Solar Power vs. Utility Companies 'Power Trip'

[victoriamorgon08]

Before you even consider installing solar panels, ask yourself, how old is my roof? If you know that you will need a new roof soon, or that a part of your roof is damaged, it probably isn’t the best idea to install solar panels. You shoulduse EPDM Liquid Rubber to take care of any roof repairs before the installation. That way, you won’t need to pay extra to dismantle the work and then put it up again in some cases for at least 20 years.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Residential solar, in the interim until high capacity reasonably priced residential storage batteries are available, is a financial PITA for power companies. Homes still need to be on the grid, grid costs remain the same, but the current rate-based system means grid maintenance is essentially has a usage-driven finance model. In effect this means everyone without solar panels is subsidizing everyone with them. (Electric vehicles cause the same financing issues on roads, where road maintenance is paid for by fossil fuel taxes.) The bottom line is that power companies hate residential solar installations because they reduce their revenues, increase grid management complexity, and don't reduce their grid maintenance costs.

Seems to me the only real practical answer is nuclear power because the plant is contained. Unless I'm wrong?

Also, is there any real practical room besides gasoline engines down the line? It doesn't appear the battery technology can improve enough for electric to compete (ie long commutes).

 

[panteragstk]

Before you even consider installing solar panels, ask yourself, how old is my roof? If you know that you will need a new roof soon, or that a part of your roof is damaged, it probably isn’t the best idea to install solar panels. You shoulduse EPDM Liquid Rubber to take care of any roof repairs before the installation. That way, you won’t need to pay extra to dismantle the work and then put it up again in some cases for at least 20 years.

This is exactly why I'd rather have the Tesla solar roof. It is the roof AND the solar panels. That way if there is a roof issue, the same folks that installed the roof/solar will be there to take care of the issue.

The last thing I'd want to deal with is getting panels installed on my roof then have a roof issue. Then the panel installers have to remove the panels to allow the roofers to get their work done, then the panels have to be re-installed. I have to think that'd cost more than just getting the roofing material that doubles as solar panels. Plus the time aspect.

Do it right once and be done.

 

[panteragstk]

Seems to me the only real practical answer is nuclear power because the plant is contained. Unless I'm wrong?

Also, is there any real practical room besides gasoline engines down the line? It doesn't appear the battery technology can improve enough for electric to compete (ie long commutes).

Battery tech is one of the things that is being researched a great deal and whoever comes out with a tech that gets cars 500+ miles per charge while also charging very fast will win the game. That is, until another tech comes along.

Right now a lot of electric cars get 250+ miles to a charge. If you know you drive more than that in a day, don't get one. Simple.

Just like if you know part of your job is towing a trailer, a Prius might not be the vehicle for you. People not buying the correct vehicle for their own use is their own problem.

I don't think the issue with EVs is that the batteries don't last long enough, it's that you can't charge them in the time it takes to fill a tank with fuel. That's the real reason they haven't taken off.

In both of my vehicles I average around 350-400 miles per tank with all in-town driving. I could use an EV no problem and be very happy without a quick charger. BUT, if I ever went on a trip in that EV, there would be almost nowhere to charge it on the way. I'd literally have to plan my trip around charger availability. No thanks.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Seems to me the only real practical answer is nuclear power because the plant is contained. Unless I'm wrong?

I think you're correct. So do a lot of other people in the power industry. I like this company:

NuScale Power | Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Nuclear Technology

We are the global leaders in SMR nuclear technology, delivering our groundbreaking NuScale Power Module to customers in 4, 6, and 12-module VOYGR power plants.

www.nuscalepower.com

But so many really dumb laws are getting passed about renewable sources (like in California), I'm not hopeful. IMO, wind and solar are a blight on the landscape, you end up with an unreliable power grid, and you're even more dependent on dirty and relatively inefficient battery technology. I'm not hopeful that nuclear is going to win over the dumb-ass greenies, because there's so many more of them than the smart ones.

Also, is there any real practical room besides gasoline engines down the line? It doesn't appear the battery technology can improve enough for electric to compete (ie long commutes).

Battery technology isn't my thing, I'm not a chemist or a materials scientist, but there are new battery technology candidates on the horizon, including some that charge faster. I'm told this list is pretty good:

5 New Battery Technologies That Will Change the Future

We need batteries that store more, last longer, and are safer to use. New battery technologies are coming our way.

www.gray.com

 

[Speedskater]

I was just reading about a Ham radio operator, the was happy about the snow storm. The snow covered his neighbor's solar panels and stopped them from generating interference.

