• Have you tried out dark mode?! Scroll to the bottom of any page to find a sun or moon icon to turn dark mode on or off!

diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

You're being kinda thick. Are you having a bad day?

I assume you're worried about Ukraine taking our weapons and bombing inside russia.

I hate useless wars. It always saddens me when regular folks die to advance the "Great Reset". I have friends and relatives on both sides.
 
Two new Sodium-ion battery factories in the U.S.:
  • Holland, Michigan
    This plant, which opened in April 2024, is North America's first mass-scale sodium-ion battery manufacturing facility. Natron spent $40 million to retool the facility, which was originally built by Clarios to make low-voltage lithium-ion batteries. The plant has a capacity of 600 MW of batteries per year and is expected to create up to 150 jobs over the next 18 months. The Department of Energy provided a $19.9 million grant for the facility.

  • North Carolina
    Natron is planning to build a $1.4 billion, nearly 1.2 million sq ft facility in North Carolina that will produce 24 GW h of sodium-ion batteries per year. The facility will be located at the 437-acre Kingsboro megasite. North Carolina has agreed to provide up to $21.75 million in potential reimbursements over 12 years, and the county may also apply for a $30 million grant to help prepare the site.
Sodium-ion batteries supposedly offer several advantages, including better low-temperature performance, lower internal resistance, faster charging speeds, longer lifespans, easier to recycle and recover materials, and increased durability over time. Because they use cheaper raw materials, they're expected to greatly reduce ESS costs.

1723984053732.png

So, CATL isn't alone in terms of building Sodium Ion batteries. I've heard of Tiamat SAS in France, Altris in Sweden, AMTE Power in Scotland, and NGK Insulators Ltd. in Japan. Most seem geared up for the power industry (i.e., replacing fossil fuels), but CATL, Faradion, HiNa, Bedrock Materials, and Natron all seem to be pursuing EVs too. AFAIK, there's only a few EV models that use sodium ion batteries (e.g., Yiwei, Sehol E10X, Seagull), but none are available in the U.S. yet.

The real kicker is the number of deep charge cycles. In addition to it's lower up-front cost, it's a magnitude higher than current technology, which means the life-cycle cost is a magnitude lower. In addition to the lower cost, the short charge times means BEVs become practical for everyone. with access to the charging infrastructure.

The U.S. is still behind other countries in terms of the public charging infrastructure, although >65% of the U.S. population has access to home charging. Not sure if that source includes the Tesla network.

 

Svetz, the largest flora and fauna existed when atmospheric C02 was 10 times what it is now.

Where do you think all the oil and coal came from?

If C02 is a danger to life, why were dinosaurs and plants so biiiiigggggg?


Also, why did you buy a PHEV instead of a full electric if you're scared shitless of C02 emissions? I think a phev was a smart choice but you're such a gross hypocrite for doing so that we just can't take anything you say seriously.
 
Even though Svetz is retired and lives in the land of endless sun, he chose a vehicle that can run off gasoline because he didn't want to be inconvenienced by having to stop and charge on longer trips and the inherent danger of a hurricane disabling the grid and home solar panels rendering a full electric vehicle useless.

But you know, according to him..the rest of us still prefer gasoline because we are victims of misinformation put out by the oil industry, not because an electric vehicle cannot currently meet our needs.
Svetz won't come clean on this issue. The phev over full electric vehicle is his aachille's heal that nullifies his "climate denier" argument.

Rules for thee but not for me. For once I wish libtards actually practiced what they preached.
 
Last edited:
Opinion: Economically it does makes sense to reduce exposure.



Opinion: The FERC has currently orders renewables to turn down to prevent this, but it's very complicated because the renewables weren't 24x7 and if the fossil energy company did go bankrupt people would have stranded without power. But, with ESS and more renewables this will inevitably change (e.g., peaker plants shutting down).
 

Germany Just Cancelled Ukraine – Was Dependence on Russian Gas the Reason?​

Germany has been accused of importing Russian Gas via third parties. Did Moscow just lay down some ground rules?

