Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–766 of 766 posts

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#761

Post by AnthonyMouse »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #718
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, there is more liability on the PG&E for failure to adequately mitigate risk, and failure to asses and frontload charges for probable payment. Mitigating the risk is pointless. Wildfires are a natural occurrence in California. The ignition source is irrelevant. The fire is happening, you can't stop it. > I fully support them doing whatever makes them happy, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it But…

Ignition source matters, because frequency happens. Take the camp fire. If not for PG&E, 85 people would be alive, and 16 billion in damages would be averted. >But that's exactly what they expect you to do. Their houses are in a tinder box. There is some absurdly high probability that they'll burn. I dont know what you think is "high probability", but it doesnt really matter. The point is that it should be between th…

> Ignition source matters, because frequency happens.

But more frequent, smaller fires are actually better. Otherwise dead wood accumulates and then the next fire spreads faster and is harder to contain.

> Take the camp fire. If not for PG&E, 85 people would be alive, and 16 billion in damages would be averted.

And then an even worse fire would have happened later.

> The point is that it should be between them and the power company.

But the power company isn't raising rates for customers in high fire risk areas, they're raising rates for everyone. Otherwise the people in high risk areas would all cancel their electrical service because they couldn't afford it, but the power company would still have to maintain lines there because it's in their service area.

> PGE didnt and doesn't get sued for natural wildfires, only what they cause.

They're all natural wildfires. They're caused by dead wood and dry conditions.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#762

Post by yterdy »

lazide wrote: post #724
yterdy wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never hard that they were. Only that they had the lobbying muscle to mostly get their way.

They have nearly impossible to solve maintenance issues unless you use special chemicals and maintenance procedures, and unless you wash/flush them (and the surroundings) regularly the urine smell is hard to deal with. Since most maintenance staff don’t do the special procedures properly (and barely manage to deal with normal toilets properly!) they were a big headache. [ https://www.waterless.com/blog/the-pros-and-c…

I've never noticed those issues, and your link seems to say otherwise. But your post does read like the whinging of plumbers that I mentioned. You wouldn't happen to be, or be affiliated with, one, would you?

https://www.12ft.io/https://www.wired.com/2010/06/ff-waterle...

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#763

Post by coryrc »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #547
s1artibartfast wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be able to live wherever they want. That doesn't imply others should have to subsidize them doing so. It is really quite simple. If someone remote wants power, they should secure power and pay for it at a market clearing rate, given the cost and risk to deliver it.

This is something else. California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their…

Also you're forbidden from turning off your electricity in urban and suburban areas.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#764

Post by dragonwriter »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #547
s1artibartfast wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be able to live wherever they want. That doesn't imply others should have to subsidize them doing so. It is really quite simple. If someone remote wants power, they should secure power and pay for it at a market clearing rate, given the cost and risk to deliver it.

This is something else. California has wildfires, and climate change has made them worse. Then the people who built their houses in a silly place prone to wildfires watch them burn down. This is becoming a problem as the frequency which with it happens increases, because it can bankrupt fire insurance companies (who then can't pay claims), or make fire insurance there unaffordable and then people don't buy it, their…

> The political solution to this is to put the liability on the power company whenever possible, even though it isn't really their fault.

PG&E's liability for wildfire-related damages, blowing up San Bruno, etc., is not a political decision of where to place blame for climate-change effects, it is regular civil liability (and in some cases criminal) for damage provably attributable to acts or culpable omissions by the firm.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#765

Post by secabeen »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #462
jrockway wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any obligation for people's financial trickery to be sustainable. Like, a new power pole costs (say) $1000 regardless of how many watts are going through the wires attached to it. Someone has to pay the person that cut down the tree and hauled it to its final location money. That they loan you money on the infrastructure and you repay through using electricity isn't the actual cost model, it's j…

> Like, a new power pole costs (say) $1000 regardless of how many watts are going through the wires attached to it. Someone has to pay the person that cut down the tree and hauled it to its final location money. That pole is carrying the power for, say, 100 people. Half of them use a below-average amount of electricity. If you stick them with a $100/month fixed fee, they don't need a large solar/battery system to get…

Your analysis is spot on. My main question is how viable is it to get off the grid entirely? I think that the number of people who will actually go off-grid and take the risk of outage is really small. The cost of going off-grid is a lot higher than you'd think, and the size of batteries needed to get through a week-long rainy spell is significant.

Re: Nine US states are teaming up to accelerate the adoption of heat pumps

#766

Post by lazide »

yterdy wrote: post #762
lazide wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have nearly impossible to solve maintenance issues unless you use special chemicals and maintenance procedures, and unless you wash/flush them (and the surroundings) regularly the urine smell is hard to deal with. Since most maintenance staff don’t do the special procedures properly (and barely manage to deal with normal toilets properly!) they were a big headache. [ https://www.waterless.com/blog/the-pros-and-c…

I've never noticed those issues, and your link seems to say otherwise. But your post does read like the whinging of plumbers that I mentioned. You wouldn't happen to be, or be affiliated with, one, would you? https://www.12ft.io/https://www.wired.com/2010/06/ff-waterle...

That's because the link is to the advocacy organization for flushless toilets. They don't deny it, and even mention it as cons! hah.

The links you're pointing to are to articles when the idea was 'hot'. And when all the press was going on around saving water in California (notably dead now, as is the norm).

If you didn't notice the issues, then congrats! someone in the maintenance team was doing the work so you didn't have to see what was happening.

I'm not a plumber, but I do own property and have installed (permitted/inspected) several toilets and had to do my own maintenance. Flushless was never worth the squeeze for me, but then I never had to deal with PR issues or fads. I was my own customer, and got to pick what worked for me and those around me.

Post reply on HN