 

[highfigh]

I was just reading about a Ham radio operator, the was happy about the snow storm. The snow covered his neighbor's solar panels and stopped them from generating interference.

Someone should tell him that Ham radios have been causing interference since people have had radios and TVs to receive that interference.

 

[highfigh]

I think you're correct. So do a lot of other people in the power industry. I like this company:

NuScale Power | Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Nuclear Technology

We are the global leaders in SMR nuclear technology, delivering our groundbreaking NuScale Power Module to customers in 4, 6, and 12-module VOYGR power plants.

www.nuscalepower.com

But so many really dumb laws are getting passed about renewable sources (like in California), I'm not hopeful. IMO, wind and solar are a blight on the landscape, you end up with an unreliable power grid, and you're even more dependent on dirty and relatively inefficient battery technology. I'm not hopeful that nuclear is going to win over the dumb-ass greenies, because there's so many more of them than the smart ones.

Battery technology isn't my thing, I'm not a chemist or a materials scientist, but there are new battery technology candidates on the horizon, including some that charge faster. I'm told this list is pretty good:

5 New Battery Technologies That Will Change the Future

We need batteries that store more, last longer, and are safer to use. New battery technologies are coming our way.

www.gray.com

I have been looking into batteries for my friends' boat, although not the ones with Lithium. One of the main issues is in the rate of charge and the heat generated during that cycle, as well as when they're under high demand conditions- it needs to be appropriate for the type of battery/materials, so it's not "one size fits all" charger solution. For vehicles, small/lightweight/reasonable cost/non-environmentally disastrous/quick to charge is a group of criteria that makes having all of them difficult. The low cost and high energy density of fossil fuels makes them difficult to replace.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think you're correct. So do a lot of other people in the power industry. I like this company:

NuScale Power | Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Nuclear Technology

We are the global leaders in SMR nuclear technology, delivering our groundbreaking NuScale Power Module to customers in 4, 6, and 12-module VOYGR power plants.

www.nuscalepower.com

But so many really dumb laws are getting passed about renewable sources (like in California), I'm not hopeful. IMO, wind and solar are a blight on the landscape, you end up with an unreliable power grid, and you're even more dependent on dirty and relatively inefficient battery technology. I'm not hopeful that nuclear is going to win over the dumb-ass greenies, because there's so many more of them than the smart ones.



Battery technology isn't my thing, I'm not a chemist or a materials scientist, but there are new battery technology candidates on the horizon, including some that charge faster. I'm told this list is pretty good:

5 New Battery Technologies That Will Change the Future

We need batteries that store more, last longer, and are safer to use. New battery technologies are coming our way.

www.gray.com

I'm onboard with nuclear power, in addition to hydro-electric generation. Wind and solar just aren't going to cut it.

But, if nuclear is to replace fossil-fuel power generation, the safeguards will have to be ramped up to utter overkill. With the number of plants that would be required, the chances of disasters will go way up. We cannot have any more 3-Mile Islands, Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

I'm also concerned about the laws of unintended consequences. Without foolproof safety measures, the possibility of nuclear accidents - especially in less wealthy countries - will rise to near-certainty. Plus, I have concerns about batteries. E-waste is a problem now. Just imagine how bad it will be if all modes of ground transport ran on batteries. Plus, there is the mining of the raw materials needed to make them.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm onboard with nuclear power, in addition to hydro-electric generation. Wind and solar just aren't going to cut it.

But, if nuclear is to replace fossil-fuel power generation, the safeguards will have to be ramped up to utter overkill. With the number of plants that would be required, the chances of disasters will go way up. We cannot have any more 3-Mile Islands, Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

This is what I like about NuScale; their designs are intended for high-volume standard manufacturing production. One problem with current nuclear plants is that they're all custom and different, and they are all custom-manufactured and on-site constructed. These are significant invitations to poor reliability, inefficient debugging, and expensive fixes.

I'm also concerned about the laws of unintended consequences. Without foolproof safety measures, the possibility of nuclear accidents - especially in less wealthy countries - will rise to near-certainty

Improved safety measures and better reliability are significant advantages of the high-volume modular reactor strategy. Nonetheless, I'm not sure nuclear fission is going to be foolproof enough for developing countries for a very long time.

