4 ms·

Not to get anybodies goat, but living in larger homes with above normal HVAC systems is very expensive. Insulating homes has come a long way in the past few dec

Not to get anybodies goat, but living in larger homes with above normal HVAC systems is very expensive. Insulating homes has come a long way in the past few decades, but size is what matters. Energy companies are always going to look for ways to make money, why would we help them by using large amounts of electricity? I live in a hot state, Oklahoma, the best I ever did was upgrade my A/C to a R-410a system. This was 11 years ago and it has more then paid for itself. (My old R-22 system was well maintained) We can't rely on the energy companies to do anything cost saving for us, we must do it.

paulmd 4y ago
My understanding is also that homes in Texas generally also have substandard insulation because they come from an era where it was feasible to just open a window and get a breeze going. This came into play a year and a half ago when we had severe cold, one of the exacerbating factors was - those homes weren't well-insulated, so they had to use way more energy for heat than a properly-insulated home would have. Texas is basically a fractal of aggressive and deliberate fuckups all the way down, because ain't no ivory-tower elitist going to tell ME how to build my house/grid/power plant!
- _ajoj 4y ago
  > My understanding is also that homes in Texas generally also have substandard insulation because they come from an era where it was feasible to just open a window and get a breeze going. Uhh no. It's because it is cheaper. Especially homes built in the last five years seem to be lacking on insulation. > Texas is basically a fractal of aggressive and deliberate fuckups all the way down, because ain't no ivory-tower elitist going to tell ME how to build my house/grid/power plant! Yes. Please don't move here and tell all your friends not to move here.
pstuart 4y ago
Providing zero-interest loans to improve efficiency and reduce demand (e.g., rooftop solar) seems like a net win: homeowners can lower their operating costs and utilities can minimize peak demand.
- paulmd 4y ago
  Most states are doing the exact opposite and trying to roll back rooftop solar by eliminating net metering, meaning you get effectively no return on any power you generate above your own consumption, which completely nukes the economics for most people. There are fairly large fixed installation costs and if you’re going to do it you’d want to cover 120% of your needs so that you are always positive, and sell a little back - but they make sure that can’t happen, so everyone has to undersize their installations which makes the economics even more unfavorable. They say “they have to maintain the generating and transmission capacity anyway” but there is a mismatch here - they are happy to charge another customer full-price for it, despite the fact that customer will be local and thus they don’t need the transmission capacity during peak when solar is putting out it’s max and everyone is blasting the AC. Also actually they are usually charging the other customer a premium for “green energy”. Entrenched monopolist uses market and state power to keep competitors out, even if it means reduced quality of service. Even if, at a federal level, you straight up gave the things away, places like Texas would outright ban them or require contractual terms that made them effectively impossible to install, like different billing rates (large charges for any returned capacity, rather than credit) or just forbidding them in any home that is publicly interconnected (which is usually a requirement for having a mortgage). They straight-up will not allow rooftop solar to succeed under any circumstance, conservatives are politically and emotionally invested in making sure it fails, just like they blamed renewables when the gas power plants froze last year. And they are too entrenched with gerrymandering to ever get out of office, no matter what they do. It is a de-facto one-party state despite democrats consistently returning near 50% in elections. Samsung moving there is going to be a problem for them, all these disruptions are terrible, not just the outright brownouts but also fabs are extremely sensitive to power quality, small surges or drops will screw up wafers and reduce output quality too. But none of this is a surprise, if you move a business to Texas, and you are some type of commercial or industrial operation that depends on electricity, you really get what you deserve. I feel bad for the people though.
  - throwtheacctawy 4y ago
    I own a solar array. I heard an argument against solar owners participating in net metering that was interesting. The argument is: net metering doesn't account for the cost of transmission and maintenance of the energy credit that is consumed. Basically, we mooch off the grid. We're supposedly freeloaders, using the grid as our giant battery - only when we need it, and we're not paying to maintain the grid*. This argument was new to me. The state I live in doesn't credit me 1:1 per kWh, per se. Each kWh of power I pay for has 3 components; when added together, consumers pay a rate per kWh anywhere from 7-15cents. Each credit of power I produce can only offset 2 of the 3 components (like 95% of the cost) Tldr - it sounds like some utility providers do not require solar owners to pay for transmission costs, or break their bill up in such a way that the credit can only be applied toward the power, but not the transmission. Net metering sounds like a topic that needs to be defined. Some states definition of net metering could be very advantageous to solar owners, while other states have reasonable net metering rules that still incentivize residential solar.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
meatsauce 4y ago
Yea we should live in little boxes, with ice blocks and fans, because Obama said (from his oceanfront mansion) that the sea levels are rising and we need to make sacrifices for the greater good, less we destroy the planet by being alive or something.

