Jump to content

phdhorn

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6423
  • Joined

Everything posted by phdhorn

  1. Intensity models: Missus and I are taking a quickie trip to Cancun 2nd-4th. I hereby ORDER all inclement weather out of the Northeastern Mexico coast. As for this thing, 'cane season is off to a S-L-O-W start. A VERY slow start. However it should start to pick up. That big high that's been causing all the grief, meandering back/forth through essentially the entire southern United States is probably hindering development in the Gulf (which is where most of our June-early July storms happen. The long-trackers don't get going until mid-July or so).
  2. Jerry Hall is divorcing Rupert Murdoch? Who the fuck knew they were married???? I sure di-int! https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61904095 Jerry probably exhausted her Mick money. Plus, she wasn't a poorz, her modeling gave her a big bankroll. They tied the knot in 2016(? Who knew?). Still, I guess a buck ain't worth what it used to be, so she got some of that Murdoch billon$ money? Weirdest thing I've seen in awhile. If you knew, you're a better human being than me and deserve to be worshiped and treated as a lifelong demigod despotic ruler. But I didn't know... wowzers.
  3. Okay, I thought this was funny. A little inflation levity...
  4. Fair enough. If you don't believe that sometimes rhetoric doesn't matter and is often pointless, as in this case, I don't know what to tell you man. Moving on, interesting timing, Texas just cut a major deal this week with a Canadian solar company to store solar energy for more ERCOT power. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/06/16/recurrent-energy-acquires-two-stand-alone-energy-storage-projects-in-ercot-territory/?fr=operanews
  5. Assuming this is the case (and even if it is it doesn't matter), then what's the point of even putting a quasi-political article (which really does miss its own point) in DT? Who said that an article can't encourage tangent points of discussion - that's what good articles do. Otherwise, what's the point? Just to nod quietly and hit posrep? Of course I'm making that argument as a non-political response to a basically political one - the tone of the article. Yeah, I said I agree that some of the rhetoric has been made (again, most of it over a year ago, things have changed now). But also that if this is supposed to be some type of "gotcha!" it really isn't, because Texas market and political environments have encouraged the growth of nonrenewables - as well as continued to promote the use of fossil fuels - especially in the past year. So, I am making the arguments that, while 1) I agree that there has been anti-renewable rhetoric, 2) the state itself doesn't have much of a political one, as nothing has stopped record investment, so 3) so what about the "rhetoric?" Yeah people say shit all the time that doesn't mean much. I've tried to take what is (in my opinion) a somewhat blatant attempt to put a political argument into DT. What I did was try to counteract it by showing that in reality, the market transcends politics largely, and that if you look at the record, that "rhetoric" is fairly meaningless. Even the article itself contains somewhat of a contradiction, within a single sentence to boot: Despite the Texas Republican rhetoric that wind and solar are unreliable, Texas has a massive and growing fleet of renewables. Zero-carbon electricity sources (wind, solar, and nuclear) powered about 38% of the state’s power in 2021, rivaling natural gas at 42%. This is a relatively recent phenomenon for the state. So is this article saying that "despite the "rhetoric" (whatever real consequences it's had - pretty much none), somehow the State managed to ram through an environment that produced record nonrenewable investment? That through great labor and hardship, they managed this amazing record? I say nope, it's due to a cheap market which Texas has had in just about every economic area, particularly in the past 30 years - and despite the "rhetoric", these investments have skyrocketed - far beyond even California, a larger and supposedly much more renewable-friendly state. I.e. a productive environment which allows this. Therefore the "rhetoric" is a pretty weak point - no one is "surprised" that these renewables are doing what they are - they've been worked into the energy system in Texas, both politically and economically. I see the "rhetoric". And I've posted several times already that it was dumb and pretty much (not entirely) wrong. But the tide is turning politically. Anyway point is that whatever the political verbage, the reality of this state is that it's been open for nonrenewable development, to record levels. So much for some type of "rhetoric" tamping down the reality of the markets. Anyway, I think this has been a great discussion and I appreciate those who have especially quoted stuff and tried to discuss the article. You make good points and I agree in part. I think we just disagree on the "so what then". If one posts this, then one must expect thoughts about it. And I for one absolutely believe that making a connection between rhetoric and reality is key to discussing this article. (p.s. this article eerily parallels one written a few days later in the San Antonio Current, a left-leaning more political publication akin to our Chronicle. Just in case people want to read more: https://www.sacurrent.com/news/despite-texas-gops-rhetoric-renewables-are-keeping-the-lights-on-amid-states-sweltering-summer-29147649)
  6. Nope, saw it. Not entirely true. But did you miss the part where almost all of the wind turbines failed because they froze? Yeah it was a dumb comment to just blame "renewable energy" in some blanket way - but it wasn't inaccurate that the structures of those energy sources failed in the cold. That was my point in a post above = the infrastructure to deliver renewables still needs work. Without it it don't matter a shit what kind of energy you tap. You still need conventional means to get it to people. So wind power failed just as much as the freezing of natural gas lines for oil and gas. It wasn't the type of energy that led to the problem - it was the bad infrastructure. This is where the focus needs to go now. Obviously "rhetoric" or much of anything else has actually stopped Texas' record investments in these sources. There is no political environment where they're not welcome to develop. If there are examples of where "rhetoric" has caused problems in energy investment that have actually occurred within the last year, post them. I would love to see them (no saracsm, I really would).