This article is speculative, but hear me out.

Germany relies on a new source of money for Kiev

Status: 08/17/2024 8:11 pm

In view of tight funds, the Federal Government no longer wants to provide Ukraine with new aid for the time being. However, according to the Ministry of Finance, exceptions are possible. Support for Kiev is to come from another source in the future.

By Christina Nagel, ARD capital studio

The Federal Government had planned around eight billion euros this year to support Ukraine. Already at the beginning of July, however, it became clear that the funds for military aid were running out. They were “largely spent and bound,” said Defense Minister Boris Pistorius in the run-up to the NATO summit.



So if Ukraine would request more ammunition, spare parts or military equipment this year, for example, then the federal government would have to say “no.” And hope that another country will jump into the breach.



Read more (Original German): https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/ukraine-hilfe-deutschland-102.html
Germany officially stopped Russian gas imports in 2022. But there is evidence a significant amount of Russian gas is still being imported by the EU in disguised form – the gas is being liquified, then allegedly sold via gas exporting third parties like Qatar.

War in Ukraine: Why is the EU still buying Russian gas?

Arthur Sullivan 04/29/2024April 29, 2024

Although the EU has dramatically reduced the amount of Russian gas it imports, significant quantities are still flowing into the bloc.



How LNG imports from Russia replaced pipeline gas

According to EU data, the share of Russian pipeline gas member states imported fell from 40% of the total in 2021 to about 8% in 2023. However, when Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is included — natural gas cooled down to liquid form so it can be transported by ship — the total share of Russian gas in the EU’s total last year was 15%.

A key way the EU reduced its reliance on Russian gas was by increasing LNG imports from countries such as the United States and Qatar. However, this has inadvertently led to a surge of heavily discounted Russian LNG entering the bloc.

According to the data provider Kpler, Russia is now the EU’s second-biggest LNG supplier. LNG imports from Russia accounted for 16% of the EU’s total LNG supply in 2023, a 40% increase compared with the amount Russia sold to the EU in 2021.



Read more: https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-why-is-the-eu-still-buying-russian-gas/a-68925869
Why is continued Russian involvement in German energy supplies important?

Germany is in a heap of trouble with its budget, the hundreds of billions of Euros Germany spent and continues to spend on its failed Energiewende green energy project have thrown government finances into chaos, and led to unpopular public deficits. Germany’s incompetent green politicians are terrified that any rise in economic hardship or further public outrage at the nation’s precarious finances will spur the rise of the populist right wing Alternative for Germany movement.

It wouldn’t take much of a disruption to German energy supplies to topple this fragile budget situation. Even a few delayed shipments of that thinly disguised Russian gas could trigger another politically damaging German energy price spike, and push German public finances even deeper into the red.

There is a missing link in this chain, I don’t have evidence that Moscow recently stepped up pressure on Germany to stop supporting Ukraine. But the timing of this decision to stop supporting Ukraine, right in the middle of a German budget crisis, within days of Ukraine’s surprise salient into Russian territory, seems intriguing.

Germany’s withdrawal of open ended support for Ukraine creates a huge risk for the United States. If the rest of Europe follows Germany’s lead, and also starts pulling support for Ukraine, the Biden / Harris administration will be left with the embarrassment of supporting a war on another continent which even Ukraine’s neighbours don’t care about. The “hope that another country will jump into the breach” – I wonder which other country German officials have in mind? With the tattered veil of European military support ripped aside, the Ukraine war would openly become a direct military confrontation between the USA’s Ukrainian proxy and the nuclear armed Russian Federation.

If I am right, Europe is truly paying the price for their failed experiment in green energy. European governments are still so beholden to Russian energy supplies, they have to dance like performing bears whenever Moscow cracks its whip, even as Russia eats one of their neighbours. Yet with their very political survival being threatened, most European politicians still haven’t found the political courage to change course and admit their green energy push was a mistake.
-
 
Opinion: Economically it does makes sense to reduce exposure.

