No classes Weds. Decision mid-day Weds about Thurs and Friday
To be clear: the dumb thing isn't canceling class. It is that class will be canceled because PG&E can't get their crap together. Who bears the costs of that? Not PG&E for sure.BearDown2o15 said:
Right. Because who wouldn't want to sit in the dark in a large lecture hall.
I'd advise you not to wade into the blackout thread where people are defending PG&E's need to stay in business. Why a profit driven corporation, offering a public good which functions as a natural monopoly that is only accountable to regulators (who they often share a revolving door with) NEEDS to stay in business is beyond me. Why free-market types continue to defend this failed corporation is also beyond me.dimitrig said:To be clear: the dumb thing isn't canceling class. It is that class will be canceled because PG&E can't get their crap together. Who bears the costs of that? Not PG&E for sure.BearDown2o15 said:
Right. Because who wouldn't want to sit in the dark in a large lecture hall.
WIAF: that is really interesting. Seriously half of new construction and major remodel is going completely off the power grid? I don't follow residential solar that much, but I didn't realize that residential battery technology and economics was that favorable --- I had assumed the vast majority of residential solar was still the "run off your own solar, but tied to the power grid to feed in or out as needed" model.wifeisafurd said:
Going a different direction. In SoCal, the trend among people with means is to cut the cord from SCE. It has nothing to do with cuts in service due to fires - that is a NorCal thing. It is that SCE costs a lot for connections for a new house and also causes significant construction delays which in large houses means a lot of additional costs. So owners go solar with back-up batteries and have found this reliable and cost-effective. About half the major remodels/new houses in the area we live in OC have gone the way. With black-outs in NorCal, wondering why people are not going that way (or maybe they are)? My guess is that in the long run as technology improves and becomes cheaper, power companies in warm areas will go under or be expensive alternatives just for the poor. Might add the environment does a lot better with this approach.
This has always bothered me as well.concernedparent said:
I'd advise you not to wade into the blackout thread where people are defending PG&E's need to stay in business. Why a profit driven corporation, offering a public good which functions as a natural monopoly that is only accountable to regulators (who they often share a revolving door with) NEEDS to stay in business is beyond me. Why free-market types continue to defend this failed corporation is also beyond me.
You are right that the vast majority of construction because batteries cost around $75K. So the economics apply to where the property. cost is over a few million dollars (which may include a lot of new construction in the Bay Area due to high costs). When I say the area we live in OC, it is an area with a Laguna Canyon address - so prices are high. Though usually what is driving the decision is the desire to take SCE out of the development process due to connection fees and scheduling issues. That said, and there is a discussion about this in the other thread, the technology is changing so rapidly, that this will become a real problem for utilities in the next generation when battery costs drop.YamhillBear said:WIAF: that is really interesting. Seriously half of new construction and major remodel is going completely off the power grid? I don't follow residential solar that much, but I didn't realize that residential battery technology and economics was that favorable --- I had assumed the vast majority of residential solar was still the "run off your own solar, but tied to the power grid to feed in or out as needed" model.wifeisafurd said:
Going a different direction. In SoCal, the trend among people with means is to cut the cord from SCE. It has nothing to do with cuts in service due to fires - that is a NorCal thing. It is that SCE costs a lot for connections for a new house and also causes significant construction delays which in large houses means a lot of additional costs. So owners go solar with back-up batteries and have found this reliable and cost-effective. About half the major remodels/new houses in the area we live in OC have gone the way. With black-outs in NorCal, wondering why people are not going that way (or maybe they are)? My guess is that in the long run as technology improves and becomes cheaper, power companies in warm areas will go under or be expensive alternatives just for the poor. Might add the environment does a lot better with this approach.
