|
Hatebag posted:Sea level rise is not a huge concern in/of itself. Just make a nuke tunnel in Western Sahara. It's uninhabited and making a big sea & associated wetlands would reduce albedo compared to desert. More CO2 sinks too. It wouldn't be habitable afterwards but that is not a change. i like the mega project that was planning dam of the Mediterranean sea, and drain some of it off to make more land for Europe
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
could I power my TV with an exercise bike that would help me lose weight while being entertained
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:i like the mega project that was planning dam of the Mediterranean sea, and drain some of it off to make more land for Europe Lol, just throw up a half dozen 3 GW nuke plants to run the constant pumps needed to make agriculturally useless land available! And a couple need to be in big time earthquake zones and run by real lovely countries. That's a spicy meat a ball!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:Yeah also you need data on how to charge customers so you need meters that collect time-indexed data and that's a pretty big upfront cost for something with marginal benefit. Yeah smart meters are required with any kind of variable billing scheme. Some utilities are rolling them out anyway because the data they can get from them makes it worth it (and sometimes they can lobby state legislatures into raising electrical bills for it). basic hitler posted:Power companies shouldn't be allowed to punish people for generating their own power, especially since people who do this can also generate more electricity than they use and the power company naturally benefits from increased capacity without burning extra fuel. I think "punish" is a little far for what's going on in the OP. Solar users are still paying less on average than non-solar users (which makes basic sense they are using less fuel as you point out). They're being charged more per kilowatt hour because solar users still need the grid to work and power plants to run when the sun is down (especially during peak hours when there's little solar power, power demand is at its max, and the grid is under the most stress), and a variable fee based on usage that is the same for solar and non-solar customers may not capture those costs fairly for solar users. That said there's always the possibility this company is being greedy shitheads and are over-exaggerating the problem. The problem they "say" they're solving is real though. Woden posted:$0.3/kWh is pretty drat low, had a blow out in South Australia that hit $8.90/kWh this winter. You're right I forgot about that. Man that was a mess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
That's not a real problem. This is a way to punish people who use alternative energy obviously. If people are using solar during the day and only need it during the evening, that means they're no loving different than any other customer, who uses less during the day too. It just digs into a power company's profit margins and the easiest way to offset that is to lock people into higher rates if they opt to use another supplemental energy source. But there's not an actual problem charging a higher rate on them fixes. Infrastructure is more or less paid for/subsidized by the state. a private company raising rates on solar users is them panicking because they see the writing on the wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Hot Smart ARYAN Girl posted:yeah gbs loving sucks now because of it Trump getting elected means everyone was wrong about dumb guys so get ready to hear their ill informed opinions set to maximum smug. Mentioning which-- anyone who mentions global cooling pretty obviously hasn't done any reading at all. One minute of research should be enough for anyone to figure out it is a daft comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Woden posted:$0.3/kWh is pretty drat low, had a blow out in South Australia that hit $8.90/kWh this winter. Was it cheaper to use candles and lanterns than turn the lights on at that point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
first they came for the solar panel users but seriously this is a crock of poo poo, as hitler up there said there's really no difference between someone using less electricity because they travel a lot, and someone using less electricity because they have a solar panel. cry me a river, power companies
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:Was it cheaper to use candles and lanterns than turn the lights on at that point? Probably? I think insurance covered your power provider and the actual power plants just raked in the cash. So end users(who didn't know/give a gently caress) weren't charged any more than normal and your power company was covered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:That's not a real problem. This is a way to punish people who use alternative energy obviously. If people are using solar during the day and only need it during the evening, that means they're no loving different than any other customer, who uses less during the day too. It just digs into a power company's profit margins and the easiest way to offset that is to lock people into higher rates if they opt to use another supplemental energy source. I did a bit more research into the OP's issue. Turns out rates aren't going higher for solar users, so I was wrong on that. His utility is reducing the amount paid for net metering, basically how much the utility pays for solar power during the day. So it's less about punishing solar users and more about rewarding them less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:I think "punish" is a little far for what's going on in the OP. Solar users are still paying less on average than