Is anyone else tracking the whale situation in NJ?

[Chris(NJ)]

One word. Fukushima. If you're supporting something so incredibly potentially disastrous, why wouldn't you or anybody be jumping up and down in support of solar, hydro and wind?

Well, if we're talking POTENTIALLY...that's like saying, anything in life is potentially disastrous. So to use Fukushima, although a fair disaster worth mentioning, that's like saying lets stop EV or lithium production because of the potential for disaster with it! All methods of energy production claim they're finding safer ways to do it. Why does nuclear have to be the one avoided and not pursued with billions of federal grants?
I mean, a flight the other day just had to be rerouted because of a battery fire on board. That was a potential for disaster right there.
Had a great convo w/ an engineer last summer who works on battery production and he even expressed his concerns for particular versions of it and how difficult it is to extinguish when they catch fire. Iirc, he recalled a test in Cali where they intentionally sank a shipping container of burning lithium and being submerged still didn't extinguish it. Something about it having to self extinguish. I dunno. I'd have to ask him again for that explanation.

Anyway, I'm not 100% opposed to it but I do believe the excessive (and premature) granting of so much wind/solar is political in nature. Politicians and large companies only care about money for themselves and the earth and everything on it can burn for all they care. I firmly believe politicians are being gifted money to approve the land leases when not on private property. And if it is about the environment, why are they afraid to give the marine life autopsies to find out why they're dying? If they're so confident, they should have an independent company (or two) do it each and every time a whale washes ashore to prove they're right. What are they hiding?
If we have to scalp the land or ocean for thousands of square miles to achieve the same energy production as nuclear on a smaller footprint, why not do it? Dirty mining for all forms already exist. So let's call that a wash.
I'm not an expert in any of this. But then again, I don't think the experts are experts either. so.

Oh and if we keep somewhat on track w/ wind. Recent article here. Now, you tell me....if they can't figure out how to keep these things standing on land, where maintenance is logistically easier, what makes anyone think a more volatile landscape....the ocean...will be any better?

Giant Wind Turbines Keep Mysteriously Falling Over. This Shouldn't Be Happening.

Tell me someone at least sees how much damage and waste this world is creating and I'm not sure it's intended benefit is doing any good.

 

[Chris(NJ)]

We looked into building a house in one of those developments that bought out farm land. Asked about options for solar and they were like, "Absolutely not, that's something you'll have to do on your own after closing." I was floored. Really should be mandatory, but to not even have it as an option on new construction? Ridiculous. One of the many reasons we bailed on that idea.

Wait, what? lol...solar on a house should be mandatory?

If it is so important to you to have solar on your house, why won't you spend your own money for it? Build the house and then hire a solar company to do an installation. Why on God's green earth does it have to be mandated?
So instead you just bail on the whole idea?

No need to answer. I know the reason is because there's no personal responsibility and it should be society's problem.

 

[rick81721]

Well, if we're talking POTENTIALLY...that's like saying, anything in life is potentially disastrous. So to use Fukushima, although a fair disaster worth mentioning, that's like saying lets stop EV or lithium production because of the potential for disaster with it! All methods of energy production claim they're finding safer ways to do it. Why does nuclear have to be the one avoided and not pursued with billions of federal grants?
I mean, a flight the other day just had to be rerouted because of a battery fire on board. That was a potential for disaster right there.
Had a great convo w/ an engineer last summer who works on battery production and he even expressed his concerns for particular versions of it and how difficult it is to extinguish when they catch fire. Iirc, he recalled a test in Cali where they intentionally sank a shipping container of burning lithium and being submerged still didn't extinguish it. Something about it having to self extinguish. I dunno. I'd have to ask him again for that explanation.

Anyway, I'm not 100% opposed to it but I do believe the excessive (and premature) granting of so much wind/solar is political in nature. Politicians and large companies only care about money for themselves and the earth and everything on it can burn for all they care. I firmly believe politicians are being gifted money to approve the land leases when not on private property. And if it is about the environment, why are they afraid to give the marine life autopsies to find out why they're dying? If they're so confident, they should have an independent company (or two) do it each and every time a whale washes ashore to prove they're right. What are they hiding?
If we have to scalp the land or ocean for thousands of square miles to achieve the same energy production as nuclear on a smaller footprint, why not do it? Dirty mining for all forms already exist. So let's call that a wash.
I'm not an expert in any of this. But then again, I don't think the experts are experts either. so.

Oh and if we keep somewhat on track w/ wind. Recent article here. Now, you tell me....if they can't figure out how to keep these things standing on land, where maintenance is logistically easier, what makes anyone think a more volatile landscape....the ocean...will be any better?

Giant Wind Turbines Keep Mysteriously Falling Over. This Shouldn't Be Happening.

Tell me someone at least sees how much damage and waste this world is creating and I'm not sure it's intended benefit is doing any good.

Like sodium, lithium reacts with water to release hydrogen and lots of energy. Wouldn't think they would be shipping pure lithium metal too far but who knows.

