World Without Oil

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Taxcutter, Feb 20, 2012.

  1. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there shouldn't be any debate over switching to sustainable energy, burning a non renewable resource powering cars is insane...oil is used in too many other valuable products to be wasted as fuel..
     
  2. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello...

    I pontificate about geopolitics on other forums of choice, and I have time invested there so I probably won't post here much. But I have to say it is very clear there are some extremely intelligent people who participate here. And a high ratio of them. I have enjoyed your essays (left AND right), and the relative civility (compared to some other PoFos I won't mention, where anything goes, or where ACists rule and ban anyone who doesn't worship the free market)

    I've seen many, many threads just like this one. Fear-easing people will go on and on about how much of a red herring Peak Oil theory is - citing Bakken, or Shai Agassi's electric car, or the free market, or 'clean coal,' or tar sands/oil shale, or nuclear, biofuels, hydro, or any combination of hope-based rationalization. Doomist will often fire back with talk of impending descent into the dark ages, etc.

    But what I find most often in threads like these is the complete absense in discussion of two utterly undeniable factors: 1) geology. 2) realistic timeline before shock occurs. ... the latter of which appears to be occurring all around us already.

    The geology has all but convinced readers of the subject material that oil is at peak - certainly the good stuff. Whatever doubt that still exists after that? Well, the geopolitical red lights sure are flashing and have pretty much nailed the case shut. All that remains is decline. Or, as the character Bryan Woodman said in Syriana:

    "What are they thinking? They're thinking it's running out! ... It's running out... And 90% of what's left is in the Middle East."

    Technically, it'll never "run out," but a bit of nuance is required here. It doesn't need to run out. It merely can just get too expensive for the average blue collar worker and small business to afford it the same.

    So, we'll assume we can dispense with the theory that oil might be 'abiotic' in nature and that it's somehow seeping up from the mantle of the Earth. There aren't many of those people left anymore, as Thomas Gold's book based on Cold War Soviet science has been thoroughly debunked. That being said, if you're like some 95% of us, and you at least accept the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, then you likely have turned to something else to buoy your spirits: You hold faith that man's innovation and technology will save the day. A few posters in this very thread have insisted exactly that.

    Thus, we get to the time issue.

    Think about the transference of 800-900 million combustion engines to something else. It will take decades. And that's just the transportation aspect that sweet crude oil provides. Not to mention all the other glorious essentials we've come to rely on cheap, clean oil for: Pesticides, fertilizers, medicines, road pavement, plastics, rubber (tires), refridgeration, and on and on and on.

    Now think about how much time there is before shock sets in. We're already seeing the beginnings of it, all over the planet. Do you honestly believe the global economic collapse is the result of some bad loans, and isolated shady banking? I'm sorry, but it's much more dire than that. To coin a phrase from one of my favorite authors: The economy IS energy, and energy IS the economy. Period, end of story. This is a derivatives crash; a bubble based on the silly assumption of infinite growth and the assanine belief that energy production (a commodity) will forever increase. Huge swaths of the markets are based on energy growth. Without the assurance of it, those markets begin to fail.

    But, of course, our corporate masters don't want to openly acknowledge the energy crisis that mankind now faces. They hint at it here and there, ... but the media and beltway lawmakers are more focused on global warming and bank bailouts. Geology is too boring.

    Nay-sayers like to point to the falling price at the pump, ignoring entirely the deflationary factors that come into play after price shocks. However people spin it, the long-term trend of oil price is still up, up, up... some 600% in the last 12 years, to be precise.

    Meanwhile, we are 30 years "on the couch" of gluttony and way WAY behind on energy transference, even if we found (or invented) some "magic battery pack that runs on sand" as soon as tomorrow. And who has the money to invest in new technology? ... IMO, $90-100 oil is about where it needs to be, and every last extra dime should have been pumped into alternatives and transference. Unfortunately, we lack the foresight and will. Worse, our last two presidents have decided to throw our remaining tax trillions propping up corrupt multi-national investment banks, whose entire existence relies on the infinite growth paradigm that is failing before our very eyes.

    Still don't believe the entire agenda of the Bush Administration was securing global oil reserves? Dick Cheney admitted global oil decline in 1999 in a speech to the London Institude of Technology.

