The politics of incentives

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Don’t forget about this gem. Makes the great dying look like a stubbed toe:

“The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 720 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[42] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes.”

I’m sure whatever lived on the earth at that time was very grateful for the dreaded CO2 build up.

It’s kind of surprising a person could believe that an accumulation of greenhouse gases could alter the climate so completely in the past but not believe an accumulation of greenhouse gases could alter the climate now.

 

[ThikeHigh]

Why does a hot air balloon rise? It is because the air is heated. Hot air rises, yes or yes,

Question and answer: What causes weather? The uneven warming and cooling of the earth.

If you don't think the massive amount of heat humans produce, along with pollution, affects the earth, you are probably gullible enough to believe the earth is flat and the comedian saying all live birds were destroyed by the CIA and are now drone robots that are spying on you. So I guess you slept through class during the weather part of Earth Science. You can find proof for anything on the internet and obviously, you believe the lies told by big oil and coal companies. GROW UP AND LOOK AROUND, icebergs are melting, the oceans are rising, and there are more tornados and hurricanes than ever recorded.

 

[kuririn]

I could quote statements and papers from NASA and 18 other esteemed national organizations about the reality of climate change but even that I'm afraid would not change the minds of those that have swallowed the political narrative. So I'll just leave this here:

Quote from Mr. Yoder, a fourth generation Ohio farmer: "It's a shame that we've politicized climate change. That's ridiculous. Science is science".
"I've been working on climate issues for the past 15 or 20 years. There's no doubt that the climate is changing so let's get off that horse and get it fixed".
"We saw that really change in the late '90s here. That's when we started seeing the big rain events that we had not seen before. And multiple rain events, not just one."

That's it, I'm outta here.

 

[jderimig]

Climate change is occurring but its not going to be "fixed". The US accounts for less than 14% of global emissions. When gasoline went up 50 cents you could have sworn Sarah Palin was in the White House. China already has coal and nat gas projects started this year that will add CO2 output greater than the total US electrical generation currently. There is no way CO2 atmospheric concentration peaks before 2060 or later. WA state banning ICE vehicles will have NO effect on global temperatures. Its just political virtue signaling.

What humans will do in response to climate change is what they have always done, successfully, adapt. Civil engineering will solve many of the effects if they materialize. The private sector (insurance companies) will work to prevent people building homes in inhabitable areas.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Why does a hot air balloon rise? It is because the air is heated. Hot air rises, yes or yes,

Question and answer: What causes weather? The uneven warming and cooling of the earth.

If you don't think the massive amount of heat humans produce, along with pollution, affects the earth, you are probably gullible enough to believe the earth is flat and the comedian saying all live birds were destroyed by the CIA and are now drone robots that are spying on you. So I guess you slept through class during the weather part of Earth Science. You can find proof for anything on the internet and obviously, you believe the lies told by big oil and coal companies. GROW UP AND LOOK AROUND, icebergs are melting, the oceans are rising, and there are more tornados and hurricanes than ever recorded.

I am not a big fan of online political debates, but given this is a rocket forum, I can at least comment on the physics. The theory behind climate change is that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. As a result the surface of the Earth cannot radiate heat away to space at night and the lower atmosphere gets warmer. (The upper atmosphere gets colder.) Human activity is enough to change the CO2 concentration enough to make an impactful difference for IR absorptivity, at least in theory.

My reason for responding, is that human activity, is not introducing enough "heat" to noticeably change the climate. All of humanity produces around 20 terawatts of power, 2e13 W. The net power from the sun on the Earth's cross section is around 1.5E17 W, which is 4 orders of magnitude more.

Anyway the climate debate is a complex issue with lots of considerations. Physics at least is something we can discuss more cordially.

 

[Titan II]

That's it, I'm outta here.

Sure hope you are a man of your word. Several here have their little hissy fits then say something like that. Next thing you know, they are back.

 

[Bravo52]

Yes, I do. Do you?

No! And not any time soon.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Climate change is occurring but its not going to be "fixed". The US accounts for less than 14% of global emissions. When gasoline went up 50 cents you could have sworn Sarah Palin was in the White House. China already has coal and nat gas projects started this year that will add CO2 output greater than the total US electrical generation currently. There is no way CO2 atmospheric concentration peaks before 2060 or later. WA state banning ICE vehicles will have NO effect on global temperatures. Its just political virtue signaling.

