the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
damn, I'm glad to be living in BC where power hasn't been much of a problem. They're even building a big ass new hydro project which should provide a shit tonne of extra power when it comes online.
Which I guess is all good unless the California drought ever starts heading north.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
I see, thanks for the explanation! Makes good sense.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
You can't do this legally in NY. You can have solar and batteries off grid or have solar and on grid. The power companies won't let you do both out here.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
Mineral rights are not connected to water at least in Montana and Texas
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
You can't do this legally in NY. You can have solar and batteries off grid or have solar and on grid. The power companies won't let you do both out here.
You are still grid connected in both situations
in Houston you have to have your house “connected to the grid” to be legal. Then you need an interconnection agreement with the power company. Either way
how the power flows to the grid shouldn’t really matter as it’s fundamentally the same thing as the battery doesn’t have anything to do with feeding the grid with electricity. That’s odd
New York solar installers are offering battery “home backup” on their websites. As in a backup to their grid connection , not an off grid only situation.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
You can't do this legally in NY. You can have solar and batteries off grid or have solar and on grid. The power companies won't let you do both out here.
You are still grid connected in both situations
in Houston you have to have your house “connected to the grid” to be legal. Then you need an interconnection agreement with the power company. Either way
how the power flows to the grid shouldn’t really matter as it’s fundamentally the same thing as the battery doesn’t have anything to do with feeding the grid with electricity. That’s odd
New York solar installers are offering battery “home backup” on their websites. As in a backup to their grid connection , not an off grid only situation.
Really? This has changed in the last 7 years now as they weren't offering this at first. They must have found a way that they can profit off of it for the change. Glad to see that is offered now.
In Cali oh 15 years ago or so, some HOA's banned solar panels. They wouldn't allow them. Ain't that something?
Just checked and they are offering TESLA batteries. Well Musk got govt backing on that one. Good job on him.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
You can't do this legally in NY. You can have solar and batteries off grid or have solar and on grid. The power companies won't let you do both out here.
You are still grid connected in both situations
in Houston you have to have your house “connected to the grid” to be legal. Then you need an interconnection agreement with the power company. Either way
how the power flows to the grid shouldn’t really matter as it’s fundamentally the same thing as the battery doesn’t have anything to do with feeding the grid with electricity. That’s odd
New York solar installers are offering battery “home backup” on their websites. As in a backup to their grid connection , not an off grid only situation.
Really? This has changed in the last 7 years now as they weren't offering this at first. They must have found a way that they can profit off of it for the change. Glad to see that is offered now.
In Cali oh 15 years ago or so, some HOA's banned solar panels. They wouldn't allow them. Ain't that something?
Just checked and they are offering TESLA batteries. Well Musk got govt backing on that one. Good job on him.
Texas and Wyoming for sure don’t allow HOA to ban panels. If they are that “green” I assume that’s the norm everywhere
an HOA can say whatever they want, that doesn’t necessarily make it enforceable.
in Texas an HOA can have “input” on placement. However if it negatively affects solar generation by more than 10% the homeowner can put the panels wherever they want.
Rooftop solar specifically is protected. Not putting panels on your lawn
the unfortunate fact is solar is massively confusing to most people. That’s probably why more people don’t have it. I mean seriously, even if you take out a loan your monthly savings on electricity can be extremely close to your finance payments. It’s getting closer and closer all the time to being cost neutral and the break even time is getting shorter and shorter. So if they pay for themselves in 8 years Vs 12 years you have more time within the life of the panels to be cost positive.
At some point everyone who wants them can have them. Look at personal computer costs over time. Use to be a few who could have them, now almost everyone has one or at least an iPad which is basically the same thing.
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
We had something like 27 power interruptions last year. This year has been a lot better. That said around here people do whole home generator’s pretty frequently which are automatic
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
27 times! Ouch! Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
A battery.
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
Solar only is basically a way to offset power usage (ie you use 30kwh a day and sell back 40Kwh of solar production) . Batteries on the other hand are a way to self power. So you directly use all the solar coming from your roof in real time to power your house and excess then goes into the battery and any further excess goes back to the grid. When the sun goes down it happens in reverse. You pull from your battery and any excess you need comes from the grid.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
In effect a battery is an on site “grid”
You can't do this legally in NY. You can have solar and batteries off grid or have solar and on grid. The power companies won't let you do both out here.
You are still grid connected in both situations
in Houston you have to have your house “connected to the grid” to be legal. Then you need an interconnection agreement with the power company. Either way
how the power flows to the grid shouldn’t really matter as it’s fundamentally the same thing as the battery doesn’t have anything to do with feeding the grid with electricity. That’s odd
New York solar installers are offering battery “home backup” on their websites. As in a backup to their grid connection , not an off grid only situation.
Really? This has changed in the last 7 years now as they weren't offering this at first. They must have found a way that they can profit off of it for the change. Glad to see that is offered now.
In Cali oh 15 years ago or so, some HOA's banned solar panels. They wouldn't allow them. Ain't that something?
Just checked and they are offering TESLA batteries. Well Musk got govt backing on that one. Good job on him.
