Guessing Oil and Gas will Still be Around

wmgeorge

With the new world order now because of Russia, the doing away of fossil fuel will be on the back burner for a long time. Lots of changes coming.

reggi

Well don't forget the Supreme Court is in play without Russia

Depending on how the court rules, the lawsuit has the power not only to prevent the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating future greenhouse-gas emissions, but also to potentially reshape other US agencies’ regulatory powers.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/supreme-court-hears-arguments-for-8035133/

EBEBRATT-Ed

I think the "green new deal is on the back burner" but we still need to pursue alternatives

JakeCK

Just because the geopolitics has changed, doesn't mean physics or reality have. We're still going to run out of dino fuel in the not too distant future, and the sea's are still going to inundate the coasts. 

Jamie Hall

JakeCK said:

Just because the geopolitics has changed, doesn't mean physics or reality have. We're still going to run out of dino fuel in the not too distant future, and the sea's are still going to inundate the coasts. 

This is true -- although the definition of "not to distant" is very much a political question, not a geologic or natural resources one. And we are past the tipping point on inundating the coasts. That's going to happen, no matter what we do. The question -- and I won't go on a diatribe here -- is how are we going to take care of our people while we transition to long term sustainable power, by which I do NOT mean windmills and solar farms. Posturing and value signalling isn't going to keep people warm and secure.

SlamDunk

In an editorial in todays paper, the author said this brings to the fore front the need to ween of oil. Putin can't block the sun or stop the wind.

wmgeorge

Putin does not control the worlds oil and gas and we are far from running out of either. But changes coming for sure all I am saying is climate change due to fossil fuel is going to be on back burner with Russia, China, India and other major players, not playing its a waste of money and time.
We need to continue production and use of those for the near future 30 years or so and build more nukes, solar and wind sources.

JakeCK

Jamie Hall said:

Just because the geopolitics has changed, doesn't mean physics or reality have. We're still going to run out of dino fuel in the not too distant future, and the sea's are still going to inundate the coasts. 

This is true -- although the definition of "not to distant" is very much a political question, not a geologic or natural resources one. And we are past the tipping point on inundating the coasts. That's going to happen, no matter what we do. The question -- and I won't go on a diatribe here -- is how are we going to take care of our people while we transition to long term sustainable power, by which I do NOT mean windmills and solar farms. Posturing and value signalling isn't going to keep people warm and secure.

I can't really disagree with most of what you said. But I would argue that solar is most definitely a large part of the solution. Its just a matter costs, and power storage. My, admittedly very expensive, solar array is producing over 100% of my electric needs right now. When it was designed, it was designed for 110%. I've since switched from a NG water heater to a HPWH. THe array is still covering 100% of my electrical needs. The only months where it wasn't over producing so far were December and January. I was short by about 200kwh each of those months. And January only because of the snow. If I could easily clear the 2/3rds of panels I can't reach I would have been close in January too.

Now I would bet that if I tightened up the house as best as possible with insulation, air sealing, and switched to an air to water heat pump for heating during the shoulder/moderate seasons I could still stay close to meeting 100% of electrical demand. As of right now the only gas appliances left in this house are the dryer and boiler. And my next dryer will probably be a heat pump model as well. That would only leave one way oversized 115k btuh boiler using carbon based fuel. My own consumption based metrics tell me I could heat the house with a 50k btuh boiler on even the coldest of nights with the house as is. I have no insulation in most of the walls, the current storms are failing(replacements already ordered) no insulation in the basement, and only 6" in the attic. And it is a very drafty old house. Lots of opportunity to lower and optimize the energy use of this very basic, run of the mill house. Now if only to store the excess production...

JakeCK

And in case anyone thinks I might be cherry picking data: here are some screen grabs of kWh usage of my water heater and the solar production. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in June, July, and August. 

SlamDunk

If I knew the neighboring homes to my south wouldnt be torn down and replaced with McMansions that would block the sun, I would put up solar panels and intall an electric boiler.

ChrisJ

SlamDunk said:

If I knew the neighboring homes to my south wouldnt be torn down and replaced with McMansions that would block the sun, I would put up solar panels and intall an electric boiler.

That made me think of King of the hill.

It's been a while since I watched that.

SlamDunk

@ChrisJ
Do tell

ChrisJ

SlamDunk said:

@ChrisJ Do tell

They had an episode about a developer knocking down a normal house and building an extremely cheap and huge mcmansion that blocked the sunlight etc

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1299888/
King of the Hill

Square-Footed Monster

vtfarmer

JakeCK said:

And in case anyone thinks I might be cherry picking data: here are some screen grabs of kWh usage of my water heater and the solar production. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in June, July, and August.

Before I became an eccentric tinkerer and part time farmer in the hills of western Virginia, I traded energy in most of the major power markets in the US and some in the EU and APAC (Singapore and Australia). The problem with wind and solar is it doesn't generate all the time. Your screen shots and experience show that if you fill a bank with a total of the energy your panels generate and push into the grid over 12 months then deduct the energy your homes used in 12 months you will have covered your usage with your solar. On paper.

The reality is that every instant of every hour the power grid is maintaining nearly perfect balance of supply and demand to operate correctly and your solar plays no part in that - in fact it hurts it. Read up on NERC BAL-00 rules for technical details (BAL-001 and -002 in particular https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability Standards/BAL-001-2.pdf ). So guys like me sell the ability for gas and hydro turbines and more recently giant batteries (and sometimes highly variable but discretely controllable electric loads) to the power markets to keep the balance of supply and demand in equilibrium 24/7/365 in 2-4 second increments. People add more solar and wind and these balancing resources become more important (and guys like me fill our pockets). Rate payers pay us indirectly through their electric bills and people like you who net zero simply push our fees onto those who do not.