What humans will do in response to climate change is what they have always done, successfully, adapt. Civil engineering will solve many of the effects if they materialize. The private sector (insurance companies) will work to prevent people building homes in inhabitable areas.

You can justify just about anything by saying someone else isn’t doing their part, so you don’t have to do your part either. Other people litter, so why should I bother to put my trash in a trash can? Other people steal, so why should I pay for anything? Other people vandalize things, so why shouldn’t I throw this brick through that window?

If you look hard enough, there’s always a lower common denominator you can sink to.

Americans can point to China and say, “They aren’t cutting back, so why should we?“

And Chinese can point to the US and say, “They produce 14% of global emissions, but they are only 4% of the world’s population, so each American produces more than 3 times as much as other people. We have 4 times as many people to support than America does, so we should be allowed to produce 4 times as much emissions as they do.”

We can each point to the other and rationalize business as usual and doing nothing. After all, it’s not fair, and it doesn’t matter anyway. Doing my part, even when others don’t isn’t me demonstrating good faith, right? It’s just empty virtue signaling.

One thing I do agree on is we aren’t going to “fix” the problem. The problem is already beyond “fixing” if by “fixing“ you mean stopping things where they are now. It’s definitely going to get worse our entire lives. Even if we 100% stopped all emissions right now, things would still get worse due to the fact it takes awhile to heat up an entire planet, and we haven’t had time to feel the full effects of the changes we’ve already made to the atmosphere. A process has been set in motion, and it’s only getting started, and there’s no way to turn it off. We are going to have to ride it out. But if we do nothing, things can definitely get much, much worse than what is already locked in. Any efforts we make now are for the benefit of our children, grandchildren, and future generations. I don’t personally have kids, so any sacrifice I make will be for someone else’s kids and for empty virtue signaling.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

No! And not any time soon.

I’ve been trying to make sense of your earlier post:

Everyone whining about what the climate might do are assuming that no mitigation will occur...

What did you mean? It sounds like you are saying people are wrong to assume no mitigation will occur, but when I’ve asked you about mitigation, you seem like your replies are that no mitigation is occurring and it’s not likely to occur. I guess I don’t understand the point you were trying to make.

On the solar thing, you don’t have to give one crap about the environment for it to be a no-brainer good investment with great ROI. My electric bill isn’t going up. I basically pre-paid for it when I bought my solar power system 3 years ago. It will have paid for itself in another few years, and after that, it’s free electricity for the lifetime of the system, which will probably be longer than the lifetime of the owner.

If you ever get a quote from a solar installer, the sales people do not even bother talking about environmental benefits. They don’t know how customers think about those issues, so they don’t go near it. The pitch is all about eliminating electric bills, the “break even point”, ROI, etc. After we picked our company, one of the guys on the installation crew actually told me he doesn’t believe in human-caused climate change. He said that he has been a surfer all his life, and everything is just “natural cycles”. Lol! I’m sure his boss wouldn’t have been happy with the messaging. He did say it was a good job, and he liked the work, and customers like the product, and they save money. I’m happy with the investment.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

That is true. But I am not getting nowhere near the promised life out of my LED bulbs. My bathroom 3 and 5 bulb fixtures cannot go a year without failing. But they are such a small distributed expense its not obvious that they are actually costing me more money that than the incandescent... The CFL's lasted much longer but didn't care for the light. I like the LED's though. But I think its costing me more money.

I'm kind of in the same boat with regards to LED bulbs. I can purchase a six-pack and four of them will last for years, one of them dies shortly after the first year and one of them doesn't even last a year, sometimes going bad in the first couple of months/weeks.

I attribute this not to the actual LEDs but to the driver circuitry in the base. If those solid-state components along with their assembly, are up to snuff, then the bulb will last for a long time, if not they can fail, as I've mentioned, in weeks or months.

What could really drive down the price of LED bulbs would be if manufactures of lighting fixtures installed a single Mil-Spec quality driver circuit within the fixture so the individual LED bulbs didn't require them.

Unfortunately we have so many old fixtures still in use the probability of the above occurring is long on the odds.

