After that you have "quick chargers" which there is multiple standards for, and all bets are off. They usually involve putting power directly into the battery, bypassing the vehicle's on-board charging hardware. =Smidge=
> An ISP that stops investing, is an ISP that stagnate and risk losing their place in the market when another ISP shows up and has better stuff to offer.
Which literally cannot happen in many parts of the country because ISPs have an effective monopoly. They don't invest because they don't have to... the next option is probably DSL or Satellite and both of those options are garbage even compared to modest Cable/Fiber. Result? Extortion prices for Cable/Fiber that's still sub-par compared to elsewhere.
Now you've lost NN which means they can now legally combat competition for digital services, which otherwise aren't burdened with the high cost of infrastructure roll-out. They can charge you extortion prices for shit service AND their would-be digital service competitors extortion prices for access to you as a customer. It's lose-lose! =Smidge=
The sodium in salt is already oxidized by whatever makes it a salt (e.g. Chlorine, if you use common table salt). This poisons the reaction as the chlorine ions are more oxidative than the carboxyl groups formed from dissolving CO2 in water... Na+ ions aren't going to readily react with anything that wants extra electrons. =Smidge=
Should be noted that the bill mentioned passed UNANIMOUSLY. 100 for, 0 against, 0 abstaining. So even if the handful of new senators all vote against, the bill would have veto-proof majority.
The Senate should pass the bill like it did a month ago and send it to the President. If he vetoes it, they could easily have the votes to override the veto.
But that would make the GOP look bad, so that's not an option for McConnell. =Smidge=
It matters because it impacts how quickly that tipping point is reached, and how quickly the changes happen. You are wrong in your thinking; It's not as if there will be no problems until we hit 2C and BAM! we're fucked... it's a process, and if we can slow down that process it buys us more time to mitigate the problems and lessens their severity.
In other words, to correct your car analogy we need not a cliff but another, oncoming car.
Even if the other guy doesn't slow down, slowing down yourself will lower the severity of the crash and maybe give you an extra split second to swerve to make a head-on collision less direct.
It should also be mentioned that reducing CO2 emissions by way of alternate technologies is actually a net positive economically, in the long term, so your argument also falls flat on that front. it only seems more expensive if you are unable or unwilling to see the economics of it beyond a few year's time. =Smidge=
Except there is demonstrable benefit to reducing the total amount of CO2 (piss) being released into the atmosphere (pool). Even if "they" don't stop, there is still a strong incentive for "us" to stop.
It also sets a good example and puts us in an ethically superior position to pressure them into stopping.
It should be noted that "they" (China) are hell for leather converting to renewable energy. If the US didn't have our heads up our collective asses, we could have been the one selling the world solar panels and wind turbines and battery technology... but because some very deep pockets decided it benefits them to maintain the status quot, and a bunch of idiots buy into the propaganda, we are being left behind. =Smidge=
> And thank you for understanding that no amount of taxes and regulations on the United States will cause the biggest polluters in India and China to reduce their output
"Well those guys over there are pissing in the pool, so why should I stop?"
Oh that's easy. I've seen enough Young Earth Creationist mumbojumbo that even I can explain that.
The gap is where the water was hidden before the great flood. There's no rock layer because that layer was water, not rock! During the great flood, the water rose up and the crust sank, becoming temporarily submerged. As the waters receded and flowed into what is today's oceans, finding its new level, it carved the Grand Canyon and other geological features that "scientists" insist are the result of millions of years of erosion.
See? Once you abandon the very concept of "facts" it's easy to explain just about anything! =Smidge=
Yes they do. Glaciers can slide for miles, picking up chunks of rock and dragging them along the underlying surface literally scouring the underlying earth like a river of sandpaper. They can dig out valleys, transport the material miles away and dump it. A few million tons of ice sliding around will easily act like a bulldozer. Glacially formed striation and moraines are all over the place.
They are literal rivers of ice; they flow, not just shift. =Smidge=
1) Seeping is not the same as leaking. it's absolutely possible for a hairline crack in a pipe to let contamination in without letting water out, or for some chemicals that aren't water to diffuse through the pipe itself if it has become porous.
2) Not all water pipes are under positive pressure all the time. It's very possible that some portions can end up under negative pressure, or are constantly under negative pressure. Think Bernoulli effect and/or siphoning action.
3) It's also possible that there can be backflow from one customer back into the system. Many (most?) municipal water supplies require check valves at least at the commercial service level. More typically it's a Reduced Pressure Zone device, which is a double check valve assembly with a relief valve between the checks to create an air gap if the pressure inside the building ever becomes higher than the street mains, for any reason.
