Slashdot Mirror


Why Morgan Stanley Is Betting That Tesla Will Kill Your Power Company

Jason Koebler (3528235) writes One major investment giant has now released three separate reports arguing that Tesla Motors is going to help kill power companies off altogether. Earlier this year, Morgan Stanley stirred up controversy when it released a report that suggested that the increasing viability of consumer solar, paired with better battery technology—that allows people to generate, and store, their own electricity—could send the decades-old utility industry into a death spiral. Then, the firm released another one. Now, it's tripling down on the idea with yet another report that spells out how Tesla and home solar will "disrupt" utilities.

32 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. Small-scale, real-time. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd believe in small-scale power systems in basements that run off natural gas, or all-in-one nuclear reactors being more likely to disrupt the power industry/grid complex than solar and stored charge. Wind power still has a chance in rural areas were people have larger backyards, though.

    1. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's great that you believe it. Too bad your beliefs and reality are so different.

      A few facts for you, installed solar PV per year is growing at 400% per year for the last 5 years. Costs are declining about 20% per year. You can currently go out right now and find a company in your town that will provide, install and maintain PV panels on your roof for a guaranteed electricity price that is LOWER than what you currently pay and is fixed for 10 years (the loan is a monthly payment that will be cheaper than the power cost it offsets over a year). At the end of the 10 years you own the panels outright and all the power generated until they fail is FREE. PV panels routinely come with a 25 year warranty that guarantees they will provide 80% of their rated power for 25 years. Most PV panels lose about 0.5% of power output per year with no known lifetime, they could in fact last 100 years for all we know.

      Right now, without subsidy Solar PV is cheaper than nuclear power per KW/hr. If the price of panels continues to decline at the same rate it has for the last 5 years by 2020 Solar PV will be cheaper than Coal without subsidy. The absolute only thing holding back Solar PV from storming up and down our grid is the up and down nature of it's generation. Tack reasonably priced storage on and that goes out the window. As solar gains traction manufacturing capacity will ramp up and costs will continue to decline. There are a lot of very rich people betting on solar. Companies like Solar City are routinely turning down hundreds of millions of investor money because they simply can't hire enough people to install that many panels.

    2. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      " When it's very hot, no wind, when it's very cold, no wind."

      You must not live in a desert.

      Because it's sure as fuck windy here in the southern part of the Mojave.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Similar here in Western Europe. Wind is very reliable, as we get wind almost every day. But we're too far north to make solar energy an interesting option. Solar should be built in more southern countries such as Spain or southern Italy.

      If anything, all this sustainable energy will demand a stronger, and more integrated grid, which will mean more (not less) business for the grid company. If that all means some old coal power plants go out of business, then so be it. I am sure that the solar/wind industry will compensate the loss of jobs.

    4. Re:Small-scale, real-time. by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, yeah, I don't believe you for even a quarter second.

      1. Nobody who runs a wind farm would refer to wind turbines as "windmills". Seriously, that's like a third-grade level mistake. This is a windmill. This is a wind turbine. Nobody in the industry would ever call a wind turbine a windmill, they'd get laughed at.

      2. The typical bat in the US weighs about 10 grams. Even if we assume that the "trucks" are only pickup trucks that can haul 2 tonnes and your use of the plural only means two - about the lowest possible way we could interpret your "truckloads every year" comment - that would be 400 thousand bats per year. Your mere 700 commercial-scale wind turbines (less than 2% of the US total) would have long ago driven to local extinction any bats in your area.

      The reality, of course, is that estimates for all bat deaths from wind turbines in the US combined range from about 30k per year to 800k per year. All combined.

      3. Your "destroys the health of operators and technicians" line puts you solidly in autism-vaccine cookoo land.

      Just ignoring your grossly inaccurate description of wind power availability, or the concept that a wind farm operator is going to hire someone who despises wind power with a red-hot passion to run their facility.

