Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

real costs of electricity

8 views
Skip to first unread message

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 2:29:27 AM3/9/01
to
peter...@aol.comnospam (Bob Peterson) wrote:
>The fact is that the level of pollutuion is very low already, and there is
>little benefit to decreasing it. If you are paying 1% interest on your
>government subsidised loan, a reduction to 0.3%, while mathematically
>significant, really does not matter all that much.

Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000 people
per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see www.cleartheair.org).
For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
different from mine.

>You continue to pretend cost does not matter, when it very much does. Thats
>what you have missed. the things you have cited had no human input into them,
>thus cost was not a factor. Cost is always a factor when humans decide to do
>something.

Indeed. For many of us, the cost in human life and suffering is more
important than the cost in dollars. When those people whose health is
damaged are not compensated, we have a subsidized system where the price
is below the real cost, and when generators are allowed to literally
get away with murder, we renounce any claim to having a system based on
fairness or justice.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

Don Libby

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 8:25:07 AM3/9/01
to
Walter Epp wrote:
>
> peter...@aol.comnospam (Bob Peterson) wrote:
> >The fact is that the level of pollutuion is very low already, and there is
> >little benefit to decreasing it. If you are paying 1% interest on your
> >government subsidised loan, a reduction to 0.3%, while mathematically
> >significant, really does not matter all that much.
>
> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000 people
> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see www.cleartheair.org).

That number is suspiciously high. From figures I've seen, the total
fuel-cycle burden of occupational and public mortality from *coal-fired*
electric power may have caused as many as 40,000 premature deaths in 20
years from 1980 to 2000, or 2,000 per year in the US, at most. Annual
deaths from *gas-fired* electric power may have been as high as 50 per
year and another 50 per year from nuclear power.

A recent Harvard study of 33 million people living within 250 miles of
coal plants estimates that air pollution from the plants may cause 280
premature deaths per year. If *everybody* in the US lived within 280
miles of a coal plant, then at most about 2400 premature deaths could be
expected annually.

> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
> different from mine.
>
> >You continue to pretend cost does not matter, when it very much does. Thats
> >what you have missed. the things you have cited had no human input into them,
> >thus cost was not a factor. Cost is always a factor when humans decide to do
> >something.
>
> Indeed. For many of us, the cost in human life and suffering is more
> important than the cost in dollars. When those people whose health is
> damaged are not compensated, we have a subsidized system where the price
> is below the real cost, and when generators are allowed to literally
> get away with murder, we renounce any claim to having a system based on
> fairness or justice.

To be fair, or just, you would have to count not only the lives lost due
to electric power generation, but also the lives saved. I have never
seen a calculation of the health *benefits* of electric power, but I
suppose they may be much greater than the health *costs*.

I have calculated that since the Three Mile Island accident, nuclear
power plants have *saved* somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 people who
otherwise might have died if coal power were used instead of nuclear
power. Since the dollar cost of coal and nuclear power is nearly the
same, if there were justice in the universe, most electricity in the US
would be generated from nuclear power, rather than coal as is currently
the case. Some of us hope that by the year 2100, justice and reason
will prevail.


Table 6. Comparative risk by electricity production by fuel cycle
(accidents and diseases per gigawatt-electric-year)

Occupational Hazards Public (off-site) hazards
Fuel source Fatal Non-fatal Fatal Non-fatal

Coal 0.2-4.3 63 2.1-7.0 2018
Oil 0.2-1.4 30 2.0-6.1 2000
Gas 0.1-1.0 15 0.2-0.4 15
Nuclear(LWR) 0.1-0.9 15 .006-0.2 16

From: _The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma: Energy and the Environment_ William
D. Nordhaus, 1997. Resources for the Future
http://www.rff.org/books/descriptions/swedenuke.htm

-dl

--

*********************************************************
* Replace "never.spam" with "dlibby" to reply by e-mail *
*********************************************************

charliew

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 10:47:51 AM3/9/01
to

Walter Epp <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:p00hat0a05dh916rp...@4ax.com...

