Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

FEMA Will Pay States To Install Solar Panels and Heat Pumps (theverge.com) 106

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced today that it'll start reimbursing local governments for installing solar panels and more efficient appliances after a disaster strikes. From a report: The move can help communities prepare for another calamity by equipping them with tools that just might keep the lights on when they would otherwise suffer a power outage. It's also a way for the US to deploy technologies that cut greenhouse gas emissions and stave off worsening climate disasters like storms, heatwaves, and wildfires.

[...] This is the first time FEMA is funding "net-zero energy projects, including solar, heat pumps and efficient appliances" through its biggest grant program, called Public Assistance. It's available to communities recovering from a major event that the president has declared an emergency or disaster. Under the program, FEMA reimburses state, tribal, territorial, and local governments 75 percent of the cost of eligible recovery efforts. That's typically been to pay for "emergency protective measures," debris removal, and to rebuild public infrastructure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FEMA Will Pay States To Install Solar Panels and Heat Pumps More

FEMA Will Pay States To Install Solar Panels and Heat Pumps

Comments Filter:

  • The long game (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2024 @03:19PM (#64201592)
    Aha! FEMA playing the long game & going for future disaster prevention as well as sorting out the current messes.

    • Unless they are adding on-site power storage to the solar, they are not preventing anything. Solar inverters disconnect if you lose grid power, or else they would back-feed the un-energized section of the grid and potentially kill the linemen that are trying to fix shit.

      • For one, there is more than one way for solar PV to interact with the grid and it's entirely possible that rooftop solar with little or no local storage can still be safely utilized. Better than nothing.

        For two, the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that fund this also covers things like battery storage.
        =Smidge=

        • For one, there is more than one way for solar PV to interact with the grid and it's entirely possible that rooftop solar with little or no local storage can still be safely utilized. Better than nothing.

          Rooftop solar is pretty useless during/after a hurricane....after it's blown off the roof (hopefully not taking much of the roof with it).

          • Maybe you should have hired a qualified contractor to install it, then. If built to code it should stick to the roof better than the roof sticks to the rest of the building.

            =Smidge=

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Why can't you just buy an off-the-shelf inverter that disconnects from the grid when it goes down, but keeps powering important items in the house? They are widely available in Europe.

        You don't even need it to be automatic, you can just have a big manual switch that changes over when you need it.

        And even without storage, having power during the day for running A/C and charging phones can be the difference between life and death. Storage is pretty cheap these days anyway, there are lots of used but still ver

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Asgard ( 60200 )

        Yeah I don't understand this. It seems like it is a solved problem with generators, so why can't the same solution apply to solar? Perhaps because solar is (during the day) 'always on' and intentionally backfeeding, but then a manual interlock of some kind could solve that.

    • and maybe measure the spread of PFOS in groundwater and condemn those properties also?
    • Is that their job? It sounds to me like the misappropriation of funds to support a political goal that is not clearly aligned with the purpose of the funding nor the mission of the agency.

  • Most likely to fail, least likely to be repairable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ibpooks ( 127372 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2024 @03:29PM (#64201624) Homepage

    At least in my experience the more energy-efficient the appliance, the more likely it is to break and the least likely the ability to do a field repair in an emergency situation. Some specific examples I've run into are vendor-locked ECM motors in air conditioners. Even minor lightning storms blow out the control boards, and you can only replace them with manufacturer parts (that are now never available due to "supply chain issues" a.k.a "price-fixing"). We ran like 8 weeks using window air conditioner units waiting for a replacement part to be shipped; which I'm sure completely wiped out the entire lifetime energy savings of the expensive AC unit. Had another building with a high efficiency condensing boiler which the manufacturer just decided to stop supporting after like 7 years. It got so the only way to keep it running was to buy parts on eBay, at least up until a used circuit board was $700 and we said fuck it and threw the whole thing away in a complete system replacement. Anyway, the point is that any equipment intended for use in an emergency situation needs to be hardened, have no vendor lock-in, and be field repairable with commonly available materials. Somehow I doubt any of this equipment will meet even one of those criteria.