      --
      It's a Cyrillic alphabet. It's like all those keys you never push on a calculator.
  2. Apparently... by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently the over-priveledged and intellectually under-equipped "analysts" at Morgan Stanley are trying to give Gartner Group a run for their money... :p

    1. Re:Apparently... by matbury · · Score: 5, Funny

      Morgan Stanley are a highly reputable financial institution and everything they do is completely legal and above board. It would be simply ridiculous to suggest that they would mislead their investors in order to make a quick buck themselves. Their CEO, James P. Gorman, is a truly dedicated and patriotic Amernican to the core (rumours of his Australianness have been greatly exaggerated). He pays all his taxes and declares all his income to the IRS and has never even been tempted to hide his money in off-shore banks and tax havens, and has never used his personal wealth or his bank's wealth to undermine democracy in state and national elections or through lobbying. He's a man who knows exactly what is going on in his bank and knows that everything is ethical and reputable and in the best interests of his investors and the American people.

  3. Macroeconomic investment theses are always wrong by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Generally such theses are well founded in reason and logic but it's very difficult to make money from them, in this case by shorting the power companies, because not only does the basic premise need to be correct but so does the secondary and tertiary effects of that premise. In other words, these theses have to get multiple predictions correct, some of which are nearly impossible to do so considering all the permutations of possible outcomes.

  4. A Republican clearing up your misconceptions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hello Friend,

    I'm a Republican, and I'd like to help clear up some of your misconceptions about Republicans.

    First of all, killing Americans is not our goal, and never has been. We love America. We love Americans. We love eagles, the most American of all of the birds.

    And when I have to make a tough decision, I ask myself one question: What would Jesus do? The answer to that question is always the right answer.

    When it comes to energy, I know that Jesus did not use solar panels, he did not use hydroelectric dams, and he did not use wind turbines. Jesus used coal, oil and wood as his primary sources of energy. When he needed to cook, he burned wood. When he needed light, he burned oil in a lamp. When he needed to warm his tent, he burned coal. If those energy sources were good enough for Jesus, then they are good enough for me.

    When it comes to health care, I know that Jesus did not go to publically-funded hospitals! When he needed treatment, he acted like a responsible individual and treated himself, even after he had died. When others needed treatment, he acted like a responsible individual and healed them, and even gave them fish. That's why I think that prayer is the only method of medication one needs. If Jesus wants you to heal, he will heal you. If Jesus wants you to be with him, you will join him.

    As you can see, we Republicans aren't the mean people that you have portrayed us as. We are loving people. We love America, and we love Jesus. We put the two of them together to form the ultimate kind of love: Republican Love.

    Yours Truly,
    Richard

  5. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    From your link:
    Solar Energy Comparison with Fossil Fuels
    By comparison, solar power is still the clear winner, according to ecology.com, in terms of being more environmentally friendly. When solar power generation is matched against fossil fuel-based energy production, solar is less damaging to the earth. Even the dangers that are presented by solar power are found as often, or more so, in the by-products of fossil fuels, and there is no escaping the fact that a solar panel can provide as much as 20 years of power generation for a single carbon investment of manufacturing the system, which cannot be duplicated by any other commonly used type of energy production, other than wind system

    Read more : http://www.ehow.com/list_63278...

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Half of Americans rent by jgotts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Half of Americans rent. People who rent can't do anything to their property. Apartment buildings are stuck with whatever they were built with 40 or 50 or more years ago. They're built using the cheapest technology available at construction time and they're never upgraded. When they get old enough they become the bad part of town or in some cases the outright ghetto until they collapse or are torn down. Some people rent houses, but there is no way your landlord going to put solar panels and a charging system in your rental unit, at least not this decade and not bloody likely the next.

    When I read here on Slashdot about intelligent devices in homes, or this thing people have called garages, or home chargers for vehicles, or fiber to the home, it kind of makes me laugh because these aren't most people. These are the things that less than half of Americans even have a chance of using.

    People who rent aren't necessarily poor. Many renters in New York City, Boston, and San Francisco would be informally considered rich in most of the United States.

    The electric company will continue to serve at least 50% of Americans indefinitely.

  7. Re:Good, I say by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anything that reduces the average home owner's reliance on the grid is good in my book...especially as the infrastructure is so dated and fragile.

    Dated and fragile? Where on earth do you get that impression?