 

[Zbench]

I’ve been trying to make sense of your earlier post:



What did you mean? It sounds like you are saying people are wrong to assume no mitigation will occur, but when I’ve asked you about mitigation, you seem like your replies are that no mitigation is occurring and it’s not likely to occur. I guess I don’t understand the point you were trying to make.

On the solar thing, you don’t have to give one crap about the environment for it to be a no-brainer good investment with great ROI. My electric bill isn’t going up. I basically pre-paid for it when I bought my solar power system 3 years ago. It will have paid for itself in another few years, and after that, it’s free electricity for the lifetime of the system, which will probably be longer than the lifetime of the owner.

If you ever get a quote from a solar installer, the sales people do not even bother talking about environmental benefits. They don’t know how customers think about those issues, so they don’t go near it. The pitch is all about eliminating electric bills, the “break even point”, ROI, etc. After we picked our company, one of the guys on the installation crew actually told me he doesn’t believe in human-caused climate change. He said that he has been a surfer all his life, and everything is just “natural cycles”. Lol! I’m sure his boss wouldn’t have been happy with the messaging. He did say it was a good job, and he liked the work, and customers like the product, and they save money. I’m happy with the investment.

Thirsty,

I looked hard at putting solar panels on my 4000 SF Ohio Home (the one that is immune from the rampaging wildfires that seem to plague you). The reality is that they still are not efficient enough. The presentation was very slick. They had the roof of my home modeled and showed where the panels would be placed, and how much energy they would produce. I was very tempted. Until they got to the financial benefits part. The projections they showed were ridiculous. They show 3 curves, What you pay now, what you will pay in electric costs if you do nothing (meaning stay on the grid), and what you will pay with the panels. The assumptions of the future energy costs looked ridiculous to me. They were pressuring me to sign right then and there. I asked for the materials so I could do my diligence which they gave me. Armed with their projections I looked at what the Ohio Utility Commission showed the energy rates were at over the past 40 years. The growth over 40 years was about 1/10 of the ridiculous growth rate that they predicted.

So I called them on it at the next sit down along with some of the other inaccuracies in their business case. The reality is they couldn't defend their numbers. I further asked for local people that had their systems installed that I could talk to both about the installation experience as well as did the savings they promised materialize? I'm still waiting for that analysis and it's been over a year.

I like the idea of solar, that is, you pay for infrastructure and become your own energy generator either storing the power in a battery bank or selling it back to the grid. The reality is that it's an upside down proposition here in North East Ohio. As near as I could calculate the whole thing would have cost me $200 more a month to have the system installed. They basically sell you the system, offset it with federal tax credits and finance the rest over 30 years which is the life of the panels. So instead of paying the energy generators you pay the finance company. If that cost was lower than what I reasonably expected to pay, I would have done it. It isn't even close when armed with real data. Especially considering that panel efficiency degrades 3% a year. For some areas where it is constantly sunny, it makes great sense. If I lived in TX or AZ or anywhere in the south, I'd have them in a heartbeat. But here in Ohio, it just doesn't work. Someday it might if they can make the panels less expensive, their efficiency increased or the government pays to install them. Until then, I will continue to buy power from the grid and heat my home with natural gas, pretty much like everyone else.

Buyer Beware!

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Thirsty,

I looked hard at putting solar panels on my 4000 SF Ohio Home (the one that is immune from the rampaging wildfires that seem to plague you). The reality is that they still are not efficient enough. The presentation was very slick. They had the roof of my home modeled and showed where the panels would be placed, and how much energy they would produce. I was very tempted. Until they got to the financial benefits part. The projections they showed were ridiculous. They show 3 curves, What you pay now, what you will pay in electric costs if you do nothing (meaning stay on the grid), and what you will pay with the panels. The assumptions of the future energy costs looked ridiculous to me. They were pressuring me to sign right then and there. I asked for the materials so I could do my diligence which they gave me. Armed with their projections I looked at what the Ohio Utility Commission showed the energy rates were at over the past 40 years. The growth over 40 years was about 1/10 of the ridiculous growth rate that they predicted.

So I called them on it at the next sit down along with some of the other inaccuracies in their business case. The reality is they couldn't defend their numbers. I further asked for local people that had their systems installed that I could talk to both about the installation experience as well as did the savings they promised materialize? I'm still waiting for that analysis and it's been over a year.

