Tornadoes

[sunchaser]

Spy
I should have been more diligent in reading all the posts. Of note and pertinent to to RT’s post:

Coal exports in 2021
Indonesia. 425 million tons
Australia. 405 million tons
Russia. 260 million tons
USA. 85. million tons
Canada. 38. million tons

Close to 1/2 of coal exports are metallurgical ((coking) coal used in steel and cement making.

 

[Hippocampus]

Back to the original topic. I'm disappointed that you, an intelligent individual co-opted bad weather into an alarmist climate discussion.

Re-read Chapter 11 of IPCC-AR6. Have your insurer read it too.

There is low confidence in past changes of maximum wind speeds and other measures of dynamical intensity of extratropical cyclones. Future wind speed changes are expected to be small, although poleward shifts in the storm tracks could lead to substantial changes in extreme wind speeds in some regions (medium confidence). There is low confidence in past trends in characteristics of severe convective storms, such as hail and severe winds, beyond an increase in precipitation rates. The frequency of spring severe convective storms is projected to increase in the USA, leading to a*lengthening of the severe convective storm season (medium confidence); evidence in other regions is limited. {11.7.2, 11.7.3}.

In the overview of assessed events, the ENA region show a mixed signal of extreme heat and extreme cold with low confidence of both observed trends and attribution. Precipitation does show an increase, with a high confidence level of observation but a low attribution.

Even the projected changes in the frequency of extreme temperature and precipitation models doesn't increase much for North America unless the warming exceeds 2C.

Generally speaking, North America is poised to benefit from a warmer climate. It's the equatorial regions that are likely to suffer. It will be a disruptive change for Northern Canada however, as greenhouse warming itself, is felt most strongly at night near the poles.

Weather shouldn't be politicized. The CBC has essentially linked every Canadian recent weather event to climate change, and has completely ignored the El Nino Southern Oscillation. We are just coming off of a triple dip La Nina which has greatly affected our weather, and it would appear that a strong El Nino is developing currently which will definitely affect the hurricane season and the South East's winter (orange juice futures anyone?).

ENSO is neither a cause nor effect of climate change. However, there is a 66% likelihood that the annual average near-surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will temporarily be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year because of it. I doubt it will get the headlines and/or credit it deserves from the media.

I'm a bit concerned as my wife will be going to Ecuador this fall. Not a great place to be during a strong El Nino.

My dirt dwelling is in Massachusetts. Projected to be one of the least effected areas of the world. We have waterfront property but the house is 37’ over high water and not in a flood zone. Was built with hurricane proof windows/doors and diagonal tie bars to be storm proof. Not required by code. However my town is being effected by the influx of people leaving Central America due to effects of MMCC. American citizens needing public assistance for housing and services are being shut out due to the influx. Wife keeps an active trunk garden while we are here. Tomatoes are swelling and splitting while still green due to wet weather. Squash has failed and pea output is way down. Nationally output is down as is availability and costs up. Agricultural exports are down and more difficult with a dry Mississippi and Panama Canal.

We made reservations in Hilton head for the winter and the current hurricane is expected to pass over it once it’s done with Florida. Although I have a no claim history and am out of the zone during the season my boat insurance jumped close to $600. When I asked was told it was due to rise in risk from MMCC being spread out.

So believe although impact varies in nature and degree we are all effected regardless of place of residence. Also believe if you can’t solve a problem you should continue to try to mitigate its impact. Whatever we as Americans can do to slow or eliminate production of green house gasses will mitigate impact and slow the continuing rise in green house gasses. If we can slow the rate of rise we give ourselves time to effectively employ mitigation. Deploy cost effective CO2 capture. Change flood insurance rules so at risk coastal communities don’t spread the burden of the extreme costs of rebuilding. It makes no sense to me that it isn’t cost prohibitive to rebuild over and over again in areas know to be very high risk. Or least have building codes require hurricane proof construction. The discussion mostly has been focused on hurricanes. However in the northeast we get some real good winter storms. There are communities in Plymouth, Marshfield and south coast that get rebuilt ever few years. Along the US east coast building new houses and rebuilding old continues right on the coast continues. We all subsidize that increasing risk.