    The technology of power transmission hasn't fundamentally changed in 100 years. Yea, there is some OLD equipment out there, but it is not like running electricity though wires somehow wears them out, so why would you replace it if it's still working just fine? The same for transformers, if they have enough capacity and are not leaking or arcing over someplace, why replace it? It's not like there is anything better, more reliable or more efficient out there.

    The power grid is only fragile at times because we do not keep enough excess capacity in the system for efficiency reasons. But even then, Major blackouts are extremely RARE events and usually are caused by multiple faults and human error. The grid is actually a very tough system, designed to keep operating in the face of lots of unforeseen faults and failures. It routinely takes lighting strikes, component failures, human error and sabotage attempts in stride while it delivers huge amounts of power to almost every location you will find yourself.

    What has changed in power distribution of late is the control systems and the efficiency of the power plants, but you are talking about the "grid" which implies the distribution system. Most of these control systems are for efficiency, monitoring and metering and don't really matter to the operation of the actual distribution system, which in most cases would be just fine without the control system watching.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. So let me get this straight.... by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A company making an electric car, which has the potential to roughly double residential electrical demand, is going to put the utilities out of business? Using two of the biggest vaporware technologies around -- practical residential solar and really good batteries? The only thing they left out is nuclear fusion.

  9. Heads in the Sand by kf6auf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The utilities are sticking their heads in the sand and trying to pretend that technology won't move forward. In some places they are trying to add an interconnect fee for those with solar panels that's as large as my electricity bill. They also are requiring solar panel inverters to stop working entirely when the grid goes down, instead of just providing power for the house and still leaving the grid upstream unenergized. All this, and the price of electricity keeps going up. And they expect people won't move forward with batteries as technology improves?

    Disconnecting from the grid entirely is large investment: people need a large solar array, several days worth of batteries, and probably smart appliances (mainly air conditioners and refrigerators). Or the utilities can make money helping to create a lower-investment intermediate option: staying connected to the grid with a smaller solar array and half a day worth of batteries which both help the utility with load balancing and can keep the house powered when the grid goes down. If they do this right, they will be able to remotely control when the system is storing energy or sending it to the grid, which probably means it's in their best interest if they write the software and maybe even make and sell (and install?) the hardware.

    Plus, they can provide monitoring services and, if they want to really diversify, insurance services or financing options. Otherwise, as more people abandon the grid, it will become more expensive per person to maintain it, creating a downward spiral of grid usage.

    1. Re:Heads in the Sand by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > The utilities are sticking their heads in the sand and trying to pretend that technology won't move forward. In some places they are trying to add an interconnect fee for those with solar panels that's as large as my electricity bill. They also are requiring solar panel inverters to stop working entirely when the grid goes down, instead of just providing power for the house and still leaving the grid upstream unenergized. All this, and the price of electricity keeps going up. And they expect people won't move forward with batteries as technology improves?

      True. I'm experimenting with a different approach. There's one circuit (pilot project so far) that's solar / marine batteries only, and the rest of the house is connected to the grid. The two feeds don't interact in any way. If the grid goes down, most of the house power goes down, but a few sockets, including the one the freezer is plugged into and the one the fridge is plugged into, continue to operate. (Be careful to pick a properly spec'd sine wave inverter for this application.)

      What I'd like to do eventually is have parallel wiring in the house, one string coming from the inverter, and one coming straight from the batteries, (through a fuse box of course) so that things like lights and electronic devices that don't mind working on 12 volts can use the native voltage, and things that need 110 will have 110. (Did you know that you could get CFLs that run on 12 volts?)

      My concern at this point is that I don't really have a feel for how many charges the batteries will take, or whether the battery creation/disposal lifecycle is any better than a coal fired electricity plant, for the environment.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  10. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by Ken_g6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solar panels are no joke. They're already out-competing all other forms of electricity on price in some places in the USA.

    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  11. Re:Wouldn't electric cars have the opposite effect by complete+loony · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Australia ATM, a dodgy deal with the monopoly owners of the grid's "poles and wires" has enabled and encouraged a massive over investment. Causing prices to rise for just about everyone. At the same time, in response to recent economic woes, the government was offering large subsidies to residential investment in solar panels.

