I do know the Energy Star http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_his tory has has some successes. I was doing carbon neutraility using
light bulbs for a Renewable Fuels Conference held at the Aspen Institute which is managed by Marriott. I spoke with the facilities manager there
who gave me the scoop on how much they have reduced their electricity use over the last few years. It was pretty impressive, about 7% in the
2005-2006 timeframe. They are also using about 8% renewable energy from PEPCO. As you can see from the link, Energy Star started in 1992 so what
this administration can claim is that it did not interfere with the program and is continuing some prior policies. More recently, (under this
administration) the Navy has been looking for subsantial energy savings and I think some of DOD has been following. This is not voluntary though. Organizations like the Chicago Climate Exchange are not really of this administration's making. State and municipality level efforts are largely in
response to a lack of leadership at the federal level. But, it is not all that unusual for administrations to take credit for good news and shift
blame for bad news regardless of what level of responsibility they have. To me, the positive thing is that some good things are happening despite the
policies of the administration. -- Make your own effort: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
The US is not trying very hard to reduce it's emissions and there have been some criticisms of the EIA numbers as being incomplete, but on the scale
they use, this is a reduction. Doing it by accident does not mean that the reduction did not occur. There are some people who are intentionally
reducing their emissions as well, a point not brought out in the article. We'll know better in the next few years if this is a trend or a fluke.
You could be right though he seems to be at pains to say that NASA's job is to get good data not to do anything about the data. Engineers work to
tolerances rather than seeking to quantify uncertainties. In a way, that means engineers can ignore a whole slew of data. If you've built a levy
system to withstand catagory three storms, it is someone elses problem if catagory 4 storms are in the cards. James Hansen's criticism http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=10577221 that Griffin is uninformed could fit more with the engineer's penchant for
ingnoring things that don't affects specs than with the servility you imply. In that case, one wants to look at the appointing official's intentions
rather than blame the character of the appointee.
Griffin did not dispute the reality of global warming, he's just not sure it is worth doing anything about it. This is strange coming from
an engineer since one would think the basic reaction would be "Wow! If we can change the planet with out meaning to, what could we do if
we engineered it?" but he seems to have some philosophical hangup about not interfering in how we are interfering with the planet. Here's
a summary: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrat or_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Probl em_999.html.
More to the point on emissions from various countries, here is a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tabulation of emission
trends. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1. China appears to be primarily responsible for the acceleration of emissions. With the
US reducing it's emissions 1.3% between 2005 and 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831796/, it look as though China will continue to
dominate the acceleration.
While TFA has some valid points, the main thing is that industrialized countries have a better opportunity to slow or reduce emissions since,
for them, efficiency improvements can pace growth while for developing nations efficiency cannot help with a growth from zero situation. --
Out pace growth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
There is an interesting report linked here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered -ghost.html suggesting that the US has already seen
peak energy production from coal. As you'll see I'm not completely persuaded of that, but surely you'll concede that the duration coal reserves is dependent
on how quickly they are used. The coal industry is now trying to recapture the transportation market making inefficent use of the resource so your
estimate might need revision. -- Get Inexhaustible: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Their comparison on efficiency is to a small generator, so it seems likely to me that comparison to grid efficiency is less favorable even for fossil fuels, particularly
if a combined cycle plant is being used. It is not that fuel cell efficiencies are scale dependent the way that ICEs/turbines are but that, when using fuels
other than hydrogen, you don't really get to use the energy content of the carbon because carbon fuel cells are a big order: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/0 3/dcfcw/dcfcw03.html#Conversion. --
Carbon free power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
At curent (15%) efficiency, you can, most of the time, cover 100% of your electicity use by covering most of your south facing roof. And, when you
see smaller systems it is becuaue installer often sell systems that do not cover 100 % of electricity use because customers can't afford that much.
You don't actually see much in the way of lower efficiency (few pecent) panels on roofs because then there is not enough roof space and installation
costs go up as efficency goes down for the same amount of power. The lower eifficency panels tend to be ground mounted.
Here is the other constraint on system size: In many states with net metering laws, once you've covered 100% of your use and start to go over
(on an annual basis) the utilites stop using a kWh-for-kWh exchange and either pay what is called the avoided cost (less than wholesale) or they
just confiscate the power. This leads to an economic limit limit on system size which ususally means that 5x5 m^2 is about as large as you want.