And none of this has to do with the chemistry of the water itself, which is the problem they had in Flint. =Smidge=
I am paying ~$0.08/kWh for electricity. Everything else is fees and taxes.
My utility does net metering. It's the only sensible option regardless of law. However, every 12 months the account balance is settled, and if it's a net negative? They cut me a check for ~$0.08/kWh because that's the wholesale market value of the electricity I gave them.
So every kWh I buy costs me $0.20, but every kWh I sell earns me ~$0.08. The fact that the account is only settled once a year doesn't really change that. =Smidge=
The way I see it, the subsidies are not really for the consumers, but for the manufacturers.
1) Manufacturers are going to be reluctant to make a product there's no clear market for
2) There can't be a market for a product that doesn't exist
3) Since there's no existing production the cost to produce them is high
4) High production cost, and therefore high sales cost, reduces market potential even more
This is where the subsidies come in; Lowering the cost to consumers (4) helps expand the market (2) to manufacturers have incentive to produce said product (1) which in turn lowers cost of manufacture (3).
So I'd argue that subsidies are carrots for manufacturers to take that risk. It's clear, given the popularity of Tesla, that people are willing to pay premium for a good car... but that is not necessarily enough to get larger manufacturers to risk turning away from the many billions of dollars invested in supply chains, R&D and manufacturing facilities behind ICE vehicles. Some companies even actively oppose any efforts to widen EV adoption, because that would mean they would have to take a risk (either risk in developing and marketing a new BEV or risk losing out to competitors that do - solution? Make sure nobody does!) =Smidge=
> The grid is a replacement for storage when there is always demand exceeding supply
Except this may very well be the case; As the percentage of renewable energy to the total grid supply increases, it rather quickly reaches a point where you are producing more than you are consuming, if only briefly. The only reason is doesn't happen in the US that often is a relatively low percentage of renewable energy so far, which lets the grid compensate by throttling down conventional power plants.
But that luxury is quickly coming to an end.
So when you say storage is "inefficient" it's a bit of a head scratcher... inefficient compared to what? If your choices are running a combined cycle gas turbine on non-renewable and carbon-emitting natural gas that costs money at 60%, or taking excess solar or wind power that's essentially free and storing it for later at an overall efficiency of at least 60% and rely even less on generation that costs you money to run.
Or to use a home as an example, I'm getting free-to-collect energy all day when I'm not home and running the meter backwards, earning credit towards my electric bill. I'm earning maybe 8-10 cents per kilowatt-hour on credit this way. When I get home, the sun is setting but I'm using more electricity now, so I'm buying back that power at maybe 20 cents per kilowatt-hour (base fee that I was being credited for, plus taxes and fuel charges and other BS). If I had storage, I could be saving ~10 cents per kWh for the energy I was able to store and recover. That's not a waste by any definition; it might not be enough to make it economical but it's not a waste either. =Smidge=
> Is everyone and everything self-sufficient during the day? Have we eliminated all utility power?
Of course not. My point is unless consumption coincides with production, "The laundromat down the street" is not getting 2kW from you, ever. The grid does not store energy (yet) in any sense; it can sink and source power, but you're just offsetting other production.
> Is 100% of our energy solar at any point during the day?
Not yet, no, and that's exactly my point. Because it will take a long time to transition to renewable energy that requires storage, it's okay for storage deployment to lag behind renewable deployment.
> If it's less-efficient than the alternatives
The grid is not an alternative to storage. They are two different things that work well together, neither being a replacement for the other.
This has nothing to do with back-up power either. It's about taking excess energy that's abundant at one time of day (e.g. solar) and storing that excess for use later. Batteries are merely one of many options to do that. "Stocking up while it's cheap" is such a no-brainer strategy it's amazing people can't understand it with respect to energy. =Smidge=
> If you rip off the solar panels after the final inspection, the state can't do anything.
Untrue; At the very least it would make it impossible to sell your home or borrow against it, as doing this would almost certainly void the CO.
It's also entirely possible that someone might actually notice. It's easy to hide unpermitted renovations inside the house, but something like that could easily attract the attention of an inspector. People get caught with unlicensed swimming pools all the time so I'd think missing solar panels would be about as easy to spot. =Smidge=
Difficulty: The laundromat down the street is busiest after 5PM when your solar panels aren't producing as much. You're probably also home at that point, using more power yourself.
Now, there is a LONG WAY TO GO before energy storage becomes necessary, but there's no reason there can't be benefits to it now. Especially for solar, where peak production does perfectly not coincide with peak consumption.
