California green energy - Oops

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Maverick

Maverick

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,652
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
Of course “backup” and “insurance” means additional cost to the tax payer.. PATHETIC

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that the state had to “sober up” about the fact that renewable energy sources had failed to provide enough power for the state at peak demand, and needed “backup” and “insurance” from other sources.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-sober-up-about-green-renewable-energy-flaws/
 
These rolling blackouts they are having are just reassurance of my belief that our grid is not as secure as most think. Solar isn’t cheap, but it is a lot cleaner and is the best backup power security out there. I am greatful I have begun to get my power needs switched over. As far as batteries go, with AGM you’re going to get 5yrs at best. Lithium can go ten. Neither are going to last forever, but nothing in life does. I still believe it is worth the effort to become as energy independent as possible.
 
Brent S said:
These rolling blackouts they are having are just reassurance of my belief that our grid is not as secure as most think. Solar isn’t cheap, but it is a lot cleaner and is the best backup power security out there. I am greatful I have begun to get my power needs switched over. As far as batteries go, with AGM you’re going to get 5yrs at best. Lithium can go ten. Neither are going to last forever, but nothing in life does. I still believe it is worth the effort to become as energy independent as possible.
Click to expand...

So with you on all that Brent! You’ve done a great job of putting in your solar too. As well as being kind enough to share the knowledge. Can’t imagine you will ever be sorry you’ve installed your solar system!
 
Graynomad said:
I've been off grid for 20 years, yeah it costs but when the area has a blackout I don't even know unless a neighbour tells me.

And solar gets cheaper every year, the grid get more and more expensive.
Click to expand...
We have a 29% rebate (tax credit) this year on the cost of solar. Unfortunately our president is doing away with it.... that helps right now though. The panels have come down a lot but the big costs are the batteries for storage. When both pricing comes down and a better/longer technology Solar will be both more affordable and a better option.
 
The Federal Tax Credit for solar is 26% this year I believe. The program has been going on for some years. Thankfully solar panels are coming down in price while going up in power. With the Chinese flu affecting our economy so badly, I look for more tax credits to disappear. Of course if biden gets in, he has promised Trillions in New Taxes. Oh joy. Small businesses will no doubt take the brunt of it as biden’s funding buddies will get wording in the bill to leave them out of paying.
 
I believe in renewable energy . . . and for reasons other than global climate change.

Some nations in the mideast use our oil profits to fund terrorism.

If we can get completely on renewable energy, then we can tell the mideast where they can stick their oil.

I know that a lot of people here don't believe in human caused climate change because it "isn't absolutely proven."

Even so, what about the Cold War?

It wasn't absolutely proven that the Soviets were waiting for the very first opportunity to blow us up with nuclear weapons. The suspicion that they might was enough to justify spending trillions and trillions of dollars.

Can you guys not see the double-standard here?

If the scientists are even halfway right, the consequences (mass disruption and death to human civilization) are similar to nuclear war.

Even if you think climate change is a crock . . . can you see my point?
 
Much of the technology the people love today was a bi-product of the cold-war. The same people that condemns that Cold War are the same people that loves the technological advancement including the internet that was primarily created for the war effort, so who’s the hypocrite ;)
 
Kevin L said:
I believe in renewable energy . . . and for reasons other than global climate change.

Some nations in the mideast use our oil profits to fund terrorism.

If we can get completely on renewable energy, then we can tell the mideast where they can stick their oil.

I know that a lot of people here don't believe in human caused climate change because it "isn't absolutely proven."

Even so, what about the Cold War?

It wasn't absolutely proven that the Soviets were waiting for the very first opportunity to blow us up with nuclear weapons. The suspicion that they might was enough to justify spending trillions and trillions of dollars.

Can you guys not see the double-standard here?

If the scientists are even halfway right, the consequences (mass disruption and death to human civilization) are similar to nuclear war.

Even if you think climate change is a crock . . . can you see my point?
Click to expand...

Here is the problem. Or should I say problems? Humans are the reason for pollution and usage of natural resources. We need less humans on the planet in my humble opinion. And we need less humans in our country ASAP! How we get there is a debate that is sure to never have a resolution.

The scam of climate change associated with MONEY is a joke. That is the reason so many are against it. Even some countries who originally bought into the hoax...pay us money and the climate will be fine...have seen the light and got out of the scam.

In this country we are working toward solar, wind and hydro power. Tons of money has been invested and in far too many cases, the tax payers were ripped off. Take a look at the abject failures obama had. That said, I think we will get to renewable power some day. Until then, we need a solution on countries who have more children than they can grow food for.
 
We are a big exporter of oil. Thought this was of interest to the discussion.

“The largest sources of U.S. imported oil were: Canada (49%), Mexico (7%), Saudi Arabia (6%), Russia (6%), and Colombia (4%). According to the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and natural gas industry supports nine million U.S. jobs and makes up seven percent of the nation's gross domestic product.”
 
Solar is not a renewable resource, the panels fail, the batteries fail and teh electronics fail. It creates huge re-cycling problems. It consumes huge amounts to energy to produce the products and is not cost effective. I like solar as an off grid option but it cannot compete against municipal power costs. I think the true answer will be hydrogen fuel cells. Development has been slow (lack of funding and resistance from oil industry) but it still continues.
 
