High electric bill

[Naekuh]

I should’ve got solar when I first bought my home and now it sky rocketed lol

Actually solar is much cheaper then before.
The problem is finding a reputable vendor and installer, as most of them are stright up crooks.

 

[Wasabiroot]

My total electric bill is about $350-$550 a month, depending on the season. My tanks are about $200 a month by themselves. I work for an electric company but don’t get a discount. Reef tanks are definitely not budget friendly. I live in Michigan.

The ol' DTE markup. What are we at now? Like 19 cents kW/hr?

 

[Wasabiroot]

Wait until the classify your aquarium as a luxury item and require it to be on as smart metered socket so that they can bill you peak and/or turn it off when your neighbor wants to charge their electric car or run their electric stove... because the grid is overloaded. Coming to a town near you soon

They can charge them overnight when most people are asleep, and many cars can return power to the grid once they're full.

Not to mention that with years of advanced notice, the power companies can start investing in that infrastructure now. unless they don't, which they won't, because it doesn't make them money Right Now.

My bill is anywhere from 140-250$ depending on the time of year. Long term, I'd like a solar system but that's probably gonna be for my next house.

 

[BeanAnimal]

They can charge them overnight when most people are asleep,

When everyone else is charging their cars too?

and many cars can return power to the grid once they're full.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Why would you consume energy to generate power, lose 66% of that power in the form of heat during multiple steps of transmission and transformation, lose another 15%-30% of that energy in the charging process as heat in the charging equipment and battery and THEN take what you have just charged and incur another 10%-15% loss transforming it and retransmitting it back to the grid where it will lose another 66% by the time somebody else uses - if if everything is battery powered incur even more loss charing THAT battery. Insanity!

Not to mention that with years of advanced notice, the power companies can start investing in that infrastructure now. unless they don't, which they won't, because it doesn't make them money Right Now.

What good is infrastructure when there is no generation capacity to power it? We are shutting down coal, gas, nuclear and hydro at an alarming rate. Wind farms and solar panels can't come close to replacing it, yet the insanity that prevails wants everything that moves, beeps, chugs, flys, or goes vroom vroom or put put to be electric. Insanity!

To that end ignoring generation capacity - "infrastructure" is an easy word to toss around. Increasing power delivery capacity to any single endpoint is challenging, increasing delivery capacity 20x to 100x to an entire nation is beyond a monumental task. I don't think you can fathom the context of that "infrastructure".

Electricity costs in CA are mostly due to the lack of generation capacity and power having to be purchased on demand from far away at a premium.

In any case, not really a conversation for here.

 

[VintageReefer]

When everyone else is charging their cars too?


That makes absolutely zero sense. Why would you consume energy to generate power, lose 66% of that power in the form of heat during multiple steps of transmission and transformation, lose another 15%-30% of that energy in the charging process as heat in the charging equipment and battery and THEN take what you have just charged and incur another 10%-15% loss transforming it and retransmitting it back to the grid where it will lose another 66% by the time somebody else uses - if if everything is battery powered incur even more loss charing THAT battery. Insanity!


What good is infrastructure when there is no generation capacity to power it? We are shutting down coal, gas, nuclear and hydro at an alarming rate. Wind farms and solar panels can't come close to replacing it, yet the insanity that prevails wants everything that moves, beeps, chugs, flys, or goes vroom vroom or put put to be electric. Insanity!

To that end ignoring generation capacity - "infrastructure" is an easy word to toss around. Increasing power delivery capacity to any single endpoint is challenging, increasing delivery capacity 20x to 100x to an entire nation is beyond a monumental task. I don't think you can fathom the context of that "infrastructure".

Electricity costs in CA are mostly due to the lack of generation capacity and power having to be purchased on demand from far away at a premium.

In any case, not really a conversation for here.

You basically just summarized the huge argument against electric cars. Electric cars run on battery but it’s coal and fossil fuels that make the power that gets send to the charging stations. And it’s inefficient

 

[Reefering1]

Good Ole Florida...

 

[Kathy Floyd]

TN does not have state tax either, but our sales tax is 9%. I am on average electric billing which runs $189 a month.

 

[DED65]

My last one was $195, down from a high of $230. No state tax, sales tax of 8.3%. I do use a pellet stove in the winter, which costs about $3 a day, I don’t know that it is really saving any money. In the last bill was a request for a rate increase of 6.83%. I do keep the house warmer in the winter, figure that gas or pellets is going to save some over electricity to heat the tanks.
As long as it is cheaper than feeding the dogs, I am good with it!