That said I think energy storage is better handled upstream at the utility side of things, but batteries for home use are not "a huge waste" IMHO. =Smidge=
Maybe reconsider the design to take the solar panels into account.
You say the roof "roof inclines in a northern direction" which makes it sound like it's already pitched to face south (inclines, meaning slopes up, as you go north). That's actually perfect for solar PV.
If you means the roof slopes the other way - high at the south side and lower on the north side - what is the rationale that makes this design better? =Smidge=
> Considering that there is more than enough easily available nuclear fuel to power civilization for several time longer than we have had civilization so far
There doesn't have to be, as only a fraction of a fraction of the Earth's surface would supply all of our energy needs and then some.
PV panels are now often available with 30+ year warranties, and will still produce the majority of their rated capacity for many decades. When all is said and done, solar panel recycling is already a thing in some countries and will inevitably become more common when the solar panels installed in the 1980s finally degrade to the point where they *need* to be replaced (panels made in the past 10 years won't be due for the scrap heap until 2050 or so)
There's no reason to suspect we'll have trouble building solar panels a million years from now, providing we and this planet still exist of course. =Smidge=
There's nothing murky about it; Does an energy source have the potential to be exploited into the indefinite future?
Since the Sun is expected to last so far into the future it's beyond human capacity for comprehension, the Sun can be considered an inexhaustible source of energy and thus renewable.
Since the amount of fissile material on the planet is finite, and depending on the use case can be completely exhausted within a century or two, nuclear is NOT renewable.
Slashdot Mirror
> So if I happen to live in a country without any 120 volt grid at all, all chargers are at least Level 2 by default?
According to the SAE standards, yes. Actual wattage may vary depending on the circuit ampacity available though.
=Smidge=
As defined by EV charging standard SAE J1772:
Level 1: 120VAC (nominal) up to ~2KW
Level 2: 208-240VAC (nominal) up to ~20KW
After that you have "quick chargers" which there is multiple standards for, and all bets are off. They usually involve putting power directly into the battery, bypassing the vehicle's on-board charging hardware.
=Smidge=
> An ISP that stops investing, is an ISP that stagnate and risk losing their place in the market when another ISP shows up and has better stuff to offer.
Which literally cannot happen in many parts of the country because ISPs have an effective monopoly. They don't invest because they don't have to... the next option is probably DSL or Satellite and both of those options are garbage even compared to modest Cable/Fiber. Result? Extortion prices for Cable/Fiber that's still sub-par compared to elsewhere.
Now you've lost NN which means they can now legally combat competition for digital services, which otherwise aren't burdened with the high cost of infrastructure roll-out. They can charge you extortion prices for shit service AND their would-be digital service competitors extortion prices for access to you as a customer. It's lose-lose!
=Smidge=
> In other words just add salt.
The sodium in salt is already oxidized by whatever makes it a salt (e.g. Chlorine, if you use common table salt). This poisons the reaction as the chlorine ions are more oxidative than the carboxyl groups formed from dissolving CO2 in water... Na+ ions aren't going to readily react with anything that wants extra electrons.
=Smidge=
Should be noted that the bill mentioned passed UNANIMOUSLY. 100 for, 0 against, 0 abstaining. So even if the handful of new senators all vote against, the bill would have veto-proof majority.
The Senate should pass the bill like it did a month ago and send it to the President. If he vetoes it, they could easily have the votes to override the veto.
But that would make the GOP look bad, so that's not an option for McConnell.
=Smidge=
It matters because it impacts how quickly that tipping point is reached, and how quickly the changes happen. You are wrong in your thinking; It's not as if there will be no problems until we hit 2C and BAM! we're fucked... it's a process, and if we can slow down that process it buys us more time to mitigate the problems and lessens their severity.
In other words, to correct your car analogy we need not a cliff but another, oncoming car.
Even if the other guy doesn't slow down, slowing down yourself will lower the severity of the crash and maybe give you an extra split second to swerve to make a head-on collision less direct.
It should also be mentioned that reducing CO2 emissions by way of alternate technologies is actually a net positive economically, in the long term, so your argument also falls flat on that front. it only seems more expensive if you are unable or unwilling to see the economics of it beyond a few year's time.
=Smidge=
Nope, sorry. By refusing to extend respect and civility towards others, you forfeit all expectations to receive any yourself.
Stop being a lying, violent, racist shithead and we'll stop treating you like one.
Until then, go fuck yourself. We're tired of your bullshit.
