Where is the Electricity going to come to charge EVs ?

[JeffKeryk]

@Wolf359 The stock market involves risk; a solar project is a hedge against the risk of inflation.
Completely different investments; each has their place and purpose.

@PandaBear my solar project cost over 25 years is about $40 per month. What do you think electricity around here will cost when PG&E has to square up with all their fines for criminality, new infrastructure and huge executive bonuses?

 

[Wolf359]

@Wolf359 The stock market involves risk; a solar project is a hedge against the risk of inflation.
Completely different investments; each has their place and purpose.

@PandaBear my solar project cost over 25 years is about $40 per month. What do you think electricity around here will cost when PG&E has to square up with all their fines for criminality, new infrastructure and huge executive bonuses?

Didn't you say it was about 17k? 25 years is about 300 months so 17k/300 is about $56/month unless I'm missing something here. Did you pay the 17k lump sum up front? Just trying to normalize your costs as it's not really $9 a month for electricity unless you got the solar installation for free.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Didn't you say it was about 17k? 25 years is about 300 months so 17k/300 is about $56/month unless I'm missing something here. Did you pay the 17k lump sum up front? Just trying to normalize your costs as it's not really $9 a month for electricity unless you got the solar installation for free.

Agreed; I pay more than $9 per month for electricity if you include the cost of the panels.
See post #221. The solar panels were $17K; $12K net of tax credit. My PG&E monthly electric bill runs around $9 per month. I have not yet had an annual true up, knock on wood.
Yes I paid cash for the project; I generally do not like credit.

So $12K / 300 months is $40.
I also paid $600 to for a 50' run of #6 copper wire from the service box to the garage to charge the Tesla. Nothin's free... Sheesh!

 

[brianl703]

I also paid $600 to for a 50' run of #6 copper wire from the service box to the garage to charge the Tesla. Nothin's free... Sheesh!

Most electricians are switching to aluminum for that. Since the Tesla EVSE apparently requires copper wire, they go aluminum into a disconnect (same type used for an air conditioner) and then a short run of copper from the disconnect to the EVSE.

I used aluminum to feed the subpanel in my garage, it was about the same price to get a 50amp circuit in aluminum as it was to get a 30 amp circuit in copper.

 

[PandaBear]

Agreed; I pay more than $9 per month for electricity if you include the cost of the panels.
See post #221. The solar panels were $17K; $12K net of tax credit. My PG&E monthly electric bill runs around $9 per month. I have not yet had an annual true up, knock on wood.
Yes I paid cash for the project; I generally do not like credit.

So $12K / 300 months is $40.
I also paid $600 to for a 50' run of #6 copper wire from the service box to the garage to charge the Tesla. Nothin's free... Sheesh!

I was using 20 years with 4% interest rate (cash you pay has a mortgage opportunity cost, no?) on the amortization calculator for $12k and end up with the 72.72 above. You may say $40 at 300 months with no interest vs 72.72 with interest for 20 years are just funny math, I'll let you draw your own conclusion. Still, the right math (yours or mine) would be that $40 or $72.72 + $9 (I though you also said it was $15, again, fuzzy math).

Personally I'd say, depends on how much you use, it may be more or less than just using your grid (SVCE sourcing/generation + PG&E transmission).

I ran some solar math from those installation company's website, the cost is not linear, and the bigger setup you buy the more you "save". I'm a frugal guy and only use tier 1 + a little bit on tier 2 (I don't like TOU rate, I like fixed / tier rate instead because I cannot control when my wife wants to turn on AC or do laundry). In every single calculation I run I am better off buying electricity from SVCE's renewable (let them buy hydro or solar or wind) and let PG&E transmit it to me. I haven't even factor in my north facing roof and I never need to touch my roof because it is Spanish tiles.

Not criticizing your setup (as it works well for you), but as you have shown it is a lot of fuzzy math, and a lot of "it depends", and you are also speculating whether electricity will be more expensive tomorrow (how much), and whether solar will be cheaper in the future (because of efficiency improvement or easier install, or some storage setup that helps you store peak vs off peak, or net metering get canceled so you are paying more for duck curve and you are using your own solar when the grid is cheap because of duck curve, etc).

Your "setup" after the roof cost is deducted may be $49-82 per month, the same roof top solar setup for me may end up $150 per month vs $75 from PG&E.