 

[Wasabiroot]

When everyone else is charging their cars too?





That makes absolutely zero sense. Why would you consume energy to generate power, lose 66% of that power in the form of heat during multiple steps of transmission and transformation, lose another 15%-30% of that energy in the charging process as heat in the charging equipment and battery and THEN take what you have just charged and incur another 10%-15% loss transforming it and retransmitting it back to the grid where it will lose another 66% by the time somebody else uses - if if everything is battery powered incur even more loss charing THAT battery. Insanity!





What good is infrastructure when there is no generation capacity to power it? We are shutting down coal, gas, nuclear and hydro at an alarming rate. Wind farms and solar panels can't come close to replacing it, yet the insanity that prevails wants everything that moves, beeps, chugs, flys, or goes vroom vroom or put put to be electric. Insanity!



To that end ignoring generation capacity - "infrastructure" is an easy word to toss around. Increasing power delivery capacity to any single endpoint is challenging, increasing delivery capacity 20x to 100x to an entire nation is beyond a monumental task. I don't think you can fathom the context of that "infrastructure".



Electricity costs in CA are mostly due to the lack of generation capacity and power having to be purchased on demand from far away at a premium.



In any case, not really a conversation for here.

I agree with your last sentence, but I figured since it got brought up...



Currently the electrical grid demand brought by electrical cars in California is about 1% of their output, so I have confidence people genuinely working on this issue can work the issues out long term.



Pocket calculators used to be heavy and expensive, but that's obviously changed. I think it's important to keep in mind that technology is continuously improving. We figured out air conditioning; I think with some actual planning it's possible to accommodate complex things. And yes charging it at night is, when everyone else is charging their cars, because people aren't doing other stuff in nearly the same quantity like 4 loads of laundry. thus reducing the draw on the grid. Same idea as using anything else with a demand that changes depending on the time of day.

When everyone else is charging their cars too?


That makes absolutely zero sense. Why would you consume energy to generate power, lose 66% of that power in the form of heat during multiple steps of transmission and transformation, lose another 15%-30% of that energy in the charging process as heat in the charging equipment and battery and THEN take what you have just charged and incur another 10%-15% loss transforming it and retransmitting it back to the grid where it will lose another 66% by the time somebody else uses - if if everything is battery powered incur even more loss charing THAT battery. Insanity!


What good is infrastructure when there is no generation capacity to power it? We are shutting down coal, gas, nuclear and hydro at an alarming rate. Wind farms and solar panels can't come close to replacing it, yet the insanity that prevails wants everything that moves, beeps, chugs, flys, or goes vroom vroom or put put to be electric. Insanity!

To that end ignoring generation capacity - "infrastructure" is an easy word to toss around. Increasing power delivery capacity to any single endpoint is challenging, increasing delivery capacity 20x to 100x to an entire nation is beyond a monumental task. I don't think you can fathom the context of that "infrastructure".

Electricity costs in CA are mostly due to the lack of generation capacity and power having to be purchased on demand from far away at a premium.

In any case, not really a conversation for here.

I agree with your last sentence, but I figured since it got brought up I'd at least offer my 2c. Tbh, imo there is a non- insignificant portion of people here who nonchalantly add stuff about contentious non-reefing topics and then swerve to "don't get all political pal" when someone challenges them on what they said, which I'm not sure I quite understand, but I guess it's on the other people to not take the bait, and I don't necessarily think you were doing that either.

Currently the electrical grid demand brought by electrical cars in California is about 1% of their output, so I have confidence people genuinely working on this issue can work the issues out long term. There's valid concerns about power distribution in rural areas, but that is a solvable issue.
Pocket calculators used to be heavy and expensive, but that's obviously changed. I think it's important to keep in mind that technology is continuously improving, especially in areas of active research. Solar power sucked until it didnt and the wattage generated per square foot has increased with investment in solar technology. We figured out having air conditioning, washing machines, dishwashers, high powered gaming computers, hairdryers, toasters and other high draw devices; I don't know why rechargeable transportation is insurmountable when going to the moon, making highways and having smartphones wasn't. and ; I think with some actual planning it's possible to accommodate complex things.

Charging it at night is better, when everyone else is charging their cars, because the power draw on the grid is overall less at night. Why wouldnt you do it in the period with the lowest use by day part overall? It's that it helps even out the overall demand. Would it make sense to encourage it during 5pm, when everyone and their aunt is blasting ac and doing tasks around the house?

