Let’s give good thoughts to our California friends.

alfadriver said:

In reply to aircooled :
 

Every time I bring up this technicality, I'm on my own. Still, useful to open the mindset even if the technology isn't ready. 

Because what you're talking about is much more akin to, say, compressing and extracting a .zip file for storage and use.

You don't put electricity into the gas tank for storage - you put a combustible chemical. You then combust the chemical to release thermal energy to operate a mechanical device that - wait for it - generates electricity.

With a battery, you are putting pre-generated electricity into the "tank" for storage.  Yes, there is a chemical process for that storage, but it's never generating electricity.

In reply to alfadriver :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The biggest issue with solar are batteries. But they work the same as a gas tank. You need to size both in a way to refill at a pace that works for your situation. Just like EVs vs gas cars. And making a solar generator hybrid is high on my requirement list. 
 

Yes, and that is a big issue. Literally due to the size and weight of the batteries and the cost. The difference is you can buy a 5 gallon gas can for $30 and fill it for another $20. I haven't priced the battery equivalent, but I'm sure that it's a lot. And you probably aren't carrying it around easily. 
 

I sell both batteries and generators. Everything from portable to big enough to back up a hospital. Residential solar/battery systems allow for genset integration because it is currently the best solution for long term outages. Large facilities also use both, batteries for short outages and smooth transitions (UPS, but the size of room) and generators to keep the power on beyond that. 

alfadriver said:

In reply to aircooled :

Batteries are not capacitors. They store electic energy via a chemical reaction.  And they generate electricity via a chemical reaction. 
 

Just like gasoline. Technically. 

Technically neither "generate" anything.  Only the sun can claim the ability to do that.  And those who can split atoms.

One is storage, the other is change of state.

Is this discussion helpful?

In reply to alfadriver :

You may be technically right but I am with Air on this. 
 

Just stop being the pebble in the shoe of people that at the moment don't give two flying ef's about your all so important technicality.  Air is living it in full living color in real time. You are just being a dick at the moment. 

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Is this discussion helpful?

Sure it is. When gas generators are outlawed, and the "solution" does not work, at least you know some people saw it coming, and tried to say something. 

In reply to dean1484 :

The point is that there are alternatives to gas motors to generate electricity for a home. Ones that can take solar energy from either light or wind and store it in a battery. Not ideal, yet. But they exist. 

Steve_Jones said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

Is this discussion helpful?

Sure it is. When gas generators are outlawed, and the "solution" does not work, at least you know some people saw it coming, and tried to say something. 

Ughh.  

Having just recently spent the better part of a month running my home off my HF generator post Hurricane Helene, I cannot imagine what this place would be like without the influx of gas generators.  I can say I have no idea what my neighbors and I would have done to survive if we could not have/run/obtain gas generators. The people who pass these laws/regulations have good intentions but clearly have not lived though an extended natural disaster in a relatively low income area. 

That time we had a bunch of back and forth about historic firestorms in California and nobody talked about the effects of climate change because science has been politicized.

alfadriver said:

In reply to dean1484 :

The point is that there are alternatives to gas motors to generate electricity for a home. Ones that can take solar energy from either light or wind and store it in a battery. Not ideal, yet. But they exist. 

I did not say you were wrong. My point is there is a time and a place to peruse this.  Out of respect for those that are living this mess now is not that time.  Let those that are living it vent a little. Nit picking someone at a time like this shows little to no compassion and a lack of understanding of there situation.  Just stop it. Please!!!  

In reply to Marjorie Suddard :

That time we had a bunch of back and forth about historic firestorms in California and nobody talked about the effects of climate change because science has been politicized.

Because climate change is not statistically relevant to the discussion, and the only real reason to inject it is to politicize the conversation. Even so, I'm open to discussing it. But in my experience, people don't really want to discuss it, they want to just tell you that their opinion is right.  Somewhere in this thread, it was mentioned or linked that the fires are a result of climate change because of the lack of rainfall this year in So. Cal, with no other explanation other than climate change. I just looked up the historic rainfall totals for L.A.- 

1887-Present LA Seasonal Rainfall

The last 5 years averaged just over the 15 inch seasonal average of the last 130+ years. It's also pretty close- just over- the 1877-1882 five year average. Here is a chart to that shows rainfall by year...

Can you tell me where the climate change started? Now this does not disprove climate change. That's not my point. My point is that taking a single data point- this years's rainfall- and tying it to climate change and that climate change to a primary factor in the fires is not science. It's cherry picking data to support a predetermined position. We can talk about it, but pending further evidence, I don't see it in the top 10 reasons of why we are having wild fires. 
 

Science has been politicized, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that any attempt to discuss science is an attempt to politicize a discussion. Similarly, taking a "single data point"--in your case, this year's rainfall--and using it to disprove climate change is not science. Especially when you use a 5-year total to "prove" that a single year's rainfall is not abnormal. Those are different data.

This thread started out of concern for SoCal. I posted in that spirit, because as someone already impacted by the negative effects of climate change, I believe that if you really want to help the victims of climate change, you can start by being at least willing to discuss the topic.

Climate Change is the new Cancer. When I was a wee lad growing up, everything caused cancer. It was in the news every day that some new study found (insert any food, substance or activity here) contributed to cancer. Today it's everything is because of climate change.

I don't know if climate change is a big deal or not. I'm not a scientist. And I can't trust the media to tell me the truth about it. At this point, it's like the boy who cried "wolf".  As soon as I hear "climate change" I tune it out or change the channel. Hysteria fatigue.

What I'm more concerned with is how we (meaning, the country) react to the aftermath of these disasters. Frankly, we suck at it. FEMA is about as useful as a cow with no teats. Absurd rules and regulations that prevent people from just getting stuff done. It's embarrassing and despicable.

I so want to believe that these two will soon arrive on the scene and make it all better...

aircooled said:

In reply to RX Reven' :

From what I can see The Colony and Malibu pier are fine.  The fire seemed to stop about a mile east of there... right about where that last burn scar stopped.

 

Found this picture of what might be the partial cure to some of this.  This is what they call a Passive House or Envelope House (?).  The general principle is that they are highly insulated and sealed for energy efficiency.  That also eliminates most any open venting of course.  Certainly won't make the house entirely fireproof but it will certainly help a lot.

Of course, I suspect this will make construction much more expensive (maybe 50% more?), and as you might know, housing is a bit pricey in CA as it is...

One positive thing that may come out of all these western wildfires is that insurance companies may start to look hard at these "passive house" construction techniques and incentivize them through lower premiums. While more expensive to build, they are less expensive to heat and cool, and might be less expensive to insure too. Conversely, homes in hurricane prone areas are becoming impossibly expensive to insure. What if these mechanisms put enough market pressure on us as a society to build a more climate neutral world?

Could the free market fix climate change through insurance?? That's my glass half full take. In the meantime, hope our neighbors on the other side of the country find relief soon. Couldn't imagine my family going through something like that