All Forum Posts by: Bart H.

Bart H. has started 11 posts and replied 1128 times.

Originally posted by @Austin Christensen:

Hello everyone,

I live in Dallas, Texas with my wife and son and work in project management for a regional commercial general contractor. I am interested in learning more about getting involved in real estate investing to develop an additional source of income. I'd like to start small and grow my investments over the long-term while maintaining my current employment. Currently, I'm renting and do not have any real estate assets.

As I get started I would like to stay in the local DFW market. I am particularly interested in the live-in flip or small multifamily house hack and coupling that with a low down payment loan. I understand that DFW is a pretty hot market, but I'm not comfortable with long distance investing.

I'm looking to find some local lenders in the DFW area that are familiar with the FHA 203k process. I understand that it's pretty intensive and slow, but I feel like it could be a good option for me IF I can find the right property for it. I'd also like to learn more about Homepath and other owner-occupant targeted programs, as I feel like that will be my only chance to get a property over an experience all-cash flipper.

I look forward to meeting other new investors in this area looking to learn and talk with people who have gone through the 203k process.

Thanks,

Austin

Welcome to BP. There is a great group that meets monthly at the Gingerman. @Nick Hughes usually puts out a monthly reminder. ITs a nice low key group, no sales pitch, and the only cost is the beer you drink.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

Originally posted by @Bart H.:

Originally posted by @Chris Martin:

Regarding energy storage... "Its a Unicorn or a Loch ness Monster, everyone says they have seen it, but it doesnt really exist..." Not true, at least in small (500kw) utility systems. I've seen them and talked to utilities where they are deployed (in 2017). They work. Not sure why you don't want to accept that. All our plans have energy storage pads in them but with our PPAs the price (energy storage hardware) isn't quite there yet. We have a 3 year window to install storage per our IA, so we may down the road...

Look I was a little vague in my statement, I apologize..

Yes there are some techniques being used in certain part of the grid that might use batteries for voltage support etc. Not much different than capacitors being used to mitigate reactive power issues.

But there is a VERY high cost in those applications. Now if you are a small rural town that has a a bunch of agricultural load in the fall at the end of a circuit 60 miles away, then yeah, you might find it cost effective to add some battery backup instead of running another circuit that gets used 3 months a year.

But you are a talking a whole another world with a region of thousands of MW's whose generation is solar and has enough capacity to get you thru several days with no sun.

Do you think that from your experience that advancement of technology will happen quicker if utilities are forced into it?

I'm a layman with tech advances like graphene and supercapacitors, but it seems to me that on an economic front, not much will progress with monopolistic utilities driving everything. If power production is decentralized because consumers are empowered with choice then utilities will be forced to do something. Right now they are using resources politically. If we continue to increase the "duck curve" are they not forced to get involved in developing efficient storage? If utility power increases in cost because it is commodity-based and the duck curve is exacerbated by consumer renewable adoption, will that become a spiral for the utilities if they don't adapt?

kind of went over my head.. but I see power industry facing what the baby bells faced.. they have to pay for and maintain all these phone lines.. when 90% of the country uses cell phones.. lots of wasted money on old tech.

Jay, there are a lot more moving parts to an electric grid. things like voltage support, load following, spinning reserves, reactive power etc. All of those will be used by these folks who are putting solar panels on their buildings. And people on this thread are drastically underestimating the cost , space requirements (and inefficiencies) of putting energy into storage and then using it at a different time of day.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

Originally posted by @Bart H.:

Originally posted by @Chris Martin:

Look I was a little vague in my statement, I apologize..

Yes there are some techniques being used in certain part of the grid that might use batteries for voltage support etc. Not much different than capacitors being used to mitigate reactive power issues.

But you are a talking a whole another world with a region of thousands of MW's whose generation is solar and has enough capacity to get you thru several days with no sun.

No, because utilities have EVERY incentive to get involved in solar, renewables and storage.

Utilities get a return on investment that they can get into ratebase. They LOVE adding infrastructure into the ratebase. If they can install a trillion dollars of solar panels, batteries etc and get it past the Utility commission to get a return, they will do it.

In fact because of how they can lever up their balance sheets, utilities are the ideal folks to do solar/wind investments, they can make large investments, have the project management and can make long term investments in a way no one else can.

What happens is the cost becomes prohibitive, and the single mother of two kids cant pay her light bill, or pays her light bill and cant pay her rent.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

"Lloyd’s of London, an insurance underwriter, developed a plausible scenario for an attack on the Eastern Interconnection—one of the two major electrical grids in the continental United States—which services roughly half the country. The hypothetical attack targeted power generators to cause a blackout covering fifteen states and the District of Columbia, leaving ninety-three million people without power. Other experts have concluded that an attack on the system for transmitting power from generation to end consumers would have devastating consequences."

https://www.cfr.org/report/cyberattack-us-power-grid

"Of course we need to improve the cyber security of our grid. But that is a completely separate topic, and has almost no connection to the numbers of grids, or for that matter whether we have solar panels on the tops of houses."

