Why Renewables Can't Save the Climate

[billvon 2,434]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

That's awesome!  How can those living in poverty get in on that deal?

Several ways.

SASH.  In California, SASH lets low income homeowners get solar.  From the CPUC site: "The SASH program provides qualified low-income homeowners fixed, up front, capacity-based incentives to help offset the upfront cost of a solar electric system.. . .The SASH program offers one incentive level of $3 per watt."  Note average solar prices in California are about $3.20 a watt, so you could get a 4kw solar system (enough to offset more than half an average home's load) for $800.

WAP.  Any low income person can get access to the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP.) They focus on efficiency first (which is smart no matter how much money you make) but now also includes funding for solar.

GRID Alternatives, a private nonprofit that uses both private and corporate donations along with grant funding and donated equipment to install solar systems for low-income households in California.

The Obama administration had half a dozen programs for low income people who wanted solar.  Those are, of course, all gone now.

[Coreece 190]

11 minutes ago, billvon said:

19 minutes ago, Coreece said:

That's awesome!  How can those living in poverty get in on that deal?

Several ways.

SASH.  In California, SASH lets low income homeowners get solar.  From the CPUC site: "The SASH program provides qualified low-income homeowners fixed, up front, capacity-based incentives to help offset the upfront cost of a solar electric system.. . .The SASH program offers one incentive level of $3 per watt."  Note average solar prices in California are about $3.20 a watt, so you could get a 4kw solar system (enough to offset more than half an average home's load) for $800.

WAP.  Any low income person can get access to the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP.) They focus on efficiency first (which is smart no matter how much money you make) but now also includes funding for solar.

GRID Alternatives, a private nonprofit that uses both private and corporate donations along with grant funding and donated equipment to install solar systems for low-income households in California.

The Obama administration had half a dozen programs for low income people who wanted solar.  Those are, of course, all gone now. 

Low income does not mean poverty, and most people living in poverty do not own their apartment.  Hopefully the slum lords investing in these programs will pass the savings onto their tenants lest we subsidize both.

But for what it's worth, I do appreciate your informative post. Thanks.

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

Hopefully the slum lords investing in these programs will pass the savings onto their tenants lest we subsidize both.

You bring up a good point, not just with low income tenants but with the rental market in general.  You'll NEVER EVER see solar panels on a rental property, home or apartment.  That sector represents a gaping void in the move towards energy efficiency because the usage side is on the tenant's dime.  It's not until the condo market that you even see energy efficient HVAC systems.

Edited September 5, 2019 by DJL

[SkyDekker 1,145]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

That's awesome!  How can those living in poverty get in on that deal?

Just work harder, what are they expecting, some handout? They need to pull up their bootstraps and not be so lazy. American Dream is available to everybody.

[gowlerk 1,925]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Just work harder, what are they expecting, some handout? They need to pull up their bootstraps and not be so lazy. American Dream is available to everybody.

Good point. In fact those living in poverty always have to pay more for the little they have.

[billvon 2,434]

4 hours ago, DJL said:

You bring up a good point, not just with low income tenants but with the rental market in general.  You'll NEVER EVER see solar panels on a rental property, home or apartment.  

We had solar on our rental.  It seemed like it was a (minor) selling point for some people.

[airdvr 200]

Yes...and all of these things are in sunny California.  Here in flyover land we can go a week in the fall and winter without seeing the sun.

My point is your designs for the future mostly apply to California and don't take the rest of the country into account.

[wmw999 2,148]

Net zero is a real goal up here in New England, also not known for its balmy weather. Even Habitat has it as a goal for their starter homes. It’s not always realistically possible for individual houses (tree cover, roof direction, etc), but energy usage, with the climate aa well as individual pockets as rationale, is a big consideration. 

Wendy P. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Yes...and all of these things are in sunny California.  Here in flyover land we can go a week in the fall and winter without seeing the sun.

My point is your designs for the future mostly apply to California and don't take the rest of the country into account.

Well, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Washington Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho & Montana all have large areas that are considered 'desert' (or close to it). Few clouds, lots of sun.

Also, solar equipment is dropping significantly in cost. It no longer takes "all day sun" for it to be viable. Obviously, the more sun a given location gets, the quicker the payback. But there's lots of solar going in in 'flyover country'. 

[DJL 232]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

We had solar on our rental.  It seemed like it was a (minor) selling point for some people.

Yeah, I thought to change the wording of that to "most rentals" because there are those out there willing to deal with it.  Overall it's seen as being too much hassle for the typical landlord.  How does the money work, do you see the savings or do they?  In a typical scenario the owner would have someone like Solar City do the work with the payback being the owner saving money, so why or how would they even have a shared incentive with a renter?

[DJL 232]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Yes...and all of these things are in sunny California.  Here in flyover land we can go a week in the fall and winter without seeing the sun.

My point is your designs for the future mostly apply to California and don't take the rest of the country into account.

