California Officially Becomes First in Nation Mandating Solar Power for New Homes

maxius

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
3,370
Solutions? To climate change? Are you daft?
The climate has been and always will change.
If you're one of those who thinks that man, in some 200 years, has gained the power to control the climate one way or the other, you're in serious need of professional evaluation.

Educate yourself.
nope i am not obviously you are a science denying redhat that takes the words of lord dampnuts as Gospel. i see no reason to communicate further with you
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
nope i am not obviously you are a science denying redhat that takes the words of lord dampnuts as Gospel. i see no reason to communicate further with you
What did I say denies science? That climate changes?
Son, you drank the Kool-Aid.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
i am not your son please remove head from ass this came out on black friday https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report educate yourself from reliable sources before you speak further. no those are not fox news, brightbart, reddit and twitter.
Show me a single prediction the alarmists made about climate that can be verified as accurate or anywhere in the realm of accurate by empirical evidence. You can go back as far as you like. There isn't one.
That's not science. It's quackery.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/23/thirty-years-of-failed-climate-predictions-the-video/
 

Chance_P

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
1,059
Yeah because they tend to leak and contaminate ground water...buy hey who cares about safe drinking water?
Point to where ANYONE said ANYTHING about not caring for safe drinking water. I bet you wonder why people scoff at environmentalists.
 

WhoMe

Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2018
Messages
827
Point to where ANYONE said ANYTHING about not caring for safe drinking water. I bet you wonder why people scoff at environmentalists.
Your reading and comprehension skills seem to be a bit lacking. Or do you not think leaking gas tanks effect ground water?
 

DocNo

Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
654
Look, unless the State has also required standards of efficiency and build quality, then builders are going to install the cheapest shit to meet the requirements. How's that going to work out when your home-owner's warranty is gone?
And builders are only going to install it if they know someone is looking. I had a brand new tract house built - what a waste. Asshole AC guys hacked the shit out of engineered floor joists and the county still passed the framing inspection. One section was so bad I had to put a wall up in my basement to hold the floor up. Most of my neighbors got their basements finished and a bathroom wall would have been there so they probably got away with it in those houses, I was one of the few that didn't get my basement finished but they just hacked the entire center webbing out anyway :mad: Luckily I had a home inspector that was a former building inspector and he caught a bunch of other dumb stuff they did - like not properly framing a load bearing wall that had also somehow passed the county building inspection too - and I got it fixed before I closed, but the AC stuff wasn't as easy to find until I started to dig into why when my 10lb dog walked across the kitchen floor stuff vibrated off of the island countertop.
 
Last edited:

Eshelmen

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
4,570
So here's my question without reading too much in to this....

State mandates you get solar panels on your new home you just built... fine.

But what is the process and how is the solar panel supplier selected for this?

There are dozens and dozens of solar panel business' in California alone, big and small. If the state assists with selecting the source of panels for this mandate, then I'd consider that a huge disadvantage to all of the remaining solar power companies not on the list.

bump for someone to answer
 

DocNo

Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
654
It's a voter mandated effort to combat an existential threat in line with the rest of the civilized world. You don't have to agree with it, but that's the state's goal, and in the process they may become a major player in this industry, further cementing California's position in the GDP charts for this century if they pull it off before China does.
lol - China is going nuclear, not solar. Because science trumps feelings. Or should. I love how people who want to burn people at the stake for not buying into man-made global warming solutions cooked up by those that also just happen magically profiting from said "solutions" will also positively froth at the mouth when you try to discuss nuclear power because radiation always bad or some other crap.

Frankly if you want to talk solar why aren't we setting up collector satellites and microwaving the power down? Or just focusing it on some spot in the desert?

Thorium is still cheaper and far safer. But nuclear is the boogyman or some crazy shit :wacky:
 
Last edited:

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
lol - China is going nuclear, not solar. Because science trumps feelings. Or should. I love how people who want to burn people at the stake for not buying into man-made global warming solutions cooked up by those that also just happen magically profiting from said "solutions" will also positively froth at the mouth when you try to discuss nuclear power because radiation always bad or some other crap.