Solar panels, no. Domestic storage and electric vehicles yes. A decentralized grid is absolutely more secure than the current grid.

In my professional capacity we already furnish systems with batteries that equip homes to do precisely what is required for decentralized grid management. The issues are solely economic. One way or another they will be resolved whether it is driven by investment or subsidy or the economic reality of increased costs of commodity-based power production.

Also in my professional capacity I am fortunate to work with individuals such as a Read Admiral who was responsible for the Pacific Fleet. His opinion is that our dependency on fossil fuels is the single greatest threat to national security.

Look, we can debate back and forth. I respect your opinion but disagree with it. Again that doesn't matter. California has taken a lead in an inevitable journey. Time will tell regarding the economics of that and it will certainly depend on whether or not opponents are willing to include true costs of the current system.

An example of the hidden figures? Well San Onofre should not only scare the pants out of West Coast residents, but the true costs of this abject disgrace should be known to inform. That is of course unless people see no issues in materials so radioactive they need to be secured for centuries currently being in canisters that are known to have defects hundreds of years shy of their designed life, but cannot be inspected because they are so radioactive. Those canisters being stored at sea level! I guess it could be worse, SoCal could be in an earthquake and tsunami zone and the ocean level could be rising!

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-stranded-nuclear-waste-20170702-htmlstory.html

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-san-onofre-nuclear-waste-storage-20180327-story.html

The whole notion of economic stagnation is simply based on our current plan to pay for archaic systems on credit cards that our children and their future generations will pick up the tab for. Paying off the credit cards with mandatory movement to renewable energy might be slightly painful now but save fortunes long-term.

Storage technology, decentralized grids, the internet of things are currently reality but not yet economic solutions. The same could be said of solar panels 60 years ago or mobile phones 25 years ago or the internet 20 years ago.

I repeat for the 3rd time in this thread, there are more than 3 reliability regions in this country. You can keep repeating it but it is factually incorrect.

There have been at least two very large blackouts in the last 50 years that stand out, both hitting NYC. The most recent that stands out was in 2003 and was due to an issue in Ohio, that did trigger a blackout that hit new York city which A) sits on an ocean, b) has a very high load c) has much of its power supplies being imported from pretty large distances. And you know what that blackout didnt get past the AEP/NIsource/ComEd interconnects in northern Indiana.

When California was going thru a boatload of blackouts, the surrounding states werent being affected.

There are more than 3 reliability regions, and there are more than 3 for a reason. Because they have different characteristics from each other. Its very tough to take you serious when you keep repeating something that is just wrong.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Chris Martin:

Look I was a little vague in my statement, I apologize..

Yes there are some techniques being used in certain part of the grid that might use batteries for voltage support etc. Not much different than capacitors being used to mitigate reactive power issues.

But you are a talking a whole another world with a region of thousands of MW's whose generation is solar and has enough capacity to get you thru several days with no sun.

1 Vote

Originally posted by @Chris Martin:

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

@Bart H.

"There are three main grids" - Eastern, Western and Texas interconnections. In patronising my "lack of understanding" could you also then define the percentage of US population served by those three? Do you disagree that a hostile act to any of those three would be anything other than catastrophic?

Splitting the atom, a round trip to the moon among other less headline accomplishments were all unicorns until there was will, and investment was made.

The path to effective storage is well underway. Probably a combination of supercapacitors with existing battery technology will be the next leap. Progress would be quicker if there was a mandate to achieve efficiency targets with funding. Sadly funding and will is being used to lie to people in Appalachia and strip away environmental protection.

The private sector is leading the "charge". I believe that TESLA and others true "play" is to provide grid management software. If you have millions of interconnected homes and vehicles - all of which are equipped with sensors now - in combination with utility scale facilities, you massively reduce grid vulnerability. Damage to one area will not impact an entire region.

"anyone who had bought a battery backup for their computer can tell you how expensive it is". Sure. How about the computer itself? How about 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Perhaps Google "Moore's Law". Technology will always out perform commodities economically.

"Prices of photovoltaic systems have been divided by three in six years", "China will produce 37% of global photovoltaic energy by 2050"

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/TechnologyRoadmapSolarPhotovoltaicEnergy_2014edition.pdf

Again, the point is that we are on an inevitable journey to renewable energy. The only questions are how much we participate, control the speed of the journey, or lead the way. California is answering that question with the mandate.

NO, there are not "3 main grids". You have repeated it twice now, and Its FLAT OUT WRONG. Both in structure AND in practice. There are a lot more NERC regions for a reason. If I am in Miami Florida, or even Atlanta, and there is a blackout, its not going to impact in any shape way or form the lights in Gary Indiana. If I have extra power to sell in Portage Indiana, its not getting to Charleston South Carolina. If I have surplus power in Phoenix Arizona, its not getting to a house in San Fran.