Plus, I have concerns about batteries. E-waste is a problem now. Just imagine how bad it will be if all modes of ground transport ran on batteries. Plus, there is the mining of the raw materials needed to make them.

I completely agree. Batteries are a terrible environmental problem, especially lithium mining. On the other hand, IC engine fuel production and delivery are not great actors either.

 

[highfigh]

I'm onboard with nuclear power, in addition to hydro-electric generation. Wind and solar just aren't going to cut it.

But, if nuclear is to replace fossil-fuel power generation, the safeguards will have to be ramped up to utter overkill. With the number of plants that would be required, the chances of disasters will go way up. We cannot have any more 3-Mile Islands, Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

I'm also concerned about the laws of unintended consequences. Without foolproof safety measures, the possibility of nuclear accidents - especially in less wealthy countries - will rise to near-certainty. Plus, I have concerns about batteries. E-waste is a problem now. Just imagine how bad it will be if all modes of ground transport ran on batteries. Plus, there is the mining of the raw materials needed to make them.

Only Fukushima was a recent event. Nuclear power is very safe but it still needs diligence and adhering to the strictest safety procedures and regulations.

As long as materials can be recovered from old batteries, it can work. If most of it is waste, it needs to be improved before going all-in.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

Also, is there any real practical room besides gasoline engines down the line? It doesn't appear the battery technology can improve enough for electric to compete (ie long commutes).

One solution would be to standardize the batteries so it can be swapped out like those 5 gal propane tanks. One would swap it at a station like a gas station?

 

[Irvrobinson]

One solution would be to standardize the batteries so it can be swapped out like those 5 gal propane tanks. One would swap it at a station like a gas station?

Nice thought, but this notion is very unlikely. Electric car makers differentiate on battery form factors (both the cells and the package), battery sizes, storage capacity, technology, and the cooling systems they require.

 

[Speedskater]

Someone should tell him that Ham radios have been causing interference since people have had radios and TVs to receive that interference.

That's seldom true.
Mostly it's poor design of people's entertainment equipment.

 

[panteragstk]

Nice thought, but this notion is very unlikely. Electric car makers differentiate on battery form factors (both the cells and the package), battery sizes, storage capacity, technology, and the cooling systems they require.

Pretty much like laptops. You might get lucky and find a battery that fits 3 different Dell models, but when there are 10,000 different models, that doesn't really mean much.

Batteries are going to be built into these cars. They'll be replaceable, but I doubt it'll be cheap. Plus, as time goes on, parts will probably stop being made. Early adopters will pay this price.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Pretty much like laptops. You might get lucky and find a battery that fits 3 different Dell models, but when there are 10,000 different models, that doesn't really mean much.

Batteries are going to be built into these cars. They'll be replaceable, but I doubt it'll be cheap. Plus, as time goes on, parts will probably stop being made. Early adopters will pay this price.

Agreed. I’ve been hearing and reading all sorts of complaints from Tesla owners about parts availability and service issues. I like electric technology better than gasoline, but I’m not looking to be an early adopter.

 

[highfigh]

That's seldom true.
Mostly it's poor design of people's entertainment equipment.

Seriously, you need to talk to more people who have had this problem. Ham radio operators, like CB operators, don't always abide by the FCC limits on power, licensing, etc. They also don't always install their equipment properly, which means RFI is a huge problem. Some CB radios in cars are pushing far more power than is legal. I'm not referring to home theater, either- it can be a simple radio, instrument amplifier, TV, whatever, but if interference is rare but occurs once someone drives past with a 6' antenna or a new guy moves into the neighborhood and interference begins, it's easy enough to figure out where it comes from. OTOH, if I ever have interference, it's usually a sign that I have dirty controls and switches.

 

[highfigh]

Agreed. I’ve been hearing and reading all sorts of complaints from Tesla owners about parts availability and service issues. I like electric technology better than gasoline, but I’m not looking to be an early adopter.

First time I saw a Tesla car on a flatbed, the truck had a diesel engine. I found that ironic.

 

[highfigh]

One solution would be to standardize the batteries so it can be swapped out like those 5 gal propane tanks. One would swap it at a station like a gas station?

Who pays the up-front cost for the spare batteries? Propane tanks are cheap, batteries, not so much.

 

[Dude#1279435]

How practical is electric in industry with large vehicles, towing etc? Or would they remain gas?