Texas and Wyoming for sure don’t allow HOA to ban panels. If they are that “green” I assume that’s the norm everywhere
an HOA can say whatever they want, that doesn’t necessarily make it enforceable.
in Texas an HOA can have “input” on placement. However if it negatively affects solar generation by more than 10% the homeowner can put the panels wherever they want.
Rooftop solar specifically is protected. Not putting panels on your lawn
it doesn’t change the fact solar is massively confusing to most people. That’s probably why more people don’t have it. I mean seriously, even if you take out a loan your monthly savings on electricity can be extremely close to your finance payments. It’s getting closer and closer all the time to being cost neutral and the break even time is getting shorter and shorter. So if they pay for themselves in 8 years Vs 12 years you have more time within the life of the panels to be cost positive
Cali has changed their stance just like NY did as you pointed out.
Here in NY you could lease the panels during the Obama rebate years. It made sense and you were paying $20 a month for electric because you sold it back to the power company and the rest was subsidized.
I haven't researched it in a bit but I know the in wall airconditioner units are being rebated by the power companies now too. Not sure why.
Sooner or later some company is just going to rent roof space on peoples roofs and then install their own panels to create an urban solar farm.
It’s not that far fetched to imagine unused space being utilised. Kind of like how a business opens its parking lot for paid event parking at night. Might as well utilise the space you own and rent it
you just have a tenant on the roof. Much more convenient than renting out your spare bedroom
Sooner or later some company is just going to rent roof space on peoples roofs and then install their own panels to create an urban solar farm.
It’s not that far fetched to imagine unused space being utilised. Kind of like how a business opens its parking lot for paid event parking at night. Might as well utilise the space you own and rent it
you just have a tenant on the roof. Much more convenient than renting out your spare bedroom
They do wind farms on building here in the city now. Not sure whom owns them but they are pretty cool. They aren't your typical windmill so they look cool and don't take up as much space.
Renting out your roof, if you run into problems, might be a disaster.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
When I strike gold I'll let you know.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
When I strike gold I'll let you know.
It's something I would do for fun in the yard. Build a sluice box and dig up some dirt to see.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
When I strike gold I'll let you know.
It's something I would do for fun in the yard. Build a sluice box and dig up some dirt to see.
I have found quartz around the yard here and there, but nothing promising. We also have a clay deposit behind the house which is interesting. But in my oldish age, I'm getting to lazy to do digging. I want to find some the easy way the local guy here who one day was walking through a pasture and kicked what he thought was a cow pie. It hurt his foot like crazy so bent down and picked it up to find it was a huge dirt encrusted chunk of gold. Imagine that!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
When I strike gold I'll let you know.
It's something I would do for fun in the yard. Build a sluice box and dig up some dirt to see.
I have found quartz around the yard here and there, but nothing promising. We also have a clay deposit behind the house which is interesting. But in my oldish age, I'm getting to lazy to do digging. I want to find some the easy way the local guy here who one day was walking through a pasture and kicked what he thought was a cow pie. It hurt his foot like crazy so bent down and picked it up to find it was a huge dirt encrusted chunk of gold. Imagine that!
It's worth the prospect!!!
See what I did there...
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
the lights stayed on…”The storm uprooted trees and tore shingles from roofs, but other than that Grande said there is no major damage. Its residents say Babcock Ranch is proof that an eco-conscious and solar-powered town can withstand the wrath of a near-Category 5 storm.”
But let's look at the big picture here. Babcock Ranch is planned community with a population of about 50,000. It great what they have done and in the right place, building others communities would not be a bad idea, but when you look at the size of that power grid (photo in the article), it's obvious that this would not work for a moderate to large sized cities and metropolitan areas. Far too much land, infrastructure, and resources would be required. The ratio of resources and energy needed to create enough power would not be sufficient to be of logical use for large populated areas. On the other had, if more buildings and parking lots were covered with solar panels, a lot of relief from existing power grids would be helpful. Bottom line, the fact remains that solar panels can never provide power for our existing large population numbers. But, yes, they can help.
They can do the same thing with panels on their own houses
That city is fed by a solar farm but it doesn’t have to be. Some have additional solar and batteries on their houses.
a lot of the year I can switch off my power at the alley if I want and do just fine. If I had more panels and more batteries I wouldn’t need a grid attachment at all however my roof shape isn’t ideal for more. If my house had been designed that way though it would be easy.
However you have to be grid connected by law in the city even if you don’t need to be or want to be. It’s a good hedge against cloudy days though as a backup as batteries only last so long
most suburbs especially around here are planned communities just not eco planned. Designing streets to flood, proper tree and vegetation to absorb water all helps. I do not live in the suburbs but that’s probably the easiest place to start.
most single family homes could 100percent self power utilising just their own roof. Batteries tend to be more cost prohibitive than panels though so most just net meter not self power
the cost of solar/batteries is absolutely not cost prohibitive if it’s already on a house at whatever price point you are buying in assuming you aren’t then paying an some sort of unrelated premium. solar is expensive because it’s an add on after the fact 99 percent of the time and it’s separate from your mortgage. Your extra mortgage cost monthly because of solar infrastructure would be less than what you would be paying for electricity anyway. The numbers are at a point where it works.
