Hacker News Reader

Comment by 14 | Hacker News Reader

Sure if you pay a base fee maybe but if you went 100% solar to cover all your needs and completely disconnected from the grid so you were not a paying customer then what? How many houses have to leave the grid switching to solar before the grid is no longer viable? At some point in time we will reach a tipping point. If half of all households left the grid to solar could the other half support the upkeep of the entire grid? My guess is no. So at some point we will need to subsidize the grid for those still on it or force them to switch to solar. It will be hard. Solar is not cheap upfront even though overall it is cheaper. As for the EV's I hear it is already happening in some places you are being charged for how much you drive however they do that.

View on HN

I see this far in the future, and a slow process. I already know a few people with big enough solar setups to be self sustaining even in winter with big battery packs, but they still connect to the grid "just in case", which honestly I'd do too.

As more people disconnect then sure the base price might go up but why not, the other ones don't need the grid, so why pay? And as for public infra like street lights, that will just get heavier on taxes. This is something I see happening over decades rather than years, so there will be enough time to figure this out.

Big battery packs are insane to put inside a house. I'm biased because I work for a utility scale storage company, but really, 2nd law of thermodynamics, people.

The more potential energy you pack into a volume, the higher the chance the energy will be released at a time not of your choosing and in a fashion that will make you sad. We put our product in industrial zoned places where the worst case scenario for a fire is pre-planned to not be catastrophic and so that no homes will be lost. Why put your house at risk? So you can cosplay as Henry David Thoreau and take some stance against your power utility?

Keep in mind, in the US most people park ICE vehicles (sometimes 2-3 at a time) in garages attached or part of their dwellings all the time. And those not only catch fire more regularly, but contain far more energy.

Aka people do dumb stuff all the time. And mostly survive. Frankly, this isn’t likely to even be top ten from an actuarial basis.

This is the first time I’ve seen a claim that ICE vehicles are more likely to have catastrophic fires while parked than EVs. Is that true? Any source?

If I did put batteries in my house, I'd want them mounted on wheels so if they overheat I can push them out before things get exciting. Those do exist, and apart from storing juice for your house they can also take you places...

There is no way you could get close enough to a battery bank this size to push them once they started to catch on fire and not die. You might as well be trying to put out a kiddy pool of gasoline with your hands.

[https://alliedworldinsurance.com/risk-management/electric-ve...]

Far more often. Battery fires can be much harder to put out, but gasoline fires are no slouch frankly.

Thanks for the great link! Unfortunately it doesn’t speak specifically to parked/charging, which is when I would expect EV’s to be at the greatest risk and ICE’s to be at their lowest risk.

But still, seems pretty clear that EV’a are likely no more risky and possibly considerably less so in the garage. Thanks!

ICE vehicles are at risk when starting and stopping, and those happen in garages a lot.

https://www.google.com/search?q=recall+%22park+outside%22

These recalls from Ford, GM, and Kia are each millions of vehicles. And the number of these recalls is going up: https://turnto10.com/i-team/consumer-advocate/serious-park-o...

It's always been a significant risk; why do you think there are strict building code regs for the garage area of a home?

> I work for a utility scale storage company

Clearly not in any sort of engineering capacity given you wildly misused the second law of thermodynamics, which has nothing to do with potential energy, but the flow of heat from hot areas to cooler areas.

Second: energy density has nothing to do with how stable that energy is. 12lb of plutonium could level a city, but not if it isn't in an extremely precisely engineered device.

Third:potential energy and volume, you say?

Do you own a riding lawnmower in your garage? Those have about 2 or more gallons of gas, which is about 66 kWhr of energy.

Pour that out onto your garage floor, strike a match, and let me know how "sad" you are when your garage is leveled, your house structurally damaged, and you're dead in your neighbor's yard.

Do you have a gas grill, and do you keep a spare tank in the garage? 20lb of propane is equal to almost 130kWhr of energy.

Do you keep a 5 gallon jug of spare gas in your garage? 165 kWhr.

So. You were saying?

> Do you keep a 5 gallon jug of spare gas in your garage? 165 kWhr

If you keep a 5 gallon jug in the garage, your risk is higher than if you don't. If you keep a lawnmower in your garage, your risk is higher than if you don't.

Like I said: the higher the amount of potential energy, the greater the risk of it being released in a way that will make you sad. It's a straightforward derivation from thermo.

> Sure if you pay a base fee maybe but if you went 100% solar to cover all your needs and completely disconnected from the grid so you were not a paying customer then what?

Off grid solar is exceptionally rare. The grid still serves a purpose unless you’re willing to buy a lot of batteries and always moderate your usage.

Realistically, solar users won’t be disconnecting from the grid in large numbers. It doesn’t make financial sense to buy massive battery banks to avoid a small monthly grid service fee, even if battery prices drop significantly more.

The fear of everyone dropping off grid isn’t realistic.

> Sure if you pay a base fee maybe but if you went 100% solar to cover all your needs and completely disconnected from the grid so you were not a paying customer then what?

Then they are generating substantially less pollution and CO2 than the idiots driving around in their dick-compensating machinery that gets 12mpg, and society should incentivize that.

Hint: look at all the costs to society from internal combustion vehicles. Chiefly, global warming, and the health costs (and lost productivity) from the pollution.

If I went 100% solar, I'm happy to pay the utility to be the middleman while I sell my excess solar to the neighbors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com