> peter...@aol.comnospam (Bob Peterson) wrote:
> >The fact is that the level of pollutuion is very low already, and there
is
> >little benefit to decreasing it. If you are paying 1% interest on your
> >government subsidised loan, a reduction to 0.3%, while mathematically
> >significant, really does not matter all that much.
>
> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000
people
> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see
www.cleartheair.org).
> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
> different from mine.

Walter,

your quoted statistics are ridiculous. Don't you know the big lie when you
see it? Cleartheair.org has a vested interest in scaring the hell out of
you, and they will tell the big lie to do it, knowing that many (such as
yourself) will swallow this lie "hook, line, and sinker".

Since this newsgroup is so damned bent on references and proof, I put it to
you and cleanair.org to provide proof of their assertion. If they can prove
that 30,000 people per year are being killed by air pollution, I PROMISE you
that the polluters will be shut down immediately, and their top managers
will all be in prison.

>
> >You continue to pretend cost does not matter, when it very much does.
Thats
> >what you have missed. the things you have cited had no human input into
them,
> >thus cost was not a factor. Cost is always a factor when humans decide
to do
> >something.
>
> Indeed. For many of us, the cost in human life and suffering is more
> important than the cost in dollars. When those people whose health is
> damaged are not compensated, we have a subsidized system where the price
> is below the real cost, and when generators are allowed to literally
> get away with murder, we renounce any claim to having a system based on
> fairness or justice.

OK, Walter. What is the cost of suffering? How much suffering can be
attributed to air pollution, and how much to other causes {e.g., genetics,
pre-existing conditions, etc.)? How much is a human life worth?

M. Simon

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 7:26:01 PM3/9/01
to

>the case. Some of us hope that by the year 2100, justice and reason
>will prevail.


By the year 2100 there will be few coal or nuc plants in America.

They won't be able to compete with wind.


M. Simon Space-Time Productions http://www.spacetimepro.com
Free CNC Machine Control Software
Free Source Code
Control the World From a Parallel Port

codeman

unread,
Mar 9, 2001, 10:28:01 PM3/9/01
to

>
> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000
people
> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see
www.cleartheair.org).
> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
> different from mine.

Someone has already mentioned the agenda cleartheair.org is on.... I saw the
*unsupported* figure of 18,000 deaths per year due to coal fired plants....
18,000 divided by 280,000,000(+/-) total people (USA) is what percent?
How does this compair to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, Clinton, car accidents,
working in the post office and other similar social risk?


Now, what would be the deaths if coal fired plants were *all* shut down?
You know, take away something like 55% of all electricity and associated
services it provides. Bet you it would be higher that 18,000 or even
30,000 deaths per year.


>
> Indeed. For many of us, the cost in human life and suffering is more
> important than the cost in dollars.

Oh? Then why are you using goods and services that are made possible by
electricity? Such as the internet and this newsgroup?

....., and when generators are allowed to literally


> get away with murder, we renounce any claim to having a system based on
> fairness or justice.


Hmmmm, generators do not force electricity onto anyone. I haven't seen a
utility hold down anyone and *force* electricity down their throats.
Generators poke the electricity into the line to begin with and People suck
the electricity out the other end and use it.... If people stop sucking,
then the generators couldn't poke anymore back in and thus, the power plant
would go idle and you would have your clean air. .. If everyone stopped
using electricity, from the *bad* generators, then they would disappear....
I suggest to you to only purchase electricity from *good* generators..

Codeman


ant

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 7:49:07 AM3/10/01
to

"M. Simon" <msi...@xta.com> wrote in message
news:3aa97422...@news.xta.com...

>
> >the case. Some of us hope that by the year 2100, justice and reason
> >will prevail.
>
>
> By the year 2100 there will be few coal or nuc plants in America.
>
> They won't be able to compete with wind.
>
>

and solar coupled with bulk energy storage devices will be doing rather well
to. why consume a fuel at all when you can capture energy that is currently
going to waste.

nuclear will be reduced to deep space exploration and other limited areas.
coal will be a vlauable feed stock for the chemical plants once the oil runs
out, the thought of burning such a vlauable and usefull chemical resource
will probably seem very immature to our desendants.


ant


David Kendra

unread,
Mar 10, 2001, 10:04:02 PM3/10/01
to

"ant" <spam...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:7ppq6.8469$0N3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>
> "M. Simon" <msi...@xta.com> wrote in message
> news:3aa97422...@news.xta.com...
> >
> > >the case. Some of us hope that by the year 2100, justice and reason
> > >will prevail.
> >
> >
> > By the year 2100 there will be few coal or nuc plants in America.
> >
> > They won't be able to compete with wind.
> >
> >
>
> and solar coupled with bulk energy storage devices will be doing rather
well
> to. why consume a fuel at all when you can capture energy that is
currently
> going to waste.
>
> nuclear will be reduced to deep space exploration and other limited areas.