GeorgiaPeachie said:
Here is the problem. Or should I say problems?.....Until then, we need a solution on countries who have more children than they can grow food for.
Click to expand...
I have a solution. Stop sending food, money and medicine to every over populated ******** country around the world.
The problem would solve itself very quickly. And it would save the US tax payers billions of dollars every year.
 
Urbanprep said:
Solar is not a renewable resource, the panels fail, the batteries fail and teh electronics fail. It creates huge re-cycling problems. It consumes huge amounts to energy to produce the products and is not cost effective. I like solar as an off grid option but it cannot compete against municipal power costs. I think the true answer will be hydrogen fuel cells. Development has been slow (lack of funding and resistance from oil industry) but it still continues.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% with your points and with most of the points indicated by the other posters . . . solar is, indeed, not perfectly renewable, but it's probably more renewable than petroleum.

As for the crookedness of the investment money being shuffled where it shouldn't be . . . well, it is crooked, but that doesn't detract from the idea that renewables should be done.

As for the technological benefits of the Cold War, I agree 100% . . . but to say that the Cold War justified the innovations that came from it is like saying that the medical discoveries that came from the AIDS eidemic means that AIDS is good thing to have around.

Also, what innovations may come from committing to fixing climate change?

Just food for thought.
 
I've always had the idea that places like the Great Salt Lake in Utah, and the Dead Sea in Israel would be great places to create renewable electricity.

My idea involves anchored, floating pontoons that each support a solar panel. This electricity is used for electrolysis of salt water, which yields hydrogen for a pipeline that carries itisto where it's needed for either fuel cells (as Urban prep suggests), or an internal combustion engine/generator that supplies electricity.

The Dead Sea and the Great Salt Lake haver very little in the way of life, so there would be less impact to plants and animals. Also, both places are in desert environments, so the sunshine would be very reliable.

I don't suppose that this scheme would fix all renewable energy answers, but it would show proof that such things either would (or would not) work.

I imagine Salt Lake City could be completely powered by such a setup, and would show proof of principle.
 
Kevin L said:
I've always had the idea that places like the Great Salt Lake in Utah, and the Dead Sea in Israel would be great places to create renewable electricity.

My idea involves anchored, floating pontoons that each support a solar panel. This electricity is used for electrolysis of salt water, which yields hydrogen for a pipeline that carries itisto where it's needed for either fuel cells (as Urban prep suggests), or an internal combustion engine/generator that supplies electricity.

The Dead Sea and the Great Salt Lake haver very little in the way of life, so there would be less impact to plants and animals. Also, both places are in desert environments, so the sunshine would be very reliable.

I don't suppose that this scheme would fix all renewable energy answers, but it would show proof that such things either would (or would not) work.

I imagine Salt Lake City could be completely powered by such a setup, and would show proof of principle.
Click to expand...
The problem with a lot of these schemes is that most people don't want it in their back yard. I suggest that any new experiments be done back east. Theres lots of sunshine in the South and South East.
 
DrHenley said:
Kevin, when you electrolyze salt water, not only do you get hydrogen and oxygen, you also produce sodium hydroxide (lye) in the water and chlorine gas in the air.
Click to expand...
I know . . . all of which are useful for any number of purposes. Oxygen for welding and medical purposes, and chlorine is used for any number of products . . . as is sodium hydroxide.

This could be a profitable sideline.
 
Joe SA said:
They will kill anything energy related that does not give em big bucks.
Click to expand...
The possibility of a return on investment is what drives inovation. Until there is a true need for a product, in this case energy, there is little intrest for a company to spend a lot of money developing something when there is no competitive market for it.
We already have massive amounts of clean, reliable and reasonably priced enegy sources available.
 
I will offer an opinion on a different direction.

First, there should be no government/tax incentives AT ALL. None for anybody. Not for renewable energy. Not for petroleum or any fossil fuels. Find the true cost, and let the market dictate which solution is best. There should be no regulation mandating what has to be used. Whatever the most efficient and cost effective method is for your area should be the reason you use that form of energy.

Second, I will address the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Nuclear Energy. That is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest, and takes the smallest environmental footprint of anything we have. The waste issue can be solved safely. It is ignored because of politics, and that is a foolish mistake.
 
Morgan101 said:
I will offer an opinion on a different direction.

First, there should be no government/tax incentives AT ALL. None for anybody. Not for renewable energy. Not for petroleum or any fossil fuels. Find the true cost, and let the market dictate which solution is best. There should be no regulation mandating what has to be used. Whatever the most efficient and cost effective method is for your area should be the reason you use that form of energy.

Second, I will address the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Nuclear Energy. That is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest, and takes the smallest environmental footprint of anything we have. The waste issue can be solved safely. It is ignored because of politics, and that is a foolish mistake.
Click to expand...
I used to be a big pro nuclear fan too. But the impact isn’t small by any means. The waste isn’t easy to solve and the risk shown after Fukushima just aren’t worth it. As far as the government pushing incentives for cleaner energy sources goes I’m all for leaving my kids and grandkids a cleaner place to live. Big for profit companies don’t give a crap about the environment and will only do what makes more profit. Why would they change from a profitable gig without some push from the government? We know that oil is polluting. We also know that we all want and need energy. Easing into new and cleaner ways of producing it just makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top