What I would do if I am in Arizona building a custom home though, is to design a south facing roof with solar on top, connected to a few mini-split AC directly (if possible a direct current mini split to save inverter cost), and add a setup that will disconnect some of them gradually from the panels to the grid depending on the solar output. If any excess solar is there but not much AC is needed, connect them to a freezer full of ice in the middle of the house, and I'll open and close the freezer to "store" and "release" the cooling. No need to mess with inverter, battery, and the grid, or any regulation nonsense.

 

[Wolf359]

Agreed; I pay more than $9 per month for electricity if you include the cost of the panels.
See post #221. The solar panels were $17K; $12K net of tax credit. My PG&E monthly electric bill runs around $9 per month. I have not yet had an annual true up, knock on wood.
Yes I paid cash for the project; I generally do not like credit.

So $12K / 300 months is $40.
I also paid $600 to for a 50' run of #6 copper wire from the service box to the garage to charge the Tesla. Nothin's free... Sheesh!

So what was the total of the tax credits? Didn't you mention 29k at one point? So the real way you got down to such a low rate was due to subsidies from the state and from the electric company. Also what would your electric rates go to if they change some of the existing rules regarding the discounts that solar users get now?

 

[JeffKeryk]

So what was the total of the tax credits? Didn't you mention 29k at one point? So the real way you got down to such a low rate was due to subsidies from the state and from the electric company. Also what would your electric rates go to if they change some of the existing rules regarding the discounts that solar users get now?

Full Price: Solar System $17K + Full Reroof $12.4K = $29.4K.
Solar, net of tax credit: $17K * .7 = $11.9K
Roof, net of tax credit: $12.4 * .7 = $8.7
I don't trust PG&E as far as I can throw them; I cannot say what the future holds.

My goal was to get the house ready for the long term, in case something happened to me, so my wife would have the best, low cost living situation. Which is funny, because she has more money than I do. The solar project was one component. So now the only major recurring cost is the annual property tax; everything else is done or minimized.

@PandaBear I have always been frugal; I never turned on the AC unless my folks or guests came over. I believed my consumption would only increase because I would be retiring within a few years. I am retired now. We have an EV, perhaps you might add monthly gasoline cost into your calculation, which can save about $50 per week with today's pump prices, depending on driving needs. No one has to tell you about our CA energy pricees...

 

[gman2304]

I have always been frugal; I never turned on the AC unless my folks or guests came over. I

There’s frugal, then there’s……..

 

[OVERKILL]

514 acres is pretty darn big where I come from . And I've worked in three different 500kv yards so I have an idea of how big they can be .

You said your buddy told you the yard was nearly a square mile, so that is what my comments were in reference to and why I took the effort to post some pictures, with measurements, so that people reading, yourself included, had some proper perspective. The yard, if we include the part that may not be a yard, as I noted, is 133 acres. That's smaller than a 10MW solar farm we have locally. Again, "large" is relative, what are we comparing it to?

If we look at the Ivanpah CSP project for example, it is 3,500 acres with a nameplate capacity of 392MW and a capacity factor of about 24%. That's, to use your expression, "pretty **** big". Chornobyl in comparison, at 514 acres and a nameplate capacity of 3,512MW (down unit 4) was relatively "tiny". This is is also why I posted the Canadian nuke plant examples above for scale, as, in terms of land area, they are the most power dense source we have.

 

[OVERKILL]

Offshore wind will be the dominant solution, far less harmful to birds (especially with how large and relatively slow the blades are). Not that many birds flying around a dozen miles or more offshore. Not to mention they are far more efficient as there is more constant wind than onshore solutions, and no infrasound concerns to local residents. The main obstacle is NIMBYs who don't want their view of the ocean ruined by some distant windfarms.

As far as CA goes, a lot of the rolling blackout issue isn't necessarily a supply issue, specifically. There is some of that, but my understanding is a lot of the issue is due to the hot weather and high loads making the long distance high voltage lines sag from heating, putting them in danger distance of foliage and causing wildfires. That's PG&Es problem however and one they should address.

Offshore wind not only has the same problems as onshore wind (low capacity factor, relative to other sources, weeks long wind draughts) but problems unique to it, such as MUCH higher CAPEX, as well as shorter lifespans due to salt corrosion. There have also been studies that show a negative impact on marine life, particularly whales, due to the infrasound they create.