Speaking of mortgages, there's an idea I heard (I think they do this in Davis, Calif, maybe?) where adding solar gets tied in to the property taxes. If a new home owner of an existing home that does not have solar only expects to live in the house for only 5 years, they are not going to want to invest in solar. But if the payments are attached to property taxes such that when they move they only pay for the years they use it, they might be much more open to adding solar. I would certainly sign up for that, but few places offer that option-- sorry to say, not here.
Also, I believe all newly constructed homes in CA are required to have solar. Other states do the same, perhaps?
I think ca is the exception and it is a great model I think to require new builds to have solar. If other states do it it’s probably not as aggressive as CA
as far as property taxes some states (even Texas) has an exception where the value of the panels/batteries etc are not added to your appraised home value. It makes your house worth more but you don’t pay for that added value like you would if you built a deck or added on and built another bedroom
Another common barrier is people think HOA’s can prevent panels due to neighbourhood restrictions. Usually they can’t. Even conservative states like Wyoming and Texas have laws that say you can put up solar panels even if your HOA says you can’t
solar has compounding benefits. Once you see you can self power even partially then you start paying attention to electricity consumption and you then buy energy efficient appliances and things. Usually a solar household pays way more attention to usage than a non solar house. They can still use the grid so it’s not like they are only paying attention to what they use so they don’t run out of power
no matter how you fund it, all you are doing in effect is pre paying your electricity bill and it’s an excellent long term hedge on inflation as energy rates aren’t going down. I’ve got neighbours who spend just as much on whole house natural gas standby generators that are tied into the home. Thats crazy. That’s a sunk cost, it doesn’t pay for itself over time, when you do need it you pay for the gas and that’s not cheap when you are powering an entire house with natural gas, and it’s burning fossil fuels
A whole house generator sounds like a huge expense for something most would only need once in a long while. We have a little Honda generator for when the power goes out. It runs the fridge, thus saving our food, plus powers a couple of low wattage lamps, and enough left over to recharge phones. That's enough to get by on. Only problem is being on a well, so no running water. But we keep several heavy duty PBA-free 2 gallon containers full and if we know the power is going to go out, we fill buckets for flushing.
You run on a well? You sir have mineral rights then. That is rare in Cali.
When I strike gold I'll let you know.
It's something I would do for fun in the yard. Build a sluice box and dig up some dirt to see.
I have found quartz around the yard here and there, but nothing promising. We also have a clay deposit behind the house which is interesting. But in my oldish age, I'm getting to lazy to do digging. I want to find some the easy way the local guy here who one day was walking through a pasture and kicked what he thought was a cow pie. It hurt his foot like crazy so bent down and picked it up to find it was a huge dirt encrusted chunk of gold. Imagine that!
It's worth the prospect!!!
See what I did there...
Yeah, I can dig it!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
After reading this morning's update from Captain Paul Watson, I decided to change the title of this thread yet again. This addresses both the reality of rapid climate change including global warming, and allows it to encompass all of the ramifications of human induced climate changes and the resulting issues that have been, and will continue to affect many lives and eventually almost all lives. Here is what Cpt Watson said (and please note that if you read far enough, you'll see this is not all doom and gloom- thus I have retained the word "hope" in the thread title):
Climate Chaos
It’s time that we look at this thing called Climate Change for what it is. The same with the term Global Warming.
These are friendly sounding words. Climate and Change. Climates have always changed, usually far slower than what is occurring now but changing nonetheless.
Global warming. What’s not to like about things getting warmer. Longer growing season, more sunny days. Not so bad.
The reality is that what is occurring now is not simply change nor a warming trend.
It is chaos. Climate Chaos to be specific and the world is feeling it now. No more politically convenient denial and no more complacency.
The storms are getting stronger, the
fires are getting hotter, the floods are getting higher, the tornadoes
are becoming more frequent, species migrations are getting disrupted,
snowpacks and glaciers are being diminished, the permafrost is melting
and belching more and more methane as the Antarctic and Arctic ice are
experiencing an accelerated melting.
We are seeing the climate disruption causing unprecedented migration of
peoples from the tropics as their eco-systems are ravaged by drought,
famine, pestilence and war.
We are seeing the emergence of more and more zoonotic transmitted
viruses and the release of long dormant pathogens from the thawing
permafrost.
Disasters and Reduction of Resources
With headlines
this week reporting "Animal populations experience average decline of
almost 70% since 1970, report reveals. Huge scale of human-driven loss
of species demands urgent action, say world’s leading scientists." are
warnings we need to heed.
Florida, Puerto Rico, Haiti and many other Caribbean nations are being,
and will continue to be, pummeled by super storms and by 2040, these
places will be essentially unlivable.
Many Pacific island nations will also be unlivable as rising seas
inundate their lands forcing an exodus of millions of people elsewhere.
Borders will be stormed with desperate people fleeing from southern
nations, from Africa, from Central America, from Oceana, from Southeast
Asia.
These mass migrations will present a national security threat to many other nations.
And these nations North of the Tropic of Cancer and South of the Tropic
of Capricorn will also see the ravages of climate chaos with increased
forest and wildfires, floods, drought and tornadoes.
Resources will become diminished as water availability is diminished.
Buying an electric car is not going to solve the problem.
Wars will become more common as nations fight over possession of water
and resources like lithium, fossil fuels, rare earth metals, and
uranium.
