Solar Required On New Homes. - Green Home Improvement - Page 8 - DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum
Advertisement


Go Back   DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum > Home Improvement > Green Home Improvement

CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY...IT'S FREE!

Like Tree135Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Old 03-10-2019, 12:02 PM   #106
Exterior Construction
 
Windows on Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Washington DC Metro Area (VA, MD, DC)
Posts: 20,317
Rewards Points: 4,322
Blog Entries: 38
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Scale drives the price of everything down. We aren't building them, so they are going to cost and arm and a leg beyond just their normal more expensive construction.



That said, there are scalable versions of nuclear that would allow the areas to start producing power as the construction was going on and to switch off to reactors as they came on board.



We are kidding ourselves if we don't think the fossil fuel industry forged a full scale war against nuclear during the time in which it should have been the thrust of our energy production.
Msradell and ktownskier like this.
Windows on Wash is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-10-2019, 12:58 PM   #107
Member
 
Oso954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Calif.
Posts: 7,787
Rewards Points: 1,810
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


What drives the cost ?
Most of the plants built were built larger than the last one. This meant that the design had to be tweaked at minimum, if not started from scratch.

Bigger components means higher costs. The price tag on moving a single 600-1,200 ton load is astronomical as compared to loads less than 500 tons.

Giving intervenors the chance to re-litigate the same issues every time a plant is built., and giving local regulatory bodies to much say in the process results in delays. If you are dealing with class 1 components, just one of your vendors can delay your entire schedule. (There are only so many work arounds)
The carrying costs of delays (regardless of cause) is tremendous.

The great hope in the nuclear industry is the SMR (small modular reactor). A plant design in the 300-500MW range. Essentially all of it pre approved by the NRC. So, if all the the geotec work and local hazards fall within the design parameters, you are good to go.

Plants of this size could slip right in to replace a lot of aging coal plants. If you want more power, you build 2-3 of them rather than one big monster. Outages are easier to handle when a 300-500MW goes offline, rather than when a 1,000-1,200MW does.

VCSummer Units 2/3 ? Last I heard about 18 months ago, delays associated with the Westinghouse bankruptcy had pushed the operation dates out to about 2020/2021 (from 2017 & 2018). The revised cost estimates associated with the delays convinced the POCOs to abandon the project.

Unless I missed something, abandoned in place is still the current status for units 2&3. (It's not the first time that has happened to a Utility's Nuclear Plants)
Windows on Wash likes this.
Oso954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-10-2019, 01:05 PM   #108
Exterior Construction
 
Windows on Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Washington DC Metro Area (VA, MD, DC)
Posts: 20,317
Rewards Points: 4,322
Blog Entries: 38
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


I guy that I know via another friend (very removed) was from MIT and patented a modular nuclear reactor type set up that could do just that. Super smart dude on another level.
Oso954 likes this.
Windows on Wash is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-10-2019, 01:38 PM   #109
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Kremmling, CO about 7500'
Posts: 803
Rewards Points: 1,600
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Windows on Wash View Post
I guy that I know via another friend (very removed) was from MIT and patented a modular nuclear reactor type set up that could do just that. Super smart dude on another level.
Aren't all people from MIT supersmart?

My brother got his BS in Computer science and his MS in EE/CS. He couldn't leave the country for awhile and couldn't even travel to certain cities.

My sister-in-law is also from MIT for her Masters. Stanford for her undergrad. I got a lot of hats from Nuclear carriers and Subs she had to go to.

I went to visit my brother in the early 70's. I played my first video game on a PDP-4. It was a dogfight game on a 6x6 green screen. It was so slow that when the plane turned, the tail of the plane curved. I was also allowed to go into their anechoic chamber. The quietest place in the world at the time. Pretty friggin amazing. He also gave me a piece of core memory. 12x12" of copper wire that held i think 6K of memory.

You know how Al Gore was attributed as saying that he invented the internet? Well, I know people who actually worked on developing it. And on the massively parallel computers that are now running it.

Sorry, had to extol the brains and the people I know with the brains at and from MIT.
Windows on Wash likes this.

Last edited by ktownskier; 03-10-2019 at 01:42 PM.
ktownskier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2019, 11:07 PM   #110
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 244
Rewards Points: 484
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Some things require a government mandate to level the playing field. It is much cheaper for the homeowner to have the installation and electrical and mechanical integration done during the initial construction of the house.

What is a con job was when after the banksters crashed the economy in 2008 the pipe and valve companies saw their incomes plummet as there was very little new construction. So they lobbied successfully to make fire sprinklers mandatory for every new home being built. So instead of a solar panel array that would save them money there are fire sprinklers that accomplish nothing for the homeowner or renter.