I’m no chicken little and don’t see this as the end of the world as we know it. But that view is predicated on our planning ahead and doing what we can to mitigate the risks and impacts. It also requires all to not politicize the issue. Sorry Joe Manchin coal isn’t our future. Sorry wokes influx of huge numbers driven north by MMCC is a problem and likely will only get worse. Sorry 1%ers I have no desire to subsidize your lifestyle. Sorry freedom caucus Russia takes Ukraine China takes Taiwan my quality of life is impacted. Shutting down the Ukrainian bread basket for Africa in combination MMCC forced migration from Northern/ sub Saharan Africa into Europe as well as Wagner supported dictatorships throughout central Africa affects our major trading partner Europe. We remain dependent on Taiwan for chips. Globalism has seriously hurt our blue collar workers. Not taking efforts to mitigate MMCC will hurt them more. We need to be self sufficient to the degree possible but need to accept the reality we can’t be totally self sufficient. We need to accept MMCC is changing the world and like Hackensack do what we can to mitigate impact and lower future risk.

 

[O C Diver]

Are you open minded enough to consider that if a non-carbon path (and technology) develops traction and acceptance, that India and China would not only participate, but compete fiercely?

Peter

You don't seem to grasp how the world works. As mentioned above, the USA and Canada have reduced coal fired power plants, but are happy to export the coal to be used in.....coal fired power plants. China recognizes the value in marketing green energy products to other countries. Given a choice between investing trillions in expensive green technology in there own country and selling it to other countries, they will be last to go green, if they ever do.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

You don't seem to grasp how the world works. As mentioned above, the USA and Canada have reduced coal fired power plants, but are happy to export the coal to be used in.....coal fired power plants. China recognizes the value in marketing green energy products to other countries. Given a choice between investing trillions in expensive green technology in there own country and selling it to other countries, they will be last to go green, if they ever do.



Ted

I'll take that as a no, you're not open.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

Ted have you been paying attention to what’s happening economically in China. For that rare occasion the WSJ and NYT agree China faces tough sledding ahead. They have been wacked with bad weather, marked decease in people of working age and gross mismanagement of their economy. Production of greenhouse gasses will decline as economy shrinks as least for the short term. They likely will be more aggressive in foreign policy in an effort to distract the population from internal failures. Think that is a more pressing immediate concern.

Still I don’t understand why you approach this as a zero sum game. Yes China and India need to step up to the plate. Both import energy. Other than Russia so does the rest of BRICS at present . We and Russia export energy. There are levers to turn to influence the dynamics even though we aren’t a member of BRICS and the Saudis and Iranians are set to join. Even if they don’t change why do you believe our changing isn’t worthwhile. Isn’t giving us a few more years to sort this out before the 2 degrees threshold worthwhile?

 

[Old Sea Dog]

Hey Hip.
We are just a retired middle class couple living on less than $4k a month. Have a house in VA and one in FL. Have 2 less than new vehicles. Have 3 boats 20', 26', 36'. Newest is 1995. Do not fly anywhere. Everything paid for.
So what do you propose we, as minimally educated infidels, do to stop this mmcc stuff?

 

[O C Diver]

I'll take that as a no, you're not open.

Peter

No, you're wrong. My carbon foot print is less than 20% of what it was 10 years ago. I'm the guy who has a 45' boat, travels 6 knots (down from 7), and gets 4 to 5 miles per gallon. I'm the guy without green energy, who has made his house energy efficient (less than $100 per month average electric bill). Short of selling my boat, all the big savings are done.

Time for China to step up to the plate.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Hey Hip.
We are just a retired middle class couple living on less than $4k a month. Have a house in VA and one in FL. Have 2 less than new vehicles. Have 3 boats 20', 26', 36'. Newest is 1995. Do not fly anywhere. Everything paid for.
So what do you propose we, as minimally educated infidels, do to stop this mmcc stuff?

I'm roughly in the same spot. With exception of airlines, my lifestyle is not excessive. But where there's a choice, I include external factors in my decision matrix. For example, many people prefer to buy from locally owned stores than big box stores. Or buy American made goods instead of imported. Now, there's a limit - I won't pay 2x or something, but I give preference to certain factors that I hope make a tiny contribution to the good side of my community. Waste and climate-related choices fit in that rubrik somewhere. There's no down-side; moreover there's often up-side. Installing solar - that's easy. And helpful. Re-using stuff. Taking extra time to recycle.

