patrick.net

HeadSet says

Did not California recently tell citizens to stop charging electric cars because of the load on the system during a heat wave?

Stop pissing all over Eman's Fluff Fest, @HeadSet.

It is bad for Woke World's bullshit.

Eman says

Did they? Was it during peak hours, or all hours?

Doesn't matter. Having to cut back at all destroys the thesis that "efficiency" of light bulbs and some appliances has cleared enough demand that EVs will have no impact on the grid.

Eman says

We’re not saying don’t charge them,” she said. “We’re just saying don’t charge them between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m.”

Oh boy. The bullshit keeps getting better and better.

Eman says

- Based on my experience, no one charges at home during peak hours. We plug it in and have it programmed to charge after 12am. It’s just common sense to EV drivers.

Gaslighting

Eman says

- Based on my experience, no one charges at home during peak hours. We plug it in and have it programmed to charge after 12am. It’s just common sense to EV drivers.

Lol dude. I gas my massive SUV up anytime I want in 4-5 minutes that was $20-30k cheaper than your tiny Tesla. I have 5-7 years of gas built into my car based on purchase price. And it has 10x's the functionality of a Tesla. Time is money dude. EV owners clearly don't value their time. They like their golf cart that's faster than a Ferrari, which is of no use if you follow the rules of the road and aren't an ass hole.

Everything I just said is fact. You overpaid for a car. Just own it. My better car is cheaper. I know the size of my dick. I don't need some car that does zero to 60 in 2.3 seconds. I need a productive car. Not a status symbol.

Someone in Canada is making/saving money with solar. What are your thoughts on solar @EBGuy and @Hircus? Seems like you guys have solar way before I did.



https://x.com/brucethemodel3/status/1760000414777520611?s=46&t=5lEEPaezr6Ic-W4Z6huZ5Q

Eman says

Someone in Canada is making/saving money with solar. What are your thoughts on solar EBGuy and Hircus? Seems like you guys have solar way before I did.

Yes... lol. During June-August at best. There's also no way a North facing roof in Alberta would get you net zero even in the summer. You guys buy a lot of bull shit. Your best bet is to drop $4k on a nat gas whole home generator north of I-80 if not further south. Back up power is better than solar.

The propaganda and sales are ridiculous. Solar doesn't work north of a certain latitude without shoveling money over to liars. The ROI is shit in 90% of the country let alone Canada.

WookieMan says

Eman says

Someone in Canada is making/saving money with solar. What are your thoughts on solar EBGuy and Hircus? Seems like you guys have solar way before I did.

Yes... lol. During June-August at best. There's also no way a North facing roof in Alberta would get you net zero even in the summer. You guys buy a lot of bull shit. Your best bet is to drop $4k on a nat gas whole home generator north of I-80 if not further south. Back up power is better than solar.

The propaganda and sales are ridiculous. Solar doesn't work north of a certain latitude without shoveling money over to liars. The ROI is shit in 90% of the country let alone Canada.

This is so typical of you. You jump to the conclusion without reading the whole post. How something doesn’t make sense based on you. You don’t live there, but you know better than the person who lives there.

Take a look at how his solar is mounted to give it 6% south facing exposure. He said he gets over 90% production between March-October, not what you claimed. I’m sure people who live there would call BS if the numbers don’t add up.

Eman says

Take a look at how his solar is mounted to give it 6% south facing exposure. He said he gets over 90% production between March-October, not what you claimed. I’m sure people who live there would call BS if the numbers don’t add up.

I have family members that live up there my friend. I'm not making a damn thing up. Solar doesn't even give you full power in IL, especially a north facing roof. I don't just make shit up or believe what is on the internet. I go off of what I actually know.

Also, his claim is true and what I actually know isn't? CA, AZ, NM, CO, TX, etc are all prime candidates for solar. It simply doesn't work above a certain latitude. The facts are out there. It's too dark 60-70% of the year north of I-80 or I-90 to the west to justify the cost. There's simple not enough sunlight outside of 2-3 months at best and not on a north facing roof.