Why will nuclear be reduced to deep space exploration? I agree with you
thoughts that we need to more aggressively explore and develop solar energy
and storage, but i also think that nuclear does have a place in our energy
portfolio. Here in the upper midwest where we have quite a few dark and
cloudy days during the winter season (~4-5 months), solar may not meet our
energy needs. I view nuclear as a viable alternative to fill in the
requirement gaps.

dk

codeman

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 9:31:42 PM3/16/01
to

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:ei93btgchm3ktg6ds...@4ax.com...

> "codeman" <cod...@gj.net> wrote:
> >> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000
people
> >> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see
> >www.cleartheair.org).
> >> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
> >> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
> >> different from mine.
> >
> >*unsupported* figure of 18,000 deaths per year due to coal fired
plants....
> >18,000 divided by 280,000,000(+/-) total people (USA) is what percent?
> >How does this compair to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, Clinton, car accidents,
> >working in the post office and other similar social risk?
>
> So in other words you advocate the repeal of all sanctions against murder?
> After all, a common murderer only causes 1/30,000th the number of deaths
> that electricity generation does, a vanishingly small amount as a
> percentage of total population.

No, what I am saying is: If an unsupported figure of 30,000 deaths/yr due
to coal fired power plants that produce ~55% of all electricity in the US
(for instance) out of a total of ~280,000,000 population (USA) really
bothers you, you should spend more of your time battling the bigger *killer*
fish in the pond, such as tobacco, drugs, auto accidents, and alcohol. How
many of these deadly substances/devices/activities do you use or partisipate
in?

>
> >Now, what would be the deaths if coal fired plants were *all* shut down?
> >You know, take away something like 55% of all electricity and associated
> >services it provides. Bet you it would be higher that 18,000 or even
> >30,000 deaths per year.
>

> You lose. It's already been done. Europe and Japan consume about 1/2
> the energy per capita or per GNP than the US does. Do they have a higher
> death rate?


You loose, what does Europe and Japan use to generate their electric energy?
Nuclear?? Fossil fuels? Renewable sure isn't up there. I don't really care
if they consume only 1/2. Tell us about your energy audit. Remember, there
is some *dirty* powerplant whirring in the background to assist in lighting
up your monitor or keeping the net up and running to read this message.

> > ....., and when generators are allowed to literally
> >> get away with murder, we renounce any claim to having a system based on
> >> fairness or justice.
> >
> >Hmmmm, generators do not force electricity onto anyone. I haven't seen a
> >utility hold down anyone and *force* electricity down their throats.
> >Generators poke the electricity into the line to begin with and People
suck
> >the electricity out the other end and use it.... If people stop sucking,
> >then the generators couldn't poke anymore back in and thus, the power
plant
> >would go idle and you would have your clean air. ..
>

> So in other words, if somebody set up a widget factory next to your house
> that bombarded you with small bits of shrapnel, then you would
> refrain from doing anything about it until the last customer stopped
buying
> their product?

You have every right to express your displeasure opinion.. However, I am
afraid you loose. It appears that ~99.9% of the people around you have
elected to use electricity (from non renewable) and whatever services and
benefits it gives them and society in general... In fact, you benifit from
the use of direct or indirectly useage of this electricity... I guess if
you don't want a widget factory next to you, but everyone (~99.9%.....OK,
majority) around you doesn't mind (as much?) since they use your example of
widgets, then you have two choices,, put up with it or move... Why should
the other ~99.9% (majority) of the population change because of you? Don't
foreget, there is someone else out there equally pissed off about hydro dams
being utilized and the poor fishies being damaged. Then there still are
others that are pissed about land development that would be needed for
renewable installations.... Can not please all the people all the time.