Frankly if you want to talk solar why aren't we setting up collector satellites and microwaving the power down? Or just focusing it on some spot in the desert?

Thorium is still cheaper and far safer. But nuclear is the boogyman or some crazy shit :wacky:
The Chinese love solar...they love selling it in the States and elsewhere.
Anything not nuclear, is a complete waste of time/effort/money spent to make people feel better.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
229
Its fun to see the right leaning people in the forum loose their fucking minds over this the government sets building codes they added solar to new construction... i dont see the issue its the same as if they mandated sprinklers in new construction or gauge of wire used, how plumbing is done ect.

everyone needs to get off their high horse and get down to solutions for climate change. all power generation options should be on the table that increase capacity in the grid solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nucular. so we can leave our grandchildren something other than a hot used trash heap with scarce food and water.
I currently work at a facility that processes over 500 tons of CO2 a day as well as over 1000 tons of methane gas into an alcohol that permanently prohibits a large majority of these substances from ever interacting with the environment again. If in the 80s people had listened to people like me instead of "the scientists" we would be using that product for fuel and our automotive and shipping industries would be producing 75%+ less CO2 and trace emissions associated with burning gasoline or diesel. Why didn't this future happen? Jobs. The same people telling you to go green are the same dipshits who told scientists like me our ideas were not "economically viable" so they could continue to get elected. They sit on both sides of the political fence.

The UK could currently be powered for the next 100 years of predicted growth with 18 sq km of nuclear power plants. It would take a field the size of Scotland in solar. Yet nuclear is NIMBY.
There is nothing, period, that can match that statistic without a judicious amount of massaging and bullshit. It is the cheapest, safest, most scalable long-term solution for over 80% of the planet... Yet its NIMBY.

Yet Solar, which is absolutely FANTASTIC in CERTAIN areas, is seen as the one stop shop to save the world even though a significant portion of the planet is unsuitable for its use or under conditions which would make it far more expensive than Wikipedia types would believe.

Also, I don't subscribe to liberalism or conservatism in these cases. Why? Economic freedom and personal freedom don't apply to the grid of fuel and power infrastructure. Any attempts to bring politics into INFRASTRUCTURE is a good way to have a broken infrastructure.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
Which is ironic, given California is the most-democratic state, due to the ease of getting voter initiatives on the ballot.
Except the ballot initiatives process has been completely corrupted due to the 1 party rule in the state.

When the people pass a ballot they don't like, they take it to court, and then the state refuses to defend it, so it get struct down.

Now they don't even bother to hide their contempt for the voters.
When we have a ballot measure they don't like, they just give it a misleading or confusing title and then lie about it in the voter guide.
Most people don't bother reading past the description, so they vote based on the lies.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
And builders are only going to install it if they know someone is looking. I had a brand new tract house built - what a waste. Asshole AC guys hacked the shit out of engineered floor joists and the county still passed the framing inspection. One section was so bad I had to put a wall up in my basement to hold the floor up. Most of my neighbors got their basements finished and a bathroom wall would have been there so they probably got away with it in those houses, I was one of the few that didn't get my basement finished but they just hacked the entire center webbing out anyway :mad: Luckily I had a home inspector that was a former building inspector and he caught a bunch of other dumb stuff they did - like not properly framing a load bearing wall that had also somehow passed the county building inspection too - and I got it fixed before I closed, but the AC stuff wasn't as easy to find until I started to dig into why when my 10lb dog walked across the kitchen floor stuff vibrated off of the island countertop.
Cheap labor and lazy government bureaucrats... what could go wrong :rolleyes:
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
Show me a single prediction the alarmists made about climate that can be verified as accurate or anywhere in the realm of accurate by empirical evidence. You can go back as far as you like. There isn't one.
That's not science. It's quackery.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/23/thirty-years-of-failed-climate-predictions-the-video/

If your website is realclimatescience.com... yea... dismissed. have a nice day.

To stay on topic.

