Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tesla Powerwall 2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kingram
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunking View Post
    Do you still want to defend Dan and try to educate a fool?
    Yes I still support Dan to have a voice on here , we are not going to agree all the time and maybe you should take JPM advice when he says take what you like and scrap the rest . What I don't support is your bashing of someone who doesn't agree with you by calling them a FOOL , IDIOT , MORON , LIAR ,GET LOST and ARE YOU BANNED YET ? really ?? are we back in Junior high school again ? Come on man lets keep it civil. I love a healthy discussion of different thoughts and ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • jflorey2
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    I don't think jflorey2's scenario is very likely, offhand.
    I think it is very likely. We are already paying millions so that Arizona takes our power. What will happen when we double the amount of solar generation?
    The expected benefit is about 2x the expected cost on average
    That's true - now. When the grid can't handle any more solar it won't be so true.

    There's a reason that utilities are pushing hard for phase 3 of rule 21 - so they can shut people down to prevent overgeneration on the grid. That's already being done in other countries where they have an overgeneration problem.
    and I doubt east-facing arrays won't have as bad a value penalty as you fear.
    It does if you have to shut down in the mornings, when production from an east facing array is highest.

    This law is a perfect example of some well-meaning people who want solar not thinking through the problem. "Solar is good so let's make it a law that people have to have it!" The sad thing is that we've made this mistake before, and it came back to bite us then, just as it will now. A little thinking could have resulted in much better solutions that would:

    -impact poor people less
    -use the market, not law, to make change
    -drive innovation in the solar market overall

    But, as all who refuse to learn the lessons of history, looks like we are just going to repeat our mistakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunking
    replied
    Originally posted by Kingram View Post
    Sunking How about we educate people the best we can and not call them names ( idiot )
    Do you still want to defend Dan and try to educate a fool?
    Last edited by Sunking; 05-11-2018, 04:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunking
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    I haven't been banned anywhere that I can recall
    Here is your new sign and label to wear Dan: Liar Liar Pants on Fire. This is the third time you have been banned here. Take a hint, get lost.

    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Last I checked, JPM and SK strongly disagree that human actions are causing climate change;
    Again you are a liar just like your science.
    Last edited by Sunking; 05-11-2018, 12:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Good data and analysis are more useful than loud argument, and taking climate science into account is part of good analysis.
    Last I checked, JPM and SK strongly disagree that human actions are causing climate change; this probably colors their analysis of the benefits of California's rule change (e.g. to people living close to the edge economically).
    And I don't think talking about science or renewable energy is "pursuing a political agenda".
    Good data is a somewhat ambiguous term with the word "good" as it's used here being open to at least some interpretation.

    I'd challenge and call out your premise and not so subtle side door implication that CA's rule change (as you call it) is beneficial, or has more benefits than drawbacks. Whether such policies have either is probably common sense. The outcomes are uncertain. Either or any way, I don't believe it's wise to cram policy down people's throats as this seems to be perceived, at least by some, to be doing. And, starting out on the wrong foot probably doesn't do much to ensure successful implementation. Then, there is also the smell of special interests all over this thing.

    As for your continued and incorrect statements that I disagree that human actions are causing climate change, either provide backup to your claims or stop misrepresenting my opinions.

    Pete: Your table, your game, your rules, I get that. But if you can yank posts, and civility is as important to you as you claim, then I respectfully request you consider doing something about Dan's repeated, incorrect and unsubstantiated statements about my opinions, which statements I consider libelous.

    Dan: Disagree with what I write all you want, but don't tell others what my opinions are and don't try to put words in my mouth. Put up or shut up.



    Leave a comment:


  • Mike90250
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Sounds like it'd be good if power bills could go negative if families did decide to use less power. Incentives are important. ...
    And this is another prime example Dan, of your ambitious shortsightedness. Power bill go negative ? Only way that happens is if we get Dan to make that payout. Say, for all of East LA and maybe Compton too. There should be a Statue of Dan, with money flowing out of his pockets, to help folks that can't afford their power bills.

    Incentives are important.
    Yes they are, more important than poorly thought out laws. But the poorly thought out laws, don't affect Dan yet, so it's not an issue.
    Oh, it's the rate payers that pick up the tab? Get a clue Dan, that's you !!

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike90250
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Not sure what to say to SK's tirade, or JPM's charges.
    I haven't been banned anywhere that I can recall, nor am I paid for any of my posts. I simply disagree with SK and JPM on whether humans are causing climate change.

    I don't think jflorey2's scenario is very likely, offhand. The expected benefit is about 2x the expected cost on average, and I doubt east-facing arrays won't have as bad a value penalty as you fear.