    • I was just wondering what the chance of a solar panel surviving a tornado/hurricane/earthquake was. I mean they are advertising keep your lights are on, but if the wind/earthquake damages the panel and floods the batteries - well, you are no better off in a disaster than you were with a lot of expense incurred and a higher replacement cost

      • Re:Most likely to fail, least likely to be repaira (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2024 @04:20PM (#64201848)

        I was just wondering what the chance of a solar panel surviving a tornado/hurricane/earthquake was.

        Nothing survives a direct hit from a tornado. But a power outage affects far more people than those in the path.

        Solar panels are typically rated for 140mph winds, which is a direct hit from a cat-4 hurricane. So, yes, nearly all panels will survive. Only those in the direct path of a cat-5 will be destroyed.

        • Not to mention that when you get these big home investments like panels and batteries they are going to be covered on homeowners insurance just the same, and like you mentioned, if your panels blew off chances are your roof also came off with them.

        • Solar panels are typically rated for 140mph winds, which is a direct hit from a cat-4 hurricane. So, yes, nearly all panels will survive. Only those in the direct path of a cat-5 will be destroyed.

          Every time someone wants to start selling me on the concept of what a product is “rated” for, I calmly direct them to the nearest tornado/hurricane disaster area for a dose of fucking reality.

          Prove your statement with customer feedback post-disaster. You’ll find how delusional the marketing is.

          • Here's the thing: the argument is basically moot.

            If you are directly hit with a disaster and the panels are ruined, so is your home's roof. Homeowners insurance will cover the damage and you probably don't care if your roofless home has power or not because you're in a hotel, someone else's home that still has a roof, or a FEMA trailer.

            If you are not directly hit with a disaster and the panels are not ruined, you probably still have power if you actually created a microgrid rather than installing a solar i

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by stooo ( 2202012 )

              >> Yes, solar costs more up front,
              Not any more. At least on a grid level, solar costs less upfront.

            • Yes, solar costs more up front, but has a return on investment. Generators and fuel are nothing but expense that will never pay for itself, as they don't create any revenue to offset cost. Therefore, solar is the better option in the long run.

              I was more referring to the bullshit marketing that often surrounds selling Category-X "proof" hardware. Like when you visit a state after a hurricane and find all those "Cat-4/5 grade" hurricane shutters destroyed from a mild Cat-3 storm, as insurance plays games with customers arguing over what should have held up "according to the vendor".

              As fragile as solar panels are by comparison, I don't even see an argument defending them in certain disaster-prone areas. And no, I'm not going to believe the panels

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      I'm not sure reliability is related to efficiency but rather our society's desire to prefer short term savings over long term spending. We reward the cheapest products on the market even if they suck.

      Even the "high end" appliances don't typically compare to what was available 2+ decades ago. They just aren't engineered to the same standard and the build and material qualities have been seriously diminished.

      I have a 2 year old A/C unit that's about as inefficient as they come (can't be sold in 5 states

  • Florida actually has been sitting on a bunch of disaster relief funds. [eenews.net] I can't find the article at the moment, but after one of the the hurricanes we've had in recent years knocked down a bunch of homes, the state gave a bunch of money to commercial developers to rebuild rental apartments in their place. This state absolutely hates giving any sort of money directly to average working class folks who are down on their luck, but if you're a wealthy investor looking to capitalize on a disaster, they're like

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      I'd really like to see that article...

    • The article you linked is actually pretty clear that Florida canâ(TM)t just hand out the money. As with everything FEMA does, they screwed the pooch. The money is earmarked for short term recovery efforts for a specific disaster which Florida, being efficient only needed 25% of the funds. Now for the long term (rebuilding) FEMA doesnâ(TM)t have funding and Florida canâ(TM)t use that funding.

      The rest of your BS is also just BS. The money isnâ(TM)t moving because they canâ(TM)t spend

  • Solar? (Score:1)

    by PPH ( 736903 )

    Maybe. Particularly if it can be used (with batteries) in stand alone mode.