    As I travel around our suburbs now, solar is everywhere. And there is actually talk about the grid going into a death spiral. Their customers are reacting to rising prices by installing more solar arrays, even though the government subsidies have ended. There's a good chance that some of the over investment in the grid will never be needed at all.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  12. Solar city model by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One of the main stumbling blocks for residential solar is that a typical home owner is ill equipped to make the decision, (investment needed, financing, amortization schedules, expected future price of grid electricity, sizing etc) and find the contractor to execute it. Also resale, value of home etc etc come in. The solar city model is where they own the panels, they install it, you only pay metered electricity, you get to keep the grid for back up. In the end they pack it and take it away when you want to sell the home if the buyer is not interested in it. Suddenly the home owner can try solar for very low risk.

    Even without subsidies, this model has reasonable pay back period in places like Arizona or Hawaii. Of course storage technology is very bad at residential levels. Solar thermal has better storage using molten salt. But not viable at homes. But home storage does not have the size, weight and crashworthiness requirements of auto batteries. The flywheel storage mechanical batteries might become viable. But almost all the proposed storage have issues.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Solar city model by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Supercaps ought to fare better than batteries - as far as I understand it, the price per lifetime energy storage should be lower. And bulkiness is of little issue in stationary applications. I've even seen a proposal to develop caps with very long lifetimes and then use them as structural elements in the buildings (which are bulky anyway), although that sounds really adventurous. And last but not least, you don't need any exotic materials such as lithium, cobalt etc. Only aluminum, carbon, some organic chemicals.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  13. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who said anything a out roof tops? I just price solar for my roof, here in Oregon. 10,000 BEFORE tax breaks and incentives, BTW.

    Anyway, we can build solar thermal farms and hook them into the existing grid.
    The US has vast open mostly sunny areas. We can build several solar farms 25 miles to a side.
    Nothing about that is hard from an engineering perspective.

    Roof top would be bonus. But if you want to talk about panels then:
    Mandate new houses have to have them.
    Cover parking lots and put panels there.
    Put panels along the side of the freeways. These panel would probably get less efficiency do to the cover getting dirty, but that is over come with just the shear volume you could do.

    This is a doable solution.

    .

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FYI, transmission losses over 4000 miles is 7%.

    100% solar panels? we could trivially wipe out a day time use.
    We can use gravity systems for storage.

    Fuck, if this was 1930, we would be doing it all ready. Now everyone is a whiny ass afraid of big projects.
    The bests roads, best education system, best space agency, tallest buildings, longest bridges all see to be in the US, but apparently everyone has given up and have no problems watching out civilization built into straw start to blow away. At least billionaires get to keep more billions and suck money out of the system; which is what kills the middle class..

    A massive solar project would pretty much put everyone to work, increase the tax base.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Re:Good, I say by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can personally attest to this. Our house was built in the 1940's. When we were fixing it up, we asked our contractor's electrician how much it would cost to replace the kitchen light fixture on the side. He looked quickly and, figuring it would only take ten minutes, said $25 which we paid him up front. When he took off the old light, however, he found that the wires kept crumbling in his hands. He kept needing to pull new wiring until he could hook it up. The job wound up taking him quite a few hours. That's the best hourly electrician rate we're ever likely to get.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  16. Scaling usage by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's quite believable that technology will develop toward helping people reduce their energy costs. What's not quite so believable is that it will be enough to reduce demand.

    If energy was cheap enough, maybe you would use your excess electricity to get free water instead, extracting it and/or producing it from air and hydrocarbons, or otherwise recycle your waste. Maybe you will have some of the latest computer modules chugging away simulating your entire antatomy to anticipate future medical problems. If I had free electricity right now I would be using as much of it as possible to mine bitcoins. Who would have anticipated that 20 years ago?

    I don't see the end to domestic energy demand until we see the end of people wanting wealth, because technology is increasingly a way of translating energy into things of value.

  17. You insensitive clod! by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My roof is the floor of the people upstairs. I can't install solar!