This is the present reality and sugar coating it with convenient
greenwashing lies ain’t going to put the lid back on Pandora’s Box.
We popped that lid decades ago.
So, is it all doom and gloom?
In the face of climate chaos what can we do?
We can see the world from a different perspective, from a biocentric perspective.
This means understanding the value of diversity of species, the value of
interdependence of species and accepting the reality that there is a
limit to carrying capacity meaning there is a limit to growth.
The answer to an impossible problem is to find the impossible solution.
We know what factors are the cause of climate chaos. We need to shut off
those factors by ending dependence on fossil fuels, by stopping the
industrialized production of meat, fish, and chemically intensive
agriculture.
We have to stop the extermination of the engineers that keep our life support system stabilized and running smoothly.
Phytoplankton and Life
The worms, the trees, the bees, the fish, the whales and most
importantly the phytoplankton in the sea that produces up to 70% of the
oxygen we breathe and sequesters enormous amounts of carbon.
Since 1950, over 40% of the phytoplankton in the Ocean has been
diminished. That is the single most destructive development on our
planet since the last major mass extinction event.
If phytoplankton disappears from the sea, the reality is that we all die!
We do not live on this planet without phytoplankton and phytoplankton is
nurtured by the nutrients provided by whales, seabirds, fish and other
aquatic species – nutrients like iron, magnesium and nitrogen found in
the fecal contributions of all these species.
Where have the insects gone? Where has the beneficial microbes in the
soil gone? Eradicated by bactericides, insecticides, fungicides and
herbicides.
For decades we have systematically poisoned the soil, the water,
the air and the living cells of the biosphere – including ourselves.
We spend trillions creating diseases that we then spend trillions on the industry of curing these diseases.
Look at it this way.
This planet is a spaceship hurtling through space at 67,000
miles per hour on a voyage around the Milky Ways Galaxy that takes 250
million years to complete.
And on this beautiful jewel of a spaceship there exists a marvelous life
support system that provides all our needs – the air we breathe, the
food we eat, the water we drink and regulates climate and temperature.
And this complex life support system is maintained by a crew of living
things, the engineers, all those species that do the real work making
sure the machinery does not break down.
We humans are not crewmembers. We are passengers having
a wonderful time amusing ourselves including spending a great deal of
our time committing the mass murder of essential engineers.
And with the diminishment of the engineers, the phytoplankton, the
trees, worms, bees, bacteria and so many millions of other creatures, so
is diminished the life support system.
And if we don’t stop our violent extermination of the engineers
that keep us all alive, we will be the victims of ecological collapse
just as so many people now are becoming victims of climate chaos caused
by the murder of the engineers on this spaceship Earth.
The choice is between taking action or letting action take us.
Worldwide fisheries are collapsing, we are losing healthy topsoil with
the destruction of the microbes, worms, and insects. We are losing the
pollinators. We are losing both the green and the blue lungs of the
planet, the temporal, boreal and rainforests and the once great mass
production of Phyto and Zooplankton.
This means learning to live in harmony with our engineers.
We don’t have to do much to save life on this planet, we just need to
allow the engineers to do their essential work and that means the
killing, the plundering and ignorant greed needs to end.
We need to stop seeing ourselves as superior, dominant and special. We are not. We are primates sharing this planet with species far more important than we are.
We have become an extremely self- centered, arrogant naked ape that has become some sort of divine legend in our own minds.
We need to shake off that delusion and we need to embrace and
protect our fellow earthlings, especially the essential engineers
because they don’t need us but we sure as hell need them.
And we are not totally useless as
passengers. Recently we saw how we could protect the planet with our
technological skills by deflecting a planet killing asteroid which is
bound to target us at some point in the future. In so doing we will be
able to repay the stupendous debt we owe to all those important species
that keep us alive.
If we take care of them, they will take care of us.
As Henry David Thoreau once observed, in our life styles we need
to simplify, simplify, simplify and that means using what we need and
not succumbing to our greed.
Captain Paul Watson
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
How NOT to bring change to the climate chaos situation:
These people are not doing anything to change climate issues we are facing. They make a sick joke of serious efforts to curb climate change. All they really accomplish is to bring attention to themselves by acts that could have (in this case, fortunately, didn't) caused harm to a wonderful, irreplaceable work of creativity. This was more about their egos and/or penchant for self-centered drama. May they rot in jail for a good long time.
Activists from Just Stop Oil have thrown tomato soup over Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London.
National Gallery staff quickly cleared the room. The gallery has since
confirmed the painting was not harmed, saying in a statement that after
the protesters threw “what appears to be tomato soup” over the painting,
“the room was cleared of visitors and police were called. Officers are
now on the scene. There is some minor damage to the frame but the
painting is unharmed.”
Two women have appeared in court charged with criminal damage to the frame of Vincent van Gogh’s painting Sunflowers.
Two
tins of tomato soup were thrown over the painting at London’s National
Gallery on Friday, although the gallery later said the painting itself
was undamaged and had been put back on display.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
Latest climate change conference to be sponsored by... COCA-COLA???
COP OUT 27
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt from November 6th through November 18th, 2022.
This time however it's going to be different. Of course, it will be. Coca-Cola is calling the shots.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as “the” official sponsor? It certainly can’t go wrong for Coke-Cola.
