Easier, not easy. That’s not the same thing.
Not sure why you’d skip over the easier stuff and go to the nearly impossible.
We shouldn’t make perfect the enemy of good. Let’s reduce emissions. I really don’t understand why we aren’t all in on eliminating coal if that’s the goal.
I’ve been a stocholder of Dominion Resources since it was Virginia Electric & Power. Over 30 years. They’ve been going whole hog into green energy. I’m selling because the performance sucks
Were you hurt by a solar panel at one time? Don’t give a flip about easy or easier semantics. That never came up in my point, only you are trying to add it in. Lots and lots of things are easier than installing solar panels on rooftops. - Don’t care.
Are you saying that solar panels on every house would not make an impact to the amount of electricity produced?
It simply will, and by starting similar production guidelines, it will be a gradual change over time to help produce more energy in a fashion that would make green promoters happy without any drastic changes to people’s immediate lives. It also would not take vast real estate to be used exclusively for solar panels as the houses exist and take up space already. Not really much downside to having solar panels on them.
Really weird comment. I’ve said nothing bad about solar panels or renewables for that matter.
Why are you so changed about this? I’m not, at all.
It’s not semantics. You spun it a bit to prove your point. I’m resetting to what I said.
That’s what happens in discussions. People add things.
I’m trying to solve problems. Easier matters for that.
Of course not. I’m trying to be pragmatic in my comments.
Other than cost and a mechanism to make it a law.
Agree with this.
There a pretty clear trade offs. Cost being one of them.
Solar panels are common in the Tucson and Phoenix areas.
The problem is their current cost. The “break-even point” for a Homeowner runs 10 years or more.
If we can generate more production volume we would see the cost decline. And that would increase usage.
It is entirely possible that major portions of The Southwest can obtain electricity primarily via Solar.
Natural Gas can, and probably should, replace Coal. Yes, that hurts jobs in certain regions but that always has happened. Not good, but is inevitable.
With wind, solar, and Natural Gas our Nation is truly Energy Independent. No more Middle East power over us. All of North America becomes independent of Foreign entities as to energy.
Long-Term this is all good. Indeed our Trade Balances may swing the other way and further weaken the finances of Nations who do not seem to really like us.
They are really common in Bakersfield. I lived there from 2017-2022 and nearly everyone in the nicer parts of town had it.
The reason for above is the breakeven is less than 5 years. Natural gas is crazy expensive there.
It’s happening over time. Solar is getting cheaper.
Agree, only issue is batteries and having a backup for when the sun doesn’t shine.
Yep, agree. It sucks for certain regions for sure.
For electricity, absolutely. It’s tougher for transportation fuels because our refineries aren’t set up for all the light oil we produce.
Let’s hope!
I posted solar panels to make an impact, looks like we both can agree on this. I never said anything about natural gas for or against. Go for it as they are not mutually exclusive. I was focused on with my comment on long term change you are worried about short term easy. Fine.
Also don’t care about short term return on homeowners “investment” as I said force it by law as it is about building infrastructure for the good of the community. It will still payoff for homeowners just not in 1-4 years.
Looking at natural gas, it already provides 32% of the energy consumption in the US (largest source of electricity provided). To make a larger increase will take more investment to double it. While renewables are only 12% so a lot less to double and make into a notable source. Also increasing natural gas use for electricity is good, but it will also increase demand and then cost. A notable change for those that use it for heating homes.
Next looking at usage, 37% of all energy used in the US is transportation. With this thread about EVs, that is electric power that will go up as gas sources goes down. Both sources, solar and natural gas, provide it. Providing it directly at the home will probably help with the transport and loss on the lines (though I do not know the efficiency of the lines so this could be minimal). Both provide electricity but one can set up a long term solution that pays for itself over time. I doubt we will be at a point where we can just use one source in any of our lifetimes, but taking the easy way every time does have consequences down the road.
Becoming greener will drive up costs no matter what. Natural gas is definitely the cheapest now.
We need to keep expanding renewables and we will. But we should also be expanding natural gas over coal. It’s very abundant and burns much cleaner. If we want to cut emissions, it should be the next step (in parallel with others in the renewables space). It would have a significant positive impact.
That doesn’t go against anything I said. Except you are focused on now, and I am focused on tomorrow.
Coal is already being reduced. It only provides 11% of the total energy sources in the US now. The last plant of size was built in 2013 and no new ones are being built. So, no, changing to natural gas from coal is not the significant positive impact since they already started the transition 10 years ago. It will be better yes, but already being done.
Go look through our exchange. I started by adding something and you seemed to take offense to it, eventually asking if I was hurt by a solar panel.
I haven’t been very argumentative or attacked you. Just adding my thoughts and I think cordially.
We can disagree. It’s fine and I don’t take offense to that.
I don’t know that we disagree so much.
Yes, I posted a suggestion on solar panels. You posted that there is plenty of natural gas. Since you replied to my post, I have to assume there is some relation to what I said. The way it was stated says there is plenty of natural gas, and a natural assumption from that is that solar is then not needed. Thus the current state of discussion.
And the coal part is really outdated since they started that a decade ago. Plus I doubt they are just going to tear down completely functional power plants and waste the money so it is not an immediate phase out.
I didn’t say solar wasn’t needed. You jumped to that conclusion. I even said “first step.”
My goal is to reduce emissions and now. We can do that. It needs to happen across the globe too and that’s even more critical.
We probably don’t disagree much. I don’t think we should force homeowners into solar but do hope we get there. Just need to continue to incentivize it and keep getting costs down. It will come.
Since you replied to my thread, it is implied some connection to the solar statement. You left me to guess what that was.
In general people (not you or me specifically, but probably can include both of us) are real bad about communication on texts or message boards as they post half thoughts and leave others to guess the rest.
Though we will disagree disagree on forcing solar. Though I think all building where possible, not just homes. The cost saving long term will make it worthwhile for them anyway.
I do not support incentivizing, especially with the EVs. Most people that buy EVs don’t need the extra $7500 to begin with as they can afford it, so why should my taxpayer dollars go to help wealthier people get new cars. Esp since the infrastructure is not there to allow me to buy an EV thus no option to benefit.
You could ask for clarification but it’s fine.
You could incentivize differently than that. We just chose pretty poorly with EVs for reasons you mentioned. It does seem like it was pretty effective though.
I like seeing EV growth as it bodes well for new technology development. I don’t know that the incentives were the cause, but just one of many factors. A small pool example (not research worthy), but everyone I know with an EV (many people) bought it for convenience and technology being cool, not for the incentives.
Tesla sells far more EVs than the other manufacturers and they are not cheap cars. I think if the incentive was a major factor, there would be a much higher percentage of low cost cars where the few thousand really makes a difference.
I’m looking forward to the price point coming down so more can afford them.
When I bought my Tesla Model 3, there were no incentives. However, when I bought the Tesla solar panels and power wall, the incentives played a huge part.
I know some people that have the Tesla power wall and they are really happy with it. Not sure if they are Tesla solar panels or not.
So would you have not bought the panels without the incentives? Also what is your estimated return from electric savings to have paid off the panels (with or without incentives)?
No, I probably wouldn’t have bought it with the incentives. Since I paired the Tesla system with a free nights plan, my break even is in about 7 or 8 years. I basically swapped my electricity bill for the Tesla bill. My electricity bill is only $15/month.
The Model 3 rear wheel drive now starts at $39K before incentives. That’s below the average price for a new car in the US, which is $50K. Its almost there.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com