I am by nature a conservative person. My early role models were ranchers and farmers; my parents were Depression-era stahlwarts who harped on 'take what you need....but need what you take.' I personally can't change the world, but I can be part of the solution by not being a barrier and a willingness to consider change, if not embrace it. That's good enough for me.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

No, you're wrong. My carbon foot print is less than 20% of what it was 10 years ago. I'm the guy who has a 45' boat, travels 6 knots (down from 7), and gets 4 to 5 miles per gallon. I'm the guy without green energy, who has made his house energy efficient (less than $100 per month average electric bill). Short of selling my boat, all the big savings are done.

Time for China to step up to the plate.

Ted

Ted, China/India are indeed serious blockers to change. No doubt. Developing countries make a good argument that they need access to cheap resources just as the West had when they were developing. Huge issue.

If the only path were to get them to adopt our green values, I would be more prone to agree with you. But that's not the path this will take - something would have to change and the rules/currency change with it. I mean, is it really that hard to imagine a world where something is cheaper than mining coal in West Virginia; shipping by rail to California; then shipping it to China (and then by rail within their country)? Is it really that hard to imagine a day where all the legacy coal-fired Chinese power plants you mention are a liability, not an asset?

20+ years ago, "Innovators Dilemma" was a popular business book that presaged the 'disruptive' thread so prevelant today. It describes how successful companies get blind-sided by their inability to operate in a changing world because they cling to conventional wisdom making them vulnerable to competitor's innovation. It's a good book. Short read too.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

Ted have you been paying attention to what’s happening economically in China. For that rare occasion the WSJ and NYT agree China faces tough sledding ahead. They have been wacked with bad weather, marked decease in people of working age and gross mismanagement of their economy. Production of greenhouse gasses will decline as economy shrinks as least for the short term. They likely will be more aggressive in foreign policy in an effort to distract the population from internal failures. Think that is a more pressing immediate concern.

Still I don’t understand why you approach this as a zero sum game. Yes China and India need to step up to the plate. Both import energy. Other than Russia so does the rest of BRICS at present . We and Russia export energy. There are levers to turn to influence the dynamics even though we aren’t a member of BRICS and the Saudis and Iranians are set to join. Even if they don’t change why do you believe our changing isn’t worthwhile. Isn’t giving us a few more years to sort this out before the 2 degrees threshold worthwhile?

As mentioned in post #97, I've done my part. In case you missed it, in the USA, much of the big savings have been done or are in the process of being accomplished. From here the cost gets exorbitant and the gains are small unless you want to revert to caveman status.

You remind me of Al Gore, John Kerry, and all the other "Smartest People on the Planet" who travel to climate summits on their private jets to lecture us on what we're doing wrong. Why don't you lead by example. Take your boat to the land fill (so you don't enable somebody else to create GHGs) and stop contributing to MMCC.

Ted

 

[Old Sea Dog]

Friend of mine in FL installed solar panels about 5 years ago. Fell for the sales pitch. Several months ago he called to find out why his electric bill was rising as he is supposed to be selling electricity from his panels to the electric company. Solar guy comes out and tells him he needs to update all his panels as they are outdated.
Go figure....

 

[Old Sea Dog]

Thanks again Ted.

 

[O C Diver]

Ted, China/India are indeed serious blockers to change. No doubt. Developing countries make a good argument that they need access to cheap resources just as the West had when they were developing. Huge issue.

If the only path were to get them to adopt our green values, I would be more prone to agree with you. But that's not the path this will take - something would have to change and the rules/currency change with it. I mean, is it really that hard to imagine a world where something is cheaper than mining coal in West Virginia; shipping by rail to California; then shipping it to China (and then by rail within their country)? Is it really that hard to imagine a day where all the legacy coal-fired Chinese power plants you mention are a liability, not an asset?

