An Inconvenient Power Bill

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 28 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]397974[/snapback]</div>

Dr F .... I agree wholeheartedly with you. But I think nuclear power is a necessary stop-gap and that we should not delay in starting construction of these bad boys. Each nuke means that much less foreign oil and no greenhouse gasses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 28 2007, 01:34 PM) [snapback]397975[/snapback]</div>

That last fact has got to eat away at him every day. If he would have won his home state in 2000, florida would not have mattered. I guess the folks that know him best kept him out of the white house. I wonder if he even won his home precinct?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 28 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]397974[/snapback]</div>

Ed Begley should be the spokesperson, He is really putting his money where his mouth is. I love to watch him in his show, plus his wife is pretty hot!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 02:15 PM) [snapback]397962[/snapback]</div>

Now this I can agree with... except for the part about hypocrisy as motivation to change your habits. I am changing my habits no matter how many frakkin hypocrites there are on the right and left.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 28 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]397991[/snapback]</div>

I knew you and I could agree on something! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]397981[/snapback]</div>

Ick. She's so naggy! Do good looks really offset such personality defects to this degree?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Feb 28 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]397994[/snapback]</div>

I'm not looking to spend my life with her. She was very appealing asthetically though and I think the attitude is part of the show's schtick.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 03:03 PM) [snapback]397947[/snapback]</div>

"About 100 square miles of solar panels placed in the southwest u.s. could power the country."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]397932[/snapback]</div>

Putting aside that he apparently buys green electricity, and further purchases carbon offsets for whatever that might be worth, the basic question still has not been addressed: Is Gore's electrical use unreasonable, and if so, compared to what standard?

If we don't bother to ask that question, then we fall for one of the oldest tricks of propganda, the semi-attached figure. Figure 1 is Gore's use. Figure 2 is US average use. The propagandist juxtaposes the two and I'm supposed to say "oh my goodness, look at that!". If I do, the propaganda has succeeded. Instead, I ask the question that my statistical training requires me to ask: what is the correct peer group or norm from which I can judge whether Gore's use is outlandish or not?

Put baldly, the propoganda says: if Gore uses more than the US average he is obviously wasting energy. Puttting it less baldly: if Gore uses 10x the US average, he is obviously wasting energy.

If you are satisfied with either of those statements, then that's fine. I'm not. My conclusion is that there is not enough evidence presented to tell whether or not he is wasting energy.

The problem breaks into two hypotheses: Gore could be an ex-VP and live in a much smaller house, or Gore could be an ex-VP and use much less electricity, given the size of house he lives in. If there is some hard or soft evidence or standard for either statement - and I suggested using other ex-VPs as a peer or control group -- then I'll certainly change my mind.

But you have to show me what the standard of reasonableness is. If you are in effect asking me to sign off on the statement "Gore should use no more electricity than the US average". Sorry, but that's just foolish. Good enough for Fox News, but not very reasonable.

Let me take a swag (scientific wild-nice person guess) at these questions.

First, is the electricity use outlandish given the size of the building? How does his electric bill, per square foot, compare to mine?

Gore paid $13K, of which a third was the green energy premium. So, call his base rate $9K or so. If I scale up my bill to his 10K sq ft, I come up with $5K. So, his bill is higher per sq ft, but not not outlandishly so. I'd have to know more before I'd call that waste. For example, in the South, the largest single use of electricity in the home is air conditioning - maybe TN is hotter than VA.

So, if I had to break it down, I could only reasonably begrude him the 10K sq ft home, not the electricity use conditional on home size. His apparent electric bill per sq ft, ex the green premium, is higher than mine but not ludicrously so.

So, it boils down to, do I begrudge Gore living well while preaching conservation?

First, you can start with Dr. Fusco's argument, that whatever lifestyle you decide to live, do what you do efficiently. On that score, on the surface at least, Gore comes out OK -- CFLs, green electric, carbon offsets, and so on. You can nitpick based on his travel, but only if you've never had a job that required a lot of travel.

Second, you can go beyond that to say Gore does not have the right to consume that housing space, given the message that he preaches. I'll think about that. Some preachers actually do have to take a vow of poverty. Should Gore? I certainly mock the McMansion owners in my own neighborhood. No reason I can't mock Gore for owning a real mansion.

But then I have to get back to reality: we're not mocking him for his lifestyle in general, we're very specifically mocking him for his electrical use. Can I, as a reasonable person, join in mocking Gore for his electrical use?

Sadly, as a reasonable person, no I cannot. For other things, maybe, not not for his electric bill.

Why? Because his electrical use incurs no carbon emissions, because he's bought green energy. Same as me. So, the same as I feel guilt-free about the electricity I use, no, I can't mock Gore for the electricity he uses. That would be hypocritical on my part. You only need to feel significantly guilty about energy use if it produces negative environmental consequences. If it doesn't, you don't. Darelldd doesn't have to feel bad about taking a joy ride in is PV-charged EV, because it is not (to a first approximation) harming the environment. So, once you understand how the purchase of green electricity works, then you realize that, to a pretty good approximation, the only damage Gore's electricity use does is political, not environmental. He can use however much he pleases, because he buys green. Same as Darelldd. It looks bad, but it is essentially environmentally harmless.

No, having thought it through, I won't piss on Gore for his electrical use. No more than I'd wag a finger at darelldd for joyriding in his PV-charged EV. Or chastize myself for electrical use, now that I'm buying wind-generated electricity. Gore lives a rich lifestyle compared to me, for sure, but he appears to have done the right things vis-a-vis the narrow focus of this issue, electricity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adammc @ Feb 28 2007, 02:15 PM) [snapback]398007[/snapback]</div>

Is that real? do you have proof?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 02:03 PM) [snapback]397947[/snapback]</div>

Take darelldd as an example. His rooftop system on his single-family home produces enough electricity, on average, to take care of both his house and his car.

Here's a sample calculation: how many sq ft of solar cell would I need to produce enough power, over the course of a year, to power my house?

Answer, about 400 sq ft of solar cells. This would easily fit on the roof of my house. And Northern VA is not a great location for solar. Only problem is that at current prices, the solar cells alone would cost $25,000 or so. The entire installation might cost $35,000+.

And, in my case, I've decided to buy my clean power from a major producer rather than make it myself. Just like any other product. So, I think a green electric option makes individual solar cell installations less attractive, if not outright obsolete.

But the only real barrier to widespread solar use is economic, not technical. And we're hoping nanosolar will eliminate that.

Then, you'd still need a grid and some traditional generation because that would be cheaper than storing the electricity in your home. But the entire grid would be much cleaner than now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]398016[/snapback]</div>

When I do the calculation, I come out with more like a square 100 miles on a side, not 100 square miles. Total US electric generation in 2005 was 4000 billion KWH, per the US DOE. My estimate for 100 x 100 miles of solar cells, at 10 peak watts per sq ft, 5 peak hours per day, 365 days per year = 5,000 billion KWH. If I goofed that calculation I apologize, but that's what I get.

You of course would not do that - you need a mix of solar and nonsolar generation.

But the point is well taken. If for some reason you wanted to do it all with solar, something like 0.3% of US land area would be required to generate, from solar cells, an amount equal to current US electrical generation. And ideally, much of that would be on rooftops and out in the desert. In most areas of the country, the roof of the typical single family home would be more than adequate to supply that home's average use.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Feb 28 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]398034[/snapback]</div>

If it is that easy, why is it not happening? Tax code changes could transform the grid in 20 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]397749[/snapback]</div>

Oh yes and the tsunami of 2004 in the Indian Ocean was a result of GW also.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 28 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]398017[/snapback]</div>

I doubt that Tipper Gore is one of the richest women in the country. Are you confusing her with Teresa Heinz, John Kerry's wife?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 28 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]397935[/snapback]</div>

I am sorry, my post was not at all intended to poke fun at your lesser financial situation or liberal leanings. I was merely trying to stress to you that to get the most out of life do not have to feel bitter about or covet someone else's apparent wealth.

There will always be someone wealthier and seemingly less deserving than you. The myth of AGW has given the less fortunate a whipping post for the more successful people of the world. Make the most of your situation; do not be so resentful of others who have more than you, even poor people can enjoy happy and healthy lifestyles.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 28 2007, 06:04 AM) [snapback]397745[/snapback]</div>

Holy cow! If that's all it takes I'm putting "Al is a Moron" in my sig! :lol:

Wildkow

p.s. Is your standard as high when you respond to name callers with the same POV as yours?

 

Um, it really is that easy - that's the whole idea behind green electric options and individual pv systems. I know you don't want to see this, but Al Gore is putting his money where his mouth is and funding these early attempts at green power in the hopes that he can help them move up into the economies of scale that would make green power both environmentally and economically friendly. Even if I'd prefer and think he'd be more effective if he made a point of living a less extravagant life, at the end of it, I have to admit that he's done a hell of a lot more good for this earth with his negative carbon balance than I've managed to so with my positive one.

Basically, all it means when someone 'buys green energy' or 'offsets their emissions' is that they have found someone providing the power they need from some renewable/sustainable/CO2 free source and bought it from them - likely at a premium - because it not only offsets their use, but also invests in that technology and vision. The numbers are so close already even with terrible efficiency on pv cells, more funding and research may well yield awesome solar (or wind, or nuclear, or any sustainable source) advances that make even the 100 square miles number feasible. Don't forget, tax codes ARE being changed to emphasize things like net-metering and pv installations and hybrid vehicles - I think we WILL have a vastly different grid in 20 years. You don't?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Feb 28 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]398041[/snapback]</div>

First, it's expensive, per my earlier post. Some states offer subsidies, as in the CA million solar roofs and prior programs. And I believe there are modest federal tax credits as well. But even with that, in most areas (such as here in No VA), it remains modestly more expensive than fossil fuel electricity. My guess is that in No Va, I'd pay a premium for home-grown solar about what I pay for my green electric option -- another buck a day for electricity or so, or 50% of my electric bill. Per earlier threads on this, Maryland customers get a much better deal on green electric than Virginia customers. Go figure.

This is why everybody is looking at Nanosolar, among others. Nanosolar claims their proprietary process allows them to "print" solar cells using offset printing techniques, and they don't use silicon. If viable, they expect to be able to produce solar cells for one-tenth current average cost per peak watt. At that price, they'll be modestly more expensive than high-grade architectural asphalt shingles. And I'll certainly shingle my roof with them if they become available at that price. People are already talking about a "power roof" becoming a standard option in new construction -- I'll take the jacuzzi, the wine cellar, and the power roof please.

So as it stands, home rooftop PV is clean but modestly more expensive, at least here. I believe large commercial installations are, in some areas, actually stand-alone profitable, even given the lower rates paid for solar electricity (because it is not on-demand electricity). But I don't know that for a fact. I do believe, however, that if it were both cleaner and cheaper, which is entirely possible in the next few years, you'd really see things start to happen.

Second, there are capacity constraints. Supplies of raw materials and cells right now are very tight -- because there's such a big demand for cells. Annual total world production, all told, would amount to some tiny fraction of total US generating capacity. So, it would take a long time to ramp up production to any meaningful level.

Third, people don't know about it and/or just don't give a crap. The former has certainly turned out to be the case regarding the green electricity option here in Virginia. Just by mentioning it at church, my wife managed to drum up more than a half-dozen new customers for that. Sad fact is, I was customer 600, the last guy at my church to take it was something like 635 -- they are getting one new customer a day. Nobody I have talked to about this has ever heard about it before.

And I'll add a fourth, regarding individual PV installations. In many ways, a green electric option from your utility makes individual PV installations largely obsolete. Before green choice, if you wanted clean power, you need the brains and capital to make that happen. Now, in Virginia, to get green power, the only skill you need is the ability to shop on the internet. Me, all told, I'd rather let a pro manage a big installation somewhere and I'll just buy it retail, rather than make it myself.

Finally, let me say that the green electricity option in VA really put this whole global warming issue into focus for me. Hey, for a 50% premium on my electric bill - a little over a dollar a day -- I eliminated the carbon from my electricity generation. Almost all of these clean technologies are scalable, though good wind farm sites might at some point be limited. So, up until the point where green energy becomes some sizeable fraction of the total grid (and you have to worry about having adequate on-demand generating capacity), anybody is free to do this.

Now look at ethanol. I'm no fan of corn ethanol, but for the price of gas plus say 50%, by golly, you could get around on ethanol. For that matter, my direct-vent kerosene heater could be run on vegetable oil -- it would just cost me about $8.50 a gallon at the Safeway, versus the $3 a gallon I just paid at the pump for kerosene. I just priced out wood heat, per btu, compared to natural gas, and with a modern wood stove, it's cheaper per therm to heat with wood. Dirtier for sure, even with low-emission modern stoves, more hassle for sure, but it would eliminate my use of fossil fuel for heat.

I think I see a pattern here. Whereas people make it out like this is some huge unsolvable problem in the macro sense, whenever I look at it in the micro sense, I see a little more cost or a little more hassle can eliminate fossil fuel use. Now, I realize that I'm fairly well-to-do, and that every dollar counts to the very poorest, but still, my take on it is largely that we are risking screwing up the planet for our posterity only because we're too cheap to pay a modest premium here and there. That's it. That, and some short-term capacity constraints.

Well, anyway, I'm rambling. And yeah, if everybody did what I did, it wouldn't work, at least until supply adjusted to demand. But when I look at it, the whole issue boils down to this: right now we do what's cheapest. If it really were a matter of life and death, we'd do things differently. And at least in the micro sense, the cost of doing things differently is surprisingly small. A buck here, a buck there, pretty soon my direct consumption of fossil fuel would be pretty close to zero. That's what I'm working toward.

 

LOL - I am laughing reading at your posts. If I wanted to I could go right f***ing now to a Porsche dealer and walk away with a new ride and f***ing drive it to you (if I didn't have so much shyte to study). All I have to do is call up the rents and it's a done deal. But I don't want to... I want to work hard, be independent, and make my money in a socially responsible way.

Here's the problem with your "logic" - you assume that everyone has ageneda except you. You point at what you perceive as gains that - for what you perceive as the "have nots" - IE measily paid scientists having "much to gain" - when you refuse to see hypocrisy in your so-called accusations.

I don't normally say this kind of stuff, and I keep humble... but I've got to say this to point out your ridiculous "logic."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 28 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]398051[/snapback]</div>

F*cking lunatic.