Biden Seeks $2 Trillion Clean Energy And Infrastructure Spending Boost

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/23/2020 at 4:19 PM, Enthalpic said:

You avoided the question again, when are those coffers filling from the back taxes?  Simple question accountant.  

You know deep down they will not.  You are just suffering massive cognitive dissonance and just can't accept that the world is failing under trump. The deficits will rise even more as he desperately tries to buy votes with borrowed money.

You were right about what? I said the deficits are near a trillion a month and they are.  I pointed out real numbers.  You, of course, put some trump fudge factor and claim the deficits are not real - they very much are.

Feel free to look at difference in receipts from the two Aprils, 535 versus 241.  Your missing taxes argument is very weak, sure some income is missing, but not that much, and some of those delayed taxes will never be collected as the companies failed in the meantime.

 

LOL "June doesn't matter" like those numbers don't exist in reality.  #trumpLogic #AlternativeFacts

 

 

Enthalpic, do you think that the Demoncrats would spend less than the Republicans?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Which is sad. Nuclear should have received all of the subsidies put forth for wind and solar. The amount of money we've put towards those two has been spent at a massive opportunity cost. 

Natural gas wouldn't have needed any subsidies and would have come out far cheaper. The Green movement caused all this with propaganda from the elites. Russia was behind the movement to stop fracking and promote renewables. Meanwhile they have no renewables worth mentioning aside from hydro. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/23/2020 at 5:33 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Solar/Wind dominance is already causing the value of dispatchable resources to increase. With every marginal increase in solar production the value of that solar power decreases because it is all being produced at the same time. Batteries allow solar and wind to capture their high quantity low value peak production and transfer it to the next demand peak. Batteries pay for themselves very rapidy and drastically increase the value of solar and wind by turning them into dispatchable resources.

Pure speculation? Do you have any example of a track record to prove your alleged point?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 7/23/2020 at 5:33 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Solar/Wind dominance is already causing the value of dispatchable resources to increase. With every marginal increase in solar production the value of that solar power decreases because it is all being produced at the same time. Batteries allow solar and wind to capture their high quantity low value peak production and transfer it to the next demand peak. Batteries pay for themselves very rapidy and drastically increase the value of solar and wind by turning them into dispatchable resources.

What is the true cost of all these batteries over their lifetime with safe disposal?  What is the proof they will do the job? What happened to producing hydrogen? Which is better in your opinion?

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Pure speculation? Do you have any example of a track record to prove your alleged point?

Thanks for picking up the nat gas torch Ron! Yesterdays 45BCF is all the proof we need that Gas is fuel of choice. Guy on twitter added up de-carbonization to 35k per house or 4.5T $. .... but that literally only covers ac and lights now heat and vehicle fuel is the other 60%+ of carbon so add on another 9T$ . Or 110k per house and again that's not gonna cover road tax so another bill to dream about.

https://www.celsiusenergy.net/p/powerburn.html?m=1

Edited July 28, 2020 by Rob Kramer
Web site

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Pure speculation? Do you have any example of a track record to prove your alleged point?

It is quite prevalent, in California  we often produce much more electricity in the middle of the day from solar than we need, resulting in decreased price paid for solar energy. Sometimes it even goes negative. Each additional solar panel increases the amount of electricity provided and the more often that prices drop or go negative. So the additional solar panel causes decreased revenue to all the other installed panels which decreases their value.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is quite prevalent, in California  we often produce much more electricity in the middle of the day from solar than we need, resulting in decreased price paid for solar energy. Sometimes it even goes negative. Each additional solar panel increases the amount of electricity provided and the more often that prices drop or go negative. So the additional solar panel causes decreased revenue to all the other installed panels which decreases their value.

Are you talking about consumer solar, like on your rooftop getting paid by your utility somehow? I can't imagine commercial solar operations getting negative pricing for their power. They'd scream bloody murder and the politicos in kalifornistan would scream right along with them. 

But spinning the meter backwards? Yeah that can happen (or used to, pre smart meters). My friends have a 20kw system in their farm. Then the power company came in and changed their meter. For years they were getting charged for the power they produced! The utility claimed ignorance and only offered them a 1 year "correction" even though the fustercluck had been going on since the meter was replaced in 2013. Their legal dept argued that they should have registered with the utility as a power producer, said registration not even in existence when the PV installation happened. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Negative pricing has occurred a few times but I think it is mostly solved now by a new market that was created, storage coming online, and better curtailment mechanisms. It is simple economics that when you flood the market with a product the price drops. The lowest wholesale price for electricity in CA is in the belly of the duck.