I like the idea of solar, that is, you pay for infrastructure and become your own energy generator either storing the power in a battery bank or selling it back to the grid. The reality is that it's an upside down proposition here in North East Ohio. As near as I could calculate the whole thing would have cost me $200 more a month to have the system installed. They basically sell you the system, offset it with federal tax credits and finance the rest over 30 years which is the life of the panels. So instead of paying the energy generators you pay the finance company. If that cost was lower than what I reasonably expected to pay, I would have done it. It isn't even close when armed with real data. Especially considering that panel efficiency degrades 3% a year. For some areas where it is constantly sunny, it makes great sense. If I lived in TX or AZ or anywhere in the south, I'd have them in a heartbeat. But here in Ohio, it just doesn't work. Someday it might if they can make the panels less expensive, their efficiency increased or the government pays to install them. Until then, I will continue to buy power from the grid and heat my home with natural gas, pretty much like everyone else.

Buyer Beware!

There are shysters in every business. When I got quotes more than 10 years ago, the proposals were more like what you described. When I got them 3 years ago, they were a lot more straightforward. All of them did include assumptions about rate increases, but they seemed reasonable, were based on actual historical rate increases, and were consistent among proposals. And the reality is, the rates do not need to increase in order for it to make sense financially for us in this location at current rates. We would still save money. But this is in sunny California, and our biggest electricity usage is for summer cooling, when the sun is perfect for generating solar power. For us, it is a good investment.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Thirsty,

I looked hard at putting solar panels on my 4000 SF Ohio Home (the one that is immune from the rampaging wildfires that seem to plague you). The reality is that they still are not efficient enough. The presentation was very slick. They had the roof of my home modeled and showed where the panels would be placed, and how much energy they would produce. I was very tempted. Until they got to the financial benefits part. The projections they showed were ridiculous. They show 3 curves, What you pay now, what you will pay in electric costs if you do nothing (meaning stay on the grid), and what you will pay with the panels. The assumptions of the future energy costs looked ridiculous to me. They were pressuring me to sign right then and there. I asked for the materials so I could do my diligence which they gave me. Armed with their projections I looked at what the Ohio Utility Commission showed the energy rates were at over the past 40 years. The growth over 40 years was about 1/10 of the ridiculous growth rate that they predicted.

So I called them on it at the next sit down along with some of the other inaccuracies in their business case. The reality is they couldn't defend their numbers. I further asked for local people that had their systems installed that I could talk to both about the installation experience as well as did the savings they promised materialize? I'm still waiting for that analysis and it's been over a year.

I like the idea of solar, that is, you pay for infrastructure and become your own energy generator either storing the power in a battery bank or selling it back to the grid. The reality is that it's an upside down proposition here in North East Ohio. As near as I could calculate the whole thing would have cost me $200 more a month to have the system installed. They basically sell you the system, offset it with federal tax credits and finance the rest over 30 years which is the life of the panels. So instead of paying the energy generators you pay the finance company. If that cost was lower than what I reasonably expected to pay, I would have done it. It isn't even close when armed with real data. Especially considering that panel efficiency degrades 3% a year. For some areas where it is constantly sunny, it makes great sense. If I lived in TX or AZ or anywhere in the south, I'd have them in a heartbeat. But here in Ohio, it just doesn't work. Someday it might if they can make the panels less expensive, their efficiency increased or the government pays to install them. Until then, I will continue to buy power from the grid and heat my home with natural gas, pretty much like everyone else.

Buyer Beware!

The other thing is that solar and other transient renewable upset the stability of the grid due to their inability to provide reactive power. Some sort of dispatchable static capactance/inductive capability MUST be developed before large rotating generators can go away.
Gee I wish I had time to consolidate some of the good thoughts and facts from both sides here- maybe later... I'm sitting in the doctor's office waiting for him to show for my checkup.
But as a Bible-thumping Christian, I will say that we were put here to take care of the earth. So that's our job. We have a ball, and there is only so much in it or on it. My problem is more with the political solutions and the (possible) pollution of science by the grant process, etc. But it's hard to cast aspersions at fellow scientists. With politicians, it's much easier and really, I think that's where the problem lies, like so many things these days.