I approve doing this. I hope it helps to drive down the prices of solar paneling by creating enough demand to stream line production and bring costs down. Perhaps with some other materials science being used as a good medium for solar power. (There are a few out there in process.) If that means that you can buy a house add a couple Wall mounted battery units and rarely have to pay the power company and actually make money off the Grid I'm all for it. Especially if it can be reasonably rolled into the purchase price of the home.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
If your website is realclimatescience.com... yea... dismissed. have a nice day.

To stay on topic.

I approve doing this. I hope it helps to drive down the prices of solar paneling by creating enough demand to stream line production and bring costs down. Perhaps with some other materials science being used as a good medium for solar power. (There are a few out there in process.) If that means that you can buy a house add a couple Wall mounted battery units and rarely have to pay the power company and actually make money off the Grid I'm all for it. Especially if it can be reasonably rolled into the purchase price of the home.
Dismissing evidence without evaluating evidence.
Good for you. (y)
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
8,272
i am not your son please remove head from ass this came out on black friday https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report educate yourself from reliable sources before you speak further. no those are not fox news, brightbart, reddit and twitter.
Global warming

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth" - Goebbels (an actual Nazi)
 
Last edited:

repoman0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
1,055
This site is a real haven for the scientifically clueless. Guess there's no time to learn anything besides internet BS if you make 16k posts in a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,595
If it's anything like the rest of government. Whoever is the lowest bidder
Great, so quality work isn't mandated, just having any joe shmo company pop those on, is...

Good to know.

I think we're off here. These aren't government procurement, the government isn't buying them, but they probably will be setting specifications/standards for them to meet State code, or the State has specified that Counties or cities must specify code standards.

What gets fishy is when one company has patents on a particular type of solar panel technology and the government decided that this is the best tech and sets specs and standards that only this tech can meet. Now all the other panel manufacturers have to license that tech from the one company that owns the patents and you know who is getting rich off this right?
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,595
i am not your son please remove head from ass this came out on black friday https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report educate yourself from reliable sources before you speak further. no those are not fox news, brightbart, reddit and twitter.

OMG, Maxius, I want to be gentle with this, but you are sourcing the government who has come to the conclusion that the climate changes ....... no shit.

We have more than enough evidence that anyone can see that the climate changes. Laowai didn't say that the climate doesn't change. But I have a question for you, you can pass it on to your government scientists;

All the coastlines and all the lake shores across the globe, when the beaches and shorelines erode, where does all that earth and rock go?

Does it displace the water? Does it increase the surface area of the water? Does that increased area increase the evaporation of water across the globe?

What is the total length of the world's coastline?

There are about 620,000 kilometers (372,000 miles) of coastline.
The climate was changing long before man took notice of it and our globe remakes itself in degrees, sometimes drastically, all the time. Don't worry yourself so much about the human race or the health of the planet because if mother nature has to kill us to survive, it will. And if it doesn't manage to finish the job, maybe enough will live to remember how not to do things next time.

Some people deny climate change, some people over do it, some are just fatalistic or don't believe man has that great an impact.

Don't lose so much sleep over it, you have more immediate things to worry over, things you can do something about, really.


images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyH6QWGwgAerDM1ZyD5nwghK_zGUMo1YODyKXXcKvVTupxWu6A.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1A3Szz9r9gAy07Fx1xYf_yA7BuHRIpxupnN8yXADJza1cnvyE.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpjsRZfpgT3L8vISzONQMtvIzJhoHEUuU3DW9WogYvC3tMjTnH.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLs3VvfmjtjDTw6ssJgNc3qI8CeXS9-Z6WVv_OV4cBSl7s4UOFtQ.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSemPfEig7-ddYrAcZN1-PQ3ESqxmvcz2rch8CkkyttmoUtXO77zA.jpg
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,782
lol - China is going nuclear, not solar. Because science trumps feelings. Or should. I love how people who want to burn people at the stake for not buying into man-made global warming solutions cooked up by those that also just happen magically profiting from said "solutions" will also positively froth at the mouth when you try to discuss nuclear power because radiation always bad or some other crap.

Frankly if you want to talk solar why aren't we setting up collector satellites and microwaving the power down? Or just focusing it on some spot in the desert?

