ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Another bit of good news came across my twitter feed. The state of Hawaii will be deploying its first battery backup system for solar power. That removes the last significant obstacle for PV power, interruptibility. SolarCity and the Kauaʻi Island Utility Cooperative jointly announced last week that they’ve entered into a solar power purchase agreement in which SolarCity will provide 20 years of power from a 52-megawatt-hour battery installation that will be able to send as many as 13 megawatts of electricity to the island’s grid. The battery will draw power from an accompanying solar array. It's definitely a modest step and it is in Hawaii, a prime location for solar power. But like PV itself, battery costs will drop over time. Now, I'll sit back and watch as the apologists for big utilities around here throw wet blankets of pessimism and cynicism over this good news. Altogether guys, give us the zombie cheer "IT'LL NEEEEVVVERRRR WOOOORRKKKKKK!!!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I see you have some reading comprehension problems. You said you quoted opinions in the media and the 'Union of Concerned Scientists'. My response is you just linked to a bunch of opinions and noted that the UCS is an AGW propaganda site which means it is also an opinion. I challenged you to explain why quoting a bunch of opinions in the media is some how better than what I do. Uhhhh Because I quote scientists and you just pull stuff out of your butt??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 13 MW...wow. That's enough to power....not much of anything really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I find it interesting that you use the word "modest" because you are implying that a large reduction in standard of living would not be acceptable even if it is "sustainable". For me this is the key. I do not believe that a "modest" reduction is likely outcome of the policies outlined in the 'manifesto' - I think a standard of living meltdown comparable to Greece or Venezuela is more plausible. And even if I can't be sure that will be outcome I cannot justify the risk because the damage would be very hard to fix once it is done. Please do share with us your method of calculating how transitioning to renewables over the next 35-50 years will result in having a standard of living comparable to Venezuela. It would be nice if you would share your scientific credentials as you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Another bit of good news came across my twitter feed. The state of Hawaii will be deploying its first battery backup system for solar power. That removes the last significant obstacle for PV power, interruptibility. It's definitely a modest step and it is in Hawaii, a prime location for solar power. But like PV itself, battery costs will drop over time. Wow....and it didn't take any Leap Manifesto ! In fact, the motivation was quite ordinary....economics...as imported energy is very costly for Hawaii compared to mainland USA. Still, PV power only provides a tiny percentage of total demand on the islands. And Hawaii sure as hell ain't Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Hawaii Edited September 20, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Please do share with us your method of calculating how transitioning to renewables over the next 35-50 years will result in having a standard of living comparable to Venezuela.Energy is the primary input into our society therefore the cost of energy has a huge effect on our standard of living. Any policy that dramatically increases energy costs will decrease our standard of living. Whether it hits Venezuelan levels of dysfunction depends on how determined the government is to force the adoption of renewables. I suspect it would never get that far in practice because a new government would be elected and put an end to the suicide effort before it got too far. Now I realize that you insist on ignoring the huge hidden costs that come with renewables so you probably think there is no risk of death by energy policy but the fact that you choose to deny this risk this does not mean it is not true. Nor does it mean that more thoughtful people than you will not consider the potential harms before supporting a policy that will most likely fail to achieve its stated goals. Edited September 20, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) It's definitely a modest step and it is in Hawaii, a prime location for solar power. But like PV itself, battery costs will drop over time.Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. I certainly would not want to see any policy that assumes it will succeed. In this case you need to consider that 53 MWh is enough power for 5000 or so average homes for one day which is basically peanuts (Honolulu is a tiny city with has over 150,000 homes). The article you linked does not provide any cost information which is usually a sign that it is absurdly expensive and not anywhere close to viable without subsidies. That said, PV solar is economic today when there is no grid which may make it attractive places isolated places like Hawaii. That does not mean it is going to viable outside of those contexts. Edited September 20, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 ...The article you linked does not provide any cost information which is usually a sign that it is absurdly expensive and not anywhere close to viable without subsidies. True....Hawaii has one of the highest state tax credit programs in the U.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Wow....and it didn't take any Leap Manifesto ! You're really obsessed with our manifesto. Maybe if you're nice, Michael Moore will develop a manifesto for you guys... and then you won't be so sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 13 MW...wow. That's enough to power....not much of anything really. That didn't take long. Repeat after me. IT'LL NEEEVVVVEEERRRR WOOOOORRRKKKKK!!!! NEEEVVVVEERRRRRR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 You're really obsessed with our manifesto. Maybe if you're nice, Michael Moore will develop a manifesto for you guys... and then you won't be so sad. Yes...it is just amazing how the United States has been able to do so much more renewable energy research and production than Canada...all without any steenkin' Leap Manifesto or socialist ideology. Last time I checked, Stanford University was in California, the same place that mandated automotive emissions standards under Gov. Ronald Reagan (Canada just followed like it always does.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. I certainly would not want to see any policy that assumes it will succeed. In this case you need to consider that 53 MWh is enough power for 5000 or so average homes for one day which is basically peanuts (Honolulu is a tiny city with has over 150,000 homes). The article you linked does not provide any cost information which is usually a sign that it is absurdly expensive and not anywhere close to viable without subsidies. That said, PV solar is economic today when there is no grid which may make it attractive places isolated places like Hawaii. That does not mean it is going to viable outside of those contexts. Hey, bud. I'm still waiting for you to show how you figured that moving to renewables would lower us to the standard of living in Venezuela. I know all this stuff is scary for those of you in the energy business who make your living from holding the rest of us to ransom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 WIP, can you say why the ice core record goes back only 800,000 years? Just curious as i have seen this before but never had a chance to ask anyone. You made a good post that i need to read again but wondering if you know the answer. Well, from what I've read previously on the subject, the problem is due to increasing pressure from weight of ice above compressing and deforming layers that are older and deeper. 