    For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?​


    His entire foreign policy initiative was for private companies in America (supported by the military) to forcibly secure what's left of the cheap crude. Not to invest $trillions in renewables. What does that tell you?

    There's a reason our leaders have acted like Wild West desperados the previous 8 years, in the face of humiliation, subpoenas and even impeachment. ... They recognized a dire situation, and went about taking and securing the oil, to hell with what anyone thought. "You'll thank us later," was essentially what the Bush Administration's slogan should have been. ... "The American way of life is not negotiable," I believe one of them actually admitted on national television. Make no mistake about it: He was talking about oil scarcity, not terrorism. ...

    The geological reality is summed up in the growing mantra "Ghawar is dying,"... They're selling T-shirts with that slogan, in fact. OPEC likes to play with language and say they are voluntarily cutting production in the face of decreased demand. Meanwhile they're pumping sea water into the biggest oil field the world has ever known in a desperate attempt to push out what's left at the bottom of it. When you start water injections into your pools, decline is official. Yeah, I'm gonna say they're not cutting production on a whim. Nature is.

    Or as legendary energy analyst, the late Matthew Simmons said (paraphrasing), "when Ghawar goes, the world is officially in decline."

    Saudi Arabia used to step in and pump more when global crises erupted. They can't any more, and have said as much. There is no elasticity any more in the global production parameters. You get a nation like Libya's or Nigeria's oil output all but falling apart, the world can no longer make up for that. Prices spike.

    In the 50's, Hubbert predicted U.S. oil production decline for 1970, and fellow geologists laughed at him. It peaked in 1971. He also accurately predicted North Sea and Russian oil peak and decline, among many others. The world's geologists are no longer laughing.

    That's 33 of 48 oil producing nations in terminal decline. These nations are not investing in new rigs, they are no longer throwing money after the drilling of dry holes. That's because they know the gig is up. Interesting, nations are suddenly scrambling to lay claim at the melting polar ice caps for oil exploration. There's irony.

    So, yes, energy shock is coming. And it's coming long before electric cars get up and running for middle class consumers, or oil shale (strip mining?) becomes viable, or biodeisel is perfected... With 7 billion people and counting, there's no voluntary end in sight to world population. A figure curve that has adhered very closely to fossil fuel production for over 100 years. Nature will undoubtedly step in.

    Do I believe we're heading to the dark ages? Not exactly. Unfortunately, I see war superceding that long slow descent into anarchy. One way or another, war or depression, mankind's demand for oil is about to be cut significantly. That will ease the need for oil production, ... but at what cost? and how much of the world's financial system will have collapsed?

    Technology could still ultimately save the day, and there are great advances already. But I don't believe it will ride into town in time before some levels of shock occur and change the way the world works forever... It's already starting. And now we've made conflict with Iran all but inevitable. You wanna see the price of oil skyrocket? Holy ****.
     
  3. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Uh, Jiggs...

    In the OP I postulated a world without oil - for whatever reason - and asked for the forum's views on just what such a world would look like. I even offered a couple of posts on my view of what it would look like.

    OK, genius. What would a world without oil look like? Try to stay on-topic.
     
  4. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right. Just like without whale oil, we went back to 1650 technology?
     
  5. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Jiggs, and welcome to the forum. Let me be the first to give you some reputation for that intelligent posting, far above the level usually found here.

    I'm pretty much on board with most everything you're saying, although I'm more optimistic than you about our prospects of transitioning to a post-fossil economy. See, for example, this thread.
     
  6. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whale didn't run out, it was replaced by a lower cost replacement, that fit into the existing infrastucture.

    Oil will be replaced when there is a lower cost replacement that fits into the existing infrastructure.

    An interesting point is that whale oil, a renewable resource, would have run out due to over harvesting. Trees, a renewable resource, ran out on Easter Island.

    "Renewable" isn't a panacea.
     
  7. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The same thing will happen to fossil crude, too.

    Oil lamps were replaced by electric lights, which did not fit into the existing infrastructure.

    Renewables can be managed to insure they are indeed renewable. Fossil fuels can't even be managed.
     
  8. Jiggs Casey

    Jiggs Casey New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sorry you feel this way, especially considering I'm on your side. I was kinda coming to your aid in a thread you seem to be taking a beating in.