  7. That's my point... 1) I don't think #1 is as true as it has been, and again to my point, 2) even if it were, it isn't affecting the huge investments in renewables in Texas, which means that whatever "rhetoric" (also, reading comprehension, that's one opinion in the artcle) exists, it's not doing anything to counteract the market plodding on. Yeah I get the subtle political point of the article - "despite ________ (party or legislature or governor or butler or dog catcher, fill in the blank) being anti-renewable in their stance (which I've disagreed with here, especially in the past year), Texas's renewables have saved our asses." The second part is true, the first not so much. Not wanting to gobble a shitload of "green energy solutions" to the detriment of fossil fuels is by no means "anti-renewable." Moderation has now been the operative, and in the Texas market, it's been the driving force, especially since the Big Chill. So it's no suprise that the renewables have "saved our asses" - Texas investors - and parts of government - are all for it. In moderation. No reading comprehension problems on my part. Hope no others have it.
  8. I believe that legislation (both your links refer to the same thing, SB3) allows ERCOT the ability to charge fees for renewables. To my knowledge no fees have yet to be charged. I agree that in part this is a bad bill - but like most governmental things, it's meant to scour money to put back into the system. However that was last year, and over the last 12 months the government has changed its tune somewhat, in a new biofuels project and similar initiatives. However my main point is that Texas has led the country (even flying past California) in the pace and amount of renewable growth the past several years - in a suppsedly "hostile" political environment for non-fossil fuels, which brings me back to the point: renewables have been a ripe market in Texas, with cheap costs and lots of affordable and profitable opportunities, and the market far eclipses the governmental influence so far on their development. And even the bill you cited hasn't impacted it - at all as far as I know (if someone can find an instance of fees levied by ERCOT on renewable companies, post it thanks). The problem now is that the infrastructure is still old and even the massive spike in renewable energy production is hampered by ways to get that power to people. That's where most of the $$ will be needed. Some of it (and hopefully most of it) will be borne by the companies themselves as the ramp up. I think in 2020 renewables were something like 20% of the energy in Texas. During last week's big heat (and record generation - over 80MW now for days running - keep in mind the peak wattage needed in The Big Chill was about 70MW(!), renewables accounted for over 33% (in 2021 it was about 25%) of the energy! Going back to this thread topic, I agree that renewables "are saving our ass" by providing the needed icing on the energy cake But I also want to point out that this is not news to people in Texas - of all political persuasions - who are taking advantage of ripe (and so far pretty unlimited) opportunities to develop it. The near-term answer is that we need all types (including fossils) and in the last year I think the needle has turned clearly to recognizing that fact.