20+ years ago, "Innovators Dilemma" was a popular business book that presaged the 'disruptive' thread so prevelant today. It describes how successful companies get blind-sided by their inability to operate in a changing world because they cling to conventional wisdom making them vulnerable to competitor's innovation. It's a good book. Short read too.

Peter

Peter, if you're all in on MMCC and how perilously close the world is to the edge, then China and India change has to start now. Apparently the leadership of the USA, Canada, and the other enlightened nations don't consider MMCC that serious, as they refuse to ban (or tariff beyond economic feasibility) the export of coal. I doubt that in ten years, any change the USA consumer makes will offset the increased exportation of coal as far as MMCC.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Friend of mine in FL installed solar panels about 5 years ago. Fell for the sales pitch. Several months ago he called to find out why his electric bill was rising as he is supposed to be selling electricity from his panels to the electric company. Solar guy comes out and tells him he needs to update all his panels as they are outdated.
Go figure....

Something is very wrong. I installed solar on my condo in Mexico. They paid for themselves in under 4-years. US is a bit different due to expense of installation, but ROI is generally under 10-years. I know of a dozen people who have had solar installed for 5-years or longer and they absolutely love it, have saved a ton of money, and think others are nuts for paying the electric company for electricity.

Peter, if you're all in on MMCC and how perilously close the world is to the edge, then China and India change has to start now. Apparently the leadership of the USA, Canada, and the other enlightened nations don't consider MMCC that serious, as they refuse to ban (or tariff beyond economic feasibility) the export of coal. I doubt that in ten years, any change the USA consumer makes will offset the increased exportation of coal as far as MMCC.

Ted

Ted, please don't make this so binary. I'm not "all-in" to climate change and any solution, I'm open to it and a reasonable discussion. The evidence I've seen to climate change is overwhelming - with exception of a small number of deniers, there is consensus on this. The solution and path-forward is less clear in my mind.

China/India is a huge problem and cannot be dismissed. But you've taken liberties to define the problem so narrowly that you will not accept anything unless the solution is China/India go green. But let's be honest, the argument really is "Climate change is wildly exaggerated spouted by hypocrites. Any warming is cyclical, not man-made. And if there is a man-made component, we'll adapt. Regardless, any effort to remediate would be a drop in the bucket unless China/India make changes. And even if they were to contribute, it would be too expensive to do it. So why bother?"

As my dad used to say "There are a thousand ways to say no, but only one way to say yes." The anti-bodies of climate change have cycled through their fair share of 'no's.'

Peter

 

[SteveK]

MMCC is a false flag. The real problem is CMCC and BMCC, the latter one man had nothing to do with as they roomed and propogated freely. There even was a movement to end dependance on C by switching to almost meat products.

COW FARTS and their cousins BUFFALO FARTS ARE TO BLAME FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.

The increase in the world population increases the number of cows farting in order to provide the steaks and hamburgers we demand.

Great discussion/debate evolved from tornados.

 

[O C Diver]

Something is very wrong. I installed solar on my condo in Mexico. They paid for themselves in under 4-years. US is a bit different due to expense of installation, but ROI is generally under 10-years. I know of a dozen people who have had solar installed for 5-years or longer and they absolutely love it, have saved a ton of money, and think others are nuts for paying the electric company for electricity.

You play fast and loose with solar numbers. Most commercial applications see a less than 20 year life for solar panels with degradation over time. While buying it and self storing the energy has some advantages, the pay back is much longer. Getting credits from the power company works until the power company starts loosing money. Then the rules will change to where you pay for access to the power company electricity or sending power in either direction across their system. It's just like electric cars. After you switch and charge it with your solar panels, the state realizes the road tax they are losing and increase vehicle registration for electric cars.

BTW, I looked at solar panels on my roof. Other than having to remove them every 15 to 20 years when the roof is reshingled, I could end up with far more investing the money and paying my electric bill. So I let my power company (FPL) invest their money in solar energy.

Ted, please don't make this so binary. I'm not "all-in" to climate change and any solution, I'm open to it and a reasonable discussion. The evidence I've seen to climate change is overwhelming - with exception of a small number of deniers, there is consensus on this. The solution and path-forward is less clear in my mind.