Thorium is still cheaper and far safer. But nuclear is the boogyman or some crazy shit :wacky:
China is making more wind farms and solar farms than almost the rest of the world combined. They're pushing hard in this area, for their leadership it's a matter of national security and what they say goes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
China sees renewables as a source of energy security and not just only to reduce carbon emission.[3] China’s Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution issued by China’s State Council in September 2013, illustrates the government's desire to increase the share of renewables in China’s energy mix.[4] Unlike oil, coal and gas, the supplies of which are finite and subject to geopolitical tensions, renewable energy systems can be built and used wherever there is sufficient water, wind, and sun.[5]
Their leadership may be authoritarian but they're not idiots, and they don't need anti-science slogans to get uneducated votes, they do what they think keeps them in power, and that means renewables because it brings a ton of jobs, boosts their national security, gives them an edge in this century's energy market, and addresses their major pollution problems as it's starting to cause unrest.
China has the largest wind resources in the world and three-quarters of this natural resource is located at sea.[13] China aims to have 210 GW of wind power capacity by 2020.

As of 2010, China has become the world's largest maker of wind turbines, surpassing Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the United States.
China produces 63% of the world's solar photovoltaics (PV).[24] It has emerged as the world's largest manufacturer as of June 2015.[25][26]

China has become a world leader in the manufacture of solar photovoltaic technology, with its six biggest solar companies having a combined value of over $15 billion.
But there are still banks that offer loans to companies trying to modernize their aging coal plants, which is a bad investment that they'll likely regret, not from an environmental angle, just from pure financial one as 43% of coal plants are already not operating at profitable margins this year, and that's expected to rise above 90 percent in a generation. Not to mention the hefty fines if the operator does not successfully match that with sufficient carbon credits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another snapshot of recent trends:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/27/china-proposes-75-increase-to-2030-renewable-energy-target/
China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) has written a draft policy that would increase the renewable energy target from 20% to 35% by 2030.

For a long time, it has seemed that the Chinese 2030 renewable energy target of 20% was incredibly low given the amount of renewable energy it has been adding. For example, in 2017, China installed more than 52 gigawatts (GW) of solar, which is about as much as has been installed in the United States since … forever.
So in one year, China makes the entire solar production of our nation look lazy, disorganized idiocracy in action.
The Guardian and the China South Morning are both reporting that satellite photos show unapproved coal power plant construction continuing. Thankfully, the newly proposed Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards for 2030 will have some teeth. Companies that do not meet the standards will be fined and the proceeds will be used to cover the renewable energy subsidies.
And again, California does its part to help us keep up:
The 35% target is more in line with the EU’s target of 40% by 2030. While the United States does not have clear national targets, numerous states and cities have more impressive targets for 2030. For example, California is aiming for 50% by 2030.
And yes they're going into Nuclear as well. It's not cost competitive with other forms of energy generation there, not even close, but China does it for other political reasons so it's worth the expense, I'm sure you can guess what they may be and why. And it's certainly cleaner than coal so there's some positive there at least.
 
Last edited:

SLee

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
955

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
Dismissing evidence without evaluating evidence.
Good for you. (y)
Actually before I posted that I tried to look for this guy's sources. Really I did. And they couldn't be found. below the video post was an article linked to a pdf that was suppose to look scientific but on actually looking at what they were doing it was just statistics modeling. And statistics will reflect whatever the statistician wants them to reflect. This is true on both sides.

REGARDLESS THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS POST. PLEASE STAY ON SUBJECT.

I still think the creation of laws and or rules like this will benefit everyone in the long run. It fires up an industry, the industry is all about taking power that is freely given from our sun and turning it into electricity. I have zero problems with this. As currently the most efficient and avaialble materials are rare this is driving the cost up. As demand increases due to laws like this we will have the funding to properly explore alternative materials and energy collection. This will lead us to having cheaper and more efficient solar panels and other energy collection methods. (Solar scoops? who knows.)
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
You do realize that your post directly refutes EXACTLY what you just said. Look at the rate of growth of power generation. THAT is the statistic to look at when looking for a change in thinking. Sure Coal grew some because of the unmitigated population growth and expansion of the Chinese population. But when you move your eyes to the right and see that wind grew 26% and Solar grew over 75% in that year THAT is amazing. And it isn't like Solar was brand new in 2017.
 