  9. I've had this little thing on my desk for over a month. Since this is DT and not SHITROOM I can finally get rid of it. But it's a good article (a lot of discussion on ERCOT and Texas energy on here is decent, but naturally, a lot of it is pure bullshit). Posting in its entirety since I think it's behind a paywall. And the bold is mine, but a damn good point. Sum: Texas power resources, driven by market competiton and not by governmental dictate or fiat, is quietly upping - a whole shitload - renewables, and has for awhile. What I love about this article is that it shows that politics is overblown as a driver for good - or bad. Yeah it exists, but it's definitely not the main definer of it. I'll leave it to you to decide. I already have/know (and as a "weather guy", I've had a keen interest in this stuff for years). Anyway, I can finally get this of my desk. THIS IS MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE CONTENT OPINION Renewables supplied a third of Texas’ electricity in 1Q. Why that gives us hope for grid reliability The competitive electricity market is a powerful tool. Dust from strong southerly winds partially obscure wind turbines spinning on the Texas plains near Southland on Jan. 18, 2022.(Tom Fox) By Dallas Morning News Editorial 2:00 AM on May 2, 2022 This editorial is part of a series published by The Dallas Morning News Opinion section to explore ideas and policies for strengthening electric reliability. Find Keeping the Lights On at dallasnews.com/opinion. As the country turned to Texas in the past couple of months to boost oil and gas production to supply our allies against Russia, something else happened, something quiet and extraordinary. In March, Texas oil and gas regulators issued a record number of drilling permits. That’s no surprise; Washington politicians have been calling on the Permian Basin to produce more fossil fuels to support European nations that are cutting off or being cut off from Russian oil and gas. High oil prices are a good signal to the industry to produce more. Also in the first quarter, Texas hit an entirely different energy record. The state produced more renewable energy than ever before. According to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, about a third of the power on the Texas grid came from wind and solar. Some folks thought this kind of success for renewables could be best achieved by protesting outside of an Exxon shareholder meeting or climbing in trees scheduled to be bulldozed to build a pipeline. Turns out market forces are more powerful than bullhorns. The Texas wholesale electricity market was designed to favor low-cost electricity, which at the time when the market was first established meant nuclear and coal power. Lawmakers added some incentives for renewables with modest expectations. A competitive market plus incentives for renewables turned out to be a powerful combination. It also helps that Texas hardly ever rejects a wind or solar project, as regulators in many other states do. Soon renewables on the ERCOT grid became so plentiful, that they knocked many older, more expensive fossil fuel plants out of business. Great for consumers: cheaper, cleaner energy. At times, wind is so plentiful that market prices dip below zero, because of the way the renewable energy credit system is set up to subsidize investment in clean energy. It all worked better than anyone could have anticipated. So well, that ERCOT has to change the way it manages the grid to make sure that when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, there is enough back-up power to keep the lights on. In fact, keeping the grid reliable is getting dicey, because investors do not want to build expensive fossil fuel plants, nor do they want to keep operating old coal and gas plants that don’t make money. Our electricity market that incentivizes cheap, clean energy has failed to incentivize reliability. Regulators are on it, planning to buy back-up power and subsidize the cost. It’s a good start, but not nearly enough. The success of competitive markets in growing renewable energy in Texas should give us great hope that market forces can also be used to grow reliable energy, too. There’s no need to give an advantage to certain fuel types or technology. Instead, by changing market rules, the Public Utility Commission can ensure that the Texas electricity market is fertile ground for investments in plants and equipment that can produce power on demand. That could be a new natural gas plant, an old coal plant outfitted to meet environmental standards, batteries, or some technology that, like wind and solar 20 years ago, we can hardly imagine will ever become reality in Texas. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2022/05/02/renewables-supplied-a-third-of-texas-electricity-in-1q-why-that-gives-us-hope-for-grid-reliability/ This is akin to my own life. I recycle prodigiously because I want to, and there are incentives to. Not because I have to. I like it. As far as the topic, no one's saying that ERCOT and the energy situation in Texas is all butterflies and unicorns - but - gasp! There are some good things happening. And renewables are part of it. And finally, staying way the hell out of personal politics, I can say that "Texas government" has indeed gotten the message, and I'll just say that in the past year since The Big Chill, they've uniformly begun to take an "all fuels" tack, including renewables (and I'm looking at about 6-7 articles in the last six months to prove this right now on my screen - but I'll refrain because some of it is political). Anyway, this is my stance - provide incentives for all forms of energy - including fossil - because we're gonna need all of 'em. The biggest threat to our energy livelihood is not political, it's demographic. As in the many, many people moving here, to a place that was never designed to hold as many climatologically as it is starting to (see: Southern California Basin circa 1935ff). Anyway, this is actually some "good news" I hope we can all agree on without getting twisted about which political direction this comes from. In reality, both parties have a hand in the bad's - and the good's like this. I hope it stays that way. (Whew, finally got rid of this!).
  10. You people take this shit way too seriously. This guy is just having fun, there's nothing obsessive about him. Nor A&M, which in their own right is an independent, proud school, with no fixation on the U. of Tex... [re-views the words to the Aggy Warr Himm, which is 90% psychotically fixated on UT]
  11. Johnny Depp otta sue Savannah Guthrie for defaming journalism. The only thing missing were the traditional NBC figure skating soft lenses and weepy music. Fortunately I could bear about 30 seconds of each day, reminded myself, "why am I watching this shit?" and turn it off for Andy Griffith or something.