China/India is a huge problem and cannot be dismissed. But you've taken liberties to define the problem so narrowly that you will not accept anything unless the solution is China/India go green. But let's be honest, the argument really is "Climate change is wildly exaggerated spouted by hypocrites. Any warming is cyclical, not man-made. And if there is a man-made component, we'll adapt. Regardless, any effort to remediate would be a drop in the bucket unless China/India make changes. And even if they were to contribute, it would be too expensive to do it. So why bother?"

As my dad used to say "There are a thousand ways to say no, but only one way to say yes." The anti-bodies of climate change have cycled through their fair share of 'no's.'

Peter

As mentioned in post #20, climate change is a symptom of over population. If individuals in the USA reduce their GHG or MMCC foot print by 20% over the next 10 years, and the population increases by 20%, there's no savings. You choose to look at pieces based on a fixed level of population, it's not. Until population is level or declining, the actual savings overall are likely small if at all.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

You play fast and loose with solar numbers. Most commercial applications see a less than 20 year life for solar panels with degradation over time. While buying it and self storing the energy has some advantages, the pay back is much longer. Getting credits from the power company works until the power company starts loosing money. Then the rules will change to where you pay for access to the power company electricity or sending power in either direction across their system. It's just like electric cars. After you switch and charge it with your solar panels, the state realizes the road tax they are losing and increase vehicle registration for electric cars.



BTW, I looked at solar panels on my roof. Other than having to remove them every 15 to 20 years when the roof is reshingled, I could end up with far more investing the money and paying my electric bill. So I let my power company (FPL) invest their money in solar energy.









As mentioned in post #20, climate change is a symptom of over population. If individuals in the USA reduce their GHG or MMCC foot print by 20% over the next 10 years, and the population increases by 20%, there's no savings. You choose to look at pieces based on a fixed level of population, it's not. Until population is level or declining, the actual savings overall are likely small if at all.



Ted

Mexico solar ROI is real, at least for me. Not applicable to US though. In addition to lower install costs, Mexico has a very progressive rate structure that is quite high for high usage (3x $/kw of US). Since we rent to gringos who crank the A/C, ROI is fast to say the least. 44 months to be exact.

As far as 10-year in US, those numbers are absolutely being achieved with reasonably smart purchasing processes. Many communities have energy outreach specialists who can organize neighborhood RFPs for group installations. Saves money and assures a better outcome.

I have a hunch that independent installers in the US raise their rates to absorb the tax credits. I know, cynical, but installing solar really isn't that difficult. It's not a $40k job.

I'll leave you the last word on climate change. I obviously don't agree, but I do appreciate the conversation.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

Have had solar on the last 3 houses. Initially SCRECs were wonderful and even with low tech poly panels payback was 6 years afterwards they continued to produce so electric bill was halved. We only used south facing roof so were limited in production as it had dormers. Next house got less rebate and sold at less as well as SREC rules changed. However panel cost came down and efficiency up so pay back was 5 years. We were off cruising so was paid monthly as our home use was low. Current house was a new build. Panels are now 4 years old and already paid off. We sell back to the grid monthly. Did pay them one month (a February) which was rainy. We were limited in how many panels we could put up. If we went with more were considered a commercial producer. Too much hassle and not worth it.
If you buy decent panels (usually non Chinese) usually get a decent warranty on production . When last house was sold panels were tested. Lowest was 87% highest 95% they were 12y old.
Have been down this road 3 times now. Initially made sense as tax incentives were so good and SREC program so good. With the next one not so much. With the most recent one still some help but would do it again even their absence. All three paid off and generated income or markly defrayed electric bill.
Markets go up and down. I’m at a point where I want my nut to be as low as possible. Currently my cost of ownership for my house is taxes, garbage collection, water bill (well wasn’t allowed) and a biannual crew to deal with the dock. We also eliminated maintenance where ever we could. It’s the old pay me now or pay me later. More expense initially. Less down the road. Less overall. First two houses were poly. Current is mono crystalline. As being new construction we sited house and did tree work to maximize production. Also our installer did the geo/ solar/all ducting/ and a space heater for the garage. He also subbed out the drilling. I can’t compare to cost for just solar on an existing house with certainty. But believe it was proportionally cheaper. The itemized bill isn’t that helpful. Need apples to apples.
This might not be possible for others.
Say what you want solar/geo made economic sense for this house and solar for the last three. The real problem is it’s expensive to be poor. Solar does cost initially and that shuts a lot of people out. Same for geo. Think it makes better sense for new construction and housing stock takes a long time to time out. Current house uses much less electricity (foam insulation/new windows and doors) and makes more electricity than any house I’ve owned. So the pay back is shorten.