    Heat pump? Never. I can heat my house with a gas furnace (generator can run the fan and controls). I can cook with gas, without electricity. Gas hot water. Doesn't even know what electricity is. It's not likely I would have any of these following a disaster that knocks the power out (which happens frequently with our Mickey Mouse power company).

    • Heat pump? Never.

      The heat pumps don't make much sense.

      Both hurricanes and tornadoes happen in warm weather.

      Earthquakes rarely cause power outages, and even when they do, the lights are back on pretty quickly.

      There are a lot of rules and inspections to ensure gas lines are seismically safe.

      • The heat pumps don't make much sense.
        Both hurricanes and tornadoes happen in warm weather.

        Just noting that heat pumps operate as A/C in warm weather.

        • Just noting that heat pumps operate as A/C in warm weather.

          Hominids lived without AC for two million years.

          AC is nice, but it is not a necessity.

    • You know that gas supplies are some of the first to fail in a crisis right? You can't do shit with gas in areas affected by hurricanes tornados, or similar scenarios. People who bank on gas are some of the first to get cold as electricity supplies are prioritised for repair. Virtually every damaging hurricane or other scenario where FEMA has had to get significantly involved was in an area where gas supplies have been cut.

      That said heat pumps don't make much sense.

  • On one hand, there's that self-reliance, I-don't-need-a-power-grid-I-make-my-own-power prepper thing.

    On the other hand, it's a government thing, anathema, right?

    Either way I'll ridicule them. Fun times ahead.

    • They are entirely too busy picking an ill-advised froth-at-the-mouth culture war ragefight with Taylor Swift's army of fans who are all too willing to crush the right's cult leader in every way they can consider and approach.

      Why they would try to pick a fight with her is beyond me. They are practically pushing almost 200 million people towards Joe Biden over absolutely nothing.

  • Again, why are we starting at the top (Score:4, Interesting)

    by doc1623 ( 7109263 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2024 @03:57PM (#64201738)

    This snippet says reimbursing local governments. Why do we never just reimburse people. Maybe this is just for government infrastructure, I'm not going to read the whole thing and get frustrated. Every time money is allocated to local governments, there is so much waste. Recently there was that article about covid funds being used to buy (banned) Chinese cameras for police (WT...@#@#@). Maybe this will work, it does say reimburse not pay (in the snippet). If true, hopefully it won't be too abused.

    We subsidize entities, but not people. Companies are subsidies directly and indirectly. examples

    1. From my understanding, 18 wheelers do the most damage to the roads, and although they pay more in registration, it isn't enough to make up for the damage they do. So that would be an indirect subsidy.

    2. Corn Subsidies. Ethanol isn't a viable biofuel. Alan Greenspan said something to the effect of even if we used all corn in the U.S. it wouldn't begin to cover the need for gas, plus as I gather it's debatable as to its greenhouse effectiveness because of production (or maybe already proven to be just as bad or worse). Frankly, as small farmers aren't our main food suppliers, but largely huge corporations, we need to stop most if not all farming subsidies, but corn is the worst. Processed sugar is so bad, as to be toxic to us, yet corn syrup is so cheap for companies to use (too cheap), then all the chips and other bad food. To me, if we subsidize corn production, in general, we are subsidizing the beef industry (horrible for health and climate), we are subsidizing processed sugar of the worst kind e.g. high fructose corn syrup; basically a toxin. And junk food, both through the corn syrup and through chips and other highly processed foods from corn.

    3. Tax breaks and Subsidies for companies for going a route that is better for us isn't effective and highly costly. We need to utilize stick more here. Regulations that are a real deterrent, not a cost of doing business. The new deal was good for the U.S. economy from what I've read, but it was investing directly in the government, infrastructure not given to corporations. The government might not be the most efficient, but it won't intentionally overbill its-self, as contractors often seem to. First, companies should be taxed at a higher rate than citizens, period. Companies pay 15% or less which is a huge indirect subsidy, most of the time citizens pay more, if not in poverty. Before direct subsidies and tax breaks a company needs to be paying 30-50% minimum (I know, this would require international cooperation) but then we could start giving them the carrot based on behaviors. A potential off the cuff example: The percentage of the same permanent American employees that they have kept over 5 years, would give them a 5-10% break. I don't mind immigration, but many "American" companies have outsourced most of the labor to cheaper markets and/or brought the cheaper labor to them (in IT Indian H1-B companies have taken over many departments completely). I've worked with many more Indians in IT than American Women, Black and or Hispanic people at several jobs in the U.S. Companies are spoiled, and we spoiled them at our expense. Job benefits/pay/stability has gone down, while work time per week/year has gone up.