Of course we need to improve the cyber security of our grid. But that is a completely separate topic, and has almost no connection to the numbers of grids, or for that matter whether we have solar panels on the tops of houses.

When you talk about super capacitors, and batteries. Its like saying an ant is going to lift a car. The orders of magnitude are so far off of the realities of the laws of physics. We know as an example what the theoretical maximum for the capacity of a battery.

Look, maybe I should give you a bit about my background. I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering with an emphasis in thermodynamics and heat transfer from one of the top half dozen engineering schools in the country. I have 10+ years of experience in operations, energy trading, strategic planning and long term forecasting for one of the largest utilities in the country. And have experience as a consultant setting up energy trading systems for some of the largest energy companies in the country.

While I am no longer in the business, I follow the trends fairly closely.

Yes there is a clear trend to renewables, and green energy. All great trends. But this virtue signaling from California legislation with little to no thought on what this does for affordable housing, industry, grid stability and general costs is just beyond ludicrous.

You want to see the California economy stagnate, here it goes.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

@Bart H.

As addressed in the original post, the main issue with the expansion of solar and renewables is in the "duck curve" of over production during the daylight hours expanding the gap between day production and night demand. That issue requires advances in storage technology and manufacturing. Both are coming, investment (subsidy) would enable that advance to be more rapid.

I also dislike political points made on zero factual analysis. Defense of nuclear and fossil fuel derived power is invariably made without any account of the burden of cost overruns, security and clean up to future generations. Also without any regard to the actual subsidies both receive in the present.

Nuclear example: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/03/hinkley-nuclear-costs-climb-almost-20bn-start-delayed/

Fossil fuel subsidies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

Adding in the obvious economics of commodities v technologies, solar, hydro, wind and other renewables are the only sensible choice economically. China is adopting solar at "China pace". Why? Well air quality is one obvious answer to attract investment, but also manufacturing costs will be driven down with renewables. I believe this is also a strong motivator for mandatory solar in the world's 5th largest economy - we have to compete globally.

The largest solar projects in the World outside China are in the Gulf states.

As far as grid stability goes. We have three main grids in the entire USA. The national security risk of that archaic model is incredible. Take one out and what would happen? Another massive need for investment in storage tech is so that home, electric vehicles as well as power plants can be used as "micro grids". The ability to stabilise power in a community through linked batteries will mitigate the incredible risk we currently tolerate.

Again, the point of the original post is that California is simply accepting the inevitable and controlling its destiny in that reality. All debate on the "politics" of that `is moot.

You have more than 3 "main grids". in the US. There are 8 NERC regions in the U.S. Technically all of the grid is interconnected, although ERCOT (TEXAS), which runs out of phase with the rest of the country has a couple of substations that can pass a nominal amount power between them.

Several of the other regions are interconnected, but for the most part the regions act separately because of geography and power flow.

If you dont know or understand that basic fact, its a little difficult to explain to you why a large portion of your main points are incorrect.

If we want to discuss things like China's renewable efforts, lets also talk about the fact they have been the largest builder of coal fired power plants. They dwarf US coal fired units. I know there have been some changes, but China essentially has as many coal fired power plants under construction as we have in total.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2016/07/13/china-...

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/flurry-of-coal-...

As far as storage goes, there has been hundreds of billions of incentives for utilities and others to find high tech storage options. There have been hundreds of billions in opportunity for decades if you can create efficient storage to smooth out off peak and on peak purchases.

Its a Unicorn or a Loch ness Monster, everyone says they have seen it, but it doesnt really exist. While the technology is getting a LOT better, it still has a long ways to go, and there are constraints to size and efficiencies dictated by physics. Just the amount of Lithium, or lead or what ever metal ends up being used in the batteries for grid storage becomes more or less prohibitive.

Will there be some advances? yes, it might become a semi common thing to have a little in house storage, but anyone who has bought a battery backup system for their computer can tell you how expensive it is. And frankly, its a lot cheaper, and probably more environmentally friendly to just support it with the grid.

0 Votes

Originally posted by @Andrew Smith:

My $0.02 and I am in the solar industry for full disclosure.

If there truly was a level playing field, solar and renewables would be winning hands down. Grid parity was reached 5 years ago nationally. Depending on sources of information, fossil fuels and energy derived from them receive at the very low end $1.5 trillion in subsidies annually to a high end of $5 trillion. That doesn't factor in the human cost of death and injury of men and women in uniform protecting fossil fuel supply, or death and injury from localized pollution and environmental damage.