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
In a world of greenwashing, it makes perfect sense. You can’t have a
comfortable eco-conference without money. The problem is not that it is
tainted money but that it t’aint enough, it never is.
The conference will be decked out with Coke-Cola signs and banners...
...touting marvelous promises and commitments, Testimonials and
pamphlets from the World Wildlife Fund proclaiming that Coke is
eco-friendly, good for you and good for the planet.
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
Coke-Cola sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
Aside from the mind-boggling amount of single use plastic produced, the company produces between 5 and 6 million metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions every year
for the past decade. These emissions come from the production,
packaging, transportation, chilling and disposing of their products.
Each standard 330ml can of coke is the equivalent of 170 grams of carbon dioxide. A plastic or glass bottle has a carbon footprint of 360 grams. Aluminum cans also contain a plastic inner lining.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those
thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless,
endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences
spew out year after year.
COP 21 and the Fishing Industry sponsorship
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was
sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say
was most definitely not welcome.
I actually heard a fishing industry spokesperson say, “There is real concern that climate change will impact the movement of the product through the water.” They don’t see fish, they see products.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Chevron, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference I attended on the
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where oilman
Maurice Strong, formally the CEO of Petro-Canada was the chief organizer
and one of the sponsors was McDonalds. Every single promise made at
that meeting never materialized.
These COP and environmental conferences have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises
I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting
higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting
more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations
continue to rise as more and more climate migrants struggle to escape
the places they were unfortunately born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings,
more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world
leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year in Glasgow at COP 26, Boris
Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change
doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is
now 30 seconds to midnight framed as good news, being that it is not yet
midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat,
nor did any other world leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing
increased, fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps
kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senatorial
candidate said the problem was that good American air was drifting to
China and dirty Chinese air was being sent to America and a former
President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of swirling stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next
year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations
will be competing to be the official sponsor.
The world is dying but hey you deserve a break today and the Coke-Cola company wants us to buy the world a coke.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators., publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27.
Coke-Cola renewed their 14-year partnership with the World Wildlife Fund
in 2021. The WWF has published that they have helped Coke-Cola to
reduce the carbon emissions yet greenhouse gas emissions from Coke in
2021 of 5.7 million tons is higher than the 5.14 million tons in 2018.
But not to worry, Coke has promised to reduce carbon emissions to zero
by 2040. This statement fits in well with practically every promise ever
made at international conferences on the environment or climate change.
And a promise is all that is needed to qualify as a sponsor to COP 27
or COP Whatever.
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is
too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because
technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
Captain Paul Watson
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
and I was also disgusted at the Tomato Soup twosome. This just gives fodder to the anti-progress crowd of "environemntalists are all radical, violent people". Like the right gives a shit about a painting anyway, but they'll cry crocodile tears when it suits them.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
and I was also disgusted at the Tomato Soup twosome. This just gives fodder to the anti-progress crowd of "environemntalists are all radical, violent people". Like the right gives a shit about a painting anyway, but they'll cry crocodile tears when it suits them.
Oh man, you said it! And those two idiots are members of the Just Stop Oil "activist group" which is funded by
Aileen Getty, the ultra wealthy heiress to the family oil business. Though it hasn't been proven, there is speculation that Getty is using this group to make climate change activism look bad. If that is her goal, it's working.
And either way, what those two idiots did was cause potential harm to a create work of art, not create more positive environmental awareness. Trashing beautiful art is supposed to win over people to becoming environmentally aware? I'm thinking this is more about there own little emo egos drawing attention to themselves. These people are totally full of shit.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
and I was also disgusted at the Tomato Soup twosome. This just gives fodder to the anti-progress crowd of "environemntalists are all radical, violent people". Like the right gives a shit about a painting anyway, but they'll cry crocodile tears when it suits them.
Oh man, you said it! And those two idiots are members of the Just Stop Oil "activist group" which is funded by
Aileen Getty, the ultra wealthy heiress to the family oil business. Though it hasn't been proven, there is speculation that Getty is using this group to make climate change activism look bad. If that is her goal, it's working.
And either way, what those two idiots did was cause potential harm to a create work of art, not create more positive environmental awareness. Trashing beautiful art is supposed to win over people to becoming environmentally aware? I'm thinking this is more about there own little emo egos drawing attention to themselves. These people are totally full of shit.
Latest climate change conference to be sponsored by... COCA-COLA???
COP OUT 27
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt from November 6th through November 18th, 2022.
This time however it's going to be different. Of course, it will be. Coca-Cola is calling the shots.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as “the” official sponsor? It certainly can’t go wrong for Coke-Cola.
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
In a world of greenwashing, it makes perfect sense. You can’t have a
comfortable eco-conference without money. The problem is not that it is
tainted money but that it t’aint enough, it never is.
The conference will be decked out with Coke-Cola signs and banners...
...touting marvelous promises and commitments, Testimonials and
pamphlets from the World Wildlife Fund proclaiming that Coke is
eco-friendly, good for you and good for the planet.
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
Coke-Cola sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
Aside from the mind-boggling amount of single use plastic produced, the company produces between 5 and 6 million metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions every year
for the past decade. These emissions come from the production,
packaging, transportation, chilling and disposing of their products.