>
> >If everyone stopped
> >using electricity, from the *bad* generators, then they would
disappear....
> >I suggest to you to only purchase electricity from *good* generators..
>

> Are you aware that there is this thing called a grid that ties them all
together?

Very aware. So if *everyone* stopped using grid power, then the *bad*
generators would be surely run out of town. Which means, park your car, put
up a renewable energy device, stop shopping, going to work/doctor and
everything else.


BTW, the powerplant that I am associated with is setting records on
continuous number of days running under full load.... They have an ash
cooling tower problem that is hampering their operation but they are not
going to shut down for another month or so because the good people of the US
( in our general grid network square) are sucking the electricity out of the
grid as fast as all the generators can poke it into the lines... Go figure.
Stop sucking so hard folks!!!! :))))

Codeman

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 1:35:31 AM3/16/01
to
"charliew" <char...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>Walter Epp <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote
>> peter...@aol.comnospam (Bob Peterson) wrote:
>> >The fact is that the level of pollutuion is very low already, and there is
>> >little benefit to decreasing it. If you are paying 1% interest on your
>> >government subsidised loan, a reduction to 0.3%, while mathematically
>> >significant, really does not matter all that much.
>>
>> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000 people
>> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see
>www.cleartheair.org).
>> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
>> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
>> different from mine.
>
>your quoted statistics are ridiculous. Don't you know the big lie when you
>see it? Cleartheair.org has a vested interest in scaring the hell out of
>you, and they will tell the big lie to do it, knowing that many (such as
>yourself) will swallow this lie "hook, line, and sinker".

I am in awe of your telepathic ability to judge a report without looking at it,
and your omniscient ability to judge an issue without needing any facts.

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 12:57:29 AM3/16/01
to
"David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
> Here in the upper midwest where we have quite a few dark and
>cloudy days during the winter season (~4-5 months), solar may not meet our
>energy needs.

Way back in the 1970s a house was built in Saskatchewan that got all its
energy from solar. With today's technology it's even easier than it was then.
The problem is not with the sun but with people's old modes of thinking.

How much longer is it going to take upper midwesterners to wake up to the
fact that they have the potential to supply more energy from wind alone than
all of Saudi Arabia's oil?

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 1:35:38 AM3/16/01
to
"codeman" <cod...@gj.net> wrote:
>> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000 people
>> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see
>www.cleartheair.org).
>> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
>> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
>> different from mine.
>
>*unsupported* figure of 18,000 deaths per year due to coal fired plants....
>18,000 divided by 280,000,000(+/-) total people (USA) is what percent?
>How does this compair to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, Clinton, car accidents,
>working in the post office and other similar social risk?

So in other words you advocate the repeal of all sanctions against murder?


After all, a common murderer only causes 1/30,000th the number of deaths
that electricity generation does, a vanishingly small amount as a
percentage of total population.

>Now, what would be the deaths if coal fired plants were *all* shut down?


>You know, take away something like 55% of all electricity and associated
>services it provides. Bet you it would be higher that 18,000 or even
>30,000 deaths per year.

You lose. It's already been done. Europe and Japan consume about 1/2


the energy per capita or per GNP than the US does. Do they have a higher
death rate?

From www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid297.asp:
A typical U.S. business can cost-effectively save 70-90% of the energy
used in its lighting systems without any loss of function.
If advanced lighting technologies were fully applied in the United States,
the resulting electricity savings would negate the need for 120
1,000-megawatt power plants. Doing this would save ratepayers $30 billion
a year just on the cost of operating those plants (never mind the cost of
building them).
[Note: for comparison, total California generating capacity is 53,000 MW.]
[Note: the $30 billion dates from when electricity was cheap; with today's
prices the number would be much higher.]

Please explain how doing this would increase the death rate.

> ....., and when generators are allowed to literally
>> get away with murder, we renounce any claim to having a system based on
>> fairness or justice.
>
>Hmmmm, generators do not force electricity onto anyone. I haven't seen a
>utility hold down anyone and *force* electricity down their throats.
>Generators poke the electricity into the line to begin with and People suck
>the electricity out the other end and use it.... If people stop sucking,
>then the generators couldn't poke anymore back in and thus, the power plant
>would go idle and you would have your clean air. ..

