Yeah sure, Get Solar - Now No Capacity To Connect To The Power Grid

a reply to: HODOSKE

Soo then what is the use get the panels then, to force consumer to make China rich?, it seems soo

originally posted by: starfoxxx
They want to have it both ways..

I am ok with electric cars if they would support clean nuclear and coal
projects to power them.

Not me. The batteries alone are dramatically less 'green' than even coal powered plants.

Now, when they actually succeed in commercial production of 'green' batteries (like the solid glass battery technology), or any of them that don't need any lithium or any other rare earth metals that are so toxic and destructive to mine, can charge in minutes and are capable of thousands of charging cycles, I'll be fully behind them.

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: chr0naut
if you gave it some thought.

Easy.

Some thought ok
and $100000000000000000000 gajillion bux!!

A power relay isn't that expensive. The inverter is probably already there.

Grid-tie is not necessary, is expensive, and complicates everything.

You just use pure electrovoltaic until the battery bank is nearly flat, then switch completely over to mains power, disconnecting the home from the battery supplied power AC circuit/s.

You can still recharge the batteries from solar, but without any drain, while the house runs separately on mains power.

A tuned capacitor/inductor/resistor system can smooth out any switching transients and back-EMF.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Not me. The batteries alone are dramatically less 'green' than even coal powered plants.

Now, when they actually succeed in commercial production of 'green' batteries (like the solid glass battery technology), or any of them that don't need any lithium or any other rare earth metals that are so toxic and destructive to mine, can charge in minutes and are capable of thousands of charging cycles, I'll be fully behind them.

If they would support clean nuclear plants

to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars

I think we would get to zero-emissions a lot quicker
and more efficient than all this BS they have out now.

originally posted by: starfoxxx
a reply to: tanstaafl
If they would support clean nuclear plants

to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars

Hydrogen simply isn't feasible now, or in the near future...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

originally posted by: starfoxxx

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Not me. The batteries alone are dramatically less 'green' than even coal powered plants.

Now, when they actually succeed in commercial production of 'green' batteries (like the solid glass battery technology), or any of them that don't need any lithium or any other rare earth metals that are so toxic and destructive to mine, can charge in minutes and are capable of thousands of charging cycles, I'll be fully behind them.

If they would support clean nuclear plants

to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars

I think we would get to zero-emissions a lot quicker
and more efficient than all this BS they have out now.

Liquid Thorium Salt reactors for the win...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: starfoxxx
a reply to: tanstaafl
If they would support clean nuclear plants

to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars

Hydrogen simply isn't feasible now, or in the near future...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

In India you can buy a car that runs entirely on compressed air. There are gravity batteries, flywheels, superconductivity, and other things that suggest that with enough will and thought, we could achieve all sorts of things that have previously been said to be impossible/uneconomical.

But giving up has a fairly definite outcome.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
In India you can buy a car that runs entirely on compressed air. There are gravity batteries, flywheels, superconductivity, and other things that suggest that with enough will and thought, we could achieve all sorts of things that have previously been said to be impossible/uneconomical.

Oh, I'm quite certain we already have multiple extremely viable (commercially) options that have already been developed...

But giving up has a fairly definite outcome.

Who's talking about giving up? I'm talking about covered up... for decades...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: starfoxxx
Liquid Thorium Salt reactors for the win...

I agree that LFTRs would solve the electricity side of the equation.

But the battery problem is much, much bigger and much more importan.

As someone who's heavily researched residential solar, it sounds like the person OP mentioned was a victim of a bad sales rep/company.

A good company/rep will ask your goals, and then if grid-tie is one of those, they consult with your power company/line operators to ensure it's viable.

My electric bills have increased 100% year over year for the last few years. Won't be long now before solar will be cheaper.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: starfoxxx
a reply to: tanstaafl
If they would support clean nuclear plants

to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars

Hydrogen simply isn't feasible now, or in the near future...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

Get with the times hydrogen has made leaps and bounds!!
They only take 5 min to fill up and drive just as a ICE

The only problem with hydrogen is breaking h2o water from the hydrogen
in that process it HAS TO HAVE energy. Right now if you use oil to break the atoms
your not saving oil, your still using gas to make the hydrogen,
but if you were to use a nuclear reactor to power the breaking of the atoms
you have zero emission cars..