Electric cars are already here and already incredibly popular; so if they're not going away, it seems silly not to upgrade or reinforce our power transmission systems when they are already due for improvement anyways.

That's my 2c - I don't particularly want to do a drawn out back and forth and I'm sure the forum doesn't want it either, so it's OK if we disagree.

 

[Wasabiroot]

You basically just summarized the huge argument against electric cars. Electric cars run on battery but it’s coal and fossil fuels that make the power that gets send to the charging stations. And it's inefficient

Hence the ever increasing proportion of power coming from renewable/long term sources these days.
Idk about you, but I think it's super efficient to use the nearly one million mile across blinding ball of nuclear fusion that will be blasting our planet for the next 5 billion years or so for with free energy for power. In the US the current split is about 60% fossil fuel and 40% renewables/nuclear, but that's changing rapidly anyways. Plus the percentage varies state by state. In Michigan where I am, nuclear power provides about the same amount as fossil fuels.

Bottom axis is year, I believe. No reason to assume that those numbers won't continue to change.

Anyways, I said I wasn't gonna argue, so *zips mouth shut, creeps away awkwardly*

 

[VintageReefer]

Hence the ever increasing proportion of power coming from renewable/long term sources these days.
Idk about you, but I think it's super efficient to use the nearly one million mile across blinding ball of nuclear fusion that will be blasting our planet for the next 5 billion years or so for with free energy for power. In the US the current split is about 60% fossil fuel and 40% renewables/nuclear, but that's changing rapidly anyways. Plus the percentage varies state by state. In Michigan where I am, nuclear power provides about the same amount as fossil fuels.

Bottom axis is year, I believe. No reason to assume that those numbers won't continue to change.

Anyways, I said I wasn't gonna argue, so *zips mouth shut, creeps away awkwardly*

Ok. Zipping it after this lol. Not arguing. I do agree. All I will say is we aren’t there yet. Most projections are 2050. So yea. We should continue taking steps in the right direction but as of now only approx 20% of the country is powered by nuclear. Some areas have higher percentages and some lower but overall the average for the country is 20-25%. The rest of those Tesla’s are charged by some form of fossil fuel or non nuclear source.

Don’t get me wrong. I love teslas. I think they are incredible vehicles. Superb performance. I like them a lot. I’d love a model x. I’m going to stop here.

 

[Ocean_Queenie]

hello reefers!!

My electricity bill has been a lot higher lately. I live in California with 30 cent per kWh!

I added an energy monitor the other day and it cost me $1.5 per day to run my tank! I imagine it would be $2 per day in the winter. It’s only a 90G tank with 3 XR15s and no skimmer.

My electric bill used to be $100-$150 before my tank and now it’s $220-$350 with only 2 adults and 1 toddler in a newly built home.

What’s your guys electricity bill with the tank??

I honestly don’t want to know lol we have 5 big tanks, but believe $400-$500 a month!

 

[Formulator]

My electricity is only 12 cents/kwh, but my 120g costs about $50/month to run with halides and a basement fish room with lots of extra gear running. But hey, its cheaper than cable!

 

[gbroadbridge]

Um power stations can run for years maybe decades and are reliable. solar is unreliable and can contain chemicals that could cause cancer or just poison you.

You mean that building and maintaining large dirty power stations doesn't use stuff that may cause cancer or poison you.

Didn't know that.

 

[gbroadbridge]

You basically just summarized the huge argument against electric cars. Electric cars run on battery but it’s coal and fossil fuels that make the power that gets send to the charging stations. And it’s inefficient

Actually I do believe that most owners of EV's charge them using roof top solar - at least I do.

 

[VintageReefer]

Actually I do believe that most owners of EV's charge them using roof top solar - at least I do.

It’s an added expense not all can afford. I know many people with ev and no solar. And I know many people with solar and no ev.

Nationwide, the average is around 25% overall that have both.

In busier / more modernized infrastructure states like California, it’s around 35-40%

Edit: wanted to add in, and acknowledge, statistically, these numbers and percentages are increasing consistently a few points year after year, and the increased reliability and affordability of ev cars, directly is impacting the installation and sales of home solar panels.

 

[Beta reefs.]

You basically just summarized the huge argument against electric cars. Electric cars run on battery but it’s coal and fossil fuels that make the power that gets send to the charging stations. And it’s inefficient

I’m going to add onto the argument you have to dispose of hundreds of tons of lithium when it can’t be used for batteries anymore. How is that “ environment friendly”???????

 

[Beta reefs.]