So in other words, if somebody set up a widget factory next to your house


that bombarded you with small bits of shrapnel, then you would
refrain from doing anything about it until the last customer stopped buying
their product?

>If everyone stopped


>using electricity, from the *bad* generators, then they would disappear....
>I suggest to you to only purchase electricity from *good* generators..

Are you aware that there is this thing called a grid that ties them all together?

--

David Kendra

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 8:09:25 AM3/16/01
to

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:vd5qat8le5a5vh8ut...@4ax.com...

When it becomes economically feasible to build and maintain such facilities.
There are numerous solar houses here in Minnesota, however, despite your
claims, they still require additional input from traditional energy sources.

dk


Nick Pine

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 6:28:44 AM3/16/01
to
Walter Epp <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote:

>Way back in the 1970s a house was built in Saskatchewan that got all its
>energy from solar.

Woud this be the Saskatchewan Conservation House, described in William
Shurcliff's book "Superinsulated Houses and Air-Air Heat Exchangers"?

"It was designed "to remain warm with practically no auxiliary heat...
No gas, oil, or wood heating system was provided. If heat was required,
the requirement could be met by turning on one or two burners of the
electric cooking stove... Investigators found, in the winter of 1978-9
with the house unoccupied and virtually no intrinsic heating, that the
heat-need was about 10,000 kWh or about 34 MBtu [about 340 gallons of oil
per year]. Had there been a family in residence [and lots of incandescent
bulbs? :-)] the heat need would have been only one third as great."

>With today's technology it's even easier than it was then.

We can do better now, but it isn't easy.

>The problem is not with the sun but with people's old modes of thinking.

And economics.

Nick

David Kendra

unread,
Mar 16, 2001, 8:13:28 AM3/16/01
to

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:ei93btgchm3ktg6ds...@4ax.com...

> "codeman" <cod...@gj.net> wrote:
> >> Not true. Pollution from electric generation in the US kills 30,000
people
> >> per year, which is more than are killed by murder (see
> >www.cleartheair.org).
> >> For every one killed, many more suffer sublethal health damage.
> >> If you consider this to be insignificant, your value system is very
> >> different from mine.
> >
> >*unsupported* figure of 18,000 deaths per year due to coal fired
plants....
> >18,000 divided by 280,000,000(+/-) total people (USA) is what percent?
> >How does this compair to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, Clinton, car accidents,
> >working in the post office and other similar social risk?
>
> So in other words you advocate the repeal of all sanctions against murder?
> After all, a common murderer only causes 1/30,000th the number of deaths
> that electricity generation does, a vanishingly small amount as a
> percentage of total population.
>
> >Now, what would be the deaths if coal fired plants were *all* shut down?
> >You know, take away something like 55% of all electricity and associated
> >services it provides. Bet you it would be higher that 18,000 or even
> >30,000 deaths per year.
>
> You lose. It's already been done. Europe and Japan consume about 1/2
> the energy per capita or per GNP than the US does. Do they have a higher
> death rate?

But isnt most of the electricity produced in Europe and Japan produced by
nuclear power plants?

dk

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 6:14:02 PM3/27/01
to
"David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:
>> > Here in the upper midwest where we have quite a few dark and
>> >cloudy days during the winter season (~4-5 months), solar may not meet
>our
>> >energy needs.
>>
>> Way back in the 1970s a house was built in Saskatchewan that got all its
>> energy from solar. With today's technology it's even easier than it was
>then.
>> The problem is not with the sun but with people's old modes of thinking.
>>
>> How much longer is it going to take upper midwesterners to wake up to the
>> fact that they have the potential to supply more energy from wind alone
>than
>> all of Saudi Arabia's oil?
>
>When it becomes economically feasible to build and maintain such facilities.
>There are numerous solar houses here in Minnesota, however, despite your
>claims, they still require additional input from traditional energy sources.

Back in the 1980s, Amory Lovins built the Rocky Mountain Institute's
headquarters in Colorado where the climate goes down to minus 47
degrees. The heating bill is about zero, and he grows bananas. The extra
cost of making the building so energy efficient paid back in 10 months.
With the technological advances that have occurred since then, you could
do better now.