    This is increasingly the situation many people find themselves in, having bought into the urban, high density, live close to everything and take your bicycle to work lifestyle. We will forever be the slaves of the big power utility.

    Where's that hipster urban planner with the pony-tail that sold me this line of crap? I want to strangle him.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Re:Good, I say by Algae_94 · · Score: 5, Informative

    My house has wires from '52, not quite as old, but close enough. The sheathing around the wires is extremely brittle and will crack and fall apart if moved. If left in place in the wall it is fine. What absolutely does not crack and crumble is the copper wire itself. The plastics and polymers used as sheathing around wires has improved dramatically over the years and would most likely last a lot longer now. The conductors themselves are about the same and last a very very long time.

  19. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by Slick_W1lly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Got an anecdote for you.. :)

    I live not altogether too distant from you. ( weather-wise). I have solar panels on my roof. Had 'em since like.. 2008.

    Snow isn't that big of an issue. Sometimes they get covered, sure. But wierdly they *still* work, even when covered with snow. Not enough to generate anything much worthwhile, but *enough to heat the panels*. I find the snow melts from the underside up, causing a slick undermelt which then causes all the snow to slough off and fall off the panels. Bingo! Panels are working again.

    Even in cloudy weather and winter weather - they still produce a significant amount. I was surprised.

    And I've never had to clean them. In summer any bird crap on them simply 'burns off' and the rain keeps them clean enough that I've *never* had to go up with a brush, and I've certainly never had to go up with a rake.

    Might wanna watch out on the snow days though, in case you get dumped on when the snow falls off - but that's no worse than standing by my front door and getting the ( other, non-solar covered) roof dump its contents onto you.

  20. Re:Load of Horse Shit by Calibax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Solar energy provides all the electricity for my house, and has done so since 2003. Not a single electricity bill since that time.

    I installed 48 panels on my roof and I run the air conditioning, washing machine, electric dryer, dishwasher, and everything else electric from the roof panels. We do have gas heating and a gas range. I have a modern thermostat and I set the low point to 72 degrees and the high point to 76 degrees and let the system figure out how to keep the house in that range. I leave it set that way all through the year.

    In the the year before installing the panels I spent $2800 on electricity, and prices have gone up considerably since then. The costs of the installation (after California state subsidy and tax incentives) was $31,000 so I've fully recovered the installations costs. I expect the panels to continue producing all the electricity I need for the next 20 to 30 years.

  21. Re:Until we learn how to use less ... by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My old PC had a 400Watt power supply.
    My old Halogen downlights were 50 Watts each

    My laptop had a 90Watt power supply.
    My new halogen downlights are 35 Watts each

    My phone has a 1 watt charger. (also my tablet.)
    My LED downlights use 7 Watts.

    I'll stick with my gadgets and generate 1.5 KWh on average with the solar panels on the roof thanks.

    --
    A sig is placed here
    To display how futile
    English Haiku is
  22. An interesting death spiral by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The power industry can't just die, no matter how hard we try, but....

    This is where it is going to get interesting. At some point (probably quite easy to graph) the combination of cheaper solar, cheaper durable deep cycle power storage, and braindead easy inverter and other power management technologies will make it feasible to switch to fully off grid with very little pain. I suspect that there will be some adjustment such as not being able to run the washer, dryer, vacuum, dishwasher, and a bunch of 55" TVs all at the same time but that the average household will be happy at some point to go off grid. But the key is that some people will go off grid as this equation approaches balance for a variety of reasons ranging from green thinking, a more consistent power bill (simply amortized payments for the capital cost), it came with the newly built house, and my favourite: a big FU to the power company.

    So as this equality approaches a small number of fairly well moneyed houses will make the switch. While technically the load on the power company will marginally drop, their equipment service costs will remain steady. Thus as these customers leave the remaining customers will have to pick up the slack through rate increases. This of course will drive another handful of customers away; which is now driving a vicious cycle of rate increases. All this while the cost of the installed system will drop while the cons of having such a system will vanish. Also somewhere in this process that critical point will be crossed where it is cheaper to buy an off grid system than to stay on grid.