Here is a MIT STUDY please take a minute to read because shilling
for shell is weak..

Making hydrogen power a reality
Hydrogen fuel has long been seen as a potentially key component of a carbon-neutral energy future. At the 2022 MIT Energy Initiative Spring Symposium, four industry experts laid out their efforts to produce it at scale.
energy.mit.edu...
“Now is the time for hydrogen, and the global race is on,” she said.

Dinh also explained the parameters of the Hydrogen Shot—the first of the DOE’s “Energy Earthshots” aimed at accelerating breakthroughs for affordable and reliable clean energy solutions. Hydrogen fuel currently costs around $5 per kilogram to produce, and the Hydrogen Shot’s stated goal is to bring that down by 80% to $1 per kilogram within a decade.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: starfoxxx
a reply to: tanstaafl
If they would support clean nuclear plants

to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars

Hydrogen simply isn't feasible now, or in the near future...

Unless you know something the rest of us don't.

We do have oceans of the stuff, and it can store fairly significant energy both in fuel cells to produce electrical energy, and in heat engines.

You can build equipment to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, at home. It's not that difficult.

I don't see any blocker in just doing it now with current tech, except for the economic one that it will break the petroleum industries, and we will need new equipment to utilize it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
In India you can buy a car that runs entirely on compressed air. There are gravity batteries, flywheels, superconductivity, and other things that suggest that with enough will and thought, we could achieve all sorts of things that have previously been said to be impossible/uneconomical.

Oh, I'm quite certain we already have multiple extremely viable (commercially) options that have already been developed...

But giving up has a fairly definite outcome.

Who's talking about giving up? I'm talking about covered up... for decades...

Steam engines existed before petrol engines (the Stanley Motor Company produced steam powered cars in the US) and during the war, they made big canvas bags on top of busses to extract coal gas to run the engine. None of this tech was suppressed. It's just that petrol was more convenient.

No. Its just to reduce your monthly bill. Buddy got a unit installed in a brand new home because apparently, something was wrong with the roof when they had it so they were going to give him a free solar roof and he found out he only saved about $50-$60 in power bill monthly. I heard similar stories from friends with brand new homes. They get excited about 'solar' but doesn't translate to that much savings. They do that versions that can store more power like batteries if needed as backup. If they generate more power, it goes back as 'credit' in the bill. As others said, its a scams.

a reply to: marg6043

the sales man told me my electric bill is going to go through the roof soon so it will be much cheaper to rent my solar panels than to pay my regular electric bill.a reply to: marg6043

The connectors on the solar panels should be MC4 if not they are easy enough to change out. Then run them straight into a Bluetti AC200Max. You'll have all the power you need and it's simply plug and play.

I have 400 watts running into a 2000 watt converter, also a Bluetti, and I've had no problem with it. Of course, that is just running my camper van. still, I can be rained out for three days and still have juice to run my fridge and keep all my devices charged up. I love it.

To hell with selling it to them, just find your freedom and get away from it all.

Good luck.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
the sales man told me my electric bill is going to go through the roof soon so it will be much cheaper to rent my solar panels than to pay my regular electric bill.a reply to: marg6043

I have the clique’ ocean front property to sell you in New Mexico.

originally posted by: starfoxxx
a reply to: tanstaafl
Here is a MIT STUDY please take a minute to read

Read it. Lots of promises, as usual.

And according to the article - and like I said - it is still decades away, if ever...

because shilling for shell is weak.

Cute, but nonsensically irrelevant.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
We do have oceans of the stuff, and it can store fairly significant energy both in fuel cells to produce electrical energy, and in heat engines.

You can build equipment to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, at home. It's not that difficult.

I don't see any blocker in just doing it now with current tech, except for the economic one that it will break the petroleum industries, and we will need new equipment to utilize it.

I'm not against it, and don't disagree with its potential, but...

Wake me up when it is a viable tech.

I think it's less that kind of conspiracy and more of a cover up that our 1800's model power grid can't hold up the modern world.