SLee

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
955
You do realize that your post directly refutes EXACTLY what you just said. Look at the rate of growth of power generation. THAT is the statistic to look at when looking for a change in thinking. Sure Coal grew some because of the unmitigated population growth and expansion of the Chinese population. But when you move your eyes to the right and see that wind grew 26% and Solar grew over 75% in that year THAT is amazing. And it isn't like Solar was brand new in 2017.
No, what I see is Chinese coal generation growing more than hydro, nuclear, biomass, natural gas, wind and solar combined

And solar growth is already slowing down in 2018, as China caps utility solar installations because subsidies have gotten too high.

2018-Q3-YoY.png


https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2018-q3-electricity-and-energy-statistics/
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,782
They got coal because it's their legacy solution, not because it's good. They can't switch overnight but they're going full steam ahead with the closures, and the existing plants are all modernized to reduce the regulatory burdens, a sunk cost fallacy's downward spiral, at some point they will have to bite the bullet and switch to save their business.

Also, many of the plants are also aimed for industrial applications rather than energy generation.

And lets not forget that China's coal plants are heavily regulated and some of the highest efficiency in the world, yet they're destined for closure by both financial pressure and national mandate.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/
The U.S. coal fleet is much older than China’s: The average age of operating U.S. coal plants is 39 years, with 88 percent built between 1950 and 1990.7 Among the top 100 most efficient plants in the United States, the initial operating years range from 1967 to 2012. In China, the oldest plant on the top 100 list was commissioned in 2006, and the youngest was commissioned in 2015.
ChinaCoal-WEB-Fig1-520.png


If China is shutting down these plants, the cutting edge stuff, then imagine how backwards we are by comparison, except for California and such, as usual of course, no coal there anymore, not even from out of state by current policy, next step is gas. We run where the puck is gonna be, not where it is today as is the case in some third world countries (and states).

So yeah sorry, China's working on it but it's just they're so much bigger than us, by about four fold. I can't imagine how powerful they'll become in a couple generations with this kind of scale in mind. And they're cornering the renewables market while we slumber? Good for them, lazy people get what's coming to them, you can bet on the horse you like, but don't be surprised if Cali saves the day in this field again.

They're not doing it out of kindness, it just makes long-term sense.

Snapshot of 2017 prices btw:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf

Energy cost/Capital cost
Coal $296 / $3000-$8400
Wind $147 / $1200-$1700
Solar $226 / $1100-$1400


It's now cheaper to replace a whole coal plant with a wind farm than to refurbish it! Yeah good luck with the horse and carriage of energy buddy.
 
Last edited:

SLee

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
955
That article is already out of date, considering coal generation in China has been growing. And with it's modern fleet of efficient coal generation, they'll be used for many decades to come.

It's now cheaper to replace a whole coal plant with a wind farm than to refurbish it!
Than why are electricity prices in Germany and Denmark, who've invested heavily in wind, so expensive? It's because you can't actually replace an existing reliable source of generation directly with wind or solar, you still need something reliable to make up the difference when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

It's meaningless to compare "LCOE" of unreliable source of electricity with reliable sources, since a developed nation can't survive on electricity that only works part of the time. As the EIA says:

Because load must be balanced on a continuous basis, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or than units using intermittent resource to operate. The LCOE values for dispatchable and non -dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables , because comparing them must be done carefully.

The direct comparison of LCOE across technologies is, therefore, often problematic and can be misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives because projected utilization rates, the existing resource mix, and capacity values can all vary dramatically across regions where new generation capacity may be needed.


https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

Yeah good luck with the horse and carriage of energy buddy.
But that's why wind and solar sources of energy were quickly replaced by coal. They're the horse and buggy of electricity generation
 
Last edited:

Shogon

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
375
This site is a real haven for the scientifically clueless.
Californians are pretty clueless I'd say as well. All these people buying electric vehicles just to keep those oil/gas plants churning power to charge them back up, and yet think they are doing good for the environment. Maybe when solar gets passed 1.7% of total power production and over 40% efficiency I'll hop on the renewable band wagon for solar.

k03rwn.png


https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

At least when Diablo Canyon is fully dismantled we'll have more natural gas to burn to compensate for that.