I almost agree with you, parent, but the real issue is that the Governor & Legislature have not taken the regulators to task. Sure, its easy to blame the big, bad, for-profit bogeyman, but each and every one of PG&E's budgets for safety and security is approved by the State PUC. Point your angst in their direction. It is their job to require that the utilities under their review are safe.concernedparent said:I'd advise you not to wade into the blackout thread where people are defending PG&E's need to stay in business. Why a profit driven corporation, offering a public good which functions as a natural monopoly that is only accountable to regulators (who they often share a revolving door with) NEEDS to stay in business is beyond me. Why free-market types continue to defend this failed corporation is also beyond me.dimitrig said:To be clear: the dumb thing isn't canceling class. It is that class will be canceled because PG&E can't get their crap together. Who bears the costs of that? Not PG&E for sure.BearDown2o15 said:
Right. Because who wouldn't want to sit in the dark in a large lecture hall.
Here's one free market type person who agrees with you. I also was fine with GM, Chevy, Chrysler and the banks going under, too.concernedparent said:I'd advise you not to wade into the blackout thread where people are defending PG&E's need to stay in business. Why a profit driven corporation, offering a public good which functions as a natural monopoly that is only accountable to regulators (who they often share a revolving door with) NEEDS to stay in business is beyond me. Why free-market types continue to defend this failed corporation is also beyond me.dimitrig said:To be clear: the dumb thing isn't canceling class. It is that class will be canceled because PG&E can't get their crap together. Who bears the costs of that? Not PG&E for sure.BearDown2o15 said:
Right. Because who wouldn't want to sit in the dark in a large lecture hall.
I'm personally inclined to blame all of them. The industry exercises a lot of influence in who gets selected as Commissioner, what their agenda is, and ultimately what the final outcome is. The only real sustained opposition that doesn't flow from the outrage of occasional energy catastrophes is from a few plucky, outgunned environmental justice and ratepayer advocacy groups. I agree too that our political representatives deserve a lot of grief... My comment is more directed at the people who think the continued existence of PG&E is some god given right.Big Dog said:I almost agree with you, parent, but the real issue is that the Governor & Legislature have not taken the regulators to task. Sure, its easy to blame the big, bad, for-profit bogeyman, but each and every one of PG&E's budgets for safety and security is approved by the State PUC. Point your angst in their direction. It is their job to require that the utilities under their review are safe.concernedparent said:I'd advise you not to wade into the blackout thread where people are defending PG&E's need to stay in business. Why a profit driven corporation, offering a public good which functions as a natural monopoly that is only accountable to regulators (who they often share a revolving door with) NEEDS to stay in business is beyond me. Why free-market types continue to defend this failed corporation is also beyond me.dimitrig said:To be clear: the dumb thing isn't canceling class. It is that class will be canceled because PG&E can't get their crap together. Who bears the costs of that? Not PG&E for sure.BearDown2o15 said:
Right. Because who wouldn't want to sit in the dark in a large lecture hall.
Sure, a revolving door exists. But let's fix that first. (I have been sending nasty letters to the PUC for several years wrt SoCal Edison.)
bearsandgiants said:
Its nice to see people are awaking to the realities of climate change. Just wait till the food stops. We are grossly unprepared for all of this, and continue to go about our ways, ignoring it or counting on others to fix it.
NVBear78 said:bearsandgiants said:
Its nice to see people are awaking to the realities of climate change. Just wait till the food stops. We are grossly unprepared for all of this, and continue to go about our ways, ignoring it or counting on others to fix it.
For sure the climate has always had cycles of change. But don't think you could ever stop it since it started well before man had any impact. And it warms and cools throughout history and we seem to be pretty good about figuring out how to increase food production...
Or, you could stop the production of CO2 and watch the food production go to zero.NVBear78 said:bearsandgiants said:
Its nice to see people are awaking to the realities of climate change. Just wait till the food stops. We are grossly unprepared for all of this, and continue to go about our ways, ignoring it or counting on others to fix it.
For sure the climate has always had cycles of change. But don't think you could ever stop it since it started well before man had any impact. And it warms and cools throughout history and we seem to be pretty good about figuring out how to increase food production...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earthQuote:
From a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet's vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.