When you factor those true costs in, solar and renewables win hands down. However, because of the non-level playing field, rebates and subsidies are in place to encourage adoption. One person's subsidy is another person's investment. If NASA had not paid extortionate amounts for the original microchips, we would not be on this forum now.

California making solar mandatory for new construction is a response to the obvious. We are as a species moving towards renewables. It makes sense for economic, employment, manufacturing cost, environmental and national security reasons. When the World's 5th largest economy does this, other States and countries will follow. It is an inevitable journey to renewables no matter what we think or how much we really "dig" coal.

So what is the impact? Well it will increase CA's solar adoption at an accelerated pace. Currently at around 7.6% adoption, that will quickly hit 10% which history shows is a number that spurs mass adoption. For the homeowners "forced" to buy solar with a new home, they pay up front to save many fold over the years from reduced or eliminated utility bills. For existing homeowners, they will need to make a decision whether or not to bring their properties in line with new construction to compete on resale price. It is likely that many will, especially as rebates and net metering mean there is no out of pocket to do so (in most cases). Fannie Mae allows a full appraisal value of an owned (but not leased) solar system.

However! "Mandatory" and "Incentive" do not work together - no one pays us to wear seatbelts. I think this measure - especially as it moves across the US - will lead to an accelerated decrease in the Federal tax credit - currently 30%. Also as benchmarks are reached in terms of adoption, utilities can renegotiate net-metering rates to pay less for the excess produced by a solar system.

In short then, the conditions to go solar now are certainly as good as they are ever going to be. It will be "good" in future, but I believe increasingly not as good as now.

In California and I believe every State, there are laws in place regarding the efficiency of new construction - insulation, double glazed windows etc. They are paid for up front by the homeowner who then benefits from reduced utility bills. This mandate for solar on new construction is no different to that, other than it is a true investment in owning your own power rather than renting it from a "public" utility.

The main down side of this increase in renewables is the "duck curve". This is the upsurge in power required when solar is not operating after dark. In order to meet that demand the utilities have to keep powerplants running to ramp them up. They cannot just switch them on, so they bear a cost in over-production. The solution to this is in storage. That is the weak link in renewables now. True daily use batteries for economic home use are a year or two away from mainstream. For utility scale, even further. Investment (subsidy) would accelerate this technology and manufacturing to make storage economical. It's happening in the private sector, but a NASA type investment as happened in computing would be awesome.

As far as "Govt telling us what to do", well I've been in LA for 25 years. Anyone that has been here for any length of time will tell you about the massive positive impact of clean air legislation. Sometimes Govt involvement makes sense and I think we'll look back on the CA solar mandate as one of those times. The fact that major manufacturers like Volvo are eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles is a great indication also of where CA and the rest of the World is heading in that regard.

No solar isn't close to grid parity. I am so sick and tired of political propaganda hiding behind 0 fact based analyiss. For grid parity, you need to have power in the dark, rainy days and cloudy days etc.

To do that you need load following 24x7, and that means you have to have dispatchable backup power supplies. Nuclear doesn't work because it has to be operated at full capacity and has almost no ability to follow a load. Coal can be spun up and down between about 50-80 or 90% of capacity in a reasonably short time, but they can take 6-10 hours or more to start up when shut down. natural gas units can move up or down fairly quickly, and in reality that is what you would be using as backup and off peak power. (along with hydro, but hydro has significant constraints)

During the day when all of those solar panels are producing power, who is paying for the unused transmission, distribution, switchgear, metering, line crews and spinning reserves on the utility side. That's right the home owner with a solar unit on their roof.

When people say solar is close to grid parity, what they mean is solar at 100% of capacity in the middle of the day. They forget that there is a whole lot more to "parity" than just plopping a solar unit on your roof.

And we aren't even talking about the potential pitfalls of what could happen to the grid stability. You have to balance VAR power to actually be able to move power into and around a grid. The additional solar units might just make it difficult if not impossible to sufficiently power different part of the grid, and that in itself might require additional transmission, distribution or even generating assets be built.

1 Vote

Originally posted by @Andrew Schlessinger:

@Joe Scaparra Good to know. I've kept my eye on the general prices in Austin, and wiht my family there, understand the California prices that properties have climbed to. Just didn't know if that also applied to the less affluent neighborhoods as well.

Any knowledge if it works in Houston, San Antonio, or Dallas?

Thanks,

Andy

Not in Dallas, unless you get into a war zone, and even then I think the chance is slim. Even in transitional neighborhoods in S. Dallas you are looking at 1% for a great deal on a SFH or Duplex. I hear the fort worth side is a little less expensive, but I personally haven't looked at anything west of Arlington.

1 Vote

← … 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 … →

All Forum Posts by: Bart H.

Bart H. has started 11 posts and replied 1128 times.

Post: Dallas Texas Native Looking to Get Started in Investing

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: California Passes Solar Panel Mandate

Post: Rent or Sell within 2/5's rule