 

[O C Diver]

As far as 10-year in US, those numbers are absolutely being achieved with reasonably smart purchasing processes. Many communities have energy outreach specialists who can organize neighborhood RFPs for group installations. Saves money and assures a better outcome.

Peter, that's a miss representation. You don't keep your money under your mattress do you? My money that's not in wealth preservation, doubles every 7 to 8 years. So the return on investment doesn't happen, especially if you were to finance it with current interest rates.

Further a significant percentage of the cost in one off solar panel installations to existing homes is the engineering (determining if the roof can handle the load and whether modifications have to be made to the sub roofing for attachment and wind storm building code requirements) and running of electrical in an existing home.

While I'm not a fan of California policies, one of the unintended consequences of solar panel requirements on new homes was the cost reduction for identical homes. If you're a developer building identical structures, the engineering doesn't need to be done each time and all electrical can be run during the house wiring phase. I would imagine in this scenario the cost of solar for new identical homes is probably half of adding solar to an existing home.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Peter, that's a miss representation. You don't keep your money under your mattress do you? My money that's not in wealth preservation, doubles every 7 to 8 years. So the return on investment doesn't happen, especially if you were to finance it with current interest rates.



Further a significant percentage of the cost in one off solar panel installations to existing homes is the engineering (determining if the roof can handle the load and whether modifications have to be made to the sub roofing for attachment and wind storm building code requirements) and running of electrical in an existing home.



While I'm not a fan of California policies, one of the unintended consequences of solar panel requirements on new homes was the cost reduction for identical homes. If you're a developer building identical structures, the engineering doesn't need to be done each time and all electrical can be run during the house wiring phase. I would imagine in this scenario the cost of solar for new identical homes is probably half of adding solar to an existing home.



Ted

Residential electricity has averaged around 4.0-4.5% annual increases. The average diversified blended growth portfolio does around 6.0%-7.0% per year so yes, on average, you are giving up a bit. But since the chances of electricity rate increases continuing are near certain, the financial risk for investing in solar is very low since it avoids the rate increase. While not as low risk as investing in treasuries, lower than a growth portfolio that will suffer losses every 7 years or so. If you're doubling ever 7 years (10%) without accepting risk, well, good on you.

Having hired structural engineering work for permitting 2-months ago, you are correct about requiring engineering, but the costs are nowhere near 50%. The fastening systems are all pre engineered with manufacturers certified testing and compliance so complete engineering from scratch is not required. I paid $500 to have the structural engineering done on a small garage in Florida hurricane Zone A (currently evacuated, by the way). The highest quote I received for the engineering was $2000. And that was for the entire building including foundation and hurricane ties to withstand 145mph winds.

All I can tell you is in many instances, there is a strong business case for solar, and the numbers are getting better as equipment costs reduce and quality increases. There is a legit business case even without tax incentives. That said, solar isn't for everyone. My house in Florida is small and I'm only there in the winter. I just don't use a lot of energy - maybe $1000/yr. I'd install solar just for the independence but it's not high on my list. What I may do is build a small solar system to power fridge and internet. Another instance where it didn't work was my friend with the big Power Cat in the backyard. Between that and his house, he probably spends $15k/yr on electricity. He might get it down to $11k-$12k which wasn't compelling for him so more of a matter of expectations.

At any rate, solar industry is maturing. Something to look at if your situation permits.

Peter

 

[O C Diver]

Residential electricity has averaged around 4.0-4.5% annual increases. The average diversified blended growth portfolio does around 6.0%-7.0% per year so yes, on average, you are giving up a bit. But since the chances of electricity rate increases continuing are near certain, the financial risk for investing in solar is very low since it avoids the rate increase. While not as low risk as investing in treasuries, lower than a growth portfolio that will suffer losses every 7 years or so. If you're doubling ever 7 years (10%) without accepting risk, well, good on you.