Each standard 330ml can of coke is the equivalent of 170 grams of carbon dioxide. A plastic or glass bottle has a carbon footprint of 360 grams. Aluminum cans also contain a plastic inner lining.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those
thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless,
endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences
spew out year after year.
COP 21 and the Fishing Industry sponsorship
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was
sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say
was most definitely not welcome.
I actually heard a fishing industry spokesperson say, “There is real concern that climate change will impact the movement of the product through the water.” They don’t see fish, they see products.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Chevron, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference I attended on the
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where oilman
Maurice Strong, formally the CEO of Petro-Canada was the chief organizer
and one of the sponsors was McDonalds. Every single promise made at
that meeting never materialized.
These COP and environmental conferences have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises
I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting
higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting
more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations
continue to rise as more and more climate migrants struggle to escape
the places they were unfortunately born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings,
more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world
leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year in Glasgow at COP 26, Boris
Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change
doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is
now 30 seconds to midnight framed as good news, being that it is not yet
midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat,
nor did any other world leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing
increased, fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps
kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senatorial
candidate said the problem was that good American air was drifting to
China and dirty Chinese air was being sent to America and a former
President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of swirling stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next
year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations
will be competing to be the official sponsor.
The world is dying but hey you deserve a break today and the Coke-Cola company wants us to buy the world a coke.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators., publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27.
Coke-Cola renewed their 14-year partnership with the World Wildlife Fund
in 2021. The WWF has published that they have helped Coke-Cola to
reduce the carbon emissions yet greenhouse gas emissions from Coke in
2021 of 5.7 million tons is higher than the 5.14 million tons in 2018.
But not to worry, Coke has promised to reduce carbon emissions to zero
by 2040. This statement fits in well with practically every promise ever
made at international conferences on the environment or climate change.
And a promise is all that is needed to qualify as a sponsor to COP 27
or COP Whatever.
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is
too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because
technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
Captain Paul Watson
If you think this is bad look into the World Economic Forum, the worlds foremost corporate greenwashing and corporate public relations facade.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
Latest climate change conference to be sponsored by... COCA-COLA???
COP OUT 27
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt from November 6th through November 18th, 2022.
This time however it's going to be different. Of course, it will be. Coca-Cola is calling the shots.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as “the” official sponsor? It certainly can’t go wrong for Coke-Cola.
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
In a world of greenwashing, it makes perfect sense. You can’t have a
comfortable eco-conference without money. The problem is not that it is
tainted money but that it t’aint enough, it never is.
The conference will be decked out with Coke-Cola signs and banners...
...touting marvelous promises and commitments, Testimonials and
pamphlets from the World Wildlife Fund proclaiming that Coke is
eco-friendly, good for you and good for the planet.
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
Coke-Cola sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
Aside from the mind-boggling amount of single use plastic produced, the company produces between 5 and 6 million metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions every year
for the past decade. These emissions come from the production,
packaging, transportation, chilling and disposing of their products.
Each standard 330ml can of coke is the equivalent of 170 grams of carbon dioxide. A plastic or glass bottle has a carbon footprint of 360 grams. Aluminum cans also contain a plastic inner lining.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those
thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless,
endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences
spew out year after year.
COP 21 and the Fishing Industry sponsorship
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was
sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say
was most definitely not welcome.
I actually heard a fishing industry spokesperson say, “There is real concern that climate change will impact the movement of the product through the water.” They don’t see fish, they see products.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Chevron, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference I attended on the
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where oilman
Maurice Strong, formally the CEO of Petro-Canada was the chief organizer
and one of the sponsors was McDonalds. Every single promise made at
that meeting never materialized.
These COP and environmental conferences have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises
I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting
higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting
more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations
continue to rise as more and more climate migrants struggle to escape
the places they were unfortunately born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings,
more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world
leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year in Glasgow at COP 26, Boris
Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change
doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is
now 30 seconds to midnight framed as good news, being that it is not yet
midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat,
nor did any other world leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing
increased, fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps
kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senatorial
candidate said the problem was that good American air was drifting to
China and dirty Chinese air was being sent to America and a former
President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of swirling stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next
year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations
will be competing to be the official sponsor.
The world is dying but hey you deserve a break today and the Coke-Cola company wants us to buy the world a coke.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators., publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27.
Coke-Cola renewed their 14-year partnership with the World Wildlife Fund
in 2021. The WWF has published that they have helped Coke-Cola to
reduce the carbon emissions yet greenhouse gas emissions from Coke in
2021 of 5.7 million tons is higher than the 5.14 million tons in 2018.
But not to worry, Coke has promised to reduce carbon emissions to zero
by 2040. This statement fits in well with practically every promise ever
made at international conferences on the environment or climate change.
And a promise is all that is needed to qualify as a sponsor to COP 27
or COP Whatever.
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is
too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because
technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
Captain Paul Watson
If you think this is bad look into the World Economic Forum, the worlds foremost corporate greenwashing and corporate public relations facade.
I will check it out, thanks.
It blows my mind how much greenwashing is foisted off by corporations, even more how much acceptance it gets from the general public. It's become rampant at the worst time possible!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
Holy moly! In just a few minutes time I came across a couple of interesting things.