So, a portion of your observation that roof space is left unused is owing to people not having the money to do more, and a portion (typically using
less that 60% of available space) is owing to net metering policies. --
Get upto 100% solar for what you your utlity now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Actually, it is the countries with the highest GDPs that are in the best position to lead in transitioning to renewable energy since they have the best
access to funds to do it. One would expect their GDPs to grow as they then provide these advances more broadly. This seems to be happening for Japan and Germany as they grow their solar and wind industries. China, with a low per capita GDP but large concentrations of capital is also advancing on this. If China cuts the rest of the world's emissions by 25% by supplying solar panels fabricated using coal power with a 2 year EROI, how do we count their emissions? They are exporting their energy so really it is the purchasing country that has caused the coal to burn. But, China could have bootstrapped
at least for the sake of export and used renewable energy to make the panels. Do they get to claim credit for that somehow?
We do country-by-country targets because it is countries that have the juristiction to implement cuts in emissions, but we do need everyone's participation and cooperation and these kinds of issues need to be considered. It is easy to say the US is not cooperating, but it is also holding out for broader participation. I'm not saying that it is doing this in good faith, but it is a mildly tenable position.
The main thing is that the US does not see global warming as the most important issue yet. With regard to China, it wants China to break North Korea's will, it wants the US currency protected, in wants to sell software and food and it wants to avoid assisting in missle technology. All of this comes ahead of global warming, yet China and India are given as the excuse for not going along with European priorites.
This will change. FOX News is going to the other side. We'll be hearing about the global war on warming soon. If you thought Al Gore was too much, just wait until it's Orin Hatch. But then Europe (mostly) liked Ike, so maybe our enthusiasm will be welcome.
Your example of fusion is a poor one. Fusion research has had steady funding since the 70's oil shocks. The funding level was set to get fusion at about the time oil was estimated to run out. The progress has been pretty much on track and fusion is expected as a power source in about 20 years now. The problem is that the estimates back then did not account for oil companies over estimating reserves or the rapid growth in demand for oil that has occured. Problems with global warming were not known to be crucial at that time either http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/knowing-warmin g.html. Democracies are capable of taking prudent long term action, much more capable than systems that rely more heavily on personalities. Your technocrats would be so swayed by their egos that policies would change rapidly based on petty rivalries and would leave long term projects wastefully abandoned. Collective wisdom, harnessed by democracy, does much better than ephemeral expertise when it comes to instituting policies to enhance the gerneral welfare. The philosopher king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king has never worked out the problem of succession and thus is the most disappointing form of government of all. -- Get seventies wisdom now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Actually, no, our energy use is miniscule compared to the energy coming from the Sun so the small change in how the atmosphere retains heat that is the
reradiated energy from the Sun is much more important than any extra heat we produce. It is in fact the greenhouse gasses that are important, not our
energy use. --
Capture your bit of the Sun's energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I don't know if you caught the photo of the woman mourning on the grave of her fiance at Arlington today http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.html click on "In Memoriam." Maybe this is too much to publish,
but I kind of feel that a guy who makes money cause he can't balance his meds and spews it on the radio is just not
that funny, and it is getting less and less funny as time goes on.
We match PacifiCorp at $0.0737/kWh in Utah, but we don't go below $0.07, which happens pretty frequently in the Pacific Northwest owing to the
hydro power. The thing that makes renewables cheaper that non-renewables is the absence of a fuel cost. Solar has a hard time competing
with hydro because it has yet to achieve the same scale, but it does compete with coal.
You have a point that there are some who have hard time getting with the program. On the other hand, ceasing to compete for depletable resources
should reduce the leverage of the reactionaries.
Perhaps you should examine the links I provided. Since you don't have $30K in anycase, it remains hard to justify paying your electric bill as an
investment. But, as a PacificCorp, customer, much of your power is likely to be hydro, and your rates are likely low, so you may want to wait until
solar becomes competitive with hydro, perhaps in 2012. Your situation is a little different than that of folks paying 12 to 20 cents/kWh.