Of course wind farms of all types are well supported by the fossil fuel industry because they breed dependence on gas backup and in many cases, the wind turbines are owned by fossil fuel interests who get the reap not only the subsides the wind farms receive, but then also the increased rates given to standby gas, which they also provide.

 

[K.Aoi]

Offshore wind not only has the same problems as onshore wind (low capacity factor, relative to other sources, weeks long wind draughts) but problems unique to it, such as MUCH higher CAPEX, as well as shorter lifespans due to salt corrosion. There have also been studies that show a negative impact on marine life, particularly whales, due to the infrasound they create.

Of course wind farms of all types are well supported by the fossil fuel industry because they breed dependence on gas backup and in many cases, the wind turbines are owned by fossil fuel interests who get the reap not only the subsides the wind farms receive, but then also the increased rates given to standby gas, which they also provide.

I mean don't get me wrong I'd much rather rely completely on nuclear power but selling certain brands of environmentalists on that is difficult (I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist). And if it's a choice between onshore wind and offshore wind, offshore wind makes more sense in every regard. I think TINSTAFL is relevant here, every solution has downsides of some kind, and even with offshore winds higher capex it's still cheaper than current nuclear solutions. As I've said multiple times now, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good/better, and relying heavily on offshore wind most of the time and maybe gas some of the time, is still better than relying on buring oil/gas/coal all of the time

 

[OVERKILL]

Not even just driving through them, though that was a huge part of it, since they kicked up radioactive dust which they then inhaled- the worst is that they were digging deep trenches in the worst contaminated areas. It's worse than it sounds even, because the topsoil isn't the worst part. Lots of radioactive trees, the topsoil from the time, and lots of other equipment etc was buried in that area. Meaning that in the process of digging not only did they disturb the topsoil they were digging straight down into the place where some of the most contaminated waste was buried. Talk about idiotic, you're talking huge whole-body doses over extended periods.

If nothing else I'm sad because I actually have seeing the exclusion zone on my bucket list, thanks to the STALKER games, being a history nerd and a nuclear supporter and the whole.... situation... makes it unlikely I'd be able to visit for a long time. Truly first world problems however.

As you can see in the below videos, the surface level radiation is high but not exactly dangerous for shorter periods. Going a meter or so off the road the radiation level climbs extremely fast but again for short periods of time not deadly or particularly harmful (still in the microsievert/hr range). But kicking up dust and breathing said dust in, and then digging extensively in trenches for days/weeks surrounded by radioactive material is near suicidal. The inverse square law means that if there is a piece of highly radioactive material the further away you get from it, the lower the dose. This means you can hold a piece of radioactive material for a short time and be totally fine, because it's most likely only a high dose on a small part of your body. Cumulative dose is what matters. This topic honestly deserves it's own thread.

We also need to keep in mind that the most dangerous materials have the shortest half lives. So, 30 years after the incident, those which were the "hottest" rapidly decayed. This is also why the claim that these soldiers experienced ARS is nonsense (and there have been several radiation experts who have weighed-in on this) because ARS is the result of a very short, and very intense dose, which requires materials that have long since decayed at Chornobyl.

It's somewhat similar to the freaking out that happened about the spent fuel pools when the power was cut off. SNF cools in a pool for about 5 years typically, it's been 22 years, none of it is hot, the transition from wet storage to dry has just been dragged out because there's no urgency, since the facility is not generating any new SNF, and hasn't since 2000. So, even with the circulation pumps off, nothing would happen, there's no enough decay heat to evaporate the pool water.

Now, all that said, you don't want to be digging around in the red forest, or any other highly contaminated area without proper PPE. An internal dose is also not desirable, and would of course be exactly what would happen if dust/dirt is inhaled/ingested. This could lead to the development of cancer later in life, or at least significantly increase the risk.

 

[K.Aoi]

We also need to keep in mind that the most dangerous materials have the shortest half lives. So, 30 years after the incident, those which were the "hottest" rapidly decayed. This is also why the claim that these soldiers experienced ARS is nonsense (and there have been several radiation experts who have weighed-in on this) because ARS is the result of a very short, and very intense dose, which requires materials that have long since decayed at Chornobyl.

It's somewhat similar to the freaking out that happened about the spent fuel pools when the power was cut off. SNF cools in a pool for about 5 years typically, it's been 22 years, none of it is hot, the transition from wet storage to dry has just been dragged out because there's no urgency, since the facility is not generating any new SNF, and hasn't since 2000. So, even with the circulation pumps off, nothing would happen, there's no enough decay heat to evaporate the pool water.

Now, all that said, you don't want to be digging around in the red forest, or any other highly contaminated area without proper PPE. An internal dose is also not desirable, and would of course be exactly what would happen if dust/dirt is inhaled/ingested. This could lead to the development of cancer later in life, or at least significantly increase the risk.

While that's true, Cs137 and Sr90 are extremely deadly and are representative of the majority of the remaining isotopes. Sure they may have decayed, but half of a crapton is still a lot. If you start digging into the soil you'll likely easily get into the multiple millisievert/hr range depending on where, as the video above I linked shows. There is plenty of highly contaminated reactor fuel and graphite that was ejected from the reactor during the explosion that is still lying around in that area and those are extremely intense radiation sources that could easily cause ARS.

this channel has some great videos talking about orphaned sources.

 

[OVERKILL]

I mean don't get me wrong I'd much rather rely completely on nuclear power but selling certain brands of environmentalists on that is difficult (I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist). And if it's a choice between onshore wind and offshore wind, offshore wind makes more sense in every regard. I think TINSTAFL is relevant here, every solution has downsides of some kind, and even with offshore winds higher capex it's still cheaper than current nuclear solutions. As I've said multiple times now, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good/better, and relying heavily on offshore wind most of the time and maybe gas some of the time, is still better than relying on buring oil/gas/coal all of the time

Yes, but most of those environmentalists are old and dying off.

We need to decide what the goal is. If it is the elimination of fossil fuels from power generation, we aren't getting there with wind or solar. Not only is their production and transport, most of which for solar occurs in China, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, but they aren't capable of producing process heat for example. If we are exclusively looking at power generation, wind can be complimentary to massive reservoir hydro (like Quebec) but most grids are not blessed with those kinds of resources and projects of that scale would be impossible nowadays with regulations. You can't just flood an area the size of Florida to make power now.

Here in Ontario, we did the wind and solar sideshow and it was a major flop. Wind produces grossly out of phase with demand to the point that its capacity value is so low it is basically useless. Ultimately, what was used to eliminate coal from our grid was refurbished and reactivated nuclear. We would also have new build nuclear if we hadn't wasted 10's of billions on VRE, which dramatically increased rates to the point where the topic became hypersensitive. We have a 5,000MW wind fleet that is most productive in the spring and fall, when our demand is the lowest. This results in that heavily subsidized power (rates, including curtailment, average $0.148/kWh) being dumped on the market for prices that sometimes go negative. It's the scam that keeps on taking. Solar was also insanely heavily subsidized, but it at least has the value of decreasing mid-day peaking requirements during the summer, though of course that creates morning/evening ramps that are covered by a mix of gas and hydro.

On the CAPEX and "cheapness" of offshore wind front, relative to a nuke, we need to be careful. The Dominion project recently was announced to have increased in cost by $2 billion dollars:
https://www.virginiamercury.com/blog-va/dominion-offshore-wind-price-tag-jumps-by-nearly-2-billion/

This puts the total projected cost for the project at just under $10 billion. You'll notice they cite a $1 billion "tax credit" for the project as well... Where's the one for Vogtle?

This project is 112,800 acres and consists of 176 14.7MW turbines; it has a nameplate capacity of 2,587MW, roughly the same as Vogtle. Anticipated life expectancy is 20-30 years. This farm is stated to increase consumer bills by $4/month.

Vogtle 3&4 on the other hand consists of two 1,117MW AP1000's; it has a nameplate capacity of 2,234MW. Anticipated life expectancy will be 60-80 years. At a cost of $25 billion, this plant is expected to increase consumer bills by $3.75/month.

The current capacity factor for Vogtle units 1 and 2 is above 92%. Offshore wind is somewhere around 40-45%. Ergo, Vogtle will produce >$18.2TWh/year, Virginia wind between 9 and 10; ~50% less. So, in terms of price per kWh, the projects are roughly the same. The nuke has double the CAPEX, but produces double the electricity. The nuke also has 2-4x longer lifespan. The nuke's CF also means it doesn't need backup nameplate capacity in gas gen. So, ultimately, which is really cheaper?

 

[alarmguy]

Full Price: Solar System $17K + Full Reroof $12.4K = $29.4K.
Solar, net of tax credit: $17K * .7 = $11.9K
Roof, net of tax credit: $12.4 * .7 = $8.7
...

Curious,
First let me say I am really impressed by the sound of your system, to me, you seem like you really had it planned and implemented well.
I really know nothing about solar as far as pricing but by the sound of things for your situation sounds like something I would enjoy.
Before moving south I lived within 5 miles of my home town on Long Island for almost 40 years.
Now in the south and getting older, moved here 15 years ago and can not honestly say we wont move again but most likely will not.
Though sometimes Destin FL area seems apealing to wife and I our grown kids and their families have homes here and dont think I would want to leave. Heck as you get older you wonder how many more years you will be on planet earth.

ANYWAY, electric here is dirt cheap and dont think I could ever or would ever recover my cost in my lifetime because I am getting older AND our community has restrictions on panels, only the back roof of the home can have them which wouldnt be too terrible I think for me as the back of the house faces west but it is a steep roof and direct sun will not be anytime in the mornings. But it is a large roof with a lot of surface area. I would bet out of two hundred homes only 2 that I know of have solar here.
Ok, with that said, I see in your post "Roof, net tax credit"... what does that mean? Did you get a tax credit for installing a new roof before the panels went on?
Im just curious because I see some people do panels with no new roof and wonder what the cost is going to be to remove and re-install the panels when roof needs replacement.
Im also curious, do you have battery storage?

Im pretty sure two of my nephews on Long Island have Tesla solar units with battery storage. Long Island electric is expensive at around 20 cent kWr. I know they both have solar and saw Tesla panels mounted on the garage wall, what looked like flat battery units in a photo of one of their homes, I just saw nephews a few months back when they were in SC and forgot to ask.

 

[OVERKILL]

While that's true, Cs137 and Sr90 are extremely deadly and are representative of the majority of the remaining isotopes. Sure they may have decayed, but half of a crapton is still a lot. If you start digging into the soil you'll likely easily get into the multiple millisievert/hr range depending on where, as the video above I linked shows. There is plenty of highly contaminated reactor fuel and graphite that was ejected from the reactor during the explosion that is still lying around in that area and those are extremely intense radiation sources that could easily cause ARS.

this channel has some great videos talking about orphaned sources.

That completely contradicts everything I've read from experts on radiation, which state that there's no way there's a concentration high enough there to produce ARS.

I'll start by recommending this thread:


The author is Cheryl Rofer, a retired nuclear scientist.

 

[PimTac]

Wind farms off the coast have their own unique issues as already mentioned with salt corrosion being a major one. In stormy weather salt spray fills the air and dries into crystals on every surface it finds.

Regarding animal life, there was a recent news report out that wind farms out west have killed at least 150 American bald eagles. At sea you have a lot of birds too especially the migratory ones. Bird deaths are harder to count at sea. Fish are affected as well by the sounds. The windmills also affect the livelihoods of fishermen if they are in those areas.

 

[K.Aoi]

Yes, but most of those environmentalists are old and dying off.

We need to decide what the goal is. If it is the elimination of fossil fuels from power generation, we aren't getting there with wind or solar. Not only is their production and transport, most of which for solar occurs in China, heavily dependent on fossil fuels, but they aren't capable of producing process heat for example. If we are exclusively looking at power generation, wind can be complimentary to massive reservoir hydro (like Quebec) but most grids are not blessed with those kinds of resources and projects of that scale would be impossible nowadays with regulations. You can't just flood an area the size of Florida to make power now.

Here in Ontario, we did the wind and solar sideshow and it was a major flop. Wind produces grossly out of phase with demand to the point that its capacity value is so low it is basically useless. Ultimately, what was used to eliminate coal from our grid was refurbished and reactivated nuclear. We would also have new build nuclear if we hadn't wasted 10's of billions on VRE, which dramatically increased rates to the point where the topic became hypersensitive. We have a 5,000MW wind fleet that is most productive in the spring and fall, when our demand is the lowest. This results in that heavily subsidized power (rates, including curtailment, average $0.148/kWh) being dumped on the market for prices that sometimes go negative. It's the scam that keeps on taking. Solar was also insanely heavily subsidized, but it at least has the value of decreasing mid-day peaking requirements during the summer, though of course that creates morning/evening ramps that are covered by a mix of gas and hydro.

On the CAPEX and "cheapness" of offshore wind front, relative to a nuke, we need to be careful. The Dominion project recently was announced to have increased in cost by $2 billion dollars:
https://www.virginiamercury.com/blog-va/dominion-offshore-wind-price-tag-jumps-by-nearly-2-billion/

This puts the total projected cost for the project at just under $10 billion. You'll notice they cite a $1 billion "tax credit" for the project as well... Where's the one for Vogtle?

This project is 112,800 acres and consists of 176 14.7MW turbines; it has a nameplate capacity of 2,587MW, roughly the same as Vogtle. Anticipated life expectancy is 20-30 years. This farm is stated to increase consumer bills by $4/month.

Vogtle 3&4 on the other hand consists of two 1,117MW AP1000's; it has a nameplate capacity of 2,234MW. Anticipated life expectancy will be 60-80 years. At a cost of $25 billion, this plant is expected to increase consumer bills by $3.75/month.

The current capacity factor for Vogtle units 1 and 2 is above 92%. Offshore wind is somewhere around 40-45%. Ergo, Vogtle will produce >$18.2TWh/year, Virginia wind between 9 and 10; ~50% less. So, in terms of price per kWh, the projects are roughly the same. The nuke has double the CAPEX, but produces double the electricity. The nuke also has 2-4x longer lifespan. The nuke's CF also means it doesn't need backup nameplate capacity in gas gen. So, ultimately, which is really cheaper?

You're preaching to the choir my friend. Vogtle is a bad example because, god willing, it'll actually be completed. A better example is VC Summer. They spent billions and billions of dollars and in the end gave up because "it was just too expensive" and then passed on the costs to ratepayers with nothing to show for it. Politicians, companies, and consumers are very short-sighted. They just see "$25-30 billion dollars" estimate and they fan themselves and swoon over the cost. It's nearly impossible to explain long term cost/benefit to those types because chances are they will be dead by the time it matters. Unless you or I can find some way to make them care about those long-term costs they're never going to go for it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Wind farms off the coast have their own unique issues as already mentioned with salt corrosion being a major one. In stormy weather salt spray fills the air and dries into crystals on every surface it finds.

Regarding animal life, there was a recent news report out that wind farms out west have killed at least 150 American bald eagles. At sea you have a lot of birds too especially the migratory ones. Bird deaths are harder to count at sea. Fish are affected as well by the sounds. The windmills also affect the livelihoods of fishermen if they are in those areas.

Yes, I believe you are referencing this article:
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/06/1091250692/esi-energy-bald-eagles

Which notes that NextEra has been fined $8 million for killing eagles. 150 of those (that we know of) were bald eagles, but the more troubling mention is the death of golden eagles, which are more threatened, having a population somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000; roughly half of the bald eagle. NextEra also has to spend $27 million on mitigation.

While it is oft cited that cats and collisions with buildings are the largest sources of bird mortality, that doesn't separate out raptors, which are disproportionately killed as a result of impact with wind turbine blades and present in much smaller numbers overall.

 

[K.Aoi]

I

That completely contradicts everything I've read from experts on radiation, which state that there's no way there's a concentration high enough there to produce ARS.

I'll start by recommending this thread:


The author is Cheryl Rofer, a retired nuclear scientist

I read this thread, and they're 100% correct in most respects but the video I linked earlier demonstrates that the actual radiation levels can locally, on the surface, be much much higher than 10usv/hr. Heck, the background radiation in my HOUSE in Upstate NY is about 9.5-11usv/hr. And that doesn't take into account digging 1-2 meters+ down where the most heavily contaminated trees, topsoil, and equipment was buried.

10 years ago bionerd23 found a piece of likely fuel/graphite in that area and at contact was producing multiples of millisieverts/hr. There's surely much more stuff like that that was deliberately buried in the red forest area. There is a reason even Chernobyl radiation workers are not allowed in that area, if the radiation levels were truly a benign 10usv/hr there would be no restrictions. I'm not saying that any soldiers are actually experiencing ARS, I'm just saying that it's probably not as safe to be digging around there as some experts seem to be making it out to be. And I'm usually the first person who trusts what experts say.