First, this article from WEF that talks about "how to spot greenwashing and stop it"
It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.
Comments
im constantly trying to talk them out of it. Get a powerwall and panels instead
replacing everything in your fridge 3 times a year adds up when you aren’t home
coincidently the gas company sells them. They also own the power line infrastructure. Interesting
Never heard of a power wall. What's that?
you need a battery or batteries to actually use solar at all. It’s the brains of a setup. You need something to direct where the power goes… to your house, to the grid, to the battery. That’s all part of the battery infrastructure
without it you just net meter. If you have solar only and the power goes out, your power goes out too.
both options are good as in “environmentally friendly”, but only one solves a power outage issue. With net metering you might not be using your green production but someone else is.
I see, thanks for the explanation! Makes good sense.
as in you can have a well regardless
in Houston you have to have your house “connected to the grid” to be legal. Then you need an interconnection agreement with the power company. Either way
how the power flows to the grid shouldn’t really matter as it’s fundamentally the same thing as the battery doesn’t have anything to do with feeding the grid with electricity. That’s odd
New York solar installers are offering battery “home backup” on their websites. As in a backup to their grid connection , not an off grid only situation.
In Cali oh 15 years ago or so, some HOA's banned solar panels. They wouldn't allow them. Ain't that something?
Just checked and they are offering TESLA batteries. Well Musk got govt backing on that one. Good job on him.
an HOA can say whatever they want, that doesn’t necessarily make it enforceable.
in Texas an HOA can have “input” on placement. However if it negatively affects solar generation by more than 10% the homeowner can put the panels wherever they want.
Rooftop solar specifically is protected. Not putting panels on your lawn
the unfortunate fact is solar is massively confusing to most people. That’s probably why more people don’t have it. I mean seriously, even if you take out a loan your monthly savings on electricity can be extremely close to your finance payments. It’s getting closer and closer all the time to being cost neutral and the break even time is getting shorter and shorter. So if they pay for themselves in 8 years Vs 12 years you have more time within the life of the panels to be cost positive.
Here in NY you could lease the panels during the Obama rebate years. It made sense and you were paying $20 a month for electric because you sold it back to the power company and the rest was subsidized.
I haven't researched it in a bit but I know the in wall airconditioner units are being rebated by the power companies now too. Not sure why.
you just have a tenant on the roof. Much more convenient than renting out your spare bedroom
Renting out your roof, if you run into problems, might be a disaster.
When I strike gold I'll let you know.
I have found quartz around the yard here and there, but nothing promising. We also have a clay deposit behind the house which is interesting. But in my oldish age, I'm getting to lazy to do digging. I want to find some the easy way the local guy here who one day was walking through a pasture and kicked what he thought was a cow pie. It hurt his foot like crazy so bent down and picked it up to find it was a huge dirt encrusted chunk of gold. Imagine that!
See what I did there...
Yeah, I can dig it!
Climate Chaos
These are friendly sounding words. Climate and Change. Climates have always changed, usually far slower than what is occurring now but changing nonetheless.
Global warming. What’s not to like about things getting warmer. Longer growing season, more sunny days. Not so bad.
The reality is that what is occurring now is not simply change nor a warming trend.
It is chaos. Climate Chaos to be specific and the world is feeling it now. No more politically convenient denial and no more complacency.
We are seeing the climate disruption causing unprecedented migration of peoples from the tropics as their eco-systems are ravaged by drought, famine, pestilence and war.
We are seeing the emergence of more and more zoonotic transmitted viruses and the release of long dormant pathogens from the thawing permafrost.
With headlines this week reporting "Animal populations experience average decline of almost 70% since 1970, report reveals. Huge scale of human-driven loss of species demands urgent action, say world’s leading scientists." are warnings we need to heed.
Florida, Puerto Rico, Haiti and many other Caribbean nations are being, and will continue to be, pummeled by super storms and by 2040, these places will be essentially unlivable.
Many Pacific island nations will also be unlivable as rising seas inundate their lands forcing an exodus of millions of people elsewhere.
Borders will be stormed with desperate people fleeing from southern nations, from Africa, from Central America, from Oceana, from Southeast Asia.
These mass migrations will present a national security threat to many other nations.
And these nations North of the Tropic of Cancer and South of the Tropic of Capricorn will also see the ravages of climate chaos with increased forest and wildfires, floods, drought and tornadoes.
Resources will become diminished as water availability is diminished.
Buying an electric car is not going to solve the problem.
Wars will become more common as nations fight over possession of water and resources like lithium, fossil fuels, rare earth metals, and uranium.
This is the present reality and sugar coating it with convenient greenwashing lies ain’t going to put the lid back on Pandora’s Box.
We popped that lid decades ago.
In the face of climate chaos what can we do?
We can see the world from a different perspective, from a biocentric perspective.
This means understanding the value of diversity of species, the value of interdependence of species and accepting the reality that there is a limit to carrying capacity meaning there is a limit to growth.
The answer to an impossible problem is to find the impossible solution.
We know what factors are the cause of climate chaos. We need to shut off those factors by ending dependence on fossil fuels, by stopping the industrialized production of meat, fish, and chemically intensive agriculture.