"It’s a process likely to be repeated often in the coming years as more nuclear plant operators decide to shut down their facilities, which have been undercut by cheap electricity from natural gas plants."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Diablo-Canyon-s-dismantling-Inside-the-12826795.php
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,782
That article is already out of date, considering coal generation in China has been growing.


Than why are electricity prices in Germany and Denmark, who've invested heavily in wind, so expensive? It's meaningless to compare "LCOE" of unreliable source of electricity with reliable sources, since a developed nation can't survive on electricity that only works part of the time.

As the EIA says:

Because load must be balanced on a continuous basis, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or than units using intermittent resource to operate. The LCOE values for dispatchable and non -dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables , because comparing them must be done carefully.

The direct comparison of LCOE across technologies is, therefore, often problematic and can be misleading as a method to assess the economic competitiveness of various generation alternatives because projected utilization rates, the existing resource mix, and capacity values can all vary dramatically across regions where new generation capacity may be needed.


https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf


But that's why wind and solar sources of energy were quickly replaced by coal. They're the horse and buggy of electricity generation
The slow pokes of trend tracking? These kinds of groups are run by old industry veterans that don't know how to track this new kind of energy shift:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-slammed-continuously-pessimistic-renewable-energy-forecasts/
“Note that the IEA have never, ever been guilty of over-forecasting renewables. Or even of overstepping some future projection by a little and having to reel it back later (the grey 2004 line does pop above the actuals for a couple of years, but the IEA can heave a sigh of relief, this is my interpolation line, not their forecast). All the IEA have ever done is increase their forecasts every year, and even then, they have still ended up with an underforecast versus the actuals — every year.

“This is particularly noticeable when you have nice round dates like 2020 or 2030 for which we have a lot of forecasts. You can watch them slowly add more and more to the forecast, apparently oblivious to the fact that this happens every year. …
Pretty graphs included in the article demonstrating this humorous phonomenon.
“Wouldn’t you think that one of these fossil industry IEA guys might take a step back and wonder: hang on a second — might we be systematically under-forecasting? Apparently not.”
But that's not to say they don't still do some useful work regardless, just expect everything to be on a smaller scale (or worst case) than the reality of the trend:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/eia-expects-wind-energy-to-surpass-hydro-in-2019/
EIA-Wind-Hydro-1.png

Conversely, the EIA expects continued new wind capacity to come online during 2018 and 2019, with 8.3 GW (gigawatts) added in 2018 and 8 GW added in 2019, which will increase wind’s contribution to the utility-scale energy mix by 9% by the end of 2018 and by 8% by the end of 2019. In the end, the EIA expects wind to account for 6.4% of total utility-scale generation in 2018, and 6.9% in 2019, the point at which it exceeds hydropower.
We're no China, but the results are not too shabby for a laggard nation starting to wake up to the massive future economical impact potential of this transition.

Honestly that's fine, we'll take the win, just don't complain about California taking the modern jobs, again and again, like in the last century, rusty. The early bird gets the worm.
 
Last edited:

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Actually before I posted that I tried to look for this guy's sources. Really I did. And they couldn't be found. below the video post was an article linked to a pdf that was suppose to look scientific but on actually looking at what they were doing it was just statistics modeling. And statistics will reflect whatever the statistician wants them to reflect. This is true on both sides.

REGARDLESS THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS POST. PLEASE STAY ON SUBJECT.