In your calculations, I think you are not taking account of net metering so you should be including some negative numbers is your seasonal breakdown. Further, you are mistaking the cost of building a plant for the cost of operating a plant. Building a plant is a big investment to be sure, but it comes out to be a small fraction of revenue. The key is that a large plant is about four times less costly than a small plant to operate on a cost per panel
basis, so you need to divide your roughly $10/Wp installed figure by more than 2. The $4/Wp figure I use is likely conservative since installation labor saving are likely with large volume. SunEdison and others routinely use cranes and other labor saving devices in their commercial operations. Large scale at the residential level will justify investment in similar kinds of equipment reducing the need for a larger workforce.
But, if you are feeling down on owning solar, you might want to consider renting it at close to what you pay your utility now. Click on the map at the bottom of one of the links found at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html with your utility bill available and see if the offered rate is attractive. If so, the first installations for this deal are anticipated for the first quarter of 2008 and if you are OK with that kind of timing, go ahead and sign up.
Slashdot Mirror
I do know the Energy Star http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_his tory has has some successes. I was doing carbon neutraility using
light bulbs for a Renewable Fuels Conference held at the Aspen Institute which is managed by Marriott. I spoke with the facilities manager there
who gave me the scoop on how much they have reduced their electricity use over the last few years. It was pretty impressive, about 7% in the
2005-2006 timeframe. They are also using about 8% renewable energy from PEPCO. As you can see from the link, Energy Star started in 1992 so what
this administration can claim is that it did not interfere with the program and is continuing some prior policies. More recently, (under this
administration) the Navy has been looking for subsantial energy savings and I think some of DOD has been following. This is not voluntary though. Organizations like the Chicago Climate Exchange are not really of this administration's making. State and municipality level efforts are largely in
response to a lack of leadership at the federal level. But, it is not all that unusual for administrations to take credit for good news and shift
blame for bad news regardless of what level of responsibility they have. To me, the positive thing is that some good things are happening despite the
policies of the administration. s -selling-solar.html
--
Make your own effort: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This design is German-Swiss: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passivhaus. This one is pretty amazing.s -selling-solar.html
--
It's easy to shift off fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The US is not trying very hard to reduce it's emissions and there have been some criticisms of the EIA numbers as being incomplete, but on the scale they use, this is a reduction. Doing it by accident does not mean that the reduction did not occur. There are some people who are intentionally reducing their emissions as well, a point not brought out in the article. We'll know better in the next few years if this is a trend or a fluke.
To call Milloy a paid liar is not ad-hominem. Re-check your sources. You'll find that they are based of attempts to deceive.
You could be right though he seems to be at pains to say that NASA's job is to get good data not to do anything about the data. Engineers work to tolerances rather than seeking to quantify uncertainties. In a way, that means engineers can ignore a whole slew of data. If you've built a levy system to withstand catagory three storms, it is someone elses problem if catagory 4 storms are in the cards. James Hansen's criticism http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=10577221 that Griffin is uninformed could fit more with the engineer's penchant for
ingnoring things that don't affects specs than with the servility you imply. In that case, one wants to look at the appointing official's intentions
rather than blame the character of the appointee.
Your point about China switching away from coal is an interesting one. A recent German report estimated that China will reach peak coal in about 15 years (linked here http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered -ghost.html). China takes enourmous staged hits from global warming
but it is not clear that their conversion is owing to recognition of that particular problem.s -selling-solar.html
--
Orient toward the Sun: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Griffin did not dispute the reality of global warming, he's just not sure it is worth doing anything about it. This is strange coming from an engineer since one would think the basic reaction would be "Wow! If we can change the planet with out meaning to, what could we do if we engineered it?" but he seems to have some philosophical hangup about not interfering in how we are interfering with the planet. Here's a summary: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrat or_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Probl em_999.html.
s -selling-solar.html
More to the point on emissions from various countries, here is a recent Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tabulation of emission trends. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0700609104v1. China appears to be primarily responsible for the acceleration of emissions. With the US reducing it's emissions 1.3% between 2005 and 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831796/, it look as though China will continue to dominate the acceleration.
While TFA has some valid points, the main thing is that industrialized countries have a better opportunity to slow or reduce emissions since, for them, efficiency improvements can pace growth while for developing nations efficiency cannot help with a growth from zero situation.