  12. 1) The Yellowstone is an undammed, 600-mile river - it floods, you just don't hear about it. 2) Any transference of water will be expensive, but maybe not so much as believed. Pipes could easily use gravity to allow the water to go thousands of miles on each side of the continental divide if funneling from the mountains. Once it got to substations it could be pumped. Since about 90% of the water would be needed for the Great Plains and West, gravity could do a lot of work to move the water. Oil pipelines (with regular pumping stations, since oil is thicker and more resistant to gravity) exist all over the country, water could theoretically happen. Especially as the distances might not be all that great. But the problem would be to establish reservoirs "up there" with land rights, etc. as well as rights-of-way to destinations. But geographically, it's very possible, actually (if you draw the water from higher elevations). 3) Desalinization costs aren't what they used to be due to improvements in osmosis technology, but they're not dirt cheap. It costs money and energy to pressurize the water through filters, as most desaliniztion would be "uphill" as the seas are lower than the land (duh!). Even if you simply pump unfiltered saltwater "up" then use gravity by building "downhill" osmosis plants, it still requires a good amt. of energy/electricity/etc. to move that water through filters. California has a few more local plants, esp. around San Diego. But California just last month rejected a large-scale desalinization plan for one reason mostly - the enormous amount of salt and particulates filtered are a problem. To just release them back into the ocean would likely result in "dead spots" which would kill off life in locales where the salt is dumped. That needs to be solved to be feasible. But I would think they'll figure it out eventually. There is going to come a time where water transfer will be vital for say everyone living south and west of the lower Mississippi. Just too many people have moved there to sustain water usage (including Austin) so they'll have to do something. A national (or semi-national) network of pipelines is the most likely answer at some point.
  13. Yup, at times I remembered them and wondered if they were a thing of the past. Then we booked my son's rehearsal dinner on Capital Cruises - they use the Hyatt to cater food, and we had the fajitas on the boat. Got damn they were so good, just as I remembered them 20 years ago. One thing led to another, and we went there to eat them a 2nd time a little over a week ago. I have to say that the Hyatt's catered fajita order was spectacular - big soft aluminum pans of meat and great tortillas, rice, beans. The sit-down was about as good.
  14. Yeah, but it's kinda weird now. There used to be a bona fide restaurant on the 2nd floor in the Hyatt but they axed it some time back. Now there really is no restaurant per se in it (kinda unusual). They still have the bar though, of course. When you go to the Hyatt, ask to be seated at a table that serves food (not all do, mostly the ones closer), or you can just sit at the bar. They do have a menu but we asked for the fajitas and they brought them to us. The fajitas I had were catered for my son's wedding, and my god that was amazing food (even the rice and refried beans). So wife and I went about 2 weeks later for the sit-down. They still serve them as they always did (without the "sizzling" stuff they used to put on them). And I don't know what it is but the meat is so tender and tasty, still like in the 80's.
  15. The Big $5 wall has been breached (as if there was any mystery left in it: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/11/business/gas-prices-five-dollars-national-june/index.html 3 months ago they were talking "wow, gas might actually reach $5/gallon, remote as it seems" as if it was a slim but possible thing. Now, they're saying the same thing about $6/gal. gas, almost unthinkable 3 months ago. Now it's thinkable.
  16. Those sturgeon were Russian Nationals but became US citizens because they wanted to see Montana. Yellowstone River holla!