For a few hours on 11 March 2017, California produced so much solar electricity – over 4 GWh – that the wholesale electricity price temporarily became negative. In other words, the available electricity supply had exceeded demand and the producers had to sell at a loss and pay to produce the electricity. 

https://www.theagilityeffect.com/en/review/electricity-solar-energy-enables-california-post-negative-prices/#:~:text=For a few hours on,pay to produce the electricity.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

What is the true cost of all these batteries over their lifetime with safe disposal?  What is the proof they will do the job? What happened to producing hydrogen? Which is better in your opinion?

Batteries are extremely profitable and pay for themselves rapidly. Liquid air batteries are extremely easy to recycle, Lithium Ion will be recycled as well. 

Their value is being proven everyday as they generate a great profit for their owners. The champion today is the Tesla battery in Australia. It is making money like crazy and word is the other big batteries coming online are as well. 

Lithium Ion is for time of day shifting and faster services. Hydrogen is for seasonal load shifting and transport to regions in need of electricity. Liquid air looks to fit between them, maybe weekly shifting. They and likely other storage systems will work together to balance the full load.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Pure speculation? Do you have any example of a track record to prove your alleged point?

Hornsdale and its big Tesla battery exceed expectations as storage revenue surges

Tesla Big Battery, earned more in only one quarter than in all of 2019 or 2018. Last year, the developer recorded a nearly 14% increase in annual revenue to €20.5 million ($22.4 million) up from €18 million ($19.7 million) generated in 2018.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/05/20/hornsdale-and-its-big-tesla-battery-exceed-expectations-as-neoens-storage-revenue-surgesneoen-reports-strong-revenue-increase-teslas-hornsdale-big-battery-exceeding-expectations/

Edited July 29, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Hornsdale and its big Tesla battery exceed expectations as storage revenue surges

The surge in storage revenue due to specific grid conditions in Australia was one of the main factors behind a 61% year-on-year increase in revenues that Neoen saw in the first quarter of the year.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/05/20/hornsdale-and-its-big-tesla-battery-exceed-expectations-as-neoens-storage-revenue-surgesneoen-reports-strong-revenue-increase-teslas-hornsdale-big-battery-exceeding-expectations/

Good information, thanks. Waiting for a track record and costs to customers versus natural gas. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Good information, thanks. Waiting for a track record and costs to customers versus natural gas. 

The $200 million “Big Battery”, installed in South Australia in 2017 by Elon Musk’s Tesla company, has almost paid for itself, saving consumers around $116 million in higher power costs in 2019, a study by engineering and project management firm Aurecon has concluded.

https://www.startupdaily.net/2020/03/south-australias-tesla-big-battery-saved-consumers-116-million-in-electricity-costs-last-year/#:~:text=The %24200 million “Big Battery,management firm Aurecon has concluded.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The $200 million “Big Battery”, installed in South Australia in 2017 by Elon Musk’s Tesla company, has almost paid for itself, saving consumers around $116 million in higher power costs in 2019, a study by engineering and project management firm Aurecon has concluded.

https://www.startupdaily.net/2020/03/south-australias-tesla-big-battery-saved-consumers-116-million-in-electricity-costs-last-year/#:~:text=The %24200 million “Big Battery,management firm Aurecon has concluded.

The actuality in Australia now:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia#:~:text=Coal and natural gas%

emissions.

Apparently Government mandates have played a role as well as carbon taxing. 

Federal climate change policy changed following the election of the Labor Rudd Government in December 2007, which committed to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2010, and to expand the mandatory renewable energy target to ensure 20% of electricity supply in Australia was from renewable sources by 2020.^[3] After a contentious political debate, a carbon pricing mechanism entered force on 1 July 2012 under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, but was repealed by the Abbott Government in 2014. In June 2015 the Abbott Government downgraded the renewable energy target from 41,000 GWh per year to 33,000 GWh.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

The actuality in Australia now:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia#:~:text=Coal and natural gas%

emissions.

Apparently Government mandates have played a role as well as carbon taxing. 

Federal climate change policy changed following the election of the Labor Rudd Government in December 2007, which committed to introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2010, and to expand the mandatory renewable energy target to ensure 20% of electricity supply in Australia was from renewable sources by 2020.^[3] After a contentious political debate, a carbon pricing mechanism entered force on 1 July 2012 under Prime Minister Julia Gillard, but was repealed by the Abbott Government in 2014. In June 2015 the Abbott Government downgraded the renewable energy target from 41,000 GWh per year to 33,000 GWh.

Not quite sure of your point but note that the carbon pricing was repealed 6 years ago and green goals decreased. The big battery isn't getting any subsidy that I know of.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Not quite sure of your point but note that the carbon pricing was repealed 6 years ago and green goals decreased. The big battery isn't getting any subsidy that I know of.

My point is always the same. What are the REAL cost benefits for the citizens, including all factors. Wikipedia might need some editing, maybe you can help them out. Wind, solar, tidal power, etc. still have a lot to prove IMHO. 