    I suggest people just relax a bit? We all care about the well-being of the folks jflorey2's is posting about, we just disagree on politics or something.
    That's called "Selective Memory" in the trade.. I'll refresh your memory with yet another short ban. (That's what we call terminating your right to post on a forum)

    If you simply disagree, there is ABSOLUTELY no problem with that. But when you invent Junk Science, and bring in Fake News about some some magical green unicorn might fart rainbows, and the problems go away, that's when you are HURTING renewable energy. And that's what the ban is about, reducing your ability to have a negative impact on RE, and promulgating bad legislation that does not solve any problem except stroking your ego.
    Last edited by Mike90250; 05-11-2018, 11:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    Originally posted by solar pete View Post
    Dan while I support your right to express your views, I feel as though what a few of the others are saying has some merit and I dont like anyone to use this site to pursue their own political agenda, I dont think its climate change that is the issue here but rather the way different states seem to be tackling the problem, or not tackling it, and your support of policies that actually hurt the people who are least able to absorb the extra cost to bring about cleaner energy is the real issue here.

    So lets keep this debate civil please peeps.
    Yes, thanks, civility is important.
    So is making sure that policies are fair to people living close to the edge economically.
    I share your and jflorey's concerns there, but disagree with some of your assumptions.

    Good data and analysis are more useful than loud argument, and taking climate science into account is part of good analysis.
    Last I checked, JPM and SK strongly disagree that human actions are causing climate change; this probably colors their analysis of the benefits of California's rule change (e.g. to people living close to the edge economically).
    And I don't think talking about science or renewable energy is "pursuing a political agenda".

    Leave a comment:


  • solar pete
    replied
    Look While I like debate as much as the next man, and I am totally fine with people from opposing sides of the political debate arguing about the merits of their opposing views, I dont like the venom and bile responses and when I see them I will delete them, as I have just done to a couple of old hands.

    Dan while I support your right to express your views, I feel as though what a few of the others are saying has some merit and I dont like anyone to use this site to pursue their own political agenda, I dont think its climate change that is the issue here but rather the way different states seem to be tackling the problem, or not tackling it, and your support of policies that actually hurt the people who are least able to absorb the extra cost to bring about cleaner energy is the real issue here.

    So lets keep this debate civil please peeps.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    Not sure what to say to SK's tirade, or JPM's charges.
    I haven't been banned anywhere that I can recall, nor am I paid for any of my posts. I simply disagree with SK and JPM on whether humans are causing climate change.

    I don't think jflorey2's scenario is very likely, offhand. The expected benefit is about 2x the expected cost on average, and I doubt east-facing arrays won't have as bad a value penalty as you fear.

    I suggest people just relax a bit? We all care about the well-being of the folks jflorey2's is posting about, we just disagree on politics or something.
    Last edited by DanKegel; 05-10-2018, 10:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • J.P.M.
    replied
    Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
    Let me outline what will happen to some of these families we're talking about.

    Six years from now, John Doe and his family buy a house. It's the only affordable house they can find that's possible given his drive to work and his kid's need for school. It's barely affordable due to the general increase in prices both due to inflation and the solar requirement. (It's actually not affordable technically, but they figure that if they can make it through the first few years, the mortgage will stay the same and his salary will go up.) And the seller said "it has solar so you'll save on power!" So they factor that in.

    Meanwhile this house was built six months ago and had a solar system put on by the lowest bidder. It faces East, because the East side of the roof is closest to the panel and that way they save $40 on conduit and wire. It has an up-to-date inverter that supports Rule 21 phase 3, as California requires.

    They move in - and their power bill is higher than they thought! Turns out that East isn't the best direction to face a solar array where they live, both due to June gloom and due to the misalignment. They cut back to almost no power at all, and abandon all A/C, washing machine use and dishwasher use. But they are still losing ground, a little every month.

    Then one day the CAL-ISO realizes they have exceeded the capacity of the lines to Arizona during the morning and early afternoon. "We are going to trip those lines if we have to export any more power! And with more solar going up every day, it's just going to get worse. And we can't shut down the baseload plants since they take ~8 hours to come back up, and we will need that power at 6pm."

    Fortunately they have a remedy. Rule 21 provides a means to shut down inverters in case of emergency. So they send out the signal that shuts down John Doe's inverter. "Don't worry," they explain in an email. "We are only shutting you down in the morning and early afternoon during this emergency, and you will still be able to get most of the benefit of your solar array." But John's panels don't produce in the afternoon. So his power bill goes up.

    Then SDG+E increases rates again to pay for Arizona's ever-increasing fees to take the power that John's no longer generating.

    They can no longer pay for power and their mortgage. The bank begins foreclosure proceedings. They are now underwater in their mortgage, and soon become homeless saddled with massive debt.

    Perhaps they will send you a "thank you" card.

    But you will support laws that increase homelessness, as long as they don't affect you? The classic "have other people pay for what I want, as long as I don't have to pay for anything they want" approach.
    One of many possible scenarios. Many of which have probably not been considered.

    Dan, as usual, because of your ignorance you're on the wrong side of things, and also as seems your usual M.O., in your accompanying self centered myopia, you haven't thought things through and more as usual for you, you're limited to only repeating what you think you like of what others have already said or written. The unwitting work and output of (perhaps) a stooge.

    This issue is one that doesn't seem to me anyway, to have a high probability of a good outcome. It sure smells like a payoff.

