• 0 Posts
  • 130 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle









  • Distributed rooftop isn’t supposed to be about feeding the larger grid so much as topping off local demand right when it’s needed.

    I’m kind of eccentric so I got a humongous array; even then at peak production I was running the A/C for 3-4 houses in my cul-de-sac other than my own. Most installations around where I live are like 1/4 of the size I put up and rarely feed much back.

    And home-scale batteries are getting cheap enough that excess won’t necessarily need to get fed into the grid anyway.


  • They’ve got economist-brain and view everything as a money thing, which is fucked up and a problem.

    But negative net demand (the thing “negative cost” is signaling) is a pain in the ass, because you either need to shut off the panels from the grid, find some very high-capacity and high-throughput storage, or blow out your power grid.

    Like some hydroelectric dams in Germany get run backwards, pumping water back up behind the wall. I think there are pilot projects to pump air into old mines to build up a pressure buffer. Grid-scale batteries just aren’t there yet.

    Solar is good for things where the power demand is cumulative and relatively insensitive to variation over time (like, say, salt pond evaporation, but you don’t actually need panels for that). It’s also good for insolation-sensitive demand (like air conditioning).

    Turns out distributed rooftop solar makes more sense given our current grid than big solar farms out in the desert (California built one, it was not a good use of money).

    It’s not great, but we need to bite the bullet and use fission+reprocessing in a big way for the near future.


  • I was trying to shout out that your username is Madison, it came out a lot bitchier than I wanted it to, sorry.

    But I do think it’s a valid argument. The assumption from the Federalist Papers that the different branches would not cede power to one another because of their desire to hold it themselves has proven to be untrue. Factional loyalty to GWB, then to Trump, has driven Congress to ever-greater depths of obesiance.

    There’s no argument, imo, that SCOTUS is not at least as loyal to an external faction (ironically, to people calling themselves Federalists) as Congress, and actually even more corrupted by money.

    Therefore, I think a morals/behavioral based argument that SCOTUS will want to preserve their power in the face of a tyrant from their faction isn’t convincing.