Wind power has reached price parity with coal-based electricity, and has
been cheaper on a true cost basis for some time.

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 6:14:25 PM3/27/01
to

No. France has a high percentage, but most of the others are smaller
proportions such as 1/3.
Smart countries have woken up to the fact that efficiency is vastly more
cost-effective than nuclear, as I noted in the rest of my message:

>> From www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid297.asp:
>> A typical U.S. business can cost-effectively save 70-90% of the energy
>> used in its lighting systems without any loss of function.
>> If advanced lighting technologies were fully applied in the United States,
>> the resulting electricity savings would negate the need for 120
>> 1,000-megawatt power plants. Doing this would save ratepayers $30 billion
>> a year just on the cost of operating those plants (never mind the cost of
>> building them).
>> [Note: for comparison, total California generating capacity is 53,000 MW.]
>> [Note: the $30 billion dates from when electricity was cheap; with today's
>> prices the number would be much higher.]
>>
>> Please explain how doing this would increase the death rate.

--

Walter Epp

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 6:14:31 PM3/27/01
to
"codeman" <cod...@gj.net> wrote:
> you should spend more of your time battling the bigger *killer*
>fish in the pond, such as tobacco, drugs, auto accidents, and alcohol. How
>many of these deadly substances/devices/activities do you use or partisipate
>in?

None. 3 of those 4 are voluntary. Breathing is not.

>> >Now, what would be the deaths if coal fired plants were *all* shut down?
>> >You know, take away something like 55% of all electricity and associated
>> >services it provides. Bet you it would be higher that 18,000 or even
>> >30,000 deaths per year.
>>
>> You lose. It's already been done. Europe and Japan consume about 1/2
>> the energy per capita or per GNP than the US does. Do they have a higher
>> death rate?
>
>You loose, what does Europe and Japan use to generate their electric energy?
>Nuclear?? Fossil fuels? Renewable sure isn't up there.

This is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Nick Pine

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 8:39:43 PM3/27/01
to
Walter Epp <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote:

>Back in the 1980s, Amory Lovins built the Rocky Mountain Institute's
>headquarters in Colorado where the climate goes down to minus 47
>degrees. The heating bill is about zero, and he grows bananas...

Pay no attention to the giant propane tank behind the snow fence
in the driveway...

Nick

codeman

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 9:55:24 PM3/27/01
to

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:3h90cto9ugre3b5s3...@4ax.com...

> "codeman" <cod...@gj.net> wrote:
> > you should spend more of your time battling the bigger *killer*
> >fish in the pond, such as tobacco, drugs, auto accidents, and alcohol.
How
> >many of these deadly substances/devices/activities do you use or
partisipate
> >in?
>
> None. 3 of those 4 are voluntary. Breathing is not.

OH? You do not use tobacco, drugs alcohol.. I can believe that. In fact,
all four are *voluntary.* When you climb into a vehicle, you are
volunteering for the consequences, of which an accident is one possibility.
. Kinda shaky here, I know. Now, you say you do not use automobiles or
any other petroleum powered vehicle( implying from the auto accident part
?)? Or benefit from the use of vehicles? How about benefiting from
electricity? I know, I didn't mention the exact work *benefit/benefiting*
or *electricity from the grid*, but the words belong in my original post
above as the others do . Interesting,


>
> >> >Now, what would be the deaths if coal fired plants were *all* shut
down?
> >> >You know, take away something like 55% of all electricity and
associated
> >> >services it provides. Bet you it would be higher that 18,000 or even
> >> >30,000 deaths per year.
> >>
> >> You lose. It's already been done. Europe and Japan consume about 1/2
> >> the energy per capita or per GNP than the US does. Do they have a
higher
> >> death rate?
> >
> >You loose, what does Europe and Japan use to generate their electric
energy?
> >Nuclear?? Fossil fuels? Renewable sure isn't up there.
>
> This is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

You brought up Europe as the shinning example on how to do it without coal
plants and I raised the question on how they did/didn't get their energy
from. Even thou Europe maybe using less electricity from coal, they are
still using coal and by your thinking, they are killing people as well.
Maybe at a reduced rate? According to you, Europe should also stop using
coal for power generation.