I won't say that wind and solar cause more problems than they solve - they do push the base load consumption down - but I would say that we will never, ever, have a bulk electric system that supplies the loads it does today with the reliability it has today without a large fleet of fully dispatchable resources in the mix. Today these are mostly natural gas, maybe with policy changes in the future they could be atomic or something that hasn't been invented yet, but for them to be wind and solar is a physical infeasbility.

SlamDunk

@ChrisJ

LOL! "the square footed monster". That is accurate.

My neighbor has been talking about adding a 2-story garage as close to the property line as legal. It will make my bungalow look like his garage's gazebo. His other neighbors will never see sunlight again. Just a big wall when they go into their yard. C'est la Vie. So, until the landscape is certain, no solar panels.

wmgeorge

SlamDunk said:

@ChrisJ

LOL! "the square footed monster". That is accurate.

My neighbor has been talking about adding a 2-story garage as close to the property line as legal. It will make my bungalow look like his garage's gazebo. His other neighbors will never see sunlight again. Just a big wall when they go into their yard. C'est la Vie. So, until the landscape is certain, no solar panels.

They don't have building Codes limiting the size of structures?

ChrisJ

wmgeorge said:

SlamDunk said:

@ChrisJ

LOL! "the square footed monster". That is accurate.

My neighbor has been talking about adding a 2-story garage as close to the property line as legal. It will make my bungalow look like his garage's gazebo. His other neighbors will never see sunlight again. Just a big wall when they go into their yard. C'est la Vie. So, until the landscape is certain, no solar panels.

They don't have building Codes limiting the size of structures?

I'm sure they do, but they're probably very large compared to a residential house.
Something like 8-12 floors and as big of a foot print as you can fit within a distance of the property line.

But I have no idea and I'm sure it varies town to town etc.

SlamDunk

Not that I can tell. They shoe horn them in. Barely any front yard or back yard.

I did experience a little schadenfreude recently. A couple knocked down a bungalow on a street of small homes and built a two and a half story home on 0.17 acres; full porch on first and second floors.

It made the house next door look like a shed. They did it because that parcel of land would have a commanding view of our small city's skyline- if the house was tall enough.

A year later, a storage facility was built on the lot on the other side and it blocked their view. The building was a story taller and several hundred feet long. They tried to get the neighbors to help fight it but noone was interested. Turn about is fair play.

ethicalpaul

Seems like poor city planning to zone a several hundred foot storage facility next door to a residence

JakeCK

vtfarmer said:

And in case anyone thinks I might be cherry picking data: here are some screen grabs of kWh usage of my water heater and the solar production. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out in June, July, and August.

Before I became an eccentric tinkerer and part time farmer in the hills of western Virginia, I traded energy in most of the major power markets in the US and some in the EU and APAC (Singapore and Australia). The problem with wind and solar is it doesn't generate all the time. Your screen shots and experience show that if you fill a bank with a total of the energy your panels generate and push into the grid over 12 months then deduct the energy your homes used in 12 months you will have covered your usage with your solar. On paper. The reality is that every instant of every hour the power grid is maintaining nearly perfect balance of supply and demand to operate correctly and your solar plays no part in that - in fact it hurts it. Read up on NERC BAL-00 rules for technical details (BAL-001 and -002 in particular https://www.nerc.com/pa/Stand/Reliability Standards/BAL-001-2.pdf ). So guys like me sell the ability for gas and hydro turbines and more recently giant batteries (and sometimes highly variable but discretely controllable electric loads) to the power markets to keep the balance of supply and demand in equilibrium 24/7/365 in 2-4 second increments. People add more solar and wind and these balancing resources become more important (and guys like me fill our pockets). Rate payers pay us indirectly through their electric bills and people like you who net zero simply push our fees onto those who do not. I won't say that wind and solar cause more problems than they solve - they do push the base load consumption down - but I would say that we will never, ever, have a bulk electric system that supplies the loads it does today with the reliability it has today without a large fleet of fully dispatchable resources in the mix. Today these are mostly natural gas, maybe with policy changes in the future they could be atomic or something that hasn't been invented yet, but for them to be wind and solar is a physical infeasbility.

You are not wrong. I'm very aware of those limitations. It is one of the biggest advantage of installing a battery bank as well. Something I had wanted to do. But with all things supply chain related right now if I had gone with one of those as well I would still be waiting and probably waiting another year before I would have gotten anything installed. Last I heard the Tesla power wall is back ordered like 18months.

There are times where solar does play very nice with peak demand. Mainly in the summer with AC. It is generally the hottest when the sun is the brightest.

I also want to point out that how much power a given solar array will put out is actually very predictable, a smarter gride could anticipate that so we wouldn't need as many peakers that can respond quickly. My home automation software predicts hourly and daily production based off the position and rated output of the array(s) and the weather forecasts and it is damn accurate. Normally with in a kW. The only thing it struggles with is snow. It has no way of knowing how much snow might be on the roof. 

wmgeorge

That is why IF you have a choice mount your panels on ground level. That is what I am planning anyway. If you have a no solar spell most folks have a good sized generator and they can be made to run off Natural gas like my son put in.

SlamDunk

The residence is next to an active rail yard/ dying industrial area built a century ago that everyone thought would stay that way. In fact, the small houses were built for the rail yard employees in the '30's. Take a look-see. To stay on topic, this is why I havent added solar yet. City planning? Pffft.

https://goo.gl/maps/8qeJeeHE5Fron4Mz5