  17. You might know this living up there, but when the Vietnam Memorial was unveiled, it produced a fierce backlash. Critics very much liked it, but the biggest opponents were, by and large - Vietnam vets. I was living there at the time and I heard quite a few Nam vets (through my brother, who served then, although not in Nam, had a bunch of friends who did) sort of bringing up your exact points on contrast. Whereas the other memorials were glistening, white, dazzling, and statuesque, the "ditch of shame" as it was first referred to was a black, dark, below-ground-level of embarrassment and grudging acknowledgement (as they saw it). Fresh from the "baby killer" wounds, they felt that it almost projected shame and blame to a lot of these vets - clearly to many of them it was as if the country was trying to "hide" Vietnam below ground, tucked away from easy spotting. From most vantage points around it, you wouldn't even know it was there. There was a huge push to dump it or re-do it. And again Vietnam vets groups were among the most aggressive. What no one (or very few) perhaps realized is that in time, it would become a "shrine" and have more emotional pulling power than almost any other memorial. And again, the leading participants were Nam vets. By word of mouth, vets would return from it and tell their buddies how a flood of emotions, many of which bore shame and self-loathing of what they perceived as society's scorn, would be released there, as they could "touch" their dead buddies'/family member's legacy by seeing and feeling their names (and eventually rubbing it onto paper). The therapeutic effect caught them off guard, and I would go down there and see 50 vets just sobbing, being held in loved ones' arms, etc. Especially raw right after the war, it was so emotionally powerful there was nothing like it. Still, the vets' demands were met, and the statues were erected. I believe they do what the vets wanted - add a real physical element, a time capsule, to the experience. The wary, nervous looks of the soldiers with the statues placed well into the shade of trees, almost resembling the jungle - was well-appreciated by the vets, and all suits and other grudges evaporated. Of course much time has elapsed since most of those guys were in their 20's to 50's, and now the average vet is well over 70. I'm sure with so much time passing the events aren't as raw, but for Nam vets it has absolutely become a cleansing station, unlike any other monument I know of in the world (sort of American Cemetery in Normandy for WWII vets). And in time the "ditch of shame" as evolved into a stunning, powerful "church" as it were of the Vietnam experience. Yeah, there's a reason why you feel like it's a church and it's far more evocative than most things there. But when you see those 3 guys that were "added', don't scoff at them or fail to understand that even if they don't seem to "go with" the wall, they represent a powerful desire of those old Vietnam vets to be portrayed in a sort of "glory" as with many war memorials. That statue complex does serve a purpose - and is truly a homage to the guys who weren't killed and had to come back to idiotic and shitheaded contempt. And trust me, many of them did.
  18. Answering Bates' clarion call (appreciate the inferential compliment). A few quick reactions: Agreed. The D.C. region = L.A./ San Diego for the sheer amount of stuff you can do within a 4 hour (~200 mile) radius. There's no place like it IMO. So why ain't I still there? Long story, but Austin is kinda like mini-D.C. except if you travel 3 hours in any direction, with the exception of the Gulf (which is hit/miss) you've gone nowhere. Just lots of Texas. See above. I did up to a point. But there's too much "northeastern" to it as in snooty people and grade-A assholes. I got tired of egomaniacs. Texas still to me has the greatest people on earth. No, really, I'm not drunk. Of course I'm not including College Station, what do I look like? Also keep in mind that the "political" shit only involves about 1/2 a million people, and most of them transitory. While D.C. will of course always have a political bent, you can grow up there and not think/give 2 shits about politics or people in them. There's damn near 10 million people in the Balt-Wash corridor, and the HUGE majority of them are residents who have their own lives and stories having nothing to do with politics. It's possible to ignore the bullshit in D.C. even 12 miles from the Capitol (which is where I grew up). Tourists will never get this as they're in/out too quickly to really soak up the best of D.C. (mountains/hills west, and my favorite, the tidewater/bay regions). D.C. can be galaxies from politics without much effort. - I strongly agree with all of this, esp. the comments on the weather. You have not experienced humidity like D.C. say after July 1. Of course it can be 86° and brisk - 0r 95° and awful. He's spot on. You won't be used to it. So: - Bate's 2nd point is also good, and I have 2 recs here: 1) do monuments at night. Just do it. Don't question it. FAR more enjoyable. FAR more. No people, no sweat-sauna. Do it. 2) Bate's "walkable" is very true. And if I were touristing, I'd do it one way only - by geography. To me there are about 6 areas in D.C. a) Capitol/Judiciary area; b) Central Mall (museums esp.); c) "old downtown" (essentially Chinatown and about a 10X10 block area including Ford's, Portrait, FBI, etc.); d) "New" Downtown with all the best eateries and shops (area near GWU/17th and L or so); e) Western Mall (Monument, Lincoln, Vietnam, WWII, Korean, FDR, Jefferson, etc.). If you plan out your time by geography, it's much easier than worrying about transp and long, long, long unjustified walks. Metro is great for all of these areas except Western Mall - where it really doesn't stop