Believe what a random posts about. Doesn't mean it's right.

Also your house looks ugly as fuck and you'd look like a gay in my part of the world. Sloped north side panels.... that's retarded.

Wow, Alberta has more sunny days than San Jose. I didn’t know this.

Eman says

Wow, Alberta has more sunny days than San Jose. I didn’t know this.

Sunny doesn't equate to power September to April in Canada. Sure you'll get some I suppose, but not even close to net zero without a yard full of panels. Roof won't do shit up there. Summer maybe. Then factor in snow on the panels.

I was just in Montana. No sun rise until 8am that would generate any power and too dark by 3-4pm to generate power. That's about 40% of the year there. Now go another 300 miles north. Have you been north in the winter? You make a lot of assumptions about everywhere else based on CA and websites. Go there. Solar doesn't work without a ton of panels north of a certain latitude for the cost. Can you do it? Sure. Waste of money that could be better invested that could easily pay for your gas and electric on the dividends/interest/growth saved by not putting solar on your roof.

Eman says

Take a look at how his solar is mounted to give it 6% south facing exposure. He said he gets over 90% production between March-October, not what you claimed. I’m sure people who live there would call BS if the numbers don’t add up.

The numbers DON'T add up. How could they be selling electricity at 3x the rate? The only answer is they are being subsidized, because somebody is paying for that power, and it's not a consumer, because THEY aren't paying 3x "the rate".

This is the problem with economic repression and centralization. They are trying to get people to buy solar by giving them a carrot, and the stick is being taken to anybody that doesn't engage in this fraud, through taxation.

richwicks says

Eman says

Take a look at how his solar is mounted to give it 6% south facing exposure. He said he gets over 90% production between March-October, not what you claimed. I’m sure people who live there would call BS if the numbers don’t add up.

The numbers DON'T add up. How could they be selling electricity at 3x the rate? The only answer is they are being subsidized, because somebody is paying for that power, and it's not a consumer, because THEY aren't paying 3x "the rate".

Eman is a solar homo. You can cherry pick from your location all you want and try to extrapolate it somewhere else. The globe is a sphere. A good majority of it get 5-7 hours of light six months of the year. Including Canada. That's a waste of money without making your yard look like shit with panels and getting a ton of them.

The cost of solar is continuing to go down, as expected. Its no different than any new technology such as look at how automobiles were only affordable for the rich back in 1910. Look at the price of an HDTV back in 2003 or the price of a desktop computer in 1986.

.



.

AD says

The cost of solar is continuing to go down, as expected. Its no different than any new technology such as look at how automobiles were only affordable for the rich back in 1910. Look at the price of an HDTV back in 2003 or the price of a desktop computer in 1986.

Different tech. Computers work in everyone's home. EV's are not nearly as efficient as what they draw from cold weather climates. 50%+ of the country, 50% of the year. That's not "sustainable."

TV's are a nothing burger. Younger demographics don't watch it. Demand goes down and there's more inventory. No one wants them or uses them. I have 10. We actively use 4 in a family of 5 and 3 are for gaming for the kids. Television is dead. The price mean nothing because there's no demand. Been that way for a decade, at least.

You can still get depreciated used cars for massively cheap. No one should ever buy a new car. Throwing the dart, especially an EV.

WookieMan says

Different tech.

Yes different tech, but like all tech, there are innovation gains which drive down price. Look at how the price per kw-hr has steadily decreased for solar energy. I agree with Eman that solar energy's affordability is increasing.

.

https://www.readtrung.com/p/best-of-satpost-first-half-of-2024

Patrick says

https://www.readtrung.com/p/best-of-satpost-first-half-of-2024

That's gonna be a LOT OF TOXIC WASTE in ~25 yes.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Solar energy benefits explained.

DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says

That's gonna be a LOT OF TOXIC WASTE in ~25 yes.

I just had a solar fucker stop by the house 2 days ago. I told him we're building so I don't want it on this house. Mom has money and she's moving in and her electric bill will be $100 max. I told him I researched it. These sales guys don't know what the fuck they're talking about. I was polite, but I really really wanted to tell him to fuck off. He was at least nice and not pushy.