Hence the ever increasing proportion of power coming from renewable/long term sources these days.
Idk about you, but I think it's super efficient to use the nearly one million mile across blinding ball of nuclear fusion that will be blasting our planet for the next 5 billion years or so for with free energy for power. In the US the current split is about 60% fossil fuel and 40% renewables/nuclear, but that's changing rapidly anyways. Plus the percentage varies state by state. In Michigan where I am, nuclear power provides about the same amount as fossil fuels.

Bottom axis is year, I believe. No reason to assume that those numbers won't continue to change.

Anyways, I said I wasn't gonna argue, so *zips mouth shut, creeps away awkwardly*

As ridiculous as this sounds. Why Not just create a working fusion reactor that can produce power instead of having to use solar panels.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Currently the electrical grid demand brought by electrical cars in California is about 1% of their output, so I have confidence people genuinely working on this issue can work the issues out long term. There's valid concerns about power distribution in rural areas, but that is a solvable issue.

That is positive pie in the sky thinking. Reality is not even close.
1 - we are losing generating capacity at a rapid pace, not gaining it.
2 - the development and operating cost of the "alternatives" is exponentially prohibitive.
3 - alternative energy sources are weather dependent... all of them.
4 - output capability of alternative energy sources is small compared to conventional
5 - the laws passed and going into effect over the next 10 years will exponentially load the power grid. Cars, grills, furnaces,. stoves, ovens, lawnmowers, and everything with a combustion engine on it or that burns fuel.

Add those simple things up and the absurdity of the situation presents itself. The problem is that the vast majority people do not understand the scale of the issue, including those pushing these ideas and agendas. It is mass ignorance being driven by happy talking points, a few of which you have presented.

This is not a technology problem, it is a problem of both scale and the limitations of physics.

But I digress -- it takes about 3 minutes to fuel an average car that will run roughly 400 miles on that fuel. If it takes the average person 4 hours to charge their car and the average electric car gets 200 miles on that charge, that is 8 hours vs 3 minutes of downtime.

How much productivity in this country will be lost when everybody is forced to go electric... or even 1/3 of the cars are electric?

Given the above ~120 million cars on the road per day (skipping commercial trucking and transportation) in the US alone;. Charging even a fraction of those cars daily with low current for 12-72 or more each is one thing and the demand is significant. This will bring the nation to a near standstill compared to today. Rapid charging doesn't solve it but makes it better, right? The problem becomes almost unsolvable when high current charging (40 mins to say 4 or so hours) on superchargers is needed. Delivering that much power density to that many people for that many chargers is a monumental task to which the scope and cost is unfathomable, even if generation could keep up.

You mentioned investment and paying for this? The costs are astronomical. Who pays for it? This thread is about the absurdity of the cost to run a fish tank in CA and other states now and it is only the tip of the iceberg. If the private sector "invests" then costs explode. If government "invests" then taxes explode. Nothing is free. Again, CAs energy prices, cost of living and tax rates right now are a direct result of the policies and actions to move mandate alternative energy and mandate sunsetting of anything combustion... and they just got started.

especially in areas of active research. Solar power sucked until it didnt and the wattage generated per square foot has increased with investment in solar technology.

Solar still sucks at any scale worth talking about, both in power density and longevity. It has hovered around 17% average for decades and premium panels may net you a bit more. But it they only work when the Sun is out. Storage of that power in batteries is both costly and inefficient (10% to20% loss depending on the system) due to transformation losses in both directions. But ignore that... Care to take a stab at the area of coverage needed to power a small town, let alone a city? One where the cars, ovens, heat, lawnmowers, and everything else are electric? Solar is nice on your house if the sun is out and the government helped pay for the panels... that is about it.

That's my 2c - I don't particularly want to do a drawn out back and forth and I'm sure the forum doesn't want it either, so it's OK if we disagree.

In the kindest way... it is not that we disagree, I simply don't think you have a full grasp of the scale of any of this. Most people don't.

We have not touched on the "real" environmental impact of any of these either. The WHY are we doing this question begs itself when the broader picture is looked at from an environment scope, let a alone a financial or national (for any nation) sovereignty scope.

Feel free to DM me and we can have a kind conversation off thread - that goes for anybody. It is not going to get solved here for sure.

 

[BeanAnimal]

As ridiculous as this sounds. Why Not just create a working fusion reactor that can produce power instead of having to use solar panels.

Because to date there is no fusion reactor known that produces more energy than it consumes. Solve that, and own the world. So if you want nuclear, fission it is.