    Seems like a lot of pro and not so pro R.E. folks are not fans of this new development. Too bad you don't seem to see why.

    Leave a comment:


  • jflorey2
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Sounds like it'd be good if power bills could go negative if families did decide to use less power. Incentives are important.
    Let me outline what will happen to some of these families we're talking about.

    Six years from now, John Doe and his family buy a house. It's the only affordable house they can find that's possible given his drive to work and his kid's need for school. It's barely affordable due to the general increase in prices both due to inflation and the solar requirement. (It's actually not affordable technically, but they figure that if they can make it through the first few years, the mortgage will stay the same and his salary will go up.) And the seller said "it has solar so you'll save on power!" So they factor that in.

    Meanwhile this house was built six months ago and had a solar system put on by the lowest bidder. It faces East, because the East side of the roof is closest to the panel and that way they save $40 on conduit and wire. It has an up-to-date inverter that supports Rule 21 phase 3, as California requires.

    They move in - and their power bill is higher than they thought! Turns out that East isn't the best direction to face a solar array where they live, both due to June gloom and due to the misalignment. They cut back to almost no power at all, and abandon all A/C, washing machine use and dishwasher use. But they are still losing ground, a little every month.

    Then one day the CAL-ISO realizes they have exceeded the capacity of the lines to Arizona during the morning and early afternoon. "We are going to trip those lines if we have to export any more power! And with more solar going up every day, it's just going to get worse. And we can't shut down the baseload plants since they take ~8 hours to come back up, and we will need that power at 6pm."

    Fortunately they have a remedy. Rule 21 provides a means to shut down inverters in case of emergency. So they send out the signal that shuts down John Doe's inverter. "Don't worry," they explain in an email. "We are only shutting you down in the morning and early afternoon during this emergency, and you will still be able to get most of the benefit of your solar array." But John's panels don't produce in the afternoon. So his power bill goes up.

    Then SDG+E increases rates again to pay for Arizona's ever-increasing fees to take the power that John's no longer generating.

    They can no longer pay for power and their mortgage. The bank begins foreclosure proceedings. They are now underwater in their mortgage, and soon become homeless saddled with massive debt.

    Perhaps they will send you a "thank you" card.
    Also, no, I would not support subsidies that increase mercury emissions.
    But you will support laws that increase homelessness, as long as they don't affect you? The classic "have other people pay for what I want, as long as I don't have to pay for anything they want" approach.
    Last edited by jflorey2; 05-10-2018, 05:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanKegel
    replied
    Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
    Struggling families can decide to use less power. They can't decide to spend less on their mortgage.
    Sounds like it'd be good if power bills could go negative if families did decide to use less power. Incentives are important.

    Also, no, I would not support subsidies that increase mercury emissions.

    Leave a comment:


  • jflorey2
    replied
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Which would raise mortgage payments by, say, $50/month (going by defaults at zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/ ).
    Yep. Which means you price a lot of people out of the market.
    The average monthly electricity bill in California is $95 (going by eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf )
    Struggling families can decide to use less power. They can't decide to spend less on their mortgage.
    Since California still has net metering, and the rules require a solar system roughly big enough to reach zero net annual electricity use, the result is... homes are more affordable, not less affordable. What am I missing?
    1) That people can't decide to use less house and save on their mortgage.
    2) That not everyone has that extra $600 a year up front. They have a budget they can't exceed.
    3) That the grid will not be able to accept all that power. California will have to pay Arizona to take it, which will raise taxes/rates on those people even more.
    4) That rich prospective buyers will find clever ways around the law - so it will only impact the poor anyway.

    And you never answered the question. Would you be OK having to pay $10,000 to support development of coal power plants? After all, that's only $50 a month if you take out a long term loan! How you possibly have an objection? You probably pay more per month to Starbucks. And coal power is cheap so you'll make it all back somehow.

    I am all for solar power. But this law makes no sense and will do more harm than good.
    Last edited by jflorey2; 05-10-2018, 02:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunking
    replied
    Originally posted by Mike90250 View Post
    Happy yet Dan ? What's that going to do to the cost of housing? Along with the other coffin nails such as the new HUGE state transfer fees for home sales, higher taxes on new homes and higher fees all around, to pay for that clean green energy that is not rolling in.
    Mods come on expose this fraud. Read his BLOG, that is exactly what Dan wants. He wants all energy except what he deems Green Energy be taxed so much only the elite like himself can afford gasoline, electricity, and housing. He is an activist and he is doing everything he can to punish the poor and control the masses. Which is what democrats do. Cheese and rice all anyone has to do is Google his name.

    What is really sad is this moron believes what he preaches. It is well known any battery energy storage is both a looser in economics and environmentally. It makes you a heavy polluter and forces you to pay much higher rates. It is literally robbing generations not born yet of natural resources by wasting energy. There is nothing to be gained, He would learn that completely invalidates all his moronic belief and would have to admit he has wasted the last 20 years of his life. I guess why that is why he drinks so much wine.

    Last edited by sdold; 05-10-2018, 02:39 PM. Reason: Removed one sentence

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X