Opinion: The FERC has currently orders renewables to turn down to prevent this, but it's very complicated because the renewables weren't 24x7 and if the fossil energy company did go bankrupt people would have stranded without power. But, with ESS and more renewables this will inevitably change (e.g., peaker plants shutting down).

Does anyone know what svetz is trying to say here?

He seems panicked.
 
Its funny (sad) how the whole Russia-Ukraine theater is putting Slavic Men on both sides into the meat grinder, but Russian gas continues unabated through "enemy territory" of Ukraine to the "enemy States" of EU....
Tells you all you need to know about this.
 
Sounds like the insurance companies are just putting the risk where it belongs instead of the rest of us subsidizing insurance for those who want to live where there is greater risk.

It's all coming together.

Svetz won't buy an electric car because it won't meet his needs but still rants about supposed climate change because of the chance that hurricanes and sea-level rise are going inundate his Florida Keys residence with water thus killing resale of a home he wants out of or killing him in insurance costs to live in his tropical paradise.

It's everyone else's fault he's running out of money in retirement!

Reminds me of Murphyguy.

I think what Svetz is really after is having the government charge U.S. citizens who do not live in the Florida keys to pay into a fund that makes homeowner's insurance there cheaper so that Svetz can extend his limited retirement budget. He's justifying this by saying climate change is everyone elses fault so they need to pay for his expensive insurance because hurricanes are the fault of everyone.

These people, I tell ya.
 
Svetz, go ahead and come clean with your motives at anytime. When the things people are saying are crazy and don't really fit, we have to look at what financial motives they might have.

It took me awhile but I definitely found it.

You're getting killed on homeowner's insurance rates and you want the U.S. government to create a general fund for "everyone", especially well-healed oil companies to pay into in order to cover the cost of your homeowners which is extremely high in the Florida keys due to "climate change" right svetz? Ya know, since everyone is responsible for climate change.....

This dovetails with your purchasing of a car that still runs on gasoline.

Your purchase of solar panels netted you a tax credit and reduction in on-peak consumption. Going to bet florida has peaker rate schedules that are considerably higher than off peak. Nothing altruistic about that.

These liberals...I tell ya.
 
Sounds like the insurance companies are just putting the risk where it belongs instead of the rest of us subsidizing insurance for those who want to live where there is greater risk.

The for-profit insurance companies started exiting the state around 2010 Bob; it makes sense since they were losing money in the state.

The video is more about the state-run non-profit insurance replacement (i.e., Citizens Insurance) and changes to it last year.

The premiums under Florida's state program are determined by risk (FEMA's FIRMs maps) and the value of the home. So, your desire that those at higher risk pay higher premiums seems fairly well handled. There's also a cap of $700,000, but there's a special exception of $1M for homes in Miami (guess you know where the politicians live ; -). The whole program is based on the state wanting to provide the safety-net to keep people from fleeing the state. It's probably why about ~20 different states have similar programs now.

While I originally wasn't a fan of the state-run insurance concept, the non-profit model did seem to work because the costs were shared by the policy holders and unlike a normal insurance company if the costs were higher than the premiums they apply a surcharge (that is the risk was shared by citizens and provided the equivalent of liquidity and reserve). For over a decade the original fears of government not knowing how to manage such a business were unfounded as the checks and balances seemed to work.

What I don't understand is the changes from last year. Well, I get the desire for the state to not be in the insurance business. But it's not like the reputable insurance companies with good cash reserves are clamoring to come back, they know they can't make money. So why would the state:
  1. Authorize insurance companies to cherry pick policy offerings to the lowest-risk areas as it increases costs for the state-insurance
  2. Allow companies with very little liquidity or reserves to offer insurance as a disaster will bankrupt them and leave the state hanging.
  3. Make it harder for home owners to get insurance companies to pay up for claims. For example, insurance companies will no longer be ordered to pay attorney fees even if they improperly denied the claim (ref).
  4. Make it hard to get regular home-owner's insurance without wind & flood insurance (supposedly it can be done via special authorization).
We've never made a claim and were pretty shocked by our insurance costs this year. I get with climate change the costs are increasing drastically. It's something we're discussing as we'll have to move or forego insurance. Base Insurance costs ~5% the value of your house yearly, there are costly deductibles, and you might not be able to get them to pay up anyway, perhaps it's better to just bank the premiums or harden the property? That won't work for those buying with a bank loan of course as they require wind insurance here to get the loan.