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Are you talking about consumer solar, like on your rooftop getting paid by your utility somehow? I can't imagine commercial solar operations getting negative pricing for their power. They'd scream bloody murder and the politicos in kalifornistan would scream right along with them. 

But spinning the meter backwards? Yeah that can happen (or used to, pre smart meters). My friends have a 20kw system in their farm. Then the power company came in and changed their meter. For years they were getting charged for the power they produced! The utility claimed ignorance and only offered them a 1 year "correction" even though the fustercluck had been going on since the meter was replaced in 2013. Their legal dept argued that they should have registered with the utility as a power producer, said registration not even in existence when the PV installation happened. 

I now have 1.5KW on my roof which isn't on a feed in tariff so any export is a free gift to the grid. So I bought one of these. Very easy to install and now any surplus electricity* goes to the immersion to heat water

https://www.earthwiseproducts.co.uk/

* We have tried to shift as much of out consumption to day time as possible to best utilise the solar. Our panels are on east and west facing roof spaces so our freezer is on a time switch and switches off middle of the night and comes on in the morning. 

Reduced our daily usage to about 5 kWh. Over summer we don't use any gas as the solar thermal and PV dump takes care of that. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

22 hours ago, ronwagn said:

None of your options would compare favorably to natural gas plants. Natural gas is the true green option while also being the least expensive, most abundant fuel. It has proven this by allowing America to make the most progress in reducing emissions of any large country in the world. Meanwhile China and India have increased coal use. 

Nuclear plants spend far less on fuel than gas plants do. It's safe to assume $300 - $400 million vs $60 million per annum. Decreasing capital expenditure is the area of focus, and if there was enough push behind the industry we'd have what we need. Unfortunately the billions went to improving systems that are insufficient even at their theoretical maximums. 

Nuclear energy also has powerful capabilities for producing chemicals or fuels. Thermal processes for the creation of these materials will use a greater percentage of a reactor's MWth rating than a power generating system. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, NickW said:

I now have 1.5KW on my roof which isn't on a feed in tariff so any export is a free gift to the grid. So I bought one of these. Very easy to install and now any surplus electricity* goes to the immersion to heat water

https://www.earthwiseproducts.co.uk/

* We have tried to shift as much of out consumption to day time as possible to best utilise the solar. Our panels are on east and west facing roof spaces so our freezer is on a time switch and switches off middle of the night and comes on in the morning. 

Reduced our daily usage to about 5 kWh. Over summer we don't use any gas as the solar thermal and PV dump takes care of that. 

Double check your meter. If it's the modern kind (not the old fashioned spinning kind) the utility can and will be charging you for your "free gift to the grid". The meter doesn't know where the power comes from, it just tracks it. The old meters were electromechanical and clever people figured out they could take the meter off and install it upside down, and everything ran backwards so their power was free. The utilities responded with tamper clips, but that didn't last and as the internet enabled more people to do the same trick, they went with semi smart and smart meters. Since those run by program not mechanics the software didn't anticipate home grown power, so all power is considered purchased from the utility.

My friends were fastidious like you, turned off their AC and lived like they were 3rd world and still had these massive bills in the summertime. The utility even came out to do a power audit, but the guy they sent was looking for insulation problems not meter problems. I finally caught it by seeing their power production directly causing their digital meter to count faster, when everything was shut off. Their average bill was $400/month, after they'd spent $50k installing the system. The utility won't refund them, the first few years after install their average was $75/month. 

[NickW + 2,714]

26 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Double check your meter. If it's the modern kind (not the old fashioned spinning kind) the utility can and will be charging you for your "free gift to the grid". The meter doesn't know where the power comes from, it just tracks it. The old meters were electromechanical and clever people figured out they could take the meter off and install it upside down, and everything ran backwards so their power was free. The utilities responded with tamper clips, but that didn't last and as the internet enabled more people to do the same trick, they went with semi smart and smart meters. Since those run by program not mechanics the software didn't anticipate home grown power, so all power is considered purchased from the utility.

My friends were fastidious like you, turned off their AC and lived like they were 3rd world and still had these massive bills in the summertime. The utility even came out to do a power audit, but the guy they sent was looking for insulation problems not meter problems. I finally caught it by seeing their power production directly causing their digital meter to count faster, when everything was shut off. Their average bill was $400/month, after they'd spent $50k installing the system. The utility won't refund them, the first few years after install their average was $75/month. 

The Solic eliminates the free gift to the grid by turning any surplus electricity into hot water. Better to use as electricity but I decided the Solic was an investment (£155) with a better rate of return than a battery with a capital outlay of £2000. 

Its a smart meter - it does log exports but we haven't been charged. The bill equals the net consumption. We were away the other weekend. I read the meter before and on our return 2.5 days latter our total consumption was 3kwh (basically refrigeration and small ghost loads on the system). 