=Smidge=
Except there is demonstrable benefit to reducing the total amount of CO2 (piss) being released into the atmosphere (pool). Even if "they" don't stop, there is still a strong incentive for "us" to stop.
It also sets a good example and puts us in an ethically superior position to pressure them into stopping.
It should be noted that "they" (China) are hell for leather converting to renewable energy. If the US didn't have our heads up our collective asses, we could have been the one selling the world solar panels and wind turbines and battery technology... but because some very deep pockets decided it benefits them to maintain the status quot, and a bunch of idiots buy into the propaganda, we are being left behind.
=Smidge=
> And thank you for understanding that no amount of taxes and regulations on the United States will cause the biggest polluters in India and China to reduce their output
"Well those guys over there are pissing in the pool, so why should I stop?"
That's the logic here, in a nutshell.
=Smidge=
You don't need a downhill necessarily. A glass of water poured onto a flat and level surface will still flow and spread out.
=Smidge=
Oh that's easy. I've seen enough Young Earth Creationist mumbojumbo that even I can explain that.
The gap is where the water was hidden before the great flood. There's no rock layer because that layer was water, not rock! During the great flood, the water rose up and the crust sank, becoming temporarily submerged. As the waters receded and flowed into what is today's oceans, finding its new level, it carved the Grand Canyon and other geological features that "scientists" insist are the result of millions of years of erosion.
See? Once you abandon the very concept of "facts" it's easy to explain just about anything!
=Smidge=
> they don't act like bulldozers.
Yes they do. Glaciers can slide for miles, picking up chunks of rock and dragging them along the underlying surface literally scouring the underlying earth like a river of sandpaper. They can dig out valleys, transport the material miles away and dump it. A few million tons of ice sliding around will easily act like a bulldozer. Glacially formed striation and moraines are all over the place.
They are literal rivers of ice; they flow, not just shift.
=Smidge=
> because glaciers don't "move"
They certainly do. Or at least they can...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And they're pretty effective at scrubbing the underlying terrain.
=Smidge=
1) Seeping is not the same as leaking. it's absolutely possible for a hairline crack in a pipe to let contamination in without letting water out, or for some chemicals that aren't water to diffuse through the pipe itself if it has become porous.
2) Not all water pipes are under positive pressure all the time. It's very possible that some portions can end up under negative pressure, or are constantly under negative pressure. Think Bernoulli effect and/or siphoning action.
3) It's also possible that there can be backflow from one customer back into the system. Many (most?) municipal water supplies require check valves at least at the commercial service level. More typically it's a Reduced Pressure Zone device, which is a double check valve assembly with a relief valve between the checks to create an air gap if the pressure inside the building ever becomes higher than the street mains, for any reason.
And none of this has to do with the chemistry of the water itself, which is the problem they had in Flint.
=Smidge=
I am paying ~$0.08/kWh for electricity. Everything else is fees and taxes.
My utility does net metering. It's the only sensible option regardless of law. However, every 12 months the account balance is settled, and if it's a net negative? They cut me a check for ~$0.08/kWh because that's the wholesale market value of the electricity I gave them.
So every kWh I buy costs me $0.20, but every kWh I sell earns me ~$0.08. The fact that the account is only settled once a year doesn't really change that.
=Smidge=
The way I see it, the subsidies are not really for the consumers, but for the manufacturers.
1) Manufacturers are going to be reluctant to make a product there's no clear market for
2) There can't be a market for a product that doesn't exist
3) Since there's no existing production the cost to produce them is high
4) High production cost, and therefore high sales cost, reduces market potential even more
This is where the subsidies come in; Lowering the cost to consumers (4) helps expand the market (2) to manufacturers have incentive to produce said product (1) which in turn lowers cost of manufacture (3).
So I'd argue that subsidies are carrots for manufacturers to take that risk. It's clear, given the popularity of Tesla, that people are willing to pay premium for a good car... but that is not necessarily enough to get larger manufacturers to risk turning away from the many billions of dollars invested in supply chains, R&D and manufacturing facilities behind ICE vehicles. Some companies even actively oppose any efforts to widen EV adoption, because that would mean they would have to take a risk (either risk in developing and marketing a new BEV or risk losing out to competitors that do - solution? Make sure nobody does!)
=Smidge=
> The grid is a replacement for storage when there is always demand exceeding supply
Except this may very well be the case; As the percentage of renewable energy to the total grid supply increases, it rather quickly reaches a point where you are producing more than you are consuming, if only briefly. The only reason is doesn't happen in the US that often is a relatively low percentage of renewable energy so far, which lets the grid compensate by throttling down conventional power plants.