Ultimately I guess the question is what, if any, should governments role be in protecting the homes of the citizens that reside there and making the area a desirable place to work & live? I get states want to keep citizens and historically have done all sorts of things to attract them, but do extraordinarily risky places to live require extraordinary measures? What do you think?
 
Last edited:
The for-profit insurance companies started exiting the state around 2010 Bob; it makes sense since they were losing money in the state.

The video is more about the state-run non-profit insurance replacement (i.e., Citizens Insurance) and changes to it last year.

The premiums under Florida's state program are determined by risk (FEMA's FIRMs maps) and the value of the home. So, your desire that those at higher risk pay higher premiums seems fairly well handled. There's also a cap of $700,000, but there's a special exception of $1M for homes in Miami (guess you know where the politicians live ; -). The whole program is based on the state wanting to provide the safety-net to keep people from fleeing the state. It's probably why about ~20 different states have similar programs now.

While I originally wasn't a fan of the state-run insurance concept, the non-profit model did seem to work because the costs were shared by the policy holders and unlike a normal insurance company if the costs were higher than the premiums they apply a surcharge (that is the risk was shared by citizens and provided the equivalent of liquidity and reserve). For over a decade the original fears of government not knowing how to manage such a business were unfounded as the checks and balances seemed to work.

What I don't understand is the changes from last year. Well, I get the desire for the state to not be in the insurance business. But it's not like the reputable insurance companies with good cash reserves are clamoring to come back, they know they can't make money. So why would the state:
  1. Authorize insurance companies to cherry pick policy offerings to the lowest-risk areas as it increases costs for the state-insurance
  2. Allow companies with very little liquidity or reserves to offer insurance as a disaster will bankrupt them and leave the state hanging.
  3. Make it harder for home owners to get insurance companies to pay up for claims. For example, insurance companies will no longer be ordered to pay attorney fees even if they improperly denied the claim (ref).
  4. Make it hard to get regular home-owner's insurance without wind & flood insurance (supposedly it can be done via special authorization).
We've never made a claim and were pretty shocked by our insurance costs this year. I get with climate change the costs are increasing drastically. It's something we're discussing as we'll have to move or forego insurance. Base Insurance costs ~5% the value of your house yearly, there are costly deductibles, and you might not be able to get them to pay up anyway, perhaps it's better to just bank the premiums or harden the property? That won't work for those buying with a bank loan of course as they require wind insurance here to get the loan.

Ultimately I guess the question is what, if any, should governments role be in protecting the homes of the citizens that reside there and making the area a desirable place to work & live? I get states want to keep citizens and historically have done all sorts of things to attract them, but do extraordinarily risky places to live require extraordinary measures? What do you think?

I've never lived in an area prone to hurricanes or flooding .... or earthquakes .... or forest fires ...... and tornadoes mostly go around where I live. We do occasionally have severe hail storms.
If I lived in any of those areas I would either have a home I could easily repair / replace or harden it against those things. In Florida, I would probably have a lot and a large camper.

As soon as my house was paid off, I decided to become self insured. I hadn't made a claim on my home insurance the entire time I had it.
I pay myself what it would cost me to have home insurance and have a separate account just for that ..... and now have a pretty good sized nest egg there.

I don't like the idea of government competing with private industry for insurance.
 
The for-profit insurance companies started exiting the state around 2010 Bob; it makes sense since they were losing money in the state.

The video is more about the state-run non-profit insurance replacement (i.e., Citizens Insurance) and changes to it last year.