paulmd 4y ago

My understanding is also that homes in Texas generally also have substandard insulation because they come from an era where it was feasible to just open a window and get a breeze going. This came into play a year and a half ago when we had severe cold, one of the exacerbating factors was - those homes weren't well-insulated, so they had to use way more energy for heat than a properly-insulated home would have. Texas is basically a fractal of aggressive and deliberate fuckups all the way down, because ain't no ivory-tower elitist going to tell ME how to build my house/grid/power plant!

_ajoj 4y ago
> My understanding is also that homes in Texas generally also have substandard insulation because they come from an era where it was feasible to just open a window and get a breeze going. Uhh no. It's because it is cheaper. Especially homes built in the last five years seem to be lacking on insulation. > Texas is basically a fractal of aggressive and deliberate fuckups all the way down, because ain't no ivory-tower elitist going to tell ME how to build my house/grid/power plant! Yes. Please don't move here and tell all your friends not to move here.

pstuart 4y ago

Providing zero-interest loans to improve efficiency and reduce demand (e.g., rooftop solar) seems like a net win: homeowners can lower their operating costs and utilities can minimize peak demand.

paulmd 4y ago
Most states are doing the exact opposite and trying to roll back rooftop solar by eliminating net metering, meaning you get effectively no return on any power you generate above your own consumption, which completely nukes the economics for most people. There are fairly large fixed installation costs and if you’re going to do it you’d want to cover 120% of your needs so that you are always positive, and sell a little back - but they make sure that can’t happen, so everyone has to undersize their installations which makes the economics even more unfavorable. They say “they have to maintain the generating and transmission capacity anyway” but there is a mismatch here - they are happy to charge another customer full-price for it, despite the fact that customer will be local and thus they don’t need the transmission capacity during peak when solar is putting out it’s max and everyone is blasting the AC. Also actually they are usually charging the other customer a premium for “green energy”. Entrenched monopolist uses market and state power to keep competitors out, even if it means reduced quality of service. Even if, at a federal level, you straight up gave the things away, places like Texas would outright ban them or require contractual terms that made them effectively impossible to install, like different billing rates (large charges for any returned capacity, rather than credit) or just forbidding them in any home that is publicly interconnected (which is usually a requirement for having a mortgage). They straight-up will not allow rooftop solar to succeed under any circumstance, conservatives are politically and emotionally invested in making sure it fails, just like they blamed renewables when the gas power plants froze last year. And they are too entrenched with gerrymandering to ever get out of office, no matter what they do. It is a de-facto one-party state despite democrats consistently returning near 50% in elections. Samsung moving there is going to be a problem for them, all these disruptions are terrible, not just the outright brownouts but also fabs are extremely sensitive to power quality, small surges or drops will screw up wafers and reduce output quality too. But none of this is a surprise, if you move a business to Texas, and you are some type of commercial or industrial operation that depends on electricity, you really get what you deserve. I feel bad for the people though.
- throwtheacctawy 4y ago
  I own a solar array. I heard an argument against solar owners participating in net metering that was interesting. The argument is: net metering doesn't account for the cost of transmission and maintenance of the energy credit that is consumed. Basically, we mooch off the grid. We're supposedly freeloaders, using the grid as our giant battery - only when we need it, and we're not paying to maintain the grid*. This argument was new to me. The state I live in doesn't credit me 1:1 per kWh, per se. Each kWh of power I pay for has 3 components; when added together, consumers pay a rate per kWh anywhere from 7-15cents. Each credit of power I produce can only offset 2 of the 3 components (like 95% of the cost) Tldr - it sounds like some utility providers do not require solar owners to pay for transmission costs, or break their bill up in such a way that the credit can only be applied toward the power, but not the transmission. Net metering sounds like a topic that needs to be defined. Some states definition of net metering could be very advantageous to solar owners, while other states have reasonable net metering rules that still incentivize residential solar.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

meatsauce 4y ago

Yea we should live in little boxes, with ice blocks and fans, because Obama said (from his oceanfront mansion) that the sea levels are rising and we need to make sacrifices for the greater good, less we destroy the planet by being alive or something.