Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You only have two solar panels?I'm next door to the grid. Free installation. I got them both to feel good and save money. Costs us less than we would normally be paying now because I negotiated a fixed rate and can always modify things a bit with shading.
You funny. Just remember looks aren't everything!You only have two solar panels?I'm next door to the grid. Free installation. I got them both to feel good and save money. Costs us less than we would normally be paying now because I negotiated a fixed rate and can always modify things a bit with shading.
You can't even power a hair blow dryer, much less a window AC unit with two solar panels.
You and I both know that you have a big fat electric bill just like everyone else. Your panels are barely putting a dent in your bill.You funny. Just remember looks aren't everything!
I am being quite generous in my calculation. It's more likely less than 10 bucks per month saved.
sunwatts.com
So much wrong with your post it's unbelievable the sheer volume of untruths.There is so much wrong in that post.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
>Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy.
View attachment 511479
Source link:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
>the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
No, no, no. Here is a picture of a typical nuclear fuel assembly....
.jpg.aspx)
It has 264 fuel rods. The fuel in the rods is about 12 feet long.
It costs about one million dollars. It will provide about 182 million kWh of electricity over its four-year life.
Average home uses about 1000 kWh/month, so it will provide a year's worth of electricity to over 15,000 homes.
Maybe we can just shoot waste right into the Sun.
Okay, now back to reality. I have 14 panels between both my garage and house. Notice how the word "both" there does not indicate two unless you insist upon counting rooftops as panels for some odd reason instead of paying attention. And again, we paid nothing for the installation nor for the electric utility to swap in the required new meter. The company was called SolarCity back then and such installations were indeed subsidized -- probably still are, but perhaps less so. Tesla absorbed SolarCity and recently switched to no longer supporting regular PC monitoring ability so I can't see the output until I get my wife to download their app on her smart phone. However, I'm in no hurry. Seen plenty of it in the past.You and I both know that you have a big fat electric bill just like everyone else. Your panels are barely putting a dent in your bill.You funny. Just remember looks aren't everything!
400W * 8hrs/day * 30 days per month * $0.12/kWh = $11.50 per month saved. More power to ya.
It takes about $30,000 and up to power a whole house with solar panels.
Even if you do it yourself, it's over $15k just for a kit with no battery storage (no power without the grid if the sun isn't shining)...
15 kW Solar Kits | SunWatts
Compare price and performance of the Top Brands to find the best 15 kW solar system with up to 30 year warranty. Buy the lowest cost 15kW solar kit priced from $1.13 to $2.00 per watt with the latest, most powerful solar panels, module optimizers, or micro-inverters.
Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.www.cnet.com
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
No they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
The TVA services 100% of Tennessee. TvA generates 39% of its energy power from nuclear plants. The price of a kWh in Tennessee is 5th lowest in the nation at 10.79 cents/kWh, well below the national average.Why do the distributors of power here in TN and elsewhere want to buy power from anyone else but TVA? (Who holds all the Nuclear power plants which makes it more expensive than everyone else)
www.electricchoice.com
And there you have it. Kind of silly to directly compare costs when someone is picking up part of the bill for you.The company was called SolarCity back then and such installations were indeed subsidized -- probably still are, but perhaps less so.
Thank you for providing some specifics. When you say,Okay, now back to reality. I have 14 panels between both my garage and house. Notice how the word "both" there does not indicate two unless you insist upon counting rooftops as panels for some odd reason instead of paying attention. And again, we paid nothing for the installation nor for the electric utility to swap in the required new meter. The company was called SolarCity back then and such installations were indeed subsidized -- probably still are, but perhaps less so. Tesla absorbed SolarCity and recently switched to no longer supporting regular PC monitoring ability so I can't see the output until I get my wife to download their app on her smart phone. However, I'm in no hurry. Seen plenty of it in the past.You and I both know that you have a big fat electric bill just like everyone else. Your panels are barely putting a dent in your bill.You funny. Just remember looks aren't everything!
400W * 8hrs/day * 30 days per month * $0.12/kWh = $11.50 per month saved. More power to ya.
It takes about $30,000 and up to power a whole house with solar panels.
Even if you do it yourself, it's over $15k just for a kit with no battery storage (no power without the grid if the sun isn't shining)...
15 kW Solar Kits | SunWatts
Compare price and performance of the Top Brands to find the best 15 kW solar system with up to 30 year warranty. Buy the lowest cost 15kW solar kit priced from $1.13 to $2.00 per watt with the latest, most powerful solar panels, module optimizers, or micro-inverters.
I can tell you that I pay Tesla a fixed 15.41 cents/kWh which is average right now for PA which is for what we produce not what we use, but there's little difference. The going price was a bit higher last year though and, if I live that long and we don't decide to move, I'll be saving plenty over the remaining 14 years of the 20 contracted. The contract is also fully transferable so adds considerably to our home's resale value.
Our usage has remained fairly steady. Our bill from Tesla for July is about $86. Our electric utility also billed us about $18 which has varied little month to month and on average year to year. We were paying about $110/month on average before the panels were installed six years ago so we're doing just fine. We actually paid Tesla $90-$95 the past few months, but only $28 in April, $46 in March, and $36 in February. Our utility also sends us a refund check every March which has averaged about $45. Now you know something and you're so fucking welcome
LinkNo they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
Hydrogen gas is not an energy source; it is an energy storage medium.LinkNo they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
LinkNo they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
Yes. The monthly cost is considered rent. We don't own the equipment so there's no upfront cost. The 20 year contract being the equipment's expected life means Tesla can depreciate their costs completely within the life of the contract. I believe that Tesla will consider at least the panels and connections worthless by then, meaning they'll leave them in place for maybe a few hundred dollars or so. They will likely take back their fancy inverter/controller and WIFI monitoring box and the electric utility will swap out the meter again. At that point I hope legislation has progressed so that I can just throw switches to go on grid (safely) or off, or add in other sources / generators (only while off grid). I may try to buy a Powerwall or an equivalent plus some new panels. I plan to have a generating windmill going by then as well, similar to the test version that's been spinning happily away on my garage for years now.>And again, we paid nothing for the installation nor for the electric utility to swap in the required new meter.