David Kendra

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 10:09:45 PM3/27/01
to

"Walter Epp" <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:kq50ctgk58vpt1k0f...@4ax.com...

Cool, but are they economically feasible for the average individual?

dk

Cathryn Mataga

unread,
Mar 27, 2001, 11:15:11 PM3/27/01
to
David Kendra wrote:
> > Wind power has reached price parity with coal-based electricity, and has
> > been cheaper on a true cost basis for some time.
>
> Cool, but are they economically feasible for the average individual?

My understanding is that wind power works great, if you happen to live in
just the right location. That is somewhere that gets lots of wind. Here
in the flats of Berkeley, I watch the weather pretty closely, and I'm pretty
sure that I'm not close to getting enough wind to do this. My guess is that
accounts of people having systems that pay for themselves are on sites
that are carefully selected for good wind. This doesn't include me.

For me, I think I'm somewhat interested in solar just for the gadget factor.
That is I like the idea of having solar panels that steer towards the sun,
and are hooked into my power. The thing doesn't need to save money or
anything. I just think it'd be cool to have a yard full of panels pointing
towards the sun.


Still, even though I make a decent income, I always seem to find some
other project to drop my extra money in. Especially into termite repair,
since I have termite damage in my house I'm still working on. And I have
a kitchen I still need to do. And, I'm still working on a complete
collection of all the trappings of 'middle class lifestyle.' Basically,
I'd like to have a garage, a kitchen with a built-in dishwasher and
central heating/air-conditioning, and ceiling insulation.

Though since I am planning on building a garage, within the next decade
or two, I'm thinking maybe of desigining this with a big roof aiming
south to hold photovoltaics. With the idea, that maybe these things
would drop in price to, say, about 1/4 of where we are now? Will that
ever happen? Really, it seems pretty expensive to really get, say,
5KW of solar. And, what I've heard also is that the power estimates
for these things are way higher than what you really get. I can't
see it happening for me in this decade. Maybe in the 2015-2025 decade
there'll be more options.

Chris Torek

unread,
Mar 28, 2001, 5:01:07 AM3/28/01
to
In article <3AC1654F...@junglevision.com>

Cathryn Mataga <cat...@junglevision.com> wrote:
>My understanding is that wind power works great, if you happen to live in
>just the right location. That is somewhere that gets lots of wind.

You do not need "lots of wind" so much as "lots of space" (to put up a
tower without annoying the neighbors). This is assuming you intend
only to supplement grid-supplied power, rather than replace it.

>Here in the flats of Berkeley ...

For one thing, the city codes would prohibit a 100-foot mast...
(Even the Gaia building had to get an exception to go past four
floors.)

>For me, I think I'm somewhat interested in solar just for the gadget factor.
>That is I like the idea of having solar panels that steer towards the sun,
>and are hooked into my power. The thing doesn't need to save money or
>anything. I just think it'd be cool to have a yard full of panels pointing
>towards the sun.

You can stick them on the roof and do not bother with the tracker,
but they are still expensive. The payback time was something like
15 or so years (using E-7 and E-NET). It may be much shorter soon
(it is not clear if E-7 will be adjusted).

>... I'd like to have ... central heating/air-conditioning, and
>ceiling insulation.

In Berkeley, if you have ceiling insulation, you will not need
air conditioning. I am just north of you and have central heat but
no A/C.

>Though since I am planning on building a garage, within the next decade
>or two, I'm thinking maybe of desigining this with a big roof aiming
>south to hold photovoltaics. With the idea, that maybe these things
>would drop in price to, say, about 1/4 of where we are now?

That would help a lot, but in fact they really only have to drop
a little now, even assuming you stay on rate schedule E-1 (which
is almost certainly what you are on now).

>Will that ever happen? Really, it seems pretty expensive to really
>get, say, 5KW of solar.

You may not need that much. With the new proposed rate of 18.6
cents per kWh for anything over about 370 kWh/mo, and .241/kWh over
560 kWh/mo, you just need to shave the top off your power usage.
A 1600W rooftop PV system should provide about 180 kWh/mo around
here, so if you normally use, say, 550 kWh/mo, that would bring
your usage down to the "cheap rates" level. Such a system should
in theory cost about $8800 "up front" after the CEC buydown (total
of all parts but before installation), should last about 25 years
(it should come with a 25-year warranty), and should provide about
54000 kWh over that period, for a cost of $.163/kWh.

Assuming the new .18/kWh and .24/kWh rates start in April or May,
and that you currently use 550 kWh/mo, you will have this as your
new bill:

284 kWh/mo @ .121 = $34.36
85 kWh/mo @ .138 = $11.73
181 kWh/mo @ .186 = $33.67
total $79.76

(see http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/Rulings/5954.htm). Put in that
1600 watts of solar PV and you will have instead:

284 kWh/mo @ .121 = $34.36
85 kWh/mo @ .138 = $11.73
1 kWh/mo @ .186 = $ 0.19
total $46.28

i.e., you will save $33.48/mo, or $401.76/yr, or $10,044.00 over 25
years.

Of course, you need to consider that this 1600 watt system costs you
all $8800+install (maybe $10000 total?) "up front", instead of letting
you spread the $400/yr out over 25 years. Unless of course you put
it into a mortgage (but then you pay mortgage interest).

>And, what I've heard also is that the power estimates for these
>things are way higher than what you really get.

This 180 kWh/mo figure is supposedly actual typical output, if
installed facing south at the proper angle. (The web site says
"192 kWh/mo average", so I knocked a few off for good measure.
You get more output in summer and less in winter, of course, because
there are more sun hours in summer.)

If you anticipate using *more* than 550 kWh/mo, you have all that
much more reason to install supplemental solar PV. Solar PV here
costs under $.20/kWh, while using more than 200% of baseline will
cost $.241/kWh -- at least 4.1 cents per kWh *more* than solar PV.

(I am waiting for more info in the mail from the local solar PV
companies myself. I called Light Energy Systems, 925-680-4343,
a few weeks ago. I suspect they will charge a lot more than the
web-site "complete kit, but no installation" system though.)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.

Karl Johanson

unread,
Mar 28, 2001, 3:00:09 PM3/28/01
to
Walter Epp <NOSPAAM...@idiom.com> wrote in article
<a090ct87k7t83ndp8...@4ax.com> :
>"David Kendra" <dke...@mr.net> wrote:

>>> You lose. It's already been done. Europe and Japan consume about 1/2
>>> the energy per capita or per GNP than the US does. Do they have a higher
>>> death rate?

>>But isnt most of the electricity produced in Europe and Japan produced by
>>nuclear power plants?
>
>No. France has a high percentage, but most of the others are smaller
>proportions such as 1/3.

(1998 figures. % of electricity generation. I may be out by a percent or so from reading the graph at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_68.jpg)
Listing those over 1/3.
Lithuania 78%
France 77%
Belgium 56%
Sweden 47%
Ukraine 45% (previous to Chernobyl shut down)
Bulgaria 44%
Switzerland 43%
Slovania 41%
Hungry 40%
Spain 38%

>Smart countries have woken up to the fact that efficiency is vastly more
>cost-effective than nuclear, as I noted in the rest of my message:

Efficiency isn't a source of power. Regardless of how efficient we are we need power sources still. Regardless, I support the idea of energy efficiency where appropriate. I implimented the use of a hand powered squeeze rool applicator to replace the use of a 17 kilowatt heat press applicator at the factory I used to be president of (I've posted some other examples before). Such moves are often worthwhile, and more cost effective than replacing power plants with realatively clearner power plants. Some "efficiency" moves aren't a good idea. Urea/formaldahyde insulation is an obvious example. Building standars intended to reduce airflow in and out of building (for energy efficiency) lead to the "leaky condows" problem here in BC. The standards were useful in less humid environments, but lead to serious condensation problems and health hazards due to mold growth. Repairing the problem will likely cost more than a billion dollars.

I'm not saying that efficiency of energy use is not a good idea, nor that we should judge the principle solely on it's worst examples. I'm saying that some examples of energy efficency are a good idea if implimented correctly.

Karl Johanson


_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com

0 new messages