    I'd say what I wrote was quite relevant, considering many in the thread, and others like it, deny that 1) peak is even occurring, or 2) that it'll be a problem at all.

    Any recovering alcoholic will tell you: Before you can mitigate a problem, you have to acknowledge that a problem exists. It seems clear that you and I have zero doubt that peak is here. Unfortunately, most people's default reaction is "yeah, but what about....?"

    As for your command, I don't really think it's helpful to speculate about what a world "without oil" would look like. Obviously, it would be hell on Earth. But it won't "run out." It's a slow process once we're past peak. The biggest problem, as I wrote above, is the ever-increasing likelihood of resource war.

    To the chickenhawks, war crushes demand. The problem, however, is that Iran holds many cards and can ruin the global economy overnight.

    There is NO spare capacity any more. We are maxed out. It is my firm opinion -- based on a ton of reading on the subject from authors like Michael T. Klare and Chris Martenson -- that the West could not survive a new oil shock like that which occurred in the 1970s. It would throw Western banks into collapse, and chaos would ensue.

    Here's another reason we're woefully unprepared for an oil shock: Did you know the Strategic Petroleum Reserves that we hide in salt caves for an emergency is 1) enough for about 2 months, 2) unrefined, and 3) reserved almost exclusively for government function (the military)? That means we Main Streeters have no real reserves for an emergency - at all. It's a myth.

    Peak oil is the biggest problem that mankind faces. Bigger than climate change (certainly more imminent), and the "war on terror." It is, without a doubt, the core driver of the 2008 market crash, the Iraq War (based on rather transparent fraud), the food price explosion, and pretty much every other geopolitical malady that we face on this vastly over-populated planet.
     
  9. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thorium is a subset of nuclear energy. It is nuclear fission just using a different fuel that is less energetic but more ubiquitous. As a subset of nuclear energy, thorium is equally poisoned by Fukushima hysteria and the administration's refusal to open Yucca Mountain for temporary storage of spent fuel rods.

    Whale oil was just a subset of the ancient use of animal fat (usually beef tallow) for providing light. Whale oil was better than candles or tallow lamps, but the resource was playing out in the 1850s. Whalers had to go to the far reaches of the South Pacific to find whales. Kerosene for lighting was the product that drove the initial development of the petroleum industry. The petroleum industry was facing a "Kodak moment" (Kodak is defunct as digital photography has superseded chemical photography) after Edison perfected the incandescent light bulb. Their principal market was threatened. The internal combustion engine saved the oil bidness.

    Whale oil replaced beef tallow in the 1790s.
    Kerosene replaced kerosene in the 1860s.
    Electric lights replaced kerosene in the 1880s.

    While light bulbs have evolved, nothing has challenged electric light for a hundred thirty years.

    People in Britain began using coal as a substitute for firewood in the late seventeenth century because the forests of Britain had been picked clean by the demand for space heat and metallurgical heat. In the US with fat more trees, coal did not begin taking over until around the Civil War. The Yankess Navy ran on coal because it was more compact fuel than firewood and storage space on warships is at a premium.

    Petroleum distillates supplanted coal for ships about a century ago. It supplanted coal in locomotives in the 1950s. Not only were petroleum distillates more compact themselves, but they used engines that were lighter, cheaper, more compact, more efficient, and more reliable than the engines that ran on coal.

    Coal ruled the roost in ships for a half century and locomotives for nearly a century.

    Petroleum distillates have ruled in ships for a century now, and have dominated rail transportation for sixty years. In places direct electrification challenges petroleum distillates for rail usage. For instance the entire Trans-Siberian Railroad is now electrified. This gives the Russians the ability to use plentiful (in Siberia) hydro power to run a part of their transportation system.

    Other than railroad electrification, there is no challenger on the horizon for ships or locomotives.

    Automobiles have proven to be simply impossible without petroleum distillates. Maybe CNG could put a dent in that, but natural gas is merely a subset of the petroleum business. You could have CNG cars, although their fuel tanks would occupy about twice as much space as petroleum distillate tanks and gaseous fuel is a notorious safety problem. Drill baby drill.
     
  10. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the key word in your sentence is will. We disagree on how to speed that process. Causing the cost of energy to skyrocket hasn't worked in Europe. Why do you think it would work in the US?