I still think the creation of laws and or rules like this will benefit everyone in the long run. It fires up an industry, the industry is all about taking power that is freely given from our sun and turning it into electricity. I have zero problems with this. As currently the most efficient and avaialble materials are rare this is driving the cost up. As demand increases due to laws like this we will have the funding to properly explore alternative materials and energy collection. This will lead us to having cheaper and more efficient solar panels and other energy collection methods. (Solar scoops? who knows.)
Try NASA and NOAA Temperature data. I will admit I was lazy and just randomly linked a video of his. Some of his claims of data tampering are not solid at all. Others are. The climate is changing, of that I have no doubt. My doubt lies in the amount of impact we have on that process. I'm also not convinced that carbon dioxide is the tail that wags the dog. That said, I invite you to show me a single prediction made in the past 30 years by the climate alarmists that can be supported with empirical data. Temperature? Nope. Sea rise? Nope. Extreme weather? Nope. Islands sinking? Nope. The list goes on.

What you seem to think is so great, is gov't interference in the markets on a large scale. Let's assume for a moment that your doom and gloom AGW outlook is correct for a moment...are you under some impression that gov't effectively raising housing prices and artificially boosting a specific industry will move the needle as far as temperature or climate? Of course not. The needle only gets moved in a positive direction for certain companies and politicians. Affordable housing is an issue many large cities face, perhaps especially so in some parts of California. This, I imagine, will not exactly improve that problem. Let's also say for the sake of argument that solar is the solution. Ok. Instead of making homes more expensive, how about rolling out massive solar farms instead? It would be FAR more cost effective. Residential rooftop solar is significantly more expensive. Look into why residential solar is expensive in the US, it's not because any material is rare, it's because of permits and taxes and codes. Solar in Australia costs roughly $1.70 per watt. The US average is almost $4.00.

Furthermore, let me correct you also on your belief that population growth in China is 'unmitigated' as you put it. Overall births and who can give birth is tightly regulated by the State. You literally need gov't approval to have a child. The one-child policy is more or less off the books but don't think people are spitting out kids left and right as they please because that's not the case at all. They are on the low-end as far as reproduction rates.
 
Last edited:

repoman0

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
1,055
Californians are pretty clueless I'd say as well. All these people buying electric vehicles just to keep those oil/gas plants churning power to charge them back up, and yet think they are doing good for the environment. Maybe when solar gets passed 1.7% of total power production and over 40% efficiency I'll hop on the renewable band wagon for solar.

View attachment 126780

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

At least when Diablo Canyon is fully dismantled we'll have more natural gas to burn to compensate for that.

"It’s a process likely to be repeated often in the coming years as more nuclear plant operators decide to shut down their facilities, which have been undercut by cheap electricity from natural gas plants."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Diablo-Canyon-s-dismantling-Inside-the-12826795.php
Except that the equivalent CO2 emissions for driving an electric are still significantly lower for every state in the country, even states that use coal/oil/gas for electricity generation. Generating power at scale is always more efficient than in a little personal engine.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,782
Except that the equivalent CO2 emissions for driving an electric are still significantly lower for every state in the country, even states that use coal/oil/gas for electricity generation. Generating power at scale is always more efficient than in a little personal engine.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner
Plus the pollution from a million cars around every street corner vs localized in some old coal plant - as the worst cases scenario - is a major improvement. You can more easily control it, and the spread of pollution and carcinogens is moved away from population centers, major health benefits to be gained as this is one of the leading causes of many common health issues - cancer, parkinsons, asthma, many nerve, respiratory, brain development problems etc.

We couldn't do anything about it back then, but today we have the choice, we have better solutions to the problem.
 

Armenius

I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
20,679
This site is a real haven for the scientifically clueless. Guess there's no time to learn anything besides internet BS if you make 16k posts in a few years.
Did you read the paper I linked?

I'm not "scientifically clueless." I take issue with the fact that climate change research is somehow exempt from passing the rigors of science. It has been infected up and down by political and economic influence. If they were serious about the science then they would be welcoming anyone who can disprove their hypothesis. Instead, we get the homes of those who disagree with the "consensus" shot at in the most extreme cases and reputations ruined in the least.
 