I'm not a geezer, but with 15 years of dealing with sales people and my wife in sales, I can't stand the shit. The kid was nice though. Can't do solar at the new house either. Tress on someone else's property. Only downside of the property, shit sun in the winter. Spring through fall will be fine. Not dropping panels on the roof to maybe get 7-8 months of solar.

WookieMan says

I just had a solar fucker stop by the house 2 days ago.

I just tell those types I'm renting, which is true but I'd probably say that even if it wasn't true.

SoTex says

WookieMan says

I just had a solar fucker stop by the house 2 days ago.

I just tell those types I'm renting, which is true but I'd probably say that even if it wasn't true.

I was nice. I get the gig. I was being honest. I'm selling the house to my mom and not putting anything on the roof at this point.

Want the place as simple as can be or I have to take care of it. She's 70 and not getting younger. I don't need her estate and she can afford setting the AC to 60ºF. Solar make no sense for this property.

From a reader of this site:

At least 1 supplier is already applying this practice, according to a study by VRT NWS. More may follow. Suppliers want the owners of solar panels to consume or store more of their energy themselves.

Suppose you want to sell a product that is worth 40 euros. You expect to get something for it, say 20 euros. But you probably don't expect to get nothing at all. And certainly not that you still have to pay 10 euros to the buyer of your product.

It seems like a topsy-turvy world, but that is exactly what is already happening to some households with solar panels and a digital meter.

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2025/05/14/zonne-energie-neen-bedankt-energieleveranciers-lusten-de-s/

First the govt PAID people to put sun panels. Then they got money back for their surplus. People were almost forced to do this. And now this. Belgium for you !

It seems the CCP also puts malware into all of their chips, so that they could take down the grid through the technologies they flog including the solar panels. They are electronic bombs, much less a HAZMAT nightmare for the owners when they stop working down the road.

All green measures are designed to fail, and with Chinese chips and software, are rigged to fail and take down the grid with them.

Ceffer says

It seems the CCP also puts malware into all of their chips, so that they could take down the grid through the technologies they flog including the solar panels. They are electronic bombs, much less a HAZMAT nightmare for the owners when they stop working down the road.

All green measures are designed to fail, and with Chinese chips and software, are rigged to fail and take down the grid with them.

So its like a virtual switch that is turned off ? When the Chicoms decide to turn that switch off, then they send out commands or instructions to the malware on these chips ?

Is there a way to debug these chips now ? available or commercial off the shelf antivirus programs would be able to find and remove this malware ?

.

Maga_Chaos_Monkey says

WookieMan says

I just had a solar fucker stop by the house 2 days ago.

I just tell those types I'm renting, which is true but I'd probably say that even if it wasn't true.

Most of these guys are scammers.
Last week, a guy stopped by and claimed from the bankrupt company who sold me the panels before bankruptcy.
He was trying to make utility bills zero to people around!
I don’t need any but asked him, what’s the cost of each panel, just ballpark price. He didn’t answer. He sounded like knowing nothing. At that point, I realized he is going around on something else.

Blue says

Most of these guys are scammers.

Happened again yesterday. I was unloading the car. I just told him we were divorced and the house has been sold and walked away. He kept talking I just ignored him. I should have just turned around and told him you're not making a sale and get off my property.

Panels work in IL, but we don't have enough sun even in the summer for them to be practical. Winter... hell no. I don't want them on the roof as these are fly by night clowns and I'll end up with a roof leak. Definitely don't want them in my yard.

They're pushing this shit because we don't have the grid for EV's. Plain and simple. Unless you're in NM, AZ, NV, CO and Southern CA, you'll still get an electric bill. Panels would take off maybe 20% of my bill year round. So not worth the drywall and roof damage bill from a leak. Don't want the eye sore in my yard.

TL:DR I'm never getting solar panels.

WookieMan says

Unless you're in NM, AZ, NV, CO and Southern CA, you'll still get an electric bill.