as conveniently to Lincoln, Vietnam, etc. But there's a stop near Smithsonian Castle, better than nothing. I'd approach it this way with each letter above 1 day, except Central Mall which would need 2 due to the fairly long time you can spend in the 5-6 museums there (Archives, too). Get to Archives VERY EARLY as lines WILL form and it'll be hot. If you're in a line, for god's sake take an umbrella or something to ward off the sun. Other than that, I always recommend the Bureau of Engraving to people (where they print the dollar bills). Unlike mints, the only place in the country where they do this, and it's fascinating. It's down just south of the Mall, Monument end near 14th and Independence (forget the exact streets, look it up). Kids love it too. Definitely worth the hour or so in there. As far as eats, etc. I'll leave it to the more current residents to give props to whatever. I was just up in March and we did well in Dupont (some good ethnic). Adams-Morgan always has great international food, and a Metro stop right there to boot. But can't recommend any specifics. If you go to Cathedral, you might consider a stop near there for a meal. Otherwise, foodies know more than I do now about the city proper. Definitely agree with the bold here. It's probably a nice museum, but man, that's a long, slow slog just to see a few planes. If Air and Space is down or something, maybe. Yeah the terminal at Dulles is pretty famous and a good see, but not on the A, B, or C list if you've never been to D.C. waste of opportunity to see other stuff. However, if it floats your boat... (I'm not as anti-Dulles as Bates, I like the flow thru it, but agree it's a long haul. I know they've been eternally working on the Metro line to get out there, and for eons have been trying to get the Reston area open - way behind schedule. Once that part opens I'd recommend it more I guess, because you won't have to get off the Metro and take a bus to Dulles. I think it's supposed to open this summer, right? Hah, we'll see. Mt. Vernon is nice and I love it, but don't expect it to be anything but swamped. It's a bit of a drive down to there, but worth it. Agree that Alexandria is nice but kind of out of the way and is kinda sorta like Georgetown, which isn't. Beyond that, you start getting into "been there, done that" lower-level sites that are very, very cool out of the beaten path stuff. But I would never recommend doing those before you've seen all the "stuff" everyone expects to. That's why you go there. Lots more to do, but most here have hit the essentials pretty well.
  19. More not good (Heather Long WaPo columnist, their main U.S. economics correspondent:
  20. OUCH. 8.6% YOY CPI (expected about 8.2-3%). Largest increase since 1981. Yeah, May wasn't gonna be a good month. No way, no how. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
  21. I said back here somewhere, and I think, that May's numbers are going to be bad. Not record bad, but trend bad (again). Mostly because gas shot up after the little April fart (er, breather) and has begun to screw everything (truck transpo (diesel fuel), supply chains, etc. And, as stagflation guys have been saying, eventually the spending will go down, eventually the demand decline in goods = less revenue and job loss. So, last week's job #'s are out, and it's the biggest weekly decline since January (and the latest jobs surge): chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf (+229K, plus the last few weeks' reports were revised up a bit). This isn't necessarily the beginning of the jobs decline spiral - I think it'll take through the summer to really see actual losses if trends continue - and this could be just a small burp in otherwise great job news for 2022 so far. But, keep an eye on this as it could just as easily accelerate if the stagflation double whammy really begins to take its toll. Which it absolutely will if gas stays high for > one more month. If gas comes down, this indicator could reverse. I think we're about to enter the Mines of Mordor. Hope not.
  22. I see this as a bit of tough luck for you, but the 2 huge issues for any homes are 1) mold, and 2) termites - in my book, when you're selling (or buying) any house, these two things must be looked for, period. No one should neglect the Big 2, even if they've seen no evidence. Those are deal killers the most. But anyway, now you have that identified and can fix and list it as such (if needed). Usually when a buyer hires an inspector (perfectly legit) the idea is that you either trade $ value or pay for remedy as the seller (tacked on to the contract). It wasn't bogus of these pseudo-buyers to hire an inspector after preliminary deal. It was bogus of them to try to price the house beyond what the value of the repair might be (and indeed, the appropriate repair itself). I don't know if ripping out half the beams is the solution, but if it's recommended, unfortunately you have to do it - or discount the house price to accommodate it. But the good news is now you have that bit of info and the next buyers can't blindside you with that. One other remedy you have is to hire your own inspector. They'll work for you. So if the buyer's guy recommends reconstructing half the house for something, but your guys says only a few nails are needed, you have negotiating power (i.e. you've got your own pro). On old houses I would recommend this more. If you think the termites are the biggest "ghost" now revealed, you might feel good it's all been found out. If not, hire a guy and they'll help a lot when a buyer tries to lowball you. In this market, even with your old house, I'd think you have some clout over this stuff and can demand a good/fair price.
  23. Man, you're not looking on the bright side. Now you know the microwave works like a charm!
×
×
  • Create New...