    Don't you think the Easter Islanders saw "peak trees", yet someone right off the cliff.

    Being the market is global, who is going to manage renewables?
     
  11. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's your delusion but it has nothing to do with reality. Electric cars are poised to take off as new battery technology comes into use and they will almost certainly take over the world market within the next decade. That fact is obvious to anyone who isn't stooging for the oil corps.

    The world doesn't need nor can it abide any more use of dirty fossil fuel power. The climate change crisis we're facing was created by mankind's transfer of hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon from under the earth to our atmosphere and the fact that fools still deny that it is happening has no effect on the reality of our situation or of the disastrous consequences the world is facing if we don't drastically reduce our carbon emissions.

    Electric cars with advanced batteries or next-gen ultra-capacitors or with hydrogen fuel cells, air pressure engine cars, liquid hydrogen fueled cars, trains and planes - these are the vehicles of our future. Oil is on its way out as a fuel and will be put to better uses in the future.
     
  12. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whale oil used in lamps was initially replaced with Kerosene..

    The burned off the "gasoline" because there was NO market for it.
     
  13. Slant Eyed Pirate

    Slant Eyed Pirate New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Check out Joby and Makani Wind power solutions for the future of wind energy.

    Instead of tall wind towers, we have tethered kites.
     
  14. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Battery cars.

    They cost more than IC cars. They go maybe sixty miles on a recharge. The batteries are shot after three or four years and replacements cost a third of the initial selling price of the complete car.

    The consumer gets hosed.
     
  15. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're stuck in the past.

    Within a few years it will be....

    Battery cars.....they go maybe 3 to 4 hundred miles on a charge. The batteries last 20 years and cost only about 1200 to 1500 dollars. They recharge in under 10 minutes. EVs, being far simpler mechanically, are soon comparable in price to regular IC engine cars or perhaps even a bit lower once the economies of scale kick in when real mass production begins. Cost to run and maintain EVs is a fraction of the fuel and maintenance costs of IC petro fueled vehicles. Consumers, tired of ever rising gas prices funding third world dictatorships, are overjoyed and electric vehicles sell like hotcakes.

    For more details, look at The Future of Transportation
     
  16. Caeia Iulia Regilia

    Caeia Iulia Regilia New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But you still charge them off of the electric grid which for the foreseeable future will need fossil fuel to run. Oops.
     
  17. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    European oil consumption is less than half what it is in the US, per capita.

    Meanwhile, Europe is using more wind energy we do, 5 times the photovoltaics we do, 30 times the liquid biofuels we do, and almost double the gaseous biofuels we do, per capita.

    It looks to me like the European tax strategy has worked brilliantly.

    Actually, no. I very much doubt the Easter Islanders tracked deforestation across generations, or that the Easter Islanders had discovered the Hubbert curve. We're smarter than that -- at least, some of us are.

    Some others of us want to adopt the Easter Island "do nothing" strategy. I guess because they figure that worked out so well for them.
     
  18. Taxcutter

    Taxcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,847
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ...and a fair chunk of Europe is going broke.

    Good thinking, Euros.
     
  19. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOLOL....so you imagine that Europe is going through a financial crisis all by themselves because of their green energy policies or the price of gas there? LOLOLOL. Are you really that ignorant is this just your very obvious pro-oil agenda talking?

    Economic crisis in Europe: Cause, consequences, and responses – A report by the European Commission
    (excerpts)
    The financial crisis that began in 2007 is without precedent in post-war economic history (Eichengreen and O’Rourke, 2009). It was preceded by a long period of rapid credit growth, low risk premia, abundant liquidity, and the development of real estate bubbles. Overstretched leveraging positions rendered financial institutions extremely vulnerable to corrections in asset markets. As a result, a downturn in a relatively small corner of the financial system (the US subprime market) was sufficient to topple the whole structure. Such episodes have happened before (e.g. Japan and the Nordic countries in the early 1990s, the Asian crisis in the late-1990s), but they remained largely regional. The important difference is that, like during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the current crisis is global.
     
