Skipjack wrote:For small scale like home use a flywheel might be a better idea for energy storage. The system with water reservoirs makes sense for the very large scale (these artificial lakes are pretty big).
You guys are kill joys. I was already out back eyeballing where to put up a water tower.
Flywheels could be good as well. A big flywheel is probably equal in danger to an big battery bank.
Maybe as flywheel storage matures we can get them smaller and more potent.
What would be interesting would be to recover some hybrid car batteries and mount them in my tractor shed. Keep them charged up from wind & solar.
Then have them run an invertor to feed the house when needed.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
happyjack27 wrote:"In an online debate, someone will eventually say something like 'people have a right to believe whatever they want.' That will signal that the debate is over and that person has lost." - Phelps' Law
Or that that person has become exhausted from trying to reason with buttheads. (Not referring to any particular discussion here).
choff wrote:I've heard stories of people living off grid getting visits from local authorities. They either get told they have to pay extra taxes for using alternative energy, or they get told they can't live there anymore. Sometimes the bureaucrat says the neighbours are complaining, even if the nearest lives miles away.
Thinking of the kind of people that strive to live off the grid, the complaints might be about other things. I do know some people that had to get their power from off the grid and they never had a problem.
happyjack27 wrote:"In an online debate, someone will eventually say something like 'people have a right to believe whatever they want.' That will signal that the debate is over and that person has lost." - Phelps' Law
Or that that person has become exhausted from trying to reason with buttheads. (Not referring to any particular discussion here).
I see what you're saying, but it's a moot point. someone who's exhausted from trying to reason with buttheads can simply stop discussing, or say something like "i'm tired of trying to reason with you." or something of the sort. there are many many much better alternatives. so while it's a possibility that the person saying that is tired of arguing - hell, that's probably the most likely explanation - a person being tired of arguing does not imply that they will say that. in fact, this is probably one of the _least_ likely things a person being tired of arguing will say.
and the fact they are choosing to assert a right to believe whatever they want, regardless of what is true or not. the fact that they are offering that as a top-level value judgement and attitude.. well someone who really does think/feel that way is effectively useless in ascertaining the truth of the matter - or any matter, whatsoever, compared to any random person who does not feel/think that way.
i'd say they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot, but it's more like they shot themselves in the face. they just admitted that they're not interested in finding out what the answer really is. therefore, the other person wins.
Most home power storage systems so far are stuck in the 19th century, still using lead acid batteries. One would think hybrid car batteries would be the hot setup but evidently they are not quite attractive enough yet. Batteries for the home can afford to be heavy, but weight comes at a premium for cars. I'm looking to upgrade the small storage capacity at our cabin.
I was surprised that our new Prius is not lithium ion.
Batteries ARE being for some degree of wind energy storage on those strings of turbines in our area, but I'd consider the level of storage to be "token".
If people want to do the cogeneration thing on a sufficiently large scale, producing as much or more than they use but using the grid for storage, the nature of the grid will need to change to charging for storage. That's the underlying change in business model that would be needed. So, picture that you've invested $20 k or more in photovoltaics and microinverters for your roof, and then find out you'll be charged to use it! This is the underlying limitation of the concept ... could people be convinced to do this? Yet it is absolutely fair that, if you expect to foist the need for storage off on somebody else, you pay for it.
I have liked the idea of flywheel storage since I first heard of it about 30 years ago. They were discussing huge things, maybe 100 meters in diameter. They would have to rotate with their axes parallel to Earth's. I'd prefer underground or in big pits (some old quarries would be suitable) because, yeah, the energy storage could be like tactical nukes.
What people want is plenty of power at the flip of a switch, at a fair price. That is why power companies evolved.
It shouldn't take too long for governments over here to catch on to the idea.
Wow, this has to be on top of the dumbest things a government ever did. I cant believe how stupid that is. In Germany and Austria we have something called a 'Schildbuergerstreich". This is as close to that as it gets. Shakes head in disbelief.
how do they collect taxes from the grass and trees and plants and what not that collect energy from the photons via photosynthesis, which i later eat, thus providing myself with energy? or do i get taxed for eating because i'm ultimately consuming energy from the sun? or is it just when a use that energy, such as by moving or breathing, that i get taxed?
happyjack27 wrote:therefore, the other person wins.
As far as I'm concerned, you don't "win" an argument until both sides honestly agree on what the answer is. If the debate doesn't resolve, you've both lost.
This doesn't mean it's a total waste of effort to argue on the internet (even if you're both total brick walls, your back-and-forth may end up edifying someone in the peanut gallery), but I think it's a healthier perspective than the closed-minded point-scoring mentality that humans seem to default to when they have an audience.
happyjack27 wrote:how do they collect taxes from the grass and trees and plants and what not that collect energy from the photons via photosynthesis, which i later eat, thus providing myself with energy? or do i get taxed for eating because i'm ultimately consuming energy from the sun? or is it just when a use that energy, such as by moving or breathing, that i get taxed?
Read the article. It's specifically a tax on rooftop solar, to make it uncompetitive with the utilities. Or so the story currently runs...
.....you move next to Tom? ("next to" means within 5 miles)
Nah, not yet.
I have been in the area he has his cabin and it is really nice out there. Wouldn't mind spending my quiet days around there at all.
Well, I guess sometimes there would be a boom or two from Tom's...
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
I see what you're saying but I respectfully disagree. The debate is over when a person's argument is shown to be untenable or impotent, and they don't offer new arguments without the same issues.
Now this does not mean the matter is resolved. It simply means that that person did not win that specific debate; that at the end of the dialogue, they had made no valid arguments in support of their claim. If that is the cause, and they choose not to offer new arguments, then they can talk doe as long as they want, but at that point, that specific debate is over, and they have not won.
Perhaps I was oversimplifying when I said the other person won; perhaps I should have said that that person did not win. But the kind o attitude that that statement expresses tells you that they are not to be taken seriously, and consequently anyone who debates against them, unless otherwise demonstrated, is to be taken more seriously than them.
Short answer: you will believe what you choose to believe, but if your beliefs don't correspond with reality, there will be issues.
Last edited by happyjack27 on Thu Feb 06, 2014 4:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
happyjack27 wrote:how do they collect taxes from the grass and trees and plants and what not that collect energy from the photons via photosynthesis, which i later eat, thus providing myself with energy? or do i get taxed for eating because i'm ultimately consuming energy from the sun? or is it just when a use that energy, such as by moving or breathing, that i get taxed?
Read the article. It's specifically a tax on rooftop solar, to make it uncompetitive with the utilities. Or so the story currently runs...
You're right - I was incorrectly assuming that they weren't making a distinction between one particular method of converting solar energy on the tops of houses to another particular method on the tops of plants! I see that if one simply makes a distinction, the things are thus distinct. I am quite curious as to their justification for this distinction.
I have been in the area he has his cabin and it is really nice out there. Wouldn't mind spending my quiet days around there at all.
Well, I guess sometimes there would be a boom or two from Tom's...
Boom? Me? Heh, you might detect it seismically, but I wouldn't want to attract attention.
That's like the guy on the beekeeping forum who asked if I knew anything about distillation. Not wise to ask someone with a log cabin in West Virginia that.
What you might pick up is a buzz, with peaks at about 190 and 240 Hz.