Does that meant you paid nothing for the equipment either?
All disclosed.. and again, you're so very fucking welcome.I would like to know the total price of the solar panel installation job. I am not surprised that the labor was free. Lots of companies make that claim.
You also state:
>remaining 14 years of the 20 contracted
What the heck does that mean? You said the installation was free. Is there any exchange of money associated with that, such as a loan you are paying off.
I get the impression that you are hiding the costs from us, that someone put solar panels on your roof for free, and now you pay much less for power.
How much are you paying for that 20-year contract?
I am also interested in what the heck this is about....
>Our bill from Tesla for July is about $86
You pay Tesla monthly for what reason? Payment on their charger? Electricity too?
Thanks in advance. Reality is very important.
so you either have to use electricity or propane to make hydrogen why is that any better than burning fossil fuels?Hydrogen gas is not an energy source; it is an energy storage medium.LinkNo they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
It can be created by electrolysis of water or more commonly, steam-methane reforming, where methane is split
CH4 + H2O (+ heat) → CO + 3H2
Both require energy, and of course there are associated inefficiencies/energy losses.
You can't really just collect hydrogen from anywhere; it is a fuel which has to be made.
All those oceans we have - they are hydrogen ash, already burned hydrogen. Takes a lot of energy to unburn it.
Personally, if I was going to look for alternatives to a gasoline generator for a house, I would go for a propane one, since it is readily available, and hydrogen has all kinds of problems with embrittling metals such as storage tanks, which are probably quite expensive for hydrogen. The products of propane combustion are CO2 (gasp) and water vapor.
The waste /Exhaust is water not smoke.so you either have to use electricity or propane to make hydrogen why is that any better than burning fossil fuels?Hydrogen gas is not an energy source; it is an energy storage medium.LinkNo they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
It can be created by electrolysis of water or more commonly, steam-methane reforming, where methane is split
CH4 + H2O (+ heat) → CO + 3H2
Both require energy, and of course there are associated inefficiencies/energy losses.
You can't really just collect hydrogen from anywhere; it is a fuel which has to be made.
All those oceans we have - they are hydrogen ash, already burned hydrogen. Takes a lot of energy to unburn it.
Personally, if I was going to look for alternatives to a gasoline generator for a house, I would go for a propane one, since it is readily available, and hydrogen has all kinds of problems with embrittling metals such as storage tanks, which are probably quite expensive for hydrogen. The products of propane combustion are CO2 (gasp) and water vapor.
And once again propane is just another fossil fuel and the whole point is to greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels if not eliminate them.
That is the correct motorcycle. We're not doing it because a nuclear power plant's safety systems worked perfectly (Three Mile Island) and scared everyone.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
How do you make hydrogen?The waste is water not smoke.so you either have to use electricity or propane to make hydrogen why is that any better than burning fossil fuels?Hydrogen gas is not an energy source; it is an energy storage medium.LinkNo they create electricity and the waste product is actually only water.Don't those run on electricity?Or just have individual hydrogen units the size of a emergency generator, power household and plugin cars -the waste product of such is merely water.It has so many years contained before seeping out and contaminating.We have the capability to drill holes miles deep to get oil we can do the same thing to bury nuclear wasteDisposal of Nuclear waste is one of the major issues, however it wouldn't be if they'd catch up to my solution of changing the molecular structure of the waste to change itcs properties to make it harmless to the environment when stored or disposed of.Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.
The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.
Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?
Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.
This can be done with the atom writer laser technology I proposed back in the late 90's.
It also can be used to solve our regular waste disposing/dumping problems that exist around the globe, especially major cities.
And if we start implementing the use of smaller MSR reactors we can actually use the waste we have stored right now to fuel the new reactors.
We have enough waste just sitting around to power this country for at least a century
My atom write laser specs along with
an Austrian discovery on changing characteristics of the smallest particles, can solve waste disposal for the nuke industry and big city waste management.
Which also solves much of the waste (plastics) ending up in our poluted oceans (from transport and dumps on Islands that get swept back into the sea).Which is why we should be building reactors that don't need all those redundant systems because the are self limiting. We don't need huge concrete and steel containment domes for reactors that run at atmosphere rather than under high pressure.Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Mainly because of the redundant systems needed to keep accidents from happening and the fuel rods are the most expensive materials on the planet. (Billions/ounce)
So... don't think that it's a good idea. Cheap energy is much better.
Smaller reactors can be built in a factory and shipped by rail all for a fraction of the cost of the old obsolete light water reactors.
It can be created by electrolysis of water or more commonly, steam-methane reforming, where methane is split
CH4 + H2O (+ heat) → CO + 3H2
Both require energy, and of course there are associated inefficiencies/energy losses.
You can't really just collect hydrogen from anywhere; it is a fuel which has to be made.
All those oceans we have - they are hydrogen ash, already burned hydrogen. Takes a lot of energy to unburn it.
Personally, if I was going to look for alternatives to a gasoline generator for a house, I would go for a propane one, since it is readily available, and hydrogen has all kinds of problems with embrittling metals such as storage tanks, which are probably quite expensive for hydrogen. The products of propane combustion are CO2 (gasp) and water vapor.
And once again propane is just another fossil fuel and the whole point is to greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels if not eliminate them.