    But there are a number of customers who can't leave. Some are simply the poor who can't obtain the credit for the capital costs, others are people in poor solar/wind locations; and then there are the high density customers who simply can't obtain a sufficient amount of renewables from their property such as tall buildings and factories.

    So the rates for these remaining folks will be prohibitive if they have to carry the entirety of the power system capital costs alone. So even these folks will begin to look elsewhere for electrical power. I suspect a popular source will be natural gas generation, either through traditional generators or through some sort of fuel cell systems. This will push up the price of natural gas but will probably be much cheaper than grid power.

    So my prediction is that the power companies and large power consumers will try to bend reality, they will attempt to make it illegal to go off grid, or they will charge regular fees to any house that does go off grid. I can see other tactics such as charging a tax for every KWh generated with your own power system. This will be in defence of not only the power companies but of the landlords and factory owners who don't want to pay for their own problems.

    But this reality bending will simply be dealt with by the free market. Factories will move closer to power generation sites or will move the power generation sites closer to the factories. The same with high density buildings. I suspect that they will figure out some way to buy power. An interesting one would be to have containers with massive batteries that are charged at a power generation site and then trucked to the building. This might sound bonkers but it could end up being cheaper than paying for the unwieldy infrastructure of a power grid.

    On top of all that this will certainly drive a massive quest for efficiency. Right now it is stupid to have any incandescent bulbs in your house. Yet most people still do. But if these bulbs meant the difference between needing a $10,000 power system and a $20,000 power system; people would throw them out with their next trash. The same will go for nearly every appliance. People will look at the 150W 55" TV and instead and opt for the 120W 55" TV; this being something that the TV companies don't focus on much.

    On top of all that this will be another opportunity for third world countries to leapfrog over another technology as they did with landlines.

  23. Re: This explains why republicans push coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that with low power LCD TVs, battery powered mobile devices, and LED lighting it's getting entirely possible to run a house with Solar power for all but Heating/cooking purposes.
    We've almost flipped on efficiency where 30 years ago Manufacturing energy bills subsidized residential costs... Residential usage has gone down by 20% in REAL numbers over the last decades (energy star, laptops, mobile phones replace giant entertainment centers) while their share of the bill has gone up.

    To "save business" most states have rebalanced the costs of producing electricity and Residences are picking up more than their share... Which is the easiest share to replace.. Leaving heavy industry struggling because nobody will build new heavy duty power generation for the next 50 years. Homes simply won't need that kind of power as population has leveled off and homes become an order of magnitude more efficient in another decade.

  24. Re:Good, I say by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is a little known fact because it's actually quite wrong. Electricity does not degrade protective jackets, and reasonable forms of heating which is to be expected in a house also does not degrade the protective jacket or "insulation" as we like to call it.

    The problem you're describing has nothing at all to do with electricity and everything to do with the choice of insulation. Older installations in many houses had wires insulated with rubber. You don't need heat or changes in temperature for rubber to become brittle and crack. Age alone will do that. Other methods used were some kind of cotton tape, fibreglass, and general nasties. Modern installations are PVC. They age quite well and don't have a problem with being brittle. They do get eaten up by UV though which is why they are usually kept out of sunlight. XLPE is another modern conductor which is quite resilient. My house built in the 40s used lead mineral sheathing as the insulator. The cable is still as good now as it was back then, unfortunately also just as toxic if you are a literal wire-licker and not just a figurative one.

    Copper also does not degrade. In the presence of oxygen it will oxidise and that the layer of copper oxide then protects the copper from further degradation.

    All of this ignores one big glaring mistake you made, the grid does not have a protective jacket, and the wires are not copper which all leads into the fact that there's absolutely nothing wrong with running a 100 year old electricity grid.

    Now associated equipment, power poles, spacers, downcommers, fuses, transformers, protection systems, etc they all do need maintenance and periodic replacement.

  25. Re:$107.3 Billion by dave420 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't like greedy bankers any more than the next guy, but they paid back all their loans, netting the taxpayer over $1.3bn from just their $10bn TARP loan. If you want to draw attention to their crookery, highlighting the timely repaying of loans with interest is not the best way to do it.