 

[Mahnken]

Wait, what? lol...solar on a house should be mandatory?

If it is so important to you to have solar on your house, why won't you spend your own money for it? Build the house and then hire a solar company to do an installation. Why on God's green earth does it have to be mandated?
So instead you just bail on the whole idea?

No need to answer. I know the reason is because there's no personal responsibility and it should be society's problem.

Mandatory for new construction. That would be great.

Ummm, I would be spending my own money on it. Fairly sure no one is building me a house for free. Yes, I bailed on building a new house, for a number of reasons. Including the builder being unwilling to install solar. Sorry if that offends you, I guess...

Personal responsibility? Society's problem? What are you talking about?

Are you gonna try and start shit with every post I write because you don't like my opinions in a different thread?

 

[Soundguy]

 

[ebarker9]

Wait, what? lol...solar on a house should be mandatory?

If it is so important to you to have solar on your house, why won't you spend your own money for it? Build the house and then hire a solar company to do an installation. Why on God's green earth does it have to be mandated?
So instead you just bail on the whole idea?

No need to answer. I know the reason is because there's no personal responsibility and it should be society's problem.

I don't think it would be that crazy to have requirements for solar generation/power storage on new buildings, at least for building sites that are suited to it. There are already some for commercial buildings in some areas. And our building codes already require other things that are aimed at improving the resilience and energy consumption of homes. It would be a net plus for an energy grid that is already taxed, as well as decreasing reliance on oil and gas, both of which have volatile supply chains and pricing. I get that there's always a balance of "the Government" telling individuals what they can and can't do vs balancing the needs of the larger population, but there's a huge net positive for the homeowner, governments, society as a whole, etc in this case.

But certainly if I were in the market for a new home build, I'd expect solar to be installed by default, rather than build the house, then get another company to retrofit solar to a structure that may not be situated to take best advantage, may not have easy provisions for wiring, requires a secondary purchase/financing, may not have a good space for storage systems etc. An install is always going to be done better as part of an integrated build. It also seems like a strong selling point...you pay the mortgage which includes the cost of the panels already and essentially don't have to worry about an electric bill for the duration that you live there. I know that there's a race to the bottom in many industries, certainly including residential construction, and pricing is a huge concern but I'm way more likely to buy from a builder/developer that is offering "better" rather than just "cheaper".

 

[rick81721]

I don't think it would be that crazy to have requirements for solar generation/power storage on new buildings, at least for building sites that are suited to it. There are already some for commercial buildings in some areas. And our building codes already require other things that are aimed at improving the resilience and energy consumption of homes. It would be a net plus for an energy grid that is already taxed, as well as decreasing reliance on oil and gas, both of which have volatile supply chains and pricing. I get that there's always a balance of "the Government" telling individuals what they can and can't do vs balancing the needs of the larger population, but there's a huge net positive for the homeowner, governments, society as a whole, etc in this case.

But certainly if I were in the market for a new home build, I'd expect solar to be installed by default, rather than build the house, then get another company to retrofit solar to a structure that may not be situated to take best advantage, may not have easy provisions for wiring, requires a secondary purchase/financing, may not have a good space for storage systems etc. An install is always going to be done better as part of an integrated build. It also seems like a strong selling point...you pay the mortgage which includes the cost of the panels already and essentially don't have to worry about an electric bill for the duration that you live there. I know that there's a race to the bottom in many industries, certainly including residential construction, and pricing is a huge concern but I'm way more likely to buy from a builder/developer that is offering "better" rather than just "cheaper".

I actually think it's a good idea to start mandating solar (or geothermal) in new business and residential construction. Or offer much better incentives to do so. I would worry, tho, that large builders would def go "cheapest" rather than "better".

 

[ebarker9]

I actually think it's a good idea to start mandating solar (or geothermal) in new business and residential construction. Or offer much better incentives to do so. I would worry, tho, that large builders would def go "cheapest" rather than "better".

Yeah always a concern. I think the big pushback on that would be upfront cost, but rolled into a mortgage and potentially incorporating existing incentives for solar and reducing/eliminating an electric bill, it seems like it would largely be a wash in most cases.

I'd definitely be looking at energy storage as well in a new house (have vaguely looked into it for my existing home). Certainly all predictions are that we'll be getting an increased number of storms that have the potential to disrupt the power grid for extended periods of time. Having some level of resilience against these events seems wise. There are definitely cases where a generator is the best solution for the foreseeable future, but I'd personally rather have something that lets me get through a day or two without having to maintain a generator, store gas, go outside, plug the thing in, etc.

 

[rick81721]

Yeah always a concern. I think the big pushback on that would be upfront cost, but rolled into a mortgage and potentially incorporating existing incentives for solar and reducing/eliminating an electric bill, it seems like it would largely be a wash in most cases.