 

[jderimig]

From IPCC:

• “observational trends in tornadoes, hail, and lightning associated with severe convective storms are not robustly detected”
• “attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (e.g., tornadoes) is beyond current modelling and theoretical capabilities”

 

[boomtube-mk2]

But it's hard to cast aspersions at fellow scientists.

I think that the problem we face is that so many scientists, and so much of the science, has had to accommodate themselves/itself to the views, aims and agendas of politics and politicians or else they/it doesn't get funded.

And god help the scientist/s that gets on the wrong side of the MSM, their career will wind up deader that yesterday's tuna sandwich.

 

[Bravo52]

I’ve been trying to make sense of your earlier post:

What did you mean? It sounds like you are saying people are wrong to assume no mitigation will occur,

That's pretty much it. Adaptation, engineering, new forms of energy (Fusion) and so on will occur. I think that will mostly mitigate the climate change. Most of the statements regarding climate change are based on today's projections (which will change tomorrow). It's not static. Simply put, it could get worse, or it could get better, however, all of the fear-mongering is based on it only getting worse. So yes, people are wrong to assume no mitigation will occur. The problem today is mostly political. These so-called global warmings are supposed to be a...."global" issue. Of course, that is my opinion.

Regarding solar, there is currently no business case for me to adopt solar for my house. That encompasses financial, physical, esthetically, or...emotionally (virtue shaming doesn't work on me at this stage in my life). I do like the science of it, the engineering, but then again, I also like the idea of breast implants, but I'm not getting them even though they do look good on some.

 

[jderimig]

Thirsty,

I looked hard at putting solar panels on my 4000 SF Ohio Home (the one that is immune from the rampaging wildfires that seem to plague you). The reality is that they still are not efficient enough.

Buyer Beware!

I also did my own analysis of solar at my Balmy Ohio fire and flood free home, also largely sun free for ~4 months of the year. If I did the installation myself, used the government solar calculators and was able to finance the installation at 5%, it would have been slightly cash flow positive during the loan period.
But contractor installed no way it made sense economically.

 

[boomtube-mk2]

My big question is, how do you keep those solar panels on your roof during wind storms that can remove roofs?
And how well do solar panels hold up to hail that can dent '57 Chevys?

I expect that the increase in home-owner's insurance costs would negate any savings I'd get from electricity costs.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

View attachment 516791

From IPCC:

• “observational trends in tornadoes, hail, and lightning associated with severe convective storms are not robustly detected”
• “attribution of certain classes of extreme weather (e.g., tornadoes) is beyond current modelling and theoretical capabilities”

As you've probably thought, it could well be that the cause for the negative slope on the regression line could also have, as a contributing factor, better and more cost efficient construction.

 

[jderimig]

As you've probably thought, it could well be that the cause for the negative slope on the regression line could also have, as a contributing factor, better and more cost efficient construction.

Yes, and the negative slope is also due to the fact that there are much more populated areas now than in the past. That is part of the normalization. More targets today than in the past per tornado.

 

[boatgeek]

Yes, and the negative slope is also due to the fact that is much more populated areas now than in the past. That is part of the normalization. More targets today than in the past per tornado.

Honest question since I don't live in the Midwest and have little reason to know about tornado dynamics. Do tornadoes tend to form over open ground like dust devils do? If so, increasing suburbanization might be an explanation for the reduction in total numbers of tornadoes. I understand that once formed, they'll blow through towns/suburbs if the towns are in the way, but if they need 1000 acres of open ground to form in the first place, turning farms into subdivisions might reduce total numbers.

I can see some total numbers for tornadoes, but it's hard to see if there's a trend. It might also be confounded by better tornado detection systems.

 

[jderimig]

Honest question since I don't live in the Midwest and have little reason to know about tornado dynamics. Do tornadoes tend to form over open ground like dust devils do? If so, increasing suburbanization might be an explanation for the reduction in total numbers of tornadoes. I understand that once formed, they'll blow through towns/suburbs if the towns are in the way, but if they need 1000 acres of open ground to form in the first place, turning farms into subdivisions might reduce total numbers.

I can see some total numbers for tornadoes, but it's hard to see if there's a trend. It might also be confounded by better tornado detection systems.