Don't know where you come up with the annual increase of 4%. I've owned my house for 20 years. The killowatt per hour cost hasn't increased 30% in that time. My electric bill divided by killowatts consumed is still under 15 cents per kilowatt. In fact, my electric rate went down this month with the reduction of natural gas prices.

I spend $1,200 per year on electricity. To break even, I would need to have an all in cost of $12,000. When I looked 4 years ago, best price for solar was 3 times that. I would probably have done it at $18,000.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Don't know where you come up with the annual increase of 4%. I've owned my house for 20 years. The killowatt per hour cost hasn't increased 30% in that time. My electric bill divided by killowatts consumed is still under 15 cents per kilowatt. In fact, my electric rate went down this month with the reduction of natural gas prices.



I spend $1,200 per year on electricity. To break even, I would need to have an all in cost of $12,000. When I looked 4 years ago, best price for solar was 3 times that. I would probably have done it at $18,000.



Ted

Here's one source for kwh costs. Doesn't include the fees and such. Maybe 4% is a tad high, but not outlandish. Last year, increase was 14% which is an outlier (I hope).

https://www.in2013dollars.com/Electricity/price-inflation/2013-to-2023?amount=100

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, prices for electricity are 32.75% higher in 2023 versus 2013 (a $32.75 difference in value).

Sounds like you came to the same conclusion I did about solar - just don't use enough electricity to make it work. Install cost isn't linear.

We're in violent agreement here Ted

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

As stated above for an existing house solar/geo may not make sense until costs of grid electricity go up further and installation/panel costs go down further. Also if you’re flipping houses every few years you take an additional hit as its presence doesn’t raise selling price that much. But even now it does for new construction. For the prior houses it did as well but that was due to the incentives offered at the time by state and feds.

 

[mvweebles]

On topic of residential solar installed cost and payback period. Quick Google of installed cost of solar found this recent article from MarketWatch, a research firm vs solar firm.


https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/home-improvement/solar-panel-cost/

Scroll down and there is a state by state table. I've attached a screenshot - around 10-yr payback before tax incentives. There is quite a bit of variability by state. Another way to look at it would be to take the installed cost per kWh and simply divide by your local cost to come up with a payback period - one set of data I found shows 177 months or around 15 years (natl avg of 16.1 cents per kWh).

Avg kWh by region data https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

Bottom line is 10 year payback is roughly right, but could be longer depending on the model you use. As Ted rightly points out, there are other considerations from a purely financial perspective. However, as Hippocampus stated, has been my experience that the satisfaction of shedding a monthly payment was very, very high. Somewhere I have a picture of my wife "throwing the switch" at our Mexico place. What a smile!!!!

Peter

 

[Old Sea Dog]

Post #108.
" The real problem is it's expensive to be poor."

The majority of people on earth are "poor".

The only way this expensive solution can move forward is putting it on the backs of the "poor".

Is there such a thing as
"Not equal giving, but equal sacrifice"?

 

[PierreR]

Post #108.
" The real problem is it's expensive to be poor."

The majority of people on earth are "poor".

The only way this expensive solution can move forward is putting it on the backs of the "poor".

Is there such a thing as
"Not equal giving, but equal sacrifice"?

The poor working class are subsidizing solar panels for the rich. Stand alone solar is very expensive. More so than wind.

Solar is okay for off grid, quiet energy production and household lighting but horrible for base load and industrial processes

There is only one source of power that is truly carbon negative and that is fission. If CAGW were true, we would be installing nuclear and funding fusion to the point that the research could get ahead of the equipment degradation and outdating by the time experimental equipment is installed. We are not so there is no emergency.

 

[Hippocampus]

Post #108.
" The real problem is it's expensive to be poor."

The majority of people on earth are "poor".

The only way this expensive solution can move forward is putting it on the backs of the "poor".

Is there such a thing as
"Not equal giving, but equal sacrifice"?