  20. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your ability to "foresee" the future seems to be limited to only a few years. Perhaps because of all of the misinformation you've been fed. Most of the rest of the world (except you, apparently) is working hard on transitioning to clean, renewable, climate-friendly energy sources. We can make the transition from fossil fuels to these new energy sources and we will do it in the very foreseeable future in spite of the efforts of the fossil fuel industry and their propaganda machine to preserve their profits. Scientific studies have shown that renewables can provide all of the energy we need and that we can make the switch in a short time and at a reasonable cost.

    Moreover, another thing you're overlooking is that in many part of the country, people are starting to install solar and wind power systems on their homes that can recharge their electric vehicles without using any grid power. This provides a kind of true personal energy independence that one would think that America's rightwingers would support. America is hemorrhaging over 17 billion dollars a month importing oil, with a lot of that money going to countries that don't like us and use the money against us. Why are you so in favor of that?

    Here's a recent study by a couple of scientists at Stanford University.

    A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
    Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how

    By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
    Stanford University
    October 26, 2009
     
  21. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Smaller homes, smaller cars, dense cities better suited for mass transit. What is the oil consumption per capita of New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, or Boston?

    Can Europe go without oil?

    Using data from http://www.biofuelstp.eu/fact_sheets.html

    Germany is the largest biodiesel producer, 16% of global production, the US, 11%. Considering populations, Germany uses 5.5 times the biodiesel per capita compared to the US.

    Ethanol, US produces 54%, all of Europe, 5%, the US makes 10 times per capita.

    The US makes 14 times the ethanol that Germany make biodiesel​

    30 times the biofuel - I don't think so.

    Deforestation took generations? Maybe from fully forested to lightly forested, but the last 100 trees?
     
  22. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Germany is a leader in alternative energy - they still have a long way to got to be energy independant.

    Scientific studies aren't fuel in the pump.

    Solar generates power when your car is at work. Solar will reduce fossil fuel use during the day, but it won't charge your car unless your employer install them.
     
  23. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeah....so? So what? A car that has started to move may only be going 5mph and you could say that it has "a long way to go" to reach 70mph but in fact, the car accelerates and reaches 70 fairly quickly. The movement towards clean, renewable energy sources is just starting but it is accelerating and it will get even more impetus in the near future as the climate change crisis becomes ever more obvious and urgent.




    Since nobody said they were, what's your point? Scientific studies like the one I cited are useful to determine what's possible and what is just wishful thinking. I cited it as evidence that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables is both possible and doable in a relatively short time and at a much lower cost to all of us than the cost of doing nothing and continuing to pump 30 billion tons or so of fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We won't need "fuel in the pump" when we have available, as we soon will, electric cars we can charge up ourselves at home or pay only a fraction of the cost for the juice from the grid that we now pay for the "fuel".





    I guess you missed the info over at "The Future of Transportation" thread. We're going to have available to us fairly soon a new generation of batteries that hold much more power and are a lot cheaper. These will soon be part of all of the solar installations and will allow people to store solar energy during the day and use it anytime.

    It depends a lot on where your house is located and what is around it but if your site is right, the new generation of home wind power systems start working at very low wind speeds. A recent advance by Japanese scientists will increase the power output of a wind turbine by a factor of two or three without increasing the size. Wind generally blows harder at night than during the day so a combined solar/wind home power system would probably allow the homeowner to sell power back to the utility company.
     
  24. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This thread is about oil. Contrary to your prior post, Germany uses less bio transportation fuel per capita than the US, despite Germanys far higher price.

    Scientific studies in popular magazines are printed so you will buy them because of your wishful thinking.

    As I stated before, the only alternative energies providing generating significant energy, even in Germany, are windmills and solar panels. How old were those "break throughs"?

    Been there. Didn't add anything to the conversation.

    So, the solar panel collects sunlight, and stores it one battery at home, which is used to charge a battery in your car. How much cheaper do batteries have to be to justify that?

    I'm in San Diego - wind speed averages 6MPH, and gusts to 70. Bad for windmills.

    Wind at night? Not here.

    As far as low wind, windmills, the energy in wind is the square of the speed. They may provide power, just not very much.

    I can sell power back to the local power company, but the power is only 1/3 of my bill. The other 2/3's covers the power lines. I can sell back excess power, at $0.03 a KWH. My solar system has to be 6KW to zero out my power usage, 22KW to zero out my electric bill.
     
  25. PeakProphet

    PeakProphet Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38

Share This Page