Today we have been informed our monthly direct debit will drop from £139 a month to £92 (it will drop a lot further as other efficiency measures kick in for a full year) so the approach is clearly working. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

38 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nuclear plants spend far less on fuel than gas plants do. It's safe to assume $300 - $400 million vs $60 million per annum. Decreasing capital expenditure is the area of focus, and if there was enough push behind the industry we'd have what we need. Unfortunately the billions went to improving systems that are insufficient even at their theoretical maximums. 

Nuclear energy also has powerful capabilities for producing chemicals or fuels. Thermal processes for the creation of these materials will use a greater percentage of a reactor's MWth rating than a power generating system. 

In the UK I always thought a major nuclear build would have an additional benefit of providing huge amounts of waste heat that could be used in glass house horticulture. Instead of importing huge quantities of fruit and Veg we could be growing it year round with the assistance of LED lighting. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

In the UK I always thought a major nuclear build would have an additional benefit of providing huge amounts of waste heat that could be used in glass house horticulture. Instead of importing huge quantities of fruit and Veg we could be growing it year round with the assistance of LED lighting. 

That's a good idea. Come to think of it, there's probably a myriad of uses for waste heat. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

11 minutes ago, NickW said:

The Solic eliminates the free gift to the grid by turning any surplus electricity into hot water. Better to use as electricity but I decided the Solic was an investment (£155) with a better rate of return than a battery with a capital outlay of £2000. 

Its a smart meter - it does log exports but we haven't been charged. The bill equals the net consumption. We were away the other weekend. I read the meter before and on our return 2.5 days latter our total consumption was 3kwh (basically refrigeration and small ghost loads on the system). 

Today we have been informed our monthly direct debit will drop from £139 a month to £92 (it will drop a lot further as other efficiency measures kick in for a full year) so the approach is clearly working. 

Found this video. It's amazingly similar to my friend's system, even down to the Sunny Boy.  Everything is smaller in this video though. It's like he bought the junior version of the system or my friend bought the biggest size or whatever. It's old enough now I'm sure the output is reduced from where it started. He also had to install an external fan blowing on the Sunny Boy, because it gets really hot.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

That's a good idea. Come to think of it, there's probably a myriad of uses for waste heat. 

Flash distillation of sea water if you need desalination. Thats another potential use for the United (fill us to the brim) Kingdom in the south East where physical water shortages are becoming more likely. 

The upper reaches of the River Cam (flows through Cambridge) where I grew up is now an ankle / knee height  stream whereas when i was a kid it was waist / chest deep. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Found this video. It's amazingly similar to my friend's system, even down to the Sunny Boy.  Everything is smaller in this video though. It's like he bought the junior version of the system or my friend bought the biggest size or whatever. It's old enough now I'm sure the output is reduced from where it started. He also had to install an external fan blowing on the Sunny Boy, because it gets really hot.

 

I use two of these purchased at 1/5th of the new price from a solar installer doing upgrades. My arrays are 660W west facing and 810w east facing. On this basis they are quite oversized. Even in clear conditions the output hasn't exceeded 500W on either array in the last 2 months. 

https://www.renugen.co.uk/mastervolt-soladin-600-600wp-power-inverter/

Likewise my panels are second hand / old stock and I use gable end rod to mount the panels. This gets them closer to the roof which affects the performance slightly but they do look better and this costs much less than buying a commerical mounting system. 

Ive got two meters measuring the output from the panels which have been in place for the last two months. Average daily output is 7.6 kwh. Peak of summer so will be interesting to see performance year round. 

Return on investment is about 17% per annum (tax free and guaranteed) which beats the 1% I can get from a decent deposit account. 

 

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nuclear plants spend far less on fuel than gas plants do. It's safe to assume $300 - $400 million vs $60 million per annum. Decreasing capital expenditure is the area of focus, and if there was enough push behind the industry we'd have what we need. Unfortunately the billions went to improving systems that are insufficient even at their theoretical maximums. 

Nuclear energy also has powerful capabilities for producing chemicals or fuels. Thermal processes for the creation of these materials will use a greater percentage of a reactor's MWth rating than a power generating system. 

Solar and wind spend even less on fuel than nuclear. Many more billions went into nuclear power development than have gone into solar and wind.and as they tried to scale nuclear they discovered that the costs went up not down. It didn't scale. If nuclear energy has such magical and valuable qualities then why isn't the nuclear industry using them to make money? Instead all they seem to be able to do is bribe the gov't for handouts. 

Federal agents arrested the Ohio house speaker on charges of taking bribes and funneling millions to boost passage of a controversial bill.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/feds-charge-firstenergy-nuclear-bailout-bill-of-being-supported-by-a-criminal-enterprise