Been poor early in life. Without that experience the statement “it’s expensive to be poor” makes little sense. But you can’t buy in bulk. You can’t buy in expectation of future need. You need every cent to get by day to day so spending money on something so expensive as solar, geo, or a new EV can’t happen due insufficient cash flow and no money put aside. Even when the money was coming in it’s against human nature to not live large and at the level of current income. Americans have a dismal record of setting aside money for investment and savings. Basic economic skills are inadequately taught in school.

I think even with governmental subsidies this is the major obstacle to our transformation to a green economy. It has to make economic sense and be possible for the majority of our population. We sit here with enough wherewithal to piss away money on boats. Most of us aren’t rich but we could do the transformation in part or in whole. However it’s out of the realm of possibility in the current realities of the majority of our country or the world. It will only occur with a FDR style program. That will only occur with the active support of the general public. It is occurring in Scandinavia and Europe but due to their history there’s much more fertile ground and acceptance. As much as I dislike Biden on several fronts he is the grown up in the room. It’s the poor and lower middle class that takes the brunt of the climate change hit. Take a drive through Texas, Louisiana, or Florida. Recovery cycles are ~ a decade. Events are more frequent. That why I get on my high horse against the MMCC deniers. End of rant.

 

[mvweebles]

The poor working class are subsidizing solar panels for the rich. Stand alone solar is very expensive. More so than wind.

Solar is okay for off grid, quiet energy production and household lighting but horrible for base load and industrial processes

There is only one source of power that is truly carbon negative and that is fission. If CAGW were true, we would be installing nuclear and funding fusion to the point that the research could get ahead of the equipment degradation and outdating by the time experimental equipment is installed. We are not so there is no emergency.

Ughh....again? Another 'there-is-no-problem-but-if-there-is,-the-solution-is-impossible?' argument? Where do you guys find these? They may sound play well to a self-selected choir-audience on CableTV, but outside of church, well, not so much. There is so much evidence to the contrary.

Before you jump to thinking that I must be part of the far-left whacko crowd (the natural categorization of anyone who does not accept your reductionist thinking), consider that I spent the last 7-years of my career with BP where my teams supported a number of advanced technology initiatives, one of which was BP's investment in Lightsource, one of the world's largest alternative energy providers with over 2000mw of solar capacity. It has been such a successful venture that BP increased their investment, and Lightsource BP is co-located with several BP offices. Lightsource continues to drive revenue and efficiency - in the last 7-8 years or so, average panel efficiency has gone from 17% to 21%, with another 15%-20% added for bifacial panels.

I don't understand your statement that solar is not viable for industrial loads. A watt is a watt. There is no hydrocarbon-watt vs a solar-watt. If you think no one is producing solar watts on an industrial scale, drive through California's Mojave Desert sometime. Or just read the prospectus on Lightsource.

The world is evolving despite your thinking. You may want to change the channel and watch something else.....

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

So given post #118 and #117 and the FACT the transformation is occurring think the work around will be :
Transformation of residences as they age out.
Production mainly on industrial scale not dependent on individual households . Personally don’t care which mix it is-nuclear, wind, solar, hydro or geo. Decisions made on local realities.
Reworking of the electrical grid with ultimate result much like the highway system i.e. mostly done at a federal level avoiding catastrophes like Texas and creating cyber attack resistance.
Transformation of transportation system and industrial farming to lessen impact. Likely by changing tax code and redirecting subsidies.

Mitigation via changing housing demographics so at risk locales solely bare the burden of risk. Governmental interventions ( like Rotterdam, Hackensack etc.) and changes in building codes and flood insurance.

There’s been a demographic shift of population to areas most at risk for low fresh water availability and more storm/fire risk. Hopefully folks will take this into consideration and the shift will slow or reverse. Again governmental encouragement may shorten the time to occurrence.

 

[sunchaser]

Solar alone is not suitable for huge base load 24/7 industrial operations. Or Las Vegas when the lights come on.

The beauty of fission, gas, coal and hydro are they are 24/7 and adjustable to meet demand. Tie all of these together in a reliable grid such as exists in most of Europe and NA allows solar and wind sporadic power generation to work effortlessly.

BTW, BPs fossil refineries operate 24/7 producing raw materials for manufacturing of solar and wind final assembly - and Willards too!