For most homeowners in the Florida Panhandle, the break-even point for installing solar, after accounting for the significant federal tax credit and favorable net metering policies, is typically around 6 to 9 years. After this period, the electricity generated by your solar panels is essentially free, leading to substantial long-term savings over the system's 25+ year lifespan

https://x.com/JessePeltan/status/1918722555126382727

@JessePeltan
How much of NYC would you need to cover in solar panels to turn it into a net exporter of electricity?

NYC uses about 50 TWh of electricity per year.

NYC has ~780 square kilometers of land area, and a GHI of 4 kWh/m^2/day, giving a primary solar resource of ~1,100 TWh/year - more than 20x electricity demand.

Let's assume we only place panels over existing impervious surfaces on buildings and parking lots.
(the impervious part of the first 45.5%)

That brings our area to 261 sq km and our solar resource to 380 TWh/year.

With 23% efficient panels and 14% system losses (for dust, inverter losses, etc.) we get 75 TWh/year.

We would need to cover ~2/3 of the impervious surfaces in the "buildings & lots" category to generate as much electricity as NYC consumes.

This leaves open all existing sidewalks, streets, parks, vacant land, airports, etc. and doesn't include any vertical surfaces which could allow for capture of a larger fraction of NYC's primary solar resource.

The power density of solar PV is high enough to turn the densest city in the U.S. into an exporter of electricity.

For maybe 3-5 hours a day in the shoulder seasons…. CA completely destroying NEM tariffs to instigate private installations of BESS and TESS in order to carry the grid load through the non-production / under-production daily intervals that non-reliable solar power inherently has is proof of that.

Patrick says

The power density of solar PV is high enough to turn the densest city in the U.S. into an exporter of electricity.

In June when it's sunny. In December it would be lucky to get 1/5th of that power. Throw in a NY blizzard and it goes to almost 0% due to snow cover and clouds.

Build it in Nevada and run wire to connect to the grid. There's easily 1-2k sq miles of land with no agriculture you could build it on. Little rain, lots of sun, low risk of hail storms. Plenty of places with no neighbors. Highest demand is in the summer anyway. MT would be another great candidate on south facing slopes. It's not all mountains and is easily accessible. It stays sunny until almost 10pm in May to August when AC is used the most.

Solar is supplemental and will never be a replacement unless there were huge battery substations for when it's dark. Then you hope the next day is sunny. Which is why Nevada is the best spot for a massive solar farm. Low environmental issues if any really. Same with Montana in the Northern sections. You'd have to find land without cattle on it, but most projects are lease based anyway. Fence off the panels at the solar companies expense and cattle go around it.

Making an already shitty city in NYC have panels on everything would be stupid IMO. Put them in the Atlantic with flashing buoy's 5 miles off shore so it's not an eye sore. We put in oil rigs, not sure what would be complicated out that. Update navigational charts. Not a big deal.

And yes there are harsh storms in NY area. Somehow oil rigs get blasted with hurricanes and don't break. Same can't be done with panels? Rant over. I'm just sick of seeing solar panels. There are areas where it can work. Not on my neighbors roof or a parking garage.

WookieMan says

Build it in Nevada and run wire to connect to the grid.

Yeah buddy, the Florida panhandle actually gets a grade of a B for solar energy versus a grade of an A for the southwest (Las Vega$, Phoenix, etc), which is the Saudi Arabia of solar power.

For commercially viable wind energy, sustained wind speeds of around 9 mph (or 4 meters per second) are typically needed. In the Florida Panhandle, average annual wind speeds are often below this threshold (e.g., Pensacola and Apalachicola typically range from 7.8 to 8.9 mph).

While taller (50 to 100 meters), more advanced turbines could potentially harness higher wind speeds at greater elevations, this technology is still being explored for the region.

Need more efficient wind turbines like use less friction bearings for the power generators, maybe even magnetic bearings. Just like we need more efficient solar energy.

Offshore wind is viable for the Florida panhandle as well as offshore wave generators, but then you have to account for hurricanes.

