Recently the US government has announced that 12 billion in funds will be used to “modernize Puerto Rico’s grid” with special attention to “their local economy”, and complete with a promise of 100% renewable sources by 2050.

Previously, due to provisions in disaster relief funding, they had said that they would only repair the existing coal and petroleum based grid and not allow funds to be used for any changes or upgrades.

They also promise that somehow this “modern” grid magically won’t go down with the next weather event or earthquake.

So this is a win, right? Not so fast. Let’s take a look at a different way for a moment. There are 1.44 million households in PR. A 1500 watt solar and wind hybrid energy system complete with battery and inverter is available on Amazon for $2000 retail. This is enough to power any home less than 1200 square feet, even if they aren’t insulated. So for only about $3 billion, every single home can have their own individual “100% renewable” power system that can’t be interrupted due to a weather event or earthquake. That’s based on retail and not bulk pricing. For another $2 billion, every single house can be insulated, assuming none are currently, reducing the energy needs. For another $1 billion, each household can be provided with a heat pump, assuming none have air conditioning or heating currently. So for a total of $6 billion, half of what the grid would cost, every single home in PR can be retrofitted to be energy efficient and use 100% renewable energy. Tomorrow, not by 2050.

Let’s assume we can do the same for commerce and industry with the remaining $6 billion. Hell, even if it costs $20 billion, wouldn’t that be better than another stupid grid?

  • electrodynamicaOP
    1·
    2 years ago

    What do you think is the largest form of energy storage then?

    WTF does that have to do with anything? You sound like an American capitalist with your BiGgEsT nUmBeR iS bEsTeSt. Oh sorry. GOAT is what it’s called. Did you really just GOAT me on energy technology?

    I study and implement technology as a profession. It’s what I’ve done all day every day for almost 2 decades. I’d like to help you broaden your understanding, but you seem closed to that. You just seem to want to be right on the internet, and not actually examine things.

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      1·
      2 years ago

      I really don’t care what your profession is. If you think thousands of deep cycle batteries and individualist libertarian solutions to an energy crisis are going to work, you should at least address how a world where every house owns their own deep-cycle batteries would be feasible.

      • electrodynamicaOP
        1·
        2 years ago

        You say deep cycle like a republican days deep state, what does that even mean to you?

          • electrodynamicaOP
            1·
            2 years ago

            The term is traditionally mainly used for lead–acid batteries in the same form factor as automotive batteries; and contrasted with starter or ‘cranking’ automotive batteries designed to deliver only a small part of their capacity in a short, high-current burst for cranking the engine.

            The term literally has no meaning outside of ancient internal combustion engines (not even modern ones). All batteries are presumed to be full discharge in modern times.

            There’s aluminum air batteries, there’s solid state batteries, etc

            Doesn’t have to be batteries either. In around 2017 a really promising flywheel was on the market, then suddenly disappeared, but not before data was published on the dark web. Most likely killed by a capitalist with competing battery investments.

            There’s myriad of energy storage options. For you to focus on this one thing and think it means that sustainable tech is impossible is just illogical.