But that luxury is quickly coming to an end.
So when you say storage is "inefficient" it's a bit of a head scratcher... inefficient compared to what? If your choices are running a combined cycle gas turbine on non-renewable and carbon-emitting natural gas that costs money at 60%, or taking excess solar or wind power that's essentially free and storing it for later at an overall efficiency of at least 60% and rely even less on generation that costs you money to run.
Or to use a home as an example, I'm getting free-to-collect energy all day when I'm not home and running the meter backwards, earning credit towards my electric bill. I'm earning maybe 8-10 cents per kilowatt-hour on credit this way. When I get home, the sun is setting but I'm using more electricity now, so I'm buying back that power at maybe 20 cents per kilowatt-hour (base fee that I was being credited for, plus taxes and fuel charges and other BS). If I had storage, I could be saving ~10 cents per kWh for the energy I was able to store and recover. That's not a waste by any definition; it might not be enough to make it economical but it's not a waste either.
=Smidge=
> Is everyone and everything self-sufficient during the day? Have we eliminated all utility power?
Of course not. My point is unless consumption coincides with production, "The laundromat down the street" is not getting 2kW from you, ever. The grid does not store energy (yet) in any sense; it can sink and source power, but you're just offsetting other production.
> Is 100% of our energy solar at any point during the day?
Not yet, no, and that's exactly my point. Because it will take a long time to transition to renewable energy that requires storage, it's okay for storage deployment to lag behind renewable deployment.
> If it's less-efficient than the alternatives
The grid is not an alternative to storage. They are two different things that work well together, neither being a replacement for the other.
This has nothing to do with back-up power either. It's about taking excess energy that's abundant at one time of day (e.g. solar) and storing that excess for use later. Batteries are merely one of many options to do that. "Stocking up while it's cheap" is such a no-brainer strategy it's amazing people can't understand it with respect to energy.
=Smidge=
> If you rip off the solar panels after the final inspection, the state can't do anything.
Untrue; At the very least it would make it impossible to sell your home or borrow against it, as doing this would almost certainly void the CO.
It's also entirely possible that someone might actually notice. It's easy to hide unpermitted renovations inside the house, but something like that could easily attract the attention of an inspector. People get caught with unlicensed swimming pools all the time so I'd think missing solar panels would be about as easy to spot.
=Smidge=
> Off-grid in general is a huge waste.
Difficulty: The laundromat down the street is busiest after 5PM when your solar panels aren't producing as much. You're probably also home at that point, using more power yourself.
Now, there is a LONG WAY TO GO before energy storage becomes necessary, but there's no reason there can't be benefits to it now. Especially for solar, where peak production does perfectly not coincide with peak consumption.
That said I think energy storage is better handled upstream at the utility side of things, but batteries for home use are not "a huge waste" IMHO.
=Smidge=
Maybe reconsider the design to take the solar panels into account.
You say the roof "roof inclines in a northern direction" which makes it sound like it's already pitched to face south (inclines, meaning slopes up, as you go north). That's actually perfect for solar PV.
If you means the roof slopes the other way - high at the south side and lower on the north side - what is the rationale that makes this design better?
=Smidge=
I'm from southern New York, which is about as far north as northern California. We also get lots of snow. Like actual snow, not just at ski resorts.
The largest PV installation in the US is the Long Island Solar Farm, which is slightly farther north than Redding, CA.
Our solar panels work just fine.
=Smidge=
> Considering that there is more than enough easily available nuclear fuel to power civilization for several time longer than we have had civilization so far
Show your work.
=Smidge=
There doesn't have to be, as only a fraction of a fraction of the Earth's surface would supply all of our energy needs and then some.
PV panels are now often available with 30+ year warranties, and will still produce the majority of their rated capacity for many decades. When all is said and done, solar panel recycling is already a thing in some countries and will inevitably become more common when the solar panels installed in the 1980s finally degrade to the point where they *need* to be replaced (panels made in the past 10 years won't be due for the scrap heap until 2050 or so)
There's no reason to suspect we'll have trouble building solar panels a million years from now, providing we and this planet still exist of course.
=Smidge=
There's nothing murky about it; Does an energy source have the potential to be exploited into the indefinite future?
Since the Sun is expected to last so far into the future it's beyond human capacity for comprehension, the Sun can be considered an inexhaustible source of energy and thus renewable.
Since the amount of fissile material on the planet is finite, and depending on the use case can be completely exhausted within a century or two, nuclear is NOT renewable.
That's very simple.
=Smidge=