The premiums under Florida's state program are determined by risk (FEMA's FIRMs maps) and the value of the home. So, your desire that those at higher risk pay higher premiums seems fairly well handled. There's also a cap of $700,000, but there's a special exception of $1M for homes in Miami (guess you know where the politicians live ; -). The whole program is based on the state wanting to provide the safety-net to keep people from fleeing the state. It's probably why about ~20 different states have similar programs now.

While I originally wasn't a fan of the state-run insurance concept, the non-profit model did seem to work because the costs were shared by the policy holders and unlike a normal insurance company if the costs were higher than the premiums they apply a surcharge (that is the risk was shared by citizens and provided the equivalent of liquidity and reserve). For over a decade the original fears of government not knowing how to manage such a business were unfounded as the checks and balances seemed to work.

What I don't understand is the changes from last year. Well, I get the desire for the state to not be in the insurance business. But it's not like the reputable insurance companies with good cash reserves are clamoring to come back, they know they can't make money. So why would the state:
  1. Authorize insurance companies to cherry pick policy offerings to the lowest-risk areas as it increases costs for the state-insurance
  2. Allow companies with very little liquidity or reserves to offer insurance as a disaster will bankrupt them and leave the state hanging.
  3. Make it harder for home owners to get insurance companies to pay up for claims. For example, insurance companies will no longer be ordered to pay attorney fees even if they improperly denied the claim (ref).
  4. Make it hard to get regular home-owner's insurance without wind & flood insurance (supposedly it can be done via special authorization).
We've never made a claim and were pretty shocked by our insurance costs this year. I get with climate change the costs are increasing drastically. It's something we're discussing as we'll have to move or forego insurance. Base Insurance costs ~5% the value of your house yearly, there are costly deductibles, and you might not be able to get them to pay up anyway, perhaps it's better to just bank the premiums or harden the property? That won't work for those buying with a bank loan of course as they require wind insurance here to get the loan.

Ultimately I guess the question is what, if any, should governments role be in protecting the homes of the citizens that reside there and making the area a desirable place to work & live? I get states want to keep citizens and historically have done all sorts of things to attract them, but do extraordinarily risky places to live require extraordinary measures? What do you think?
In my local community, our FEMA maps are deliberately skewed by my local government. They never updated the flood overbanks, so there are many, many people living in the 100 year flood zone, that have no idea that they are. I took printouts from my stormwater engineer into a Land Use Hearing and showed them on paper, how their maps were off. I got a deer in the headlights stare. They don't want to prevent any of that development revenue coming in. Personally, I get flooded from a diversion of stormwater to my property. I'm on 7 acres, and about 4 acres is under water a portion of the year because my neighbor tapped into the stormwater system and diverted the water to my property to keep it off his. My commissioners and government won't do shit about it, because they are liable for allowing it to happen.
 
I've never lived in an area prone to hurricanes or flooding .... or earthquakes .... or forest fires ...... and tornadoes mostly go around where I live. We do occasionally have severe hail storms.
Haven't felt an earthquake here, but the whole state is prone to the rest (and sink holes ; -).

... In Florida, I would probably have a lot and a large camper....
They tend to blow around like tumbleweeds if they're not latched down. But I do like the idea of being mobile.

I don't like the idea of government competing with private industry for insurance.
Me either. There wasn't really competition when the insurance companies pulled out. It's only recently that Citizen policies are getting autoconverted to no-name underfunded policies.

In my local community, our FEMA maps are deliberately skewed by my local government.
There's some of that here too. For example, the Atlantic side gets waves and the bay side doesn't (too shallow), but both sides have the same surcharge.

...I'm on 7 acres, and about 4 acres is under water a portion of the year because my neighbor tapped into the stormwater system and diverted the water to my property to keep it off his.
Can you import some beavers, get them to be protected, and talk them into damming the inflow? ; -) Just kidding, man that's really sucky.
 
Last edited:
We have a saying: You fight the crowbar with another crowbar so here we go

"A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their government and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get."


























 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top