.

AD says

For commercially viable wind energy, sustained wind speeds of around 9 mph (or 4 meters per second) are typically needed. In the Florida Panhandle, average annual wind speeds are often below this threshold (e.g., Pensacola and Apalachicola typically range from 7.8 to 8.9 mph).

Yeah, we're higher than that. 7-8mph is the floor generally even at night. This spring the average has been probably 15-17mph with days averaging 20mph. Which is why we have some of the largest wind farms near me.

I'm in a town so don't notice it as much due to houses and trees, but with a high profile vehicle I'll drive and be like WTF it's windy. Wind looks cool at first when you see it, but it's ugly after a while. It does produce 24/7 here with varying rates of production except for the rare off day. They're always spinning and these are the big MF'rs.

My only beef is the power gets wired into different big cities including Chicago. We never have long power outages, but we get random 5-10 second outages as I think different generation of power takes over once every 3 months if something isn't producing. It's annoying, but outside of a tornado I don't think we'd ever lose power for more than 10 minutes. One of the few things IL does right.

WookieMan says

Yeah, we're higher than that. 7-8mph is the floor generally even at night.

right now its 15 mph at a heat index of 95 (85 degs, 73% humidity) in Panama City Beach

this system would be perfect year round in Panama City Beach if it is true that it can charge batteries at 5 mph , and its not just a trickle charge

AD says

It's CA so generally clear skies, but I don't buy the solar number. And no Nat Gas on the chart. Didn't CA have a leaky power plant with Nat. Gas? Is this just all non-CO2 producing electric. They all produce massive CO2 to create if that's the issues. I don't think it is. We need CO2. I mean do you want to breath? CO2 creates O2. We need more of it.

I've looked into solar a few times. Each time, for me, the problem seems that I just don't use enough solar to get the economies of scale to amortize the fixed costs. I run about 8 kWh / day with most of it after the sun goes down.

PG&E doesn't charge an infrastructure fee, but instead rolls those costs into a higher fee per kWh over and above the generation. For non-solar people that promotes conservation, as it increases the incremental cost. (i.e.: instead of $50/month + 12¢ kWh, where we could use lots of kWh for cheap, we now pay $0/month + 45¢ kWh, so every additional kWh is expensive.)

When solar started, solar people had a net of 0 kWh of generation from the power company and so paid for no infrastructure. As more and more homes went solar and paid for no infrastructure (while simultaneously using infrastructure 24/7 in either using power from the grid at night or putting power on the grid during the day) the remaining non-solar customers were forced to foot the entire infrastructure bill between fewer and fewer people. This was a virtuous cycle for the people pushing for solar. As more people went to solar, the non-solar people were also forced to go solar because of rising prices of sharing the infrastructure costs between fewer and fewer people remaining non-solar.

So, recently, credits for pushing onto the grid have been adjusted so that solar customers no longer have a free ride. You now get very little for pushing your generation onto the grid during the day but still pay for generation (and thus infrastructure) for taking energy from the grid at night. The main result of this is that new solar installations now come with batteries so that you aren't forced to sell your power back onto the grid at very low prices. I can't help but think this pricing scheme is resulting in needless battery installations just to dodge paying for infrastructure while simultaneously — again — forcing the non-solar customers to pay the entire cost of the infrastructure.

I think the (very inefficient and wasteful) end game is that people will go completely off the grid even in towns and cities where shared infrastructure would obviously be more efficient. Each home will have a large personal array of solar panels, a large personal battery, and a personal generator for periods of low generation days. As inefficient as that sounds, it'll be lower cost than participating in the incompetent and corrupt power company aided by the even more incompetent and corrupt government.

Eman says

heat pumps are only just getting started and will save oodles of energy for space and water heating and even clothes drying

If you're talking about reducing load on the electricity grid through efficiency, then I have to disagree completely. My old-fashioned natural gas heater, water heater, and dryer use very little electricity. And my car puts no load at all on the electrical grid (well, except for running the gas pump).