We have to stop the extermination of the engineers that keep our life support system stabilized and running smoothly.
The worms, the trees, the bees, the fish, the whales and most importantly the phytoplankton in the sea that produces up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe and sequesters enormous amounts of carbon.
Since 1950, over 40% of the phytoplankton in the Ocean has been diminished. That is the single most destructive development on our planet since the last major mass extinction event.
If phytoplankton disappears from the sea, the reality is that we all die!
We do not live on this planet without phytoplankton and phytoplankton is nurtured by the nutrients provided by whales, seabirds, fish and other aquatic species – nutrients like iron, magnesium and nitrogen found in the fecal contributions of all these species.
Where have the insects gone? Where has the beneficial microbes in the soil gone? Eradicated by bactericides, insecticides, fungicides and herbicides.
For decades we have systematically poisoned the soil, the water, the air and the living cells of the biosphere – including ourselves.
We spend trillions creating diseases that we then spend trillions on the industry of curing these diseases.
This planet is a spaceship hurtling through space at 67,000 miles per hour on a voyage around the Milky Ways Galaxy that takes 250 million years to complete.
And on this beautiful jewel of a spaceship there exists a marvelous life support system that provides all our needs – the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink and regulates climate and temperature.
And this complex life support system is maintained by a crew of living things, the engineers, all those species that do the real work making sure the machinery does not break down.
We humans are not crewmembers. We are passengers having a wonderful time amusing ourselves including spending a great deal of our time committing the mass murder of essential engineers.
And with the diminishment of the engineers, the phytoplankton, the trees, worms, bees, bacteria and so many millions of other creatures, so is diminished the life support system.
And if we don’t stop our violent extermination of the engineers that keep us all alive, we will be the victims of ecological collapse just as so many people now are becoming victims of climate chaos caused by the murder of the engineers on this spaceship Earth.
Worldwide fisheries are collapsing, we are losing healthy topsoil with the destruction of the microbes, worms, and insects. We are losing the pollinators. We are losing both the green and the blue lungs of the planet, the temporal, boreal and rainforests and the once great mass production of Phyto and Zooplankton.
This means learning to live in harmony with our engineers.
We don’t have to do much to save life on this planet, we just need to allow the engineers to do their essential work and that means the killing, the plundering and ignorant greed needs to end.
We need to stop seeing ourselves as superior, dominant and special. We are not. We are primates sharing this planet with species far more important than we are.
We have become an extremely self- centered, arrogant naked ape that has become some sort of divine legend in our own minds.
We need to shake off that delusion and we need to embrace and protect our fellow earthlings, especially the essential engineers because they don’t need us but we sure as hell need them.
If we take care of them, they will take care of us.
As Henry David Thoreau once observed, in our life styles we need to simplify, simplify, simplify and that means using what we need and not succumbing to our greed.
Two women have appeared in court charged with criminal damage to the frame of Vincent van Gogh’s painting Sunflowers.
Two tins of tomato soup were thrown over the painting at London’s National Gallery on Friday, although the gallery later said the painting itself was undamaged and had been put back on display.
COP OUT 27
This time however it's going to be different. Of course, it will be. Coca-Cola is calling the shots.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as “the” official sponsor? It certainly can’t go wrong for Coke-Cola.
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
In a world of greenwashing, it makes perfect sense. You can’t have a comfortable eco-conference without money. The problem is not that it is tainted money but that it t’aint enough, it never is.
...touting marvelous promises and commitments, Testimonials and pamphlets from the World Wildlife Fund proclaiming that Coke is eco-friendly, good for you and good for the planet.
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
Coke-Cola sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
Aside from the mind-boggling amount of single use plastic produced, the company produces between 5 and 6 million metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions every year for the past decade. These emissions come from the production, packaging, transportation, chilling and disposing of their products.
Each standard 330ml can of coke is the equivalent of 170 grams of carbon dioxide. A plastic or glass bottle has a carbon footprint of 360 grams. Aluminum cans also contain a plastic inner lining.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out year after year.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
I actually heard a fishing industry spokesperson say, “There is real concern that climate change will impact the movement of the product through the water.” They don’t see fish, they see products.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Chevron, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference I attended on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil where oilman Maurice Strong, formally the CEO of Petro-Canada was the chief organizer and one of the sponsors was McDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and more climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were unfortunately born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other world leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased, fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senatorial candidate said the problem was that good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was being sent to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
The world is dying but hey you deserve a break today and the Coke-Cola company wants us to buy the world a coke.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators., publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27.
Coke-Cola renewed their 14-year partnership with the World Wildlife Fund in 2021. The WWF has published that they have helped Coke-Cola to reduce the carbon emissions yet greenhouse gas emissions from Coke in 2021 of 5.7 million tons is higher than the 5.14 million tons in 2018.
But not to worry, Coke has promised to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2040. This statement fits in well with practically every promise ever made at international conferences on the environment or climate change. And a promise is all that is needed to qualify as a sponsor to COP 27 or COP Whatever.
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Oh man, you said it! And those two idiots are members of the Just Stop Oil "activist group" which is funded by
www.headstonesband.com
If you think this is bad look into the World Economic Forum, the worlds foremost corporate greenwashing and corporate public relations facade.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden