Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1242)
Trouble the Pirate (601)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (532)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187) Bellatmot the Addict (179)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Scotty the Virgin stated
Unfortunate, but it doesn’t surprise me.
We Americans consume way too much. Our ancestors came to this land a few centuries ago and found an abundance so we developed a few bad habits. We cut down the forests because we had so many forests. We dumped our trash in the creekbed because we had so much land and so many creekbeds it didn’t seem like a problem at the time. We manufactured low efficiency appliances because electricity was cheap and being clever less so. Well, our population increased and it’s become a problem.
I’ve been thinking about solar power. It seems that when people go off grid with solar they become rabid fanatics about energy consumption. They spend weeks researching which washing machine to buy and they put up a clothesline instead of getting a dryer. Every little item that consumes electricity is carefully scrutinized. They even rush out and buy a wattmeter so they can measure what each device is actually consuming, and how much power it takes while turned “off”.
There’s a good reason for this. In the summer you might get 12 good hours of sunlight, but in the winter that can drop to 8. And you need to store the power you make during the day so you can use it at night. The article said the average US household consumes 10,656 KWh per year (this seems low to me, but we’ll go with it). This works out to an average of 1.22 KW, 24 hours per day. Which means if you were off grid you’d need about 3.66 peak KW from your solar array and a pile of deep cycle batteries big enough to output 19.5 KWH with only about 25% discharge during those long winter nights. That’s a lot of solar cells and a lot of batteries.
Even so, the dominant cost of off-grid solar power is the solar panels, which run about $600 for an honest 180 peak watts of output (if you shop around). For 3.66 KW peak you’d need 20 panels at a total cost of $12,000. Add the batteries, the charger/inverter, support structures including a battery box, and professional installation and you’re looking at something around $20,000.
Suddenly, obsessing over appliances and lighting fixtures, and turning off the radio when you leave the room doesn’t seem so crazy. Cut the consumption in half and you can cut your installation cost in half. And a $2,500 refrigerator that takes only 1/3 the power of the best Kenmore model doesn’t seem nuts. It’s too bad everyone doesn’t shop for appliances this way.
Let’s see… Mr. Gore used 22,619 kWh last August, which is probably his peak month and daylight is probably his peak consumption because of air conditioning. That’s 30.4 KW per hour, average. Since it’s summer he should get about 12 good hours of sun, so he could build a 60 peak KW array, skip the batteries and do a direct-tie system. Produce more during the day and sell electricity to the power company, then at night buy it back. Since peak usage is during the day (because of air conditioning and businesses) this could work very well for him, the power company, his neighbors, and the nation. That’s only about 330 panels at a panel cost of about $198,000 and a guesstimated total cost of somewhere around $300,000 (no batteries brings the cost down). Gee, how much insulation, caulking, new lighting fixtures, better appliances, etc. he could buy for $150,000 to be able to cut his energy usage in half? Weird, but conservation is the cheapest solution.
Just think of it, a 60 peak KH solar array would be damned impressive! And it would give him oodles of good press. Well worth the price tag.
How about it, Mr. Gore?
Christopher the Pyro penned this
Scotty,
I do agree with you about your analysis of solar energy, however one important note as bad as our habits are in America, we still have vast natural resources. While we have managed things badly at times, we generally straighten things out, we basically has as many trees as we did 150 years ago, we have just relocated where those trees are. I read a few weeks ago more areas of America are considered rural land then in Africa. While we have concentrated ourselves into massive cities we have not done an absolutely horrible job managing all of our resources, however there is always room to improve as you noted above.
Opinionnation the Virgin scribbled
It would be nice if people like Gore would stop lecturing us average Americans on what we need to do to better the environment. It’ just like Teddy Kennedy and the Cape Wind Project…
Scotty the Virgin stated
Fortunately, we here in the US have the resources and the money so that we’re not forced to destroy the environment like they are in the poorer parts of Africa or South America. Look at the horrible pollution in parts of the former Soviet Union–because it wasn’t part of their social plan to not pollute and because they simply could not afford smokestack scrubbers and other technology. Parts of Africa are a train wreck. I’d not compare ourselves to a train wreck and say, “See, we’re not so bad.” At least sustainable agriculture is possible here. And there is a lot less forest now in North America than there was 300 years ago. We might have as many trees, but they are smaller. Plus the forest has been sliced up into pieces. Good for some species, bad for others.
As a nation we need to do several things: Find alternate sources for our energy, something that pollutes less and doesn’t mess up the balance of trade. Create cars and appliances that consume less for the same end result. As consumers buy less and buy smaller stuff–smaller houses, smaller cars, etc. I suspect this last one will be the most difficult.
Opinionnation: If Al Gore and his kind don’t tell us then who will? Exxon? General Motors? Monsanto?
The Cape wind project: “In my backyard” is the very best place for electric generation. There are line losses when you ship electricity from a large centralized power generation plant to the end consumer. If you can generate it on site you avoid those losses. It’s also a daily reminder of that true cost of energy isn’t just some number on a piece of paper.
There will probably be drastic changes for the future of the electric utility business. The local utility company may become a carrier of energy and an accounting service, with producers and consumers utilizing their services to sell and buy electricity. The future may bring a sort of computerized trading market for electricity with different prices depending on generation technology. So if there’s a law that says 25% of a business’ consumption must come from “green” sources then the price of wind and solar will be higher than for a coal fired plant. The utility could charge a flat fee for the connection (depending on the size of the wire) and a small 2 or 3% fee for handing the transaction between buyer and seller. Net-zero metering is political, is not sustainable, and I can’t see that it’ll survive into the future.
Benjamin Solah the Virgin commented
Excellent point, Chris. What a hypocrite! It’s always ordinary people who have to foot the bill for the damage big business and cronies like Gore create. My 3-minute shower does nothing when there’s a Uranium mine consuming 30 million litres of water a day!
Christine the Lioness spake, and sayeth
Yeah, but that attitude is just as unaccountable as the reverse. It’s everyone’s problem and everyone should do something about it. Some of us are in better situations to do something than others… if there’s an integral industry that needs to consume water to produce something we all need, it might be more difficult for them to suddenly cut their water consumption– at least more difficult than telling the guy who waters his yard in the middle of a hot day to do it at a more efficient time in the evening. Gore needs to conserve just like everyone else at his house and he has set himself up to be criticized by being an advocate. Once you publicly advocate something, you are naturally scrutinized. Although I don’t think Gore was on a high horse preaching he was the model of efficient consumption, I think he was just bringing attention to the fact we need to act on this problem collectively– himself included.
Christopher the Pyro hunt n' pecked this
I tend to think these types of issues are a convenient way of distracting us from things like flawed health care, traffic congestion, high taxes, ect, that all have real solutions. We replaces these real problems with what we thinking might, could possibliby be a problem “Global warming” which nobody really understands and pretend like we have solutions. Global warming is only a problem if you look at a very small amount of the available data, should we respect the earth and not pillage it, yes. Should we create big problems form unknowns or address big know problems?
Ben2 the Soldier spake, and sayeth
Man-made global warming does not exist. If you have common sense you should know that. The Earth is billions apon billions of years old. It when through so many climate changes that we can count and some people think it’s because some people drive SUV’s. No I don’t think so.
Anyway, a Left-wing liberal being a hypocrite shouldn’t surprise anyone. That’s who they are. We’re smart, you’re dumb. Listen and do what we say not what we do.
AJ the Zen Master commented
@Benjamin Solah
Ignoring the uranium mine issue (because that is not related to domestic energy/water consumption) your 3 min shower will not significantly affect the issue. But multiply that amount with everyone in your locality, then your town/city, then state and so on, just imagine the sheer amount of savings that can be made..
And not just in a shower, but even only using electricals when they are required, using more energy efficient and consume less energy units would make such a huge difference that it is staggering.
But for all this, we need awareness and people to actually care and work towards saving.
Christopher the Pyro said this
I agree that.. we should use moderation and not raze the earth.. however I also agree that SUV’s and Industrial plants have little effect on the environment. It has been shown many times that farming is the #1 green-house-gas inducing activity that humans create and I don’t think we are going to give up farming because we have a hunch we are creating global warming. Honesty, I could be proven very wrong on this issue, however I think when all the evidence is looked at as a whole, there is not hard proof of man-made global warming. That is just my opinion and I’m certainly not a climatologist however, even the scientists can’t agree.
Christine the Lioness pontificated
Whether global warming exists or not, and whether Gore uses too much energy or not, or whether SUVs cause it or not, is all sort of irrelevant. If you’re suggesting there’s no global warming because you don’t want to change your behavior, you’re just lying to yourself. If you’re creating an issue about global warming to distract everyone from other problems, you’re also lying. The point is… whether global warming exists (from anything people have done) is less important than this complete inaccountability that comes from all sides (not just liberals). I have yet to see proof that I will hurt anyone or the earth by recycling or conserving. So why not just do it? Maybe it won’t hurt anything to consume and consume without recycling or conserving, but even without scientific data, my logic tells me that consumption eventually leads to depletion, so instead of relying on other people to make sure the supply continues, why wouldn’t I just do my best to recycle and conserve and rely on myself to make any little difference I can– just in case it does make a difference?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent commented
Scotty said:
“Opinionnation: If Al Gore and his kind don’t tell us then who will? Exxon? General Motors? Monsanto?”
Umm, Scotty, I don’t know about you, but I don’t need to be told what to do by anyone in the government… that’s what freedom is all about. Most, not all, but most, Americans will conserve and recycle if properly educated on the matter.
Christine the Lioness asserted
I think the point Scotty was making is that “proper education” is hard to come by… even scientists who study this stuff don’t agree. And the people who perpetuate one school of thought over another usually have an agenda they are trying to push.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent commented
I don’t agree, Christine. I think most Americans have been educated about recycling and conservation. Heck, they even taught us about recycling and composting back when I was a cub scout in the 60s and 70s! Virtually everyone knows *something* they can do to reduce their energy consumption (properly inflate their car tires, take mass transit, etc.) or increase their recycling efforts/habits.
The “carrot” that is missing is from this equation is tax credits. When we start giving tax credits for good consumer practices — for instance, if you use a Rinnai tank-less water heater, I believe you get a $300 energy credit — then we’ll see more acceptance of the programs to offset the perceived inconveniences. The same could be done for solar energy, etc.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the people with those agendas of which you speak (and Al Gore certainly comes to mind) generally prefer the “stick” over the carrot method and I’m a Red-White-and-Blue, God-Fearing American Man — I don’t respond well to sticks 
PJ
ProphetJoe the Irreverent added
Sorry, Christine, I didn’t really address part of your comment and I meant to do so.
I agree that the scientific community is as sharply divided over the Global Warming Crisis as the general public. But I’m less concerned with the specific analysis of the situation as I am with the benefits of proper stewardship of the planet. If we conserve resources and build more efficient cars and trucks, we *will* reduce the pollution in the world. Whether that pollution is the cause of the earth’s warming is really irrelevant to me.
As I said on another blog (oops, I meant “this is the only blog I read” 
) I remember the scientists in the 70s claiming that another Ice Age was descending upon us and that we were doomed by the year 2000. It didn’t happen. Science is often an inexact study and quite frankly, the historical data on weather is so small in comparison to the total earth history, I find it laughable that scientists are making some of the claims they are. How many times have we heard the phrase “a once in a century storm” — for crying out loud, we haven’t been keeping detailed weather stats for the last 200-300 years. How can you make that claim? It’s dramatic for the entertainment (or shock) value. It’s not sound science.
I would just prefer that people (not just Americans) use energy more efficiently and that we try to protect the remaining natural spaces on the planet. With the population exploding as it is, my grandkids (or maybe their grandkids) may not be able to enjoy the sight of the Grand Canyon or the pristine beauty of the Canadian Rockies… and that would be a shame. I see nothing wrong with promoting cleaner air and cleaner water, no matter what the truth is about global warming. Can anyone disagree with that stance? If so, they’re wrong!
PJ
Christine the Lioness remarked
There are other blogs?
I agree that the lines between science and media hype are blurred and that puts off and confuses a lot of Americans. I think most people do conserve because they see an inherent need or benefit in doing so that does stem way back from their early childhood learning. But to a degree… when science begins to compete with what the media tells you you should own (ie– Hummers because they’re cool even though they’re not fuel-efficient), some people go one way and others go the other.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent uttered
Christine said:
“But to a degree… when science begins to compete with what the media tells you you should own (ie– Hummers because they’re cool even though they’re not fuel-efficient), some people go one way and others go the other.”
Are you talking media, as in news, or as in marketing? I don’t see much in the media promoting Hummers or SUVs. Ironically, I own a big SUV and a small Saturn. I own the Saturn for it’s convenience, fuel economy and because it’s an American brand. I own the SUV because I live in the country and weather creates problems where I need 4×4 power and towing capacity. An odd combination, perhaps… and No, there are no other blogs
PJ
Christine the Lioness asserted
Well… to answer PJ’s question… which probably brings up a whole other issue… the line between “news” and “marketing” are becoming more and more blurred. There is very little that qualifies as “news” anymore since everything– including what used to be news– is now laced with marketing. What I specifically meant was that you can watch a “news byte” about how awful it is that people are driving Hummers and what horrible effect they have on the environment, and a minute later, see the a commercial portraying them as the most American vehicle you can own. If two people saw that, one might be more persuaded by the commercial, the other more by the “news” and make decisions accordingly.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent asserted
I agree with what you just said… hmm, maybe that’s a problem because I tend to be somewhat adversarial in the blogs
I would suggest to everyone who turns on a TV, a radio or a computer, that what you get — no matter how balanced it appears, no matter if it is a commercial, a news program, or a sit-com — is controlled by someone else, so being skeptical is not out of line. Like the saying goes “God gave you a brain. Use it.”
Cheers,
PJ
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