--
Out pace growth: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
There is an interesting report linked here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered -ghost.html suggesting that the US has already seen
peak energy production from coal. As you'll see I'm not completely persuaded of that, but surely you'll concede that the duration coal reserves is dependent
on how quickly they are used. The coal industry is now trying to recapture the transportation market making inefficent use of the resource so your
estimate might need revision.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get Inexhaustible: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Here's a chance to get the blue-collar side going: http://www.citizenre.com/web/index.php?p=franchise d.
s -selling-solar.html
--
US job growth through solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Their comparison on efficiency is to a small generator, so it seems likely to me that comparison to grid efficiency is less favorable even for fossil fuels, particularly if a combined cycle plant is being used. It is not that fuel cell efficiencies are scale dependent the way that ICEs/turbines are but that, when using fuels other than hydrogen, you don't really get to use the energy content of the carbon because carbon fuel cells are a big order: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/0 3/dcfcw/dcfcw03.html#Conversion.s -selling-solar.html
--
Carbon free power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
There is more and more long distance transmission as high voltage DC lines get installed. One could start by balancing the East Coast with the West Coast: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/03/coast-to-coast .html. This works without super conducting transmission. George Monbiot points out
that wind generation far off shore can be economical owing to new HVDC cables.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power without long transmission lines: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
A lot of the high ($400K) price tag was for hydrogen storage and use in a fuel cell. The sola power portion was much less than this.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent a net metered system at a fixed money saving rate: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
At curent (15%) efficiency, you can, most of the time, cover 100% of your electicity use by covering most of your south facing roof. And, when you see smaller systems it is becuaue installer often sell systems that do not cover 100 % of electricity use because customers can't afford that much. You don't actually see much in the way of lower efficiency (few pecent) panels on roofs because then there is not enough roof space and installation costs go up as efficency goes down for the same amount of power. The lower eifficency panels tend to be ground mounted.
s -selling-solar.html
Here is the other constraint on system size: In many states with net metering laws, once you've covered 100% of your use and start to go over (on an annual basis) the utilites stop using a kWh-for-kWh exchange and either pay what is called the avoided cost (less than wholesale) or they just confiscate the power. This leads to an economic limit limit on system size which ususally means that 5x5 m^2 is about as large as you want.
So, a portion of your observation that roof space is left unused is owing to people not having the money to do more, and a portion (typically using less that 60% of available space) is owing to net metering policies.
--
Get upto 100% solar for what you your utlity now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Hawkeye,
I'd oppose selective service, but universal service might make sense.
One reading of the second amendment would seem to require it.
Actually, it is the countries with the highest GDPs that are in the best position to lead in transitioning to renewable energy since they have the best access to funds to do it. One would expect their GDPs to grow as they then provide these advances more broadly. This seems to be happening for Japan and Germany as they grow their solar and wind industries. China, with a low per capita GDP but large concentrations of capital is also advancing on this. If China cuts the rest of the world's emissions by 25% by supplying solar panels fabricated using coal power with a 2 year EROI, how do we count their emissions? They are exporting their energy so really it is the purchasing country that has caused the coal to burn. But, China could have bootstrapped at least for the sake of export and used renewable energy to make the panels. Do they get to claim credit for that somehow?
We do country-by-country targets because it is countries that have the juristiction to implement cuts in emissions, but we do need everyone's participation and cooperation and these kinds of issues need to be considered. It is easy to say the US is not cooperating, but it is also holding out for broader participation. I'm not saying that it is doing this in good faith, but it is a mildly tenable position.
The main thing is that the US does not see global warming as the most important issue yet. With regard to China, it wants China to break North Korea's will, it wants the US currency protected, in wants to sell software and food and it wants to avoid assisting in missle technology. All of this comes ahead of global warming, yet China and India are given as the excuse for not going along with European priorites.
This will change. FOX News is going to the other side. We'll be hearing about the global war on warming soon. If you thought Al Gore was too much, just wait until it's Orin Hatch. But then Europe (mostly) liked Ike, so maybe our enthusiasm will be welcome.