I'd definitely be looking at energy storage as well in a new house (have vaguely looked into it for my existing home). Certainly all predictions are that we'll be getting an increased number of storms that have the potential to disrupt the power grid for extended periods of time. Having some level of resilience against these events seems wise. There are definitely cases where a generator is the best solution for the foreseeable future, but I'd personally rather have something that lets me get through a day or two without having to maintain a generator, store gas, go outside, plug the thing in, etc.

We will be going all-in on solar in FL after we sell our NJ place this year (hopefully). Panels plus adequate battery storage to run the whole house.

 

[Mahnken]

This is the last offer I got for battery backup through sunnova (finance my panels through them). I didn't jump on it because the natural gas generators are just so much cheaper. Also, my neighbor said in the thirty years that he's been here, power has never been out for more than a couple hours, even when the tornado came through less than a mile away wiping out everything in it's path. I'll eventually get the batteries, most likely when the panels are closer to being paid off, before 2030.

 

[JerseyPete]

There are definitely cases where a generator is the best solution for the foreseeable future, but I'd personally rather have something that lets me get through a day or two without having to maintain a generator, store gas, go outside, plug the thing in, etc.

The thing about the whole house generator is that if it is an automatic one, they self test at least once a month and in some cases the company wants a service contract.
I have a 6.5kw on wheels that I use when PSEG reports that the ETA for restoring power is over 24 hours. Similar to you, it would be nice not to have to bring it outside, plug it in, etc.
I haven't gotten any quotes, but that powerwall that @Mahnken posted looks pricey. You could probably get a decent diesel invertor type generator for that kind of money that will run quiet and use heating fuel if need be.

 

[Soundguy]

I wonder how many whales have committed suicide since you guys turned this into an energy politics debate...

 

[Mahnken]

I wonder how many whales have committed suicide since you guys turned this into an energy politics debate...

Is energy a political issue? Is it too soon to talk about abortions?

 

[Soundguy]

Is energy a political issue? Is it too soon to talk about abortions?

wars are fought over oil not dead babies

 

[Tim]

Mandatory for new construction. That would be great.

Why does it need to be mandated? If solar is the answer, why don’t people choose to install it? Why force it?

If it’s mandatory there really isn’t a reason for technology to advance and get better. Competition drives innovation.

 

[Chris(NJ)]

If anyone is REALLY passionate about this....there's apparently a rally on Sunday

 

[Mahnken]

Why does it need to be mandated? If solar is the answer, why don’t people choose to install it? Why force it?

If it’s mandatory there really isn’t a reason for technology to advance and get better. Competition drives innovation.

I don't see why technology wouldn't have a reason for advancement. I'd be happy with what @rick81721 mentioned: solar, geothermal, even just better incentives. Shoot, I'd be happy if the builder was just required to offer some sort of renewable energy options in new construction. That way I wouldn't have to deal more construction on a house that was just built, after I move in. Like @ebarker9 mentioned, the benefits are pretty great. The install is built into your mortgage, with battery storage you could be part of a virtual powerplant that pays you when the grid takes your power, no electric bill (maybe the $5 monthly charge to be connected to the grid), no worries about power outages. It's really a no-brainer if you're presented with the option.

 

[Mahnken]

I haven't gotten any quotes, but that powerwall that @Mahnken posted looks pricey. You could probably get a decent diesel invertor type generator for that kind of money that will run quiet and use heating fuel if need be.

Forgot to mention, there's also a 30% tax credit with the battery backup install. It also says they replace the batteries in ten years with the latest model, which is nice. It's because they're warrantied for 25 years and I think the current life expectancy of them is 10 years.

 

[Chris(NJ)]

Why does it need to be mandated? If solar is the answer, why don’t people choose to install it? Why force it?

If it’s mandatory there really isn’t a reason for technology to advance and get better. Competition drives innovation.

There's only a couple reasons why the government mandates something. Either the government needs a new way to make money off of the majority of Americans or someone stands to lose a lot of money they invested, since it wouldn't sell on it's own because it doesn't work as promised.

 

[ebarker9]

There's only a couple reasons why the government mandates something. Either the government needs a new way to make money off of the majority of Americans or someone stands to lose a lot of money they invested, since it wouldn't sell on it's own because it doesn't work as promised.

I'm not going to take issue with your view here, because I certainly get it and won't pretend that there isn't truth in this.

But another reason is that one of the fundamental roles of government is to take a broad view of public interests and take action when there's a clear benefit for society as a whole. Sometimes personal and commercial interests don't align with the larger societal benefits. I personally think that solar requirements benefit individuals, companies, and society, but in general I think it's worth considering that every so often there are public officials who are actually trying to act in the best interests of their constituents, cool as it may be to be the perpetual cynic.

Regarding the "save the whales" rally, I'm not going to participate in a protest against wind turbines when there's no actual data/evidence/investigation linking the wind turbines to the beached whales. If there's any kind of scientific consensus on this, I'll certainly be on the side of taking action that avoids impact to whales. Those images are heartbreaking, although I can certainly recall many, many other instances of whales beaching themselves unrelated to offshore construction.