when podcaster Ezra Klein gently scolds his yuppie listeners that climate change isn’t an argument to forgo procreation. “No mainstream climate models suggest a return to a world as bad as the one we had in 1950, to say nothing of 1150. . . . Nothing in our near future looks so horrible that it turns reproduction into an immoral act.”
The track of future emissions and related costs might be further reduced with well-designed carbon taxes if doing so fitted with today’s dishonest, showy green politics, which it doesn’t."
Let’s try term limits anyway. What we have is no longer working.
This goes both ways, becuase they also don't have long term downside for the lifers.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
