4 ms·

Could this disaster be turned into an opportunity? Could it spur decentralized approached to energy creation, such as solar with a power wall? California has

Could this disaster be turned into an opportunity? Could it spur decentralized approached to energy creation, such as solar with a power wall? California has so many inventive people and access to capital. Maybe this could be the impetus that would let them and us kick the hydrocarbon habit.

bluGill 7y ago
perhaps, but larger central power systems are in general better. They are cheaper because you can share generation ensuring that if one generator goes out the others can take over.
takanori 7y ago
This was my thought as well. Nothing like a crisis to spur invention. I did the math on a power wall. It’s too expensive to be feasible. Two units with installation cost $20K. That doesn’t include the solar panels required to keep it charged. You can get a gas generator with similar capacity for $5K. Not to mention gas is typically readily available.
- supahfly_remix 7y ago
  how about coupling your BEV (if you own one) to your house to maybe require a smaller battery? not trying to solve this problem there, but rather to encourage people to view this as an opportunity. i know that if power outages were to become common, i would be willing to spend money to address this problem for me and my family.
- hcurtiss 7y ago
  Exactly right. I got a Harbor Freight generator, installed a natural gas carburetor and plumbed in a quick release valve on our outside natural gas line. It will run the whole house, including the gas furnace and water heater. I love the idea of battery backup for our solar panels, but it's super expensive, and the payoff is so distant the NPV approaches zero.
  - ppf 7y ago
    Wonderful. What would energy usage and air pollution look like if everyone did this? Decentralized energy production = horribly inefficient.
    - hcurtiss 7y ago
      Totally agreed. This is for emergency use. I suppose sitting in the dark is better for the planet, but I would really rather my freezer not spoil.
      - ppf 7y ago
        Indeed. I hope the climate activists are taking this opportunity to learn about human behaviour once a situation is deemed an emergency - everyone will do whatever it takes, whether it's run a cheap (and, I assume, highly polluting) ICE generator, or burn wood in an open fire, to keep their house warm and food on the table.
Symmetry 7y ago
Tesla has been pushing solar and Powerwalls in California during this so maybe. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-reduces-solar-powerwall-pricing-elon-musk-ca-wildfire/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-reduces-solar-powerwall-pric...
dehrmann 7y ago
At least for now, power transmission is so efficient and cheap (and already built) that you're better off taking advantage of the utility's economies of scale. > kick the hydrocarbon habit Then build solar in the desert and offshore wind. The power company can do these cheaper than you on the individual scale. In the past decade, coal use has actually dropped 50% (mostly replaced by natural gas), so there's progress on the hydrocarbon front.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Much of California's power infrastructure is ... both centralised and decentralised. There's a huge reliance on hydroelectric power, one nuclear power plan (Diablo Canyon), as well as a huge amount of imported power from Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Canada hydro projects. Plus numerous peaking plants (one near Hunter's Point in San Francisco, Moss Landing north of Monterey, off the top of my head), and an increasing amount of wind and solar. A map of major transmission lines in the state helps show this: http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/united-states-of-america/california/CA-transmission-lines.gif http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_gri... With populations as large and concentrated and distributed as they are (roughly half of the state lives in LA-SD, half the rest in SF-OAK-SJ, half the rest in Sacramento-Stockton, and the remainder scattered throughout the state), it's hard to match generation and load. You can't park enough large plants near the big cities, you can't get enough small plants scattered around the countryside. Dams are difficult to relocate, for obvious reasons. Localised generation has costs and risks, particularly if fueled. Renewable sources can be built, but have their own reliability issues, many of which are addressed through storage, where that is best served by pumped hydro, so again, you're schlepping large volumes of power over the state rather than having a locally-contained grid. Incidentally, the Kinkaid fire started at or near a major renewable generating facility, The Geysers power plan near Healdsburg / Geyserville. That's actually among the largest and oldest geothermal generating installations in the world. Sparking transmission equipment in the area, possibly related to the plant, may be in part responsible for the blaze. As is often the case, a part of the proposed solution may well be part of the problem.

bluGill 7y ago

perhaps, but larger central power systems are in general better. They are cheaper because you can share generation ensuring that if one generator goes out the others can take over.

takanori 7y ago

This was my thought as well. Nothing like a crisis to spur invention. I did the math on a power wall. It’s too expensive to be feasible. Two units with installation cost $20K. That doesn’t include the solar panels required to keep it charged. You can get a gas generator with similar capacity for $5K. Not to mention gas is typically readily available.

supahfly_remix 7y ago
how about coupling your BEV (if you own one) to your house to maybe require a smaller battery? not trying to solve this problem there, but rather to encourage people to view this as an opportunity. i know that if power outages were to become common, i would be willing to spend money to address this problem for me and my family.
hcurtiss 7y ago
Exactly right. I got a Harbor Freight generator, installed a natural gas carburetor and plumbed in a quick release valve on our outside natural gas line. It will run the whole house, including the gas furnace and water heater. I love the idea of battery backup for our solar panels, but it's super expensive, and the payoff is so distant the NPV approaches zero.
- ppf 7y ago
  Wonderful. What would energy usage and air pollution look like if everyone did this? Decentralized energy production = horribly inefficient.
  - hcurtiss 7y ago
    Totally agreed. This is for emergency use. I suppose sitting in the dark is better for the planet, but I would really rather my freezer not spoil.
    - ppf 7y ago
      Indeed. I hope the climate activists are taking this opportunity to learn about human behaviour once a situation is deemed an emergency - everyone will do whatever it takes, whether it's run a cheap (and, I assume, highly polluting) ICE generator, or burn wood in an open fire, to keep their house warm and food on the table.

Symmetry 7y ago

Tesla has been pushing solar and Powerwalls in California during this so maybe. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-reduces-solar-powerwall-pricing-elon-musk-ca-wildfire/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-reduces-solar-powerwall-pric...

dehrmann 7y ago

At least for now, power transmission is so efficient and cheap (and already built) that you're better off taking advantage of the utility's economies of scale. > kick the hydrocarbon habit Then build solar in the desert and offshore wind. The power company can do these cheaper than you on the individual scale. In the past decade, coal use has actually dropped 50% (mostly replaced by natural gas), so there's progress on the hydrocarbon front.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Much of California's power infrastructure is ... both centralised and decentralised. There's a huge reliance on hydroelectric power, one nuclear power plan (Diablo Canyon), as well as a huge amount of imported power from Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Canada hydro projects. Plus numerous peaking plants (one near Hunter's Point in San Francisco, Moss Landing north of Monterey, off the top of my head), and an increasing amount of wind and solar. A map of major transmission lines in the state helps show this: http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_grid/united-states-of-america/california/CA-transmission-lines.gif http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/national_energy_gri... With populations as large and concentrated and distributed as they are (roughly half of the state lives in LA-SD, half the rest in SF-OAK-SJ, half the rest in Sacramento-Stockton, and the remainder scattered throughout the state), it's hard to match generation and load. You can't park enough large plants near the big cities, you can't get enough small plants scattered around the countryside. Dams are difficult to relocate, for obvious reasons. Localised generation has costs and risks, particularly if fueled. Renewable sources can be built, but have their own reliability issues, many of which are addressed through storage, where that is best served by pumped hydro, so again, you're schlepping large volumes of power over the state rather than having a locally-contained grid. Incidentally, the Kinkaid fire started at or near a major renewable generating facility, The Geysers power plan near Healdsburg / Geyserville. That's actually among the largest and oldest geothermal generating installations in the world. Sparking transmission equipment in the area, possibly related to the plant, may be in part responsible for the blaze. As is often the case, a part of the proposed solution may well be part of the problem.