I think flat areas seem to help build a tornado. On numbers of I wonder before the time of Doppler radar if a tornado touched down where no one lives or seen would it have been counted?

 

[Bravo52]

... was able to finance the installation at 5%, it would have been slightly cash flow positive during the loan period.

It will be interesting to see the solar industry when the interest rates climb... I kind of look at it like student loans...when the government gives it to me completely free...it might move the needle a little. As it stands, when I get paid back for all five of the college degrees I paid for, I might consider solar..."might".

 

[Bravo52]

Honest question since I don't live in the Midwest and have little reason to know about tornado dynamics. Do tornadoes tend to form over open ground like dust devils do? If so, increasing suburbanization might be an explanation for the reduction in total numbers of tornadoes. I understand that once formed, they'll blow through towns/suburbs if the towns are in the way, but if they need 1000 acres of open ground to form in the first place, turning farms into subdivisions might reduce total numbers.

I can see some total numbers for tornadoes, but it's hard to see if there's a trend. It might also be confounded by better tornado detection systems.

BLUF - (Bottom line up front ) Tornados happen in mountainous areas too... It's really the atmospheric instability that has the most impact on the twirly bits.

https://www.ustornadoes.com/2013/03...n-in-mountains-or-do-they-debunking-the-myth/

 

[dr wogz]

Honest question since I don't live in the Midwest and have little reason to know about tornado dynamics. Do tornadoes tend to form over open ground like dust devils do? If so, increasing suburbanization might be an explanation for the reduction in total numbers of tornadoes. I understand that once formed, they'll blow through towns/suburbs if the towns are in the way, but if they need 1000 acres of open ground to form in the first place, turning farms into subdivisions might reduce total numbers.

I can see some total numbers for tornadoes, but it's hard to see if there's a trend. It might also be confounded by better tornado detection systems.

and the fact there are less 'trailer home parks'. They were essentially 'tornado bait'..

 

[dr wogz]

Is it all government / all world governments in cahoots with each other?

Like, both left & right governments that tow teh same line? (but with a different message to support "their" take on it?!)

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Is it all government / all world governments in cahoots with each other?

Like, both left & right governments that tow teh same line? (but with a different message to support "their" take on it?!)

YES!!!

 

[jderimig]

Climate change might be shifting tornado alley south and east. There are winners and losers.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

and the fact there are less 'trailer home parks'. They were essentially 'tornado bait'..

Trailer parks actually CAUSE tornados.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

My solar power system is a 4kW system and cost around $9,000, which I had on hand, so I didn’t have to finance it. That’s after the tax credit, so I actually had to write the check for around $13k and then wait to get the tax credit. I think even if I’d had to finance it, it would still have been a good deal.

There were other financing options available. One company we had quote for us offered their own loan program and also a leasing option. My dad had his system installed by a company that doesn’t sell or lease the system to you. They own the system that they install on your roof, and your contract is to buy your power from them at a fixed price that is lower than the utility rate. That one is a zero cost installation and a guaranteed savings on the electricity rates.

I’m glad I got mine. Unfortunately, I’m never going to know exactly how much I’m saving because it turns out there was a problem with my electric meter that had probably been broken for years. It was not measuring one leg of my electrical service. That means that for years I had not paid for part of the electricity I was actually using. And that usage was not being recorded. So when they scaled my system based on my past utility bills, it was smaller than it should have been. So the system has not offset my entire usage and entire electric bill.

Here is a year of usage. Green means I’m sending energy back to the grid, and blue is pulling energy from the grid.



Here is last year’s cost.



I’m on a net metering agreement, so the way the bill works is they keep track of how much I buy and sell from the grid, and once a year, there is a “true up” and the bill for the difference. I think my last true up bill was around $200. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the basic idea.

If I want to offset the whole bill, I could add another panel, which would cost about $1,100, and then my true up should be about $0. About a 5.5 year ROI.

I’m shifting some of my gas usage to electric, like my new clothes dryer is electric instead of gas. And I will probably get an electric car for my next car. So I might want another panel for those kinds of things. I might consider an electric heat pump for heating and cooling, but that’s a major cost, so that’s not happening right away. But at this point my utility bill is almost all for gas, so it’s tempting to cut the gas portion down.