Just talking out of my ass a little bit, the economics are already on the table.  Nobody is making a "solar only" grid, there's battery storage, biomass, hydro, (not much in Ohio), wind, and if we really do want to eliminate fossil fuels we'll have to eventually favor nuke over natural gas.

I understand the conversation is more about rooftop solar but in that case you're tied into the grid so it's not like you're without power, you're just not getting as much of a savings as someone in Arizona.  Currently it's the companies like Solar City who run the game for rooftop solar and as I understand it the savings for most of mid-latitude US is no better than if you put that same amount into a stocks account.  That leaves their target market as people who either don't get that or who just want to reduce fossil fuel usage.

Edited September 6, 2019 by DJL

[kallend 1,648]

On 9/5/2019 at 8:12 AM, airdvr said:

I can afford more expensive juice...so can you.  What about those who can't?

To be clear this isn't about AGW or whether we need to address it, it's about the costs.

Thanks to the heavy deployment of renewables, electricity prices in California between 2011 and 2018 rose seven times more (28%) than they did in the rest of the country (5%), while electricity prices have risen 50% in Germany since 2006.

Not difficult to be less expensive than really expensive.

A flush toilet is more expensive than a hole in the ground, but we choose not to stink up our homes.

Why is taking care of the planet less important to you?

[billvon 2,434]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Yes...and all of these things are in sunny California.  Here in flyover land we can go a week in the fall and winter without seeing the sun.

My point is your designs for the future mostly apply to California and don't take the rest of the country into account.

?? Solar works in CA and many other places.  (Indiana is the #7 city in the US for solar per capita.)  Wind works in Minnesota.  Storage works everywhere.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

Indiana is the #7 city in the US for solar per capita.

Read that one again.

 

[gowlerk 1,925]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

Yes...and all of these things are in sunny California.  Here in flyover land we can go a week in the fall and winter without seeing the sun.

Yet somehow America's "fly over land" manages to be some of the most productive agricultural land in the world. Agriculture is generally using plants to convert sunlight into energy......

[kallend 1,648]

54 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Solar works in CA and many other places.  (Indiana is the #7 city in the US for solar per capita.)  Wind works in Minnesota.  Storage works everywhere.

Indiana also has some enormous wind farms.  Co-located with regular farms so basically double duty per acre of land.

[brenthutch 388]

58 minutes ago, billvon said:

?? Solar works in CA and many other places.  (Indiana is the #7 city in the US for solar per capita.)  Wind works in Minnesota.  Storage works everywhere.

Indiana is a city? 

[billvon 2,434]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Read that one again.

Sorry, Indianapolis. 

[airdvr 200]

Sure..this one's OK but Snellenberger...not so much. 

[ryoder 1,400]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Sure..this one's OK but Snellenberger...not so much. 

That dude may be wrong about energy, but no one can set an A320 down on water smoother than him!

[billvon 2,434]

23 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Sure..this one's OK but Snellenberger...not so much. 

Touché!

[NewGuy2005 51]

On 9/5/2019 at 11:35 AM, billvon said:

Mine is $5 a month.  And I use a lot more electricity than a typical house as well - we have two EV's.  But I generate it myself.

Impressive!  Do you generate more than you use?

[billvon 2,434]

51 minutes ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Impressive!  Do you generate more than you use?

Most years, yes.  This year we will, for example, because August was (relatively) cool.

[NewGuy2005 51]

I went to visit my cousin that lives in a “shipping container house” in the high desert of Arizona. I figured he kept his food in an ice chest or 12 volt RV refrigerator. 

When I got there I was amazed that it was four containers stacked and crisscrossed. I went inside and he had a full sized refrigerator, three freezers, air conditioners, and televisions all going at the same time. He was not roughing it. 

[mbohu 77]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

6 hours ago, NewGuy2005 said:

Impressive!  Do you generate more than you use?

Most years, yes.  This year we will, for example, because August was (relatively) cool.

The one thing that I keep wondering about and usually miss in these discussions:

It seems to me that the change from a centrally controlled energy production (large plants generating most energy) model to a distributed and networked model (private homes with solar panels, small wind-farms and geothermal generators, etc all feeding the network) is at least as big a change as the change related to the method of energy generation. It seems that this would also have a number of very positive and necessary benefits as well as challenges:

1. Energy security: A distributed system should be many times more resilient than a centrally run system. A single terrorist attack--and probably more importantly right now--a natural event like a hurricane would not be able to take out the entire system (or a big part of it) in one single swoop

2. The system would also be resilient to price manipulation and economic downturns.

3. It would be better for individuals as it makes you more independent from government and large corporations (conservatives should be all over this!)

Challenges may be necessary updates of infrastructure, and how to efficiently manage the flow of surplus and shortage (Although both could be solved via technological solutions.)

But what I really wonder about is, if the slow progress with transitioning to such a system isn't also related to the fact that large companies don't like this distributed model, and haven't figured out how to control and OWN it in a way that can lead to monopolies similar to what they now enjoy.