800,000 years seems to be the cutoff point...at least for now, that they are able to distinguish and analyze separately. The ice sheets themselves...at least in some areas of the Antarctic, go back 35 million years ago. Before that time there was very little icing in the Antarctic. But that may have been related more to Antarctica's continued move to the far south than global average temperatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Hey, bud. I'm still waiting for you to show how you figured that moving to renewables would lower us to the standard of living in Venezuela.I already explained what I meant in a post above but I guess any answer with any nuance is too complex for you to understand. I guess that was pretty obvious considering that you were unable to construct a coherent response to any of my arguments. Insults and link dropping seem to be the limit of your capabilities. Edited September 20, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 You're opposed to the 1 thing that will work sustainably here and solve all of the problems related to GHGs. That says you're not really interested in a solution. We should be building a nuclear grid with some hydro power where it makes sense (Manitoba, BC, Quebec - where we already have it). We shouldn't be chasing pie in the sky solutions when we have 1 right in front of us.MB/QC both had reactors.....how'd that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Thanks WIP, i am not saying i agree with the conclusions but was questioning why the data ends there. Read some more articles and more technical papers and none of them made any reference at all why the data stops there. Your response sounds reasonable to me so i am good with that for now. I was wondering if they were running out of ice as none of the research explains what the future looks like for more drilling. That ice core chart without this kind off background leaves a lot of questions but what you say helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Sorry but dams for power are another issue i have, cant build them because they disrupt the ecosystem too much. Bob, the poster was referencing dams in Mb and Qu i beleive. Regarding solar, reefer you understand they are not free either as Tim says. You dont just build a panel without exploiting somebodies resources and pumping a bunch of oil from the ground. And they take up alot of space, if i do 10 kw to supply less than 1/2 my homes peak needs in winter needs and that is only during daylight, i need 8ftx60ft roughly. So full requirements are about 8 x 180ft plus i need batteries and they come with an environmental cost. Talk about urban sprawl for each home owner to be independent. And to think utilities are worried about green energy is absurb. What ever website you got that from you need to delete it and deprogram yourself. A utility does not care what its energy source is, it makes a profit to cover risk and investment - end of paranoid thinking. And the utility will make profit for distribution to cover its risk and investment, and again does not care if electrons come from a gas fired turbine or a solar cell. The system will find solutions, it does not stop simply because someone thinks government is not applying pressure to solve problems. I have nothing against renewables but the technology is still in its infancy and no amount of government involvement is going to move anything as fast as some are claiming it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 We have to dramatically reduce the production of green house gases. The question is how. Solar and wind are not yet viable on a large scale. Fusion is still a long way off if viable at all. Nuclear power is the only alternative currently available. It is particularly beneficial to western Canada, since it is the Saudi Arabia of nuclear fuel. The conversion to nuclear power will give the world's economy a tremendous shot in the arm, and will allow us to dispense with many of the inhibitors on energy use we are now facing, such as carbon taxes, and pipelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) I have nothing against renewables but the technology is still in its infancy and no amount of government involvement is going to move anything as fast as some are claiming it should.The technology is not 'in its infancy' - people have been trying - and failing to deal with its fundamental limitations for decades. What I find frustrating about this debate are people who can't understand there is no such thing as an energy source without significant negative effects on the environment when deployed at the scale required. Solar and wind are bit players today but if they started to make up a significant proportion of global energy consumption we will have mountains of toxic waste to deal with plus you will see regional weather patterns disrupted by wind farms not to mention the mass slaughter of birds. This is why I think the focus should be on minimizing the impact of the most economic power source instead insisting on using specific power sources because of myths created by people who don't understand them. Edited September 20, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Tim, true enough regarding infancy, i was thinking along the lines of it just starting to become viable without massive government manipulation of the market and we have a ways to go before it becomes mainstream. I also include things like fuel cells (alternative energy) and batteries to round out solar in my thought process when making such statements. Simply put, we have a ways to go and the solution will be figured out without government. I actually beleive that solar will be obsolete in maybe 30 years, but i havent kept up to speed on fuel cell technology, as with other techs, it may not be viable now but maybe viable in the future. I dont know, but if it becomes viable, solar will replace the 10 ft satellite dish in the front yard that was nice to have for a while but is never coming back no matter what. And if not fuel cells then something else will be on the horizon. You either beleive people are stupid or they are smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 This is why I think the focus should be on minimizing the impact of the most economic power source How would we do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) Uhhhh Because I quote scientists and you just pull stuff out of your butt??? He seems to make logical and intelligent arguments. You... not so much. You're clearly out of your league on this subject. Best stop while behind. Edited September 20, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 How would we do this? Build better, safer nuclear reactors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Not until we have better safer more robust institutions of accountability and oversight. What we have now won't cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 MB/QC both had reactors.....how'd that work? That isn't what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.