Car makers said seat belts were too expensive and then that airbags were too expensive and that ABS brakes were too expensive and rear cameras were too expensive and nobody would be able to afford to buy their cars. Same story with all the solar push back instigated by the likes of the Koch brothers.


A UC Davis study of California homes (which is available to download) found that homes with solar sold for on average $17,000 more than similar homes without solar and they sold in half the time. So homebuyers would prefer to buy a home with solar and save $6000 a year for as long as they own the house and to be able to sell their home faster and have it sitting on the market for months less time.

Why do you think that is? It is not rocket science but it does require the ability to think critically and not simply parrot what some clown on Fox News or in the White House tells you to think.
Deja-vue and schreibdave like this.
Calson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 07:20 AM   #111
Exterior Construction
 
Windows on Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Washington DC Metro Area (VA, MD, DC)
Posts: 20,317
Rewards Points: 4,322
Blog Entries: 38
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


I read the UC Davis study a while ago. Do you have a link to it.

At the time, I found it to be lacking some equalization in details that could contribute to the price offset. Not all of it, but certainly some of it.



What was not calculated was the "Green Guilt" factor in that type of home purchase.
Windows on Wash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 10:16 AM   #112
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 248
Rewards Points: 496
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Nuclear power generation is dead. It's got application in military for submarines and in satellites but other than specialty areas, it's dead.

The issue is cost in dealing with the waste. Nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years. When you produce it you have to store it in a landfill or whatever for thousands of years, that means at the least someone is going to be paying landfill storage fees for thousands of years. The cost of storage when added up over those thousands of years dwarfs any economic return from the few years you were generating power from the nuclear material and it dwarfs the cost of any other alternative power generation scheme you can dream up. There is no argument that the nuclear proponents have ever come up with to answer that and until they do, it's not going anywhere.

The simple issue with electricity is this: the effort to produce it from fossil fuels is far lower than the effort to produce it from PV or wind or anything else. Humanity has gotten very, very, very used to cheap electricity and has been building and designing things that run off cheap electricity for a very long time now and a great many of those things are still around. There are plenty of electric induction AC motors that are a century old that are still running. They are inefficient designs but since they still work they are not being replaced because the cost of a newer more efficient design does not justify the work of replacing them because of cheap power.

We also waste a tremendous amount of AC power in just the transmission of it alone. You waste power when you generate it far away from where it's used.

As long as we have cheap fossil fuels we are going to have cheap power and we are going to continue building and using power inefficiently because it's cheaper. Say what you want about LEED certification and all that, when the cost of an office building that is LEED certified is 10% more than the same size office building that isn't - LEED works - when the cost is 200% more - LEED does not work. The LEED people know this which is why the LEED certification really doesn't require a tremendous amount of energy efficiency. Compared to an old style building it does - but compared to an absolute of what is possible - it doesn't, it's a joke.

Right now a LOT of things are a joke with "green" building because people want to pretend they are doing something about the environment. You want real green? OK design an office building so that the only elevator that goes all the way to the first floor is the freight elevator. Everyone else who works on the 2nd or 3rd floor has to climb a flight of stairs. Why not? They are probably all overweight so it will be good for them. Make it illegal to put in a fast-food greasy spoon deli on the first floor of that building so that the secretaries can't add to their spread bottoms at lunchtime. Design that same office building so that instead of the wall of windows it has a wall of PVs with just some small slit windows to let in light. Most of the users of the building are stuck in cubes and can't see out the windows anyway.

The one thing we do know is this - at the rate of use we have, fossil fuels ARE going to run out. Maybe not a decade from now, but eventually they will. We do not have thousands of years of fossil fuel left. We have hundreds at most. And of what is left a lot of it is very expensive to use such that the majority of power it creates will go into cleaning up it's output.

So like it or not eventually we won't have it. We will be forced to use other means of generating electric power. And that will force the cost of generating electric power to rise.