Nafensoriel

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
229
I love when people claim nuclear cost is expensive. If you have ever worked at or operated a nuclear power plant you would know point blank the entire cost for the plant is pretty much up front. They are stupendously cheap to run once built and require the smallest external industrial support.
It doesn't mean wind and solar are somehow bad either. Heck, even coal has its place in certain parts of the world where solar, wind, and NG are not economical and population densities are not high enough for nuclear. There is no "one grid solution". There is only a balanced grid with nuclear for high population and everything else filling in the gaps for raw efficiency. Think water pumps vs water towers. You only need enough pumps(nuclear/hydro/ng) to meet average demand while all others can carry the peak demands.

Most of these figures people post are so massaged its painful to see. Levelized costs are such a bullshit metric for most people now because of how abused the statistics are. You want something like solar to seem expensive? Shave off some lifetime and take all the lowest estimates. Want it to look like it shits gold bars? Do the exact opposite.

Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

Right now wind and nuclear are pretty much in a dead heat for cost but nuclear has zero location demands. Modern nuclear is an order of magnitude more efficient and easier to construct than 70s-80s reactors. If any state actually got over the heebie-jeebies and actually dropped the upfront cash for nuclear the costs actually go down with each additional plant. Remember most of nuclears "extreme costs" is because each plant is its own individualized prototype at the moment. Wide-scale rollout allows for mass production of certain parts. What's even more hilarious is you can build 1GJ nuclear facility in a fraction of the time it would take to find and build enough sites for 1GJ solar. Want to make coal obsolete in 5 years? The only option is nuclear.

This isn't even a debate really. Its pretty well accepted by actual scientists and engineers worldwide. The reason it's not done is that frankly, the cost isn't worth it yet.

Want a really brutal reality check? Even if you want to take the side of absolute caution and read every line of the IPCC reports without a dose of healthy cynicism(and if you are a scientist's EVERYTHING is taken with a healthy dose of cynicism) the worst case doom and gloom scenarios only sacrifice at most 200 to 400 million people over one hundred years. Statistically, it seems huge until you realize it is a figure so low I could kill 400 million random people instantly with a thanos snap and economically, socially, and culturally the world would barely notice the loss. It's on par with a particularly nasty world war but over a much greater period of time. All governments are operating on the political movement and not on any real fear or care. Neither party gives a damn because on a governmental level it's meaningless.


/edit
To address the China debate. China is replacing coal(and building coal) because they are not stupid. Coal is extremely expensive in manpower and real estate. It also requires a strategic reserve to operate. The reason most municipalities are picking NG over coal is due to long-term safety and development. Rail capacity isn't infinite and in today's world having huge amounts of it eaten up by coal is damned inefficient.

Governments are not replacing coal out of some fear of climate change. They are replacing coal because there are better options economically. Governments don't give a damn beyond long-term views. Any environmental concerns are secondary next to cost and zoning requirements.
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,595
If your website is realclimatescience.com... yea... dismissed. have a nice day.

To stay on topic.

I approve doing this. I hope it helps to drive down the prices of solar paneling by creating enough demand to stream line production and bring costs down. Perhaps with some other materials science being used as a good medium for solar power. (There are a few out there in process.) If that means that you can buy a house add a couple Wall mounted battery units and rarely have to pay the power company and actually make money off the Grid I'm all for it. Especially if it can be reasonably rolled into the purchase price of the home.

I think this is an admirable stance and I hope the reality of our situation bears it out.

But I do have a question, and no, I don't already know the answer so I'm not setting you up ....... what if the panels require specific materials that are not in great and abundant supply? I mean, in that case, wouldn't that drive prices up instead of down?

Just playing Devil's Advocate while hoping I'm wrong.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
This is where Tesla's / Solar City's magic new solar roof tiles come into play so as not to add too much additional roof weight yes?

As far as the panels being live, how about an external, locked physical breaker switch for firefighters that can shut down (and then ground with a grounding wire) the panel array, that is locked and accessed in the same that water and electrical meters are locked and accessed?

For the security of the homeowner (in case of prankster) and firefighters (to know it's worked), when the breaker is pulled and the panels discharged, this triggers an audible warning system.
Double shut-offs are already (unnecessarily) mandated and they can't be locked nor does there need to be any alarm system.
 
Top