Blaming people for the early extinction of megafauna in North America has been trendy, and also has some circumstantial evidence behind it. But, there is a new theory covered recently on slashdot http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/2 2/2023212 that might have legs. This one looks at a carbon rich layer deposited 12,000 years ago that contains siderophile materials. Here is another link http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Clovis_Age_C omet_Impact_Theory_999.html since the New Scientist link seems to be dead. I wonder if there is any connection with Hopi kiva traditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiva.s -selling-solar.html
--
Good stuff from space: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Your example of fusion is a poor one. Fusion research has had steady funding since the 70's oil shocks. The funding level was set to get fusion at about the time oil was estimated to run out. The progress has been pretty much on track and fusion is expected as a power source in about 20 years now. The problem is that the estimates back then did not account for oil companies over estimating reserves or the rapid growth in demand for oil that has occured. Problems with global warming were not known to be crucial at that time either http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/knowing-warmin g.html. Democracies are capable of taking prudent long term action, much more capable than systems that rely more heavily on personalities. Your technocrats would be so swayed by their egos that policies would change rapidly based on petty rivalries and would leave long term projects wastefully abandoned. Collective wisdom, harnessed by democracy, does much better than ephemeral expertise when it comes to instituting policies to enhance the gerneral welfare. The philosopher king http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king has never worked out the problem of succession and thus is the most disappointing form of government of all.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get seventies wisdom now: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, no, our energy use is miniscule compared to the energy coming from the Sun so the small change in how the atmosphere retains heat that is the reradiated energy from the Sun is much more important than any extra heat we produce. It is in fact the greenhouse gasses that are important, not our energy use.s -selling-solar.html
--
Capture your bit of the Sun's energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Actually, if you look at the numbers http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/bra.dat (not the abstract http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_bra.htm) Brazil is reducing its CO2 emissions. At a conference I attended last week
http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/juicing.html I found out more about why. Their renewable fuels program is really taking off.
Hawkeye
I don't know if you caught the photo of the woman mourning on the grave of her fiance at Arlington today http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/index.html click on "In Memoriam." Maybe this is too much to publish, but I kind of feel that a guy who makes money cause he can't balance his meds and spews it on the radio is just not that funny, and it is getting less and less funny as time goes on.
We match PacifiCorp at $0.0737/kWh in Utah, but we don't go below $0.07, which happens pretty frequently in the Pacific Northwest owing to the hydro power. The thing that makes renewables cheaper that non-renewables is the absence of a fuel cost. Solar has a hard time competing with hydro because it has yet to achieve the same scale, but it does compete with coal.
You have a point that there are some who have hard time getting with the program. On the other hand, ceasing to compete for depletable resources should reduce the leverage of the reactionaries.
Perhaps you should examine the links I provided. Since you don't have $30K in anycase, it remains hard to justify paying your electric bill as an investment. But, as a PacificCorp, customer, much of your power is likely to be hydro, and your rates are likely low, so you may want to wait until solar becomes competitive with hydro, perhaps in 2012. Your situation is a little different than that of folks paying 12 to 20 cents/kWh.
It is difficult for me to understand how paying your electric bill is an investment that you profit on so I wonder why you insist on profiting on solar personally. It is just a switch at the same cost (or less http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/stor y;jsessionid=2CF573B3AE8AC8D63C2FB2045CEA992F?id=4 8624). At least with coal, we are operating fairly close to extraction costs http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered -ghost.html so I don't see your argument about price competition
as having much strength here. What is more likely is that energy prices will fall low enough that coal won't be extracted. On liquid fuels, I think you
might have a point, but there is limited capacity to produce them because your argument about land area does apply here http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html so oil prices will likely be sustained.
s -selling-solar.html with your utility bill available and see if the offered rate is attractive. If so, the first installations for this deal are anticipated for the first quarter of 2008 and if you are OK with that kind of timing, go ahead and sign up.
In your calculations, I think you are not taking account of net metering so you should be including some negative numbers is your seasonal breakdown. Further, you are mistaking the cost of building a plant for the cost of operating a plant. Building a plant is a big investment to be sure, but it comes out to be a small fraction of revenue. The key is that a large plant is about four times less costly than a small plant to operate on a cost per panel basis, so you need to divide your roughly $10/Wp installed figure by more than 2. The $4/Wp figure I use is likely conservative since installation labor saving are likely with large volume. SunEdison and others routinely use cranes and other labor saving devices in their commercial operations. Large scale at the residential level will justify investment in similar kinds of equipment reducing the need for a larger