non-solar users (which makes basic sense they are using less fuel as you point out). They're being charged more per kilowatt hour because solar users still need the grid to work and power plants to run when the sun is down I somewhat get your point about maintaining the grid, but they may not be paying less than non-solar customers simply due to the investment into their panels and batteries. The power plants use just as much fuel to supply a kilowatt regardless if the customer happens to have solar panels or not. It would almost be like gas stations charging those with hybrid vehicles more for a gallon of gas, just because all vehicles use the same roads to drive on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:I did a bit more research into the OP's issue. Turns out rates aren't going higher for solar users, so I was wrong on that. His utility is reducing the amount paid for net metering, basically how much the utility pays for solar power during the day. So it's less about punishing solar users and more about rewarding them less. I mean, that's still poo poo garbage
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:I did a bit more research into the OP's issue. Turns out rates aren't going higher for solar users, so I was wrong on that. His utility is reducing the amount paid for net metering, basically how much the utility pays for solar power during the day. So it's less about punishing solar users and more about rewarding them less. quote:Rocky Mountain Power has proposed a rate increase for new rooftop, net metering solar energy users, rousing concerns from clean energy advocates and consumers. Am I reading this wrong? Only thing I see as clear as mud is the "previous customers" part. Previous customers or previous customers with solar panels? If I were to install solar (still looking into the initial investment) I would not be as concerned about what the power company would pay me. Heck, I would rather have batteries decent enough that would store all the extra such that it would last me further into non-sun periods. I think it would be cool if my subdivision/HOA (A total of 12 or so homes with tons of sun and large south facing roofs) all got together and all got rooftop panels and shared a bank of high-end batteries. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I somewhat get your point about maintaining the grid, but they may not be paying less than non-solar customers simply due to the investment into their panels and batteries. The power plants use just as much fuel to supply a kilowatt regardless if the customer happens to have solar panels or not. The gas station comparison is pretty similar to how states are trying to pay for roads without a gas tax because electric vehicles are changing the math behind a gas tax. You're right that the fuel cost is directly correlated to how much power you use. Infrastructure cost/maintenance isn't as directly comparable to usage though, and that's where the issue lies. basic hitler posted:I mean, that's still poo poo garbage Yeah, there's plenty of reasons to not like the change. Incentivizing solar seems like a good thing. Fat chance power companies do it without someone (read: governments) paying them for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:The gas station comparison is pretty similar to how states are trying to pay for roads without a gas tax because electric vehicles are changing the math behind a gas tax. Why not tax people based on annual mileage of registered vehicles?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Like most things, it probably hasn't reached a level substantial enough for whoever's in charge to give a poo poo and change things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Maybe we should focus on taxing sources that can afford it and disproportionally benefit the most from working infrastructure. Like, say, businesses, corporations, and the wealthy
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
if we tax corporations they will just move to China
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
No they won't lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
President Emperor Trump is fixing that as we speak
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Am I reading this wrong? Only thing I see as clear as mud is the "previous customers" part. Previous customers or previous customers with solar panels? Okay, looks like I was wrong again. It's not a change in net metering, it's a combination of fees. http://www.standard.net/Environment/2016/11/10/Rocky-Mountain-Power-proposes-new-rates-for-rooftop-solar-customers The article posted:A customer charge that will rise from $6 to $15. Even I admit that's a little... bizarre. I can see what they're trying to do (offset the fixed costs that solar users are partially able to avoid), but having one set of rules for regular customers and a very different set of rules for solar customers isn't a good way to go about it. In reference to your question, it looks like the rules mainly apply to new installs after the change takes effect, not people with existing stuff. Fog Tripper posted:Why not tax people based on annual mileage of registered vehicles? That's exactly what they're trying to do. Figuring out a way to do it while avoiding privacy concerns is the issue. Edit: that and they want to incentivize hybrid and electric vehicles in a sustainable way. Pendragon fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:Why don't you 'buy in' to climate change op? op, waving power bill in your face: I CAN'T AFFORD TO!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Hey OP, I kindly hosed off before, but I just got back and wanted to point something out: Global cooling
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Pendragon posted:
Well I would see having less fuel to pay for as an incentive. Much like electricity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:Hey OP, I kindly hosed off before, but I just got back and wanted to point something out:
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
lol if you don't invent a perpetual energy device to power your home and other utilities and refuse to share it to the public. Also I don't believe in the OP making a good post 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Global cooling is a fake idea. Everyone knows the real threat is moonular freezing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
There's a generator that runs on water but Big Energy is suppressing it
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
in california they shut down our nuke plant at San Onofre because they were too cheap to pay for it and as a result our electricity rates went up about 30% i'm pretty sure that it was just a scheme on the part of the utility company to bilk people out of more money
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
actually it's probably because liberals are loving retarded about nuclear power, nuclear power itself has NIMBY baggage no matter where it is, and california is the NIMBY capital of the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
it is literally because: SoCal Edison ignored warnings that the steam turbines they were installing had some issue and they said lol gently caress that and installed them anyway. Then a year later the steam turbines had an issue and they decided it would just be easier to permanently decommission the plant rather than fix it also they foisted off 70% of the decommissioning costs to local utility customers, part of that 30% price hike. I don't think anyone I know was actually happy about it closing and the plant itself isn't anywhere near any residential or commercial area as it is in Camp Pendleton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:in california they shut down our nuke plant at San Onofre because they were too cheap to pay for it and as a result our electricity rates went up about 30% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station Looks like they cheaped out on the front end and bought mitsubishi (shitsubishi) steam generators. Then the damage was so extensive it was cost-prohibitive to fix so offline it went. The whole history of the plant is hosed though: "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" It was 50 years old though, time to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Hatebag posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station yeah but it wouldn't have been an issue if they weren't so eager to bypass proper procedures http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-san-onofre-anniversary-2016jan30-htmlstory.html posted:“It took NRC one day — one day! — to discover the computer error that was at the heart of the steam generator failure,” Hirsch said. “But because Edison tried to avoid a license amendment that would have required NRC review and a potential public license amendment hearing, and didn’t disclose to NRC problems like the void coefficient concern, NRC only did that review after the steam generator failed.” and now the utility customers get to pay for their gently caress up as if our energy rates weren't already outlandishly high
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
by the way the cost of decomissioning the plant is like $4.7 billion so like why the gently caress don't they just fix it the rat bastards (because they foisted off 70% of that to the customers lololo)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Nuke is cool and I'm for it, but we seriously gotta figure out a better solution for the waste than just burying it and hoping for the best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
That plant was run by fuckups and had 8 million people in its contamination zone. Bad combo. Nuclear plants are not profitable in America because there is no cheap way to deal with the waste that complies with environmental regs so they have to budget 100 years of waste storage and monitoring. Pushing an old reactor along for another 10 years would probably just mean more repairs and fines so it makes economic sense to decommission it instead. It's not a decision born of malice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:by the way the cost of decomissioning the plant is like $4.7 billion so like why the gently caress don't they just fix it the rat bastards (because they foisted off 70% of that to the customers lololo) According to the wikipedia article they were looking ahead to 2022 when they would have to meet the post-Fukushima earthquake and tsunami restrictions, and they realized that it wasn't economically feasible to fix the turbines and do all the work they'd need to do to meet the new restrictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
FedEx Mercury posted:Nuke is cool and I'm for it, but we seriously gotta figure out a better solution for the waste than just burying it and hoping for the best. It should be sent to a breeder reactor and processed into plutonium for use in a mega dangerous reactor or spaceship-propelling nukes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
the great deceiver posted:i burn all my garbage in the backyard op. provides heat + power for free If you're not also baking pizzas with your trashfire you are an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Hatebag posted:It should be sent to a breeder reactor and processed into plutonium for use in a mega dangerous reactor or spaceship-propelling nukes. they should also use it to make rare isotopes, so the can power electric cars with those eternal batteries they use for deep space probes
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:19
|
|