The insurance goes up a little because despite your friend’s issue solar increases the home value. Your friend must have been in a big hurry to sell because I wouldn’t have accepted their offer. It had no affect on my roof, and I can’t tell you the monthly savings I will have except that I’m saving over $400 per month now. You pay for the solar cells and installation just like when you’re building a new house, with draws.
Why should the government provide subsidies to big oil, big sugar, and corporate farms? By the way, Tesla makes batters for solar storage.
Germany is on an electrical grid with the rest of Europe. Even though Germany shut down its last nuclear (and coal) power plants, Europe did not. The Czech Republic has nuclear power, and France (two neighbors) is heavily reliant on nuclear power. Parts of the EU are still using coal. In 2018, Germany generated over 40% of its power with coal. Population density in Germany is higher and the chance of severe weather is also significantly lower than in the U.S. Synchronous grid of Continental Europe - Wikipedia Coal's share in power generation for selected European countries – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA
Why are you so hot to increase your carbon footprint? You know there are bigger issues here than owning the libs. Some of us actually believe doing our part to help save the planet is a responsible action. Maybe you believe the planet isn’t worth saving.
First world problems for sure. Even in my modest sized home I realize I have to temper my criticism of growth, climate change, energy consumption etc because I realize the lifestyle we are accustom to In America goes well beyond necessity especially comparative to most of the world. Living in 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 Sq ft homes with landscaped yards makes me temper my criticism of what others can afford as far as newer technology and their responsibility to ease on quantity and type of energy consumption to minimize their carbon footprint. To each their own and I agree with doing what one can to evolve with technology but it still isn't cost effective for many.
I’m sure if this isn’t anything, progress in the sector will come quickly next few years. Solar panel efficiency to increase 50% with first ‘miracle’ tandem cells A South Korean firm has announced the world’s first production line for perovskite-silicon tandem solar cells, which promise an increase in efficiency of between 50-75 per cent compared to standard solar panels.
What? What is wrong with your reading comprehension? Nowhere did I say that I want to increase my carbon footprint. And I am not trying to "own the libs". I'm just trying to get the truth out there. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. There is nothing wrong with doing your part to save the planet. I am considering putting solar panels on my next house (I'm fortunate that I can afford to do so--most people can't afford it). I've done a lot to increase the energy efficiency of my current house, which you would know if you were paying attention. My next vehicle is likely going to be a hybrid. I advocate for higher oil/gasoline/electricity taxes. Again, if you were paying attention to my posts, you would know these things. I do not like government agencies over-reaching their authority and changing the world without thinking through the details.
Okay then maybe I misinterpreted your points, but it seemed you were being terribly negative about doing things to improve our carbon footprint because every little bit helps. This month alone I’ve reduced the CO2 I would put into the air by 1.8 tons, which is the equivalent of 29 trees.
Probably because similar to other forms of pollution by big corp polluters, the “market efficient” solution is obviously to go ahead and dump the waste and let someone else (the govt, society) pick up the tab on those hidden environmental and health costs. There is societal interest in shifting to clean energy. It’s not simply a matter of computing the cost of the energy itself and comparing, it’s ludicrous to even suggest that. Whether the $7,500 or whatever subsidy makes sense in terms of those “indirect costs” I do not know, possibly not, but I’m sure we are still early and it’s helping to accelerate the technology so that is a good thing.
I started to look up Terry Jarrett to see...and yup...total opinion piece by someone owned by the fossil fuel industry. Might as well have the CEO of a coal company write the article.
You don't even really need battery storage unless you are 100% one type of power. Read the article in the post.
So why does Germany fail so much less than France or the Czech Republic then? If the explanation is they just get power from France, shouldn't France's power system fail less, not more? And population density in Germany is higher, not lower.
That’s common sense. But to be off fossil fuels you need battery storage and that’s the big part of the goal. Ya can’t do solar and wind without battery storage(for obvious reasons).
I'm a little too busy in my life to go around counting tree-equivalents. But if that's what you like to do, good for you. By all means, keep doing it and keep telling everyone about it. I recently took a 16-hour flight in business class on an Airbus A-380 (and a mostly empty one at that). I'm afraid to think how many negative tree equivalents I might have racked up in one day.
Thx for the correction. Having power generation and getting it to the customer are two different things. I would have to believe that Germany's electricity infrastructure is better than France's. So both nations may have equal access to electricity on the grid, a country with crappier infrastructure is more likely to experience local or regional failures. And for the largest city in each country, Paris has more than twice the urban and metro population of Berlin, and is a much older city, not damaged much by WWII. Much of Berlin was re-built after WWII, and is more of a modern city. Same for Cologne and Dusseldorf. To me, that would explain some of the better infrastructure. Germany is also fairly rigid with technical standards compared to France, as well. Remember, France almost completely burned down Notre Dame Cathedral because it had very old wiring and/or workers smoking cigarettes in the attic.
There is a HUGE difference between people like me, CONSERVATIONISTS, that love clean air and water, versus the environmentalists nut-bars that want to eradicate the U.S.A. and our exceptionalism. I am a conservationist.... not to be confused with the radicalized environmentalists. I am for cleaner land, water and air, without the over burdensome dictates from the climate communists. I am for all of the above on energy, but we do need more nuclear power right now.
Georgia's new nuclear power plant just went to full throttle on three reactors. It will supply power to Georgia and north Florida. Third nuclear reactor reaches 100% output at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, which will provide power to JEA A half a million homes and businesses means that four reactors can power almost 20% the population of Georgia (10.7 million). Incidentally, at $35 billion and with the ability to serve 2 million customers with four reactors, if the consumers had to pay their share of the nuclear plant construction cost, they would owe $17,500 each. Not too bad if it is spread out over a 50-year lifetime ($350/yr).