We almost certainly have enough energy in the simple temperature differential from the surface of the ocean to 50 feet down in the water to generate all the power we need. Constant reliable power from undersea cables to the shore. But it will be a lot more costly due to ongoing maintenance. But when more expensive power generation is all we have, then we are going to suck it up and use it and we are going to suck it up and pay for it. The era of cheap power will end, folks.
Deja-vue likes this.
tmittelstaedt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 11:27 AM   #113
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 543
Rewards Points: 1,086
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


I think i disagree with most of what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmittelstaedt View Post
Nuclear power generation is dead. It's got application in military for submarines and in satellites but other than specialty areas, it's dead.
there's nothing wrong with nuclear. problem is people keep using old designs that suck. LFTR is where we need to be, not power plants that produce bomb grade material. thorium is so cheap and safe its stupid
The issue is cost in dealing with the waste. Nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years. When you produce it you have to store it in a landfill or whatever for thousands of years, that means at the least someone is going to be paying landfill storage fees for thousands of years. The cost of storage when added up over those thousands of years dwarfs any economic return from the few years you were generating power from the nuclear material and it dwarfs the cost of any other alternative power generation scheme you can dream up. There is no argument that the nuclear proponents have ever come up with to answer that and until they do, it's not going anywhere.
waste isn't an issue in LFTRs, nor is safety. something goes wrong, physics turns it off instead of blowing it up and melting it down

The simple issue with electricity is this: the effort to produce it from fossil fuels is far lower than the effort to produce it from PV or wind or anything else. Humanity has gotten very, very, very used to cheap electricity and has been building and designing things that run off cheap electricity for a very long time now and a great many of those things are still around. There are plenty of electric induction AC motors that are a century old that are still running. They are inefficient designs but since they still work they are not being replaced because the cost of a newer more efficient design does not justify the work of replacing them because of cheap power.

We also waste a tremendous amount of AC power in just the transmission of it alone. You waste power when you generate it far away from where it's used.transmission power loss is about 6%. so the total quantity lost may be tremendous, but the percentage is not.

As long as we have cheap fossil fuels we are going to have cheap power and we are going to continue building and using power inefficiently because it's cheaper. Say what you want about LEED certification and all that, when the cost of an office building that is LEED certified is 10% more than the same size office building that isn't - LEED works - when the cost is 200% more - LEED does not work. The LEED people know this which is why the LEED certification really doesn't require a tremendous amount of energy efficiency. Compared to an old style building it does - but compared to an absolute of what is possible - it doesn't, it's a joke.
it's funny because people run their AC while burning fuel to heat their hot water. they could all "just" install desuperheaters on their air conditioners and have free hot water all summer long...

Right now a LOT of things are a joke with "green" building because people want to pretend they are doing something about the environment. You want real green? OK design an office building so that the only elevator that goes all the way to the first floor is the freight elevator. Everyone else who works on the 2nd or 3rd floor has to climb a flight of stairs. Why not? They are probably all overweight so it will be good for them. Make it illegal to put in a fast-food greasy spoon deli on the first floor of that building so that the secretaries can't add to their spread bottoms at lunchtime. Design that same office building so that instead of the wall of windows it has a wall of PVs with just some small slit windows to let in light. Most of the users of the building are stuck in cubes and can't see out the windows anyway.
old man ranting here?

The one thing we do know is this - at the rate of use we have, fossil fuels ARE going to run out. Maybe not a decade from now, but eventually they will. We do not have thousands of years of fossil fuel left. We have hundreds at most. And of what is left a lot of it is very expensive to use such that the majority of power it creates will go into cleaning up it's output.
the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. we won't stop using oil because we run out of it, either.

So like it or not eventually we won't have it. We will be forced to use other means of generating electric power. And that will force the cost of generating electric power to rise.

We almost certainly have enough energy in the simple temperature differential from the surface of the ocean to 50 feet down in the water to generate all the power we need. Constant reliable power from undersea cables to the shore. But it will be a lot more costly due to ongoing maintenance. But when more expensive power generation is all we have, then we are going to suck it up and use it and we are going to suck it up and pay for it. The era of cheap power will end, folks.
Windows on Wash likes this.

Last edited by u3b3rg33k; 04-04-2019 at 11:31 AM.
u3b3rg33k is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to u3b3rg33k For This Useful Post:
Windows on Wash (04-04-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 12:02 PM   #114
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Waseca, MN
Posts: 492
Rewards Points: 917
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


So much of this comes down to the fact that the general population is really bad at applying logic to risk and money decisions.
Nuclear is basically dead because the word "radiation" produces excessive fear and anxiety. Billions of $$ sounds like a huge number but when compared to the nation's GDP it's a tiny fraction.
Nuclear is one of several options that could fill in the gaps until we figure out how to store solar energy in a scaleable, reliable, and cost effective manner.
Windows on Wash likes this.
chiraldude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 12:27 PM   #115
Member
 
Oso954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Calif.
Posts: 7,787
Rewards Points: 1,810
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Quote:
We almost certainly have enough energy in the simple temperature differential from the surface of the ocean to 50 feet down in the water to generate all the power we need.
Where are you getting your information from ?

As OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) stands today, you need a surface temp of 77 degrees. You are going deep below the thermocline after cold water of about 41 degrees. You aren't going to find it in the first 50 ft.

The current temperature limits rule out most of the US Coastline. The southern Atlantic coast, the gulf coast, and Hawaii are the only suitable locations.

The closed cycle OTEC plants are also dependent on a low boiling point working fluid such as ammonia or some other refrigerant. Particularly as you attempt to scale the plants up in size, the wisdom of utilizing these fluids where any leak will drain to the ocean, will become a larger environmental safety question.

http://www.otecnews.org/what-is-otec/

The above article has a typo in it. The say say that 20C is 36F. It isn't, 20C is 68F.

With only 2 operating plants in the world, I wouldn't call it a developed technology.
Oso954 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 04:49 PM   #116
Exterior Construction
 
Windows on Wash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Washington DC Metro Area (VA, MD, DC)
Posts: 20,317
Rewards Points: 4,322
Blog Entries: 38
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by u3b3rg33k View Post
I think i disagree with most of what you said.

Didn't know the first thing about LFTR.


Looks awesome!!!



Windows on Wash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 10:50 PM   #117
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 543
Rewards Points: 1,086
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Windows on Wash View Post
Didn't know the first thing about LFTR.


Looks awesome!!!



and in the USA, .gov is scared of change. so we'll sit by and watch china do it first.
Windows on Wash likes this.
u3b3rg33k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2019, 04:08 PM   #118
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ontario
Posts: 4,151
Rewards Points: 7,222
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


I have read China is making progress on thorium reactors. And India has been working on it for a long time.
But a practical thorium reactor seems to follow a corollary to the fusion reactor ---- i.e a practical thorium reactor is five years away - and always will be.
SPS-1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2019, 05:32 PM   #119
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Dallas / Ft Worth
Posts: 130
Rewards Points: 260
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SPS-1 View Post
I have read China is making progress on thorium reactors. And India has been working on it for a long time.
But a practical thorium reactor seems to follow a corollary to the fusion reactor ---- i.e a practical thorium reactor is five years away - and always will be.



I think Thorium and other nuclear related fuel would have been a good idea 30 years ago but I still think that renewables are the way to go.


But.....people always talk about energy production but we don't hear too much about saving energy. There should be national standards for major electrical appliances......HVAC, TV's , Water Heaters, Refrigerators, Dishwashers etc...


Homes being built should be built to super energy insulation standards.



Sales of light bulbs should be limited to LED's. They use significantly less energy than incandescent bulbs as well as the twisty ones. And they last 20, 30 years. They are $$$, but the increase in volume would reduce their price.


And new homes should be built to withstand basic levels of hurricane and earthquake protection. It does not cost that much to insert stainless steel rods into wet concrete for a sill plate or use tie down straps for joists when building a new home. But if they are not used, it cost$ big money to repair them in the event of a catastrophe.


Energy consumption in new homes constitutes about 30 percent of our energy production. If we could reduce home consumption, it would be a major impact on our energy needs. Less energy consumed, less need for new energy plants.



I would like to see solar on every roof top. But I realize it is still $$$ for the cost and benefit of what you receive. Many areas are not suited for solar, at least at current prices.


But, I think it might be a good idea to have every new home pre-wired for solar and storage batteries, just like my home was pre-wired for a security alarm ( I never subscribed for monitoring) or the way we have smoke alarms wired into every home ( my has gone off while cooking......it works fine).


More emphasis should be put on reducing the need for new energy, rather than creating solutions for creating new energy.





Just my .02.




This is an excellent idea, if they can develop the technology. ......
Windows in our homes producing electricity.



https://www.solarwindow.com/galleries/photos/

Last edited by DallasCowboys; 04-05-2019 at 05:35 PM.
DallasCowboys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2019, 01:33 PM   #120
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 3
Rewards Points: 6
Default

Re: Solar required on New Homes.


Wow!!! It seems like they shouldn't be able to require that! Offer incentives, sure, but require??? Guess I'm not moving to Cali any time soon
StGeorgeClean is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fully solar powered surveillance system. qwertyweee Electrical 6 01-19-2018 07:26 PM
Why are foundations on mobile homes not required? JustinK Building & Construction 4 05-09-2013 07:01 AM
How to flush water heater that has solar panels Homerepairguy Plumbing 2 11-11-2010 08:26 PM
Solar Charged Brushless Lawn Mower Educator Electrical 2 04-20-2008 12:43 PM




Top of Page | View New Posts