    In short, we need to help the people for a change. I might have gone off-topic (well, I know I did) but why can't we get direct to people reimbursements for such improvements? Some of these local governments will try and take advantage of this, without doing much for the intended purpose. Again, reimbursement is better than the direct payment/subsidy but still, why not us (the people). When you start at the top, money doesn't flow all the way to the bottom, it gets "stuck" at higher levels more often than not.

    • This snippet says reimbursing local governments. Why do we never just reimburse people. Maybe this is just for government infrastructure, I'm not going to read the whole thing and get frustrated. Every time money is allocated to local governments, there is so much waste. Recently there was that article about covid funds being used to buy (banned) Chinese cameras for police (WT...@#@#@). Maybe this will work, it does say reimburse not pay (in the snippet). If true, hopefully it won't be too abused.

      People vote for local governments. This is what the voters wanted.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by EvilSS ( 557649 )

      Why do we never just reimburse people.

      They do. I have a chainsaw and portable generator that are technically owned by FEMA. Bought them during a particularly bad ice storm that knocked out power for over 10 days. After it was declared a disaster I was able to file for reimbursement for them.

    • Why do we never just reimburse people.

      IANAL, but I believe federal law has no jurisdiction to do so, as we are a federation of states and the Constitution and it's amendments don't allow direct federal management without a declaration of emergency from a governor. Therefore it is maneuvered as a "block grant" to state and local government which does have sovereignty under constitutional law.

  • The solar panels become profitable after 10 years on the roof. It makes sense to install them only on forever roof solutions. Installing them on shingles which we need to replace regularly does not make any sense, taking into account the cost of solar panels installation. So add another 10K on top of shingles and wait another 15 years before it is time to replace them. I've not seen a single appliance which ever worked longer than 7 years. I live in house for 15 years, I replaced 3 dishwashers, 2 refrigerat

    • Sounds like you buy some shitty appliances, or have some seriously unclean power that is blowing up your shit.

      Before I moved, the house I lived in had a water heater that was installed in 1994 according to the label on it. I replaced it in 2018. Similarly, it had a heat pump that was installed in 2004, and very likely is still pumping out heat today in 2024 - I can't confirm because I moved 2,000 miles away from it, but it had zero issues in late 2021 when I moved.

      I would be curious as to what your actual

      • You are asking for offtopic conversation, but anyway. All appliances ware American made or designed, all sorts of leaking caused by rotten plastic and rubber parts, broken mechanical parts and etc, couple of issues related to electricity. Yes, it was my general mistake, I don't bye American anymore. The problem is still the same, I don't trust to reliability of solar panels, they would not last longer than 4-6 years and it is not enough for them too produce enough electricity to pay off investment in them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by stooo ( 2202012 )

      >> I've not seen a single appliance which ever worked longer than 7 years.
      Stop buying shit. Get real devices.

  • FEMA announced today that it’ll start reimbursing local governments for ... [improvements]... after a disaster strikes.

    Oh, so that nasty guillotine chopped off your head, did it? Well here's some cash to buy a titanium collar to help you do better the next time it happens.

    And to answer your question, no, we have not heard of that "preventative medicine" thing. What is it exactly?

  • It doesn't specify but I think they'd do well to go as local as possible (ie. city level.) God knows that red states would steadfastly refuse any money for their citizens for some culture war bullshit.

  • Very useful. Then in the next disaster, absolutely nothing works. But the lord god Climatus will be pleased.

  • This is not FEMA's job, but it's all about empire building.

    Actually, if you read the US constitution, *most* of what the federal government does is none of its business, and should be left to the individual states.

    Why do human institutions have this tendency to centralization? It is generally not a good thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close