ghouse

11 ms·

61.
by ghouse 5y ago
Capacity is a fixed cost. Society expects five nines, so we build the grid to meet the peak hour of the peak year out of ten years. But the cost to meet that peak is amortized over all of the electricity. And because the per capita use in
62.
by ghouse 6y ago
So, like paying for emergency healthcare in the United States.
63.
by ghouse 6y ago
There are plenty of requirements in Conditional Use Permits that force entities to do things they wouldn't otherwise do themselves. These are generally to mitigate the negative impacts on others. For example, onsite stormwater retent
64.
by ghouse 6y ago
It's not an energy tax. Electricity is more expensive to produce and deliver during 4-9 PM. Flat rates subsidize use during 4-9 PM.
65.
by ghouse 6y ago
So long as EV charging doesn't contribute to net peak on the electric grid, then yes, the grid is up to the task. The grid is designed to handle the peak hour of a ten-year period. Increasing that peak is very expensive. However, beca
66.
by ghouse 6y ago
Privatize the gains (assets), socialize the losses (or the liability)
67.
by ghouse 6y ago
Were they reacting to their voting rights being taken away, or reacting to having been led to believe that their voting rights were taken away? I have seen no credible evidence that they were disenfranchised.
68.
by ghouse 6y ago
And if you've had your identity stolen, the banks are the victim of that crime. You become the victim not from the thief's actions, but the actions of the banks and other institutions that were swindled by the criminal.
69.
by ghouse 6y ago
It's important to distinguish between operating profits, and taxable profits. They can have positive operating profits, but tax losses. For example, Congress recently (3-4 years ago?) changed the tax code to allow companies to expense
70.
by ghouse 6y ago
> The tax code rewards corporations for R&D investments. I think it's working. I'm fairly confident FB would be making R&D investments regardless of the reward from the tax code. But for change in behavior due to the ta
71.
by ghouse 6y ago
> Both 120 degrees out of phase. So if you remember elementary school math the abs() of phase A at its peak of +120 and phase B at it's valley of -120 = 240. I think you mean 180 degrees out of phase.
72.
by ghouse 6y ago
> 110V single-phase power to residences. The US is 120V, or split-phase 240 V. Depending where you are, it's allowed to be ±5% at the meter. NEC guidelines say no more than 3% voltage drop from there.
73.
by ghouse 6y ago
And the suppressed supply leads to further price increase. And that feedback loop only further increases the tax penalty for moving. On top of that, when you die, if your children inherit the property, they keep the Prop 13 tax basis (and
74.
by ghouse 6y ago
I'll be voting against it. Prop 15 will make it more difficult to fix Prop 13.
75.
by ghouse 6y ago
The (presumably) unintended consequences of Prop 13 are numerous, and with the passage of time, are increasing. For example, the supply of houses is suppressed because selling ones house and purchasing a new one comes with an increased tax
76.
by ghouse 6y ago
> Environmentalists want the plants to remain closed because they use fossil fuels and are cooled using seawater, endangering marine life. They're currently running, but scheduled (from about a decade ago) to retire at the end of th
77.
by ghouse 6y ago
The rolling blackouts that happened on Friday were initiated around 6:30 PM PDT. On Friday, at 6:30 PM solar was 3,460 MW (from a high of 10,875 MW mid-day) and by 7:30 PM PDT was 133 MW.
78.
by ghouse 6y ago
> during a typical thunderstorm for that area. That's why this is "insane." It's not typical to have _any_ thunderstorms in this area. It's also not typical to have rain in August.
79.
by ghouse 6y ago
In the 26 years I've been in the bay area, nothing like last night has occurred here. So, a qualified "insane" for the Bay Area.
80.
by ghouse 6y ago
Yes, it does require a change in elevation. The US has many pumped hydro systems. Wikipedia lists ten in the US that are larger than 1,000 MW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
81.
by ghouse 6y ago
I think it was the steam generator, not the turbine. Or maybe both? The failed steam generator is an incredible story. And the litigation on with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) is also interesting. But terrible for the industry.
82.
by ghouse 6y ago
> There are a lot of sites out there which list off every insider transaction. Perhaps pedantic, but those sites only list registered or declared insider transactions. "Insider Trading" - the illegal kind, is trading off of non
83.
by ghouse 6y ago
> It is impossible to actually run a grid off a renewable It is equally impossible to run a grid from only nuclear power. These assets can't "load follow" which is why in the US the 1970s build-out of nuclear power was con
84.
by ghouse 6y ago
> Shutting down nuclear to replace with gas is so backwards. This is the highly-regulated free-market at work. Based on price signals (created by incredible market distortion), gas is less expensive than nuclear. Fans of fission should
85.
by ghouse 6y ago
Wind and solar are both very predictable on a day-ahead basis. Though both offer a lower capacity value than fuel-based generation and energy storage (pumped hydro and batteries). The Duck Curve convinced me of something different -- that
86.
by ghouse 6y ago
It's important to distinguish between energy and capacity. And recognize the operating flexibility of different resources. While if a 1/4 of the CapEx for renewables were invested in fission, California would have more capacity,
87.
by ghouse 6y ago
But it is why in 2018 they (CPUC) decided that Diablo Canyon will be retired in 2025. edit: missing space between words.
88.
by ghouse 6y ago
Cheap gas is also the primary contributors to coal's woes.
89.
by ghouse 6y ago
I know two people who have had it. Once lost her sense of smell four months ago. Not back yet. The other died.
90.
by ghouse 6y ago
Renewables today are displacing energy 1:1. So, directly offsetting the fuel that would have otherwise been burned. You're correct, that there is not a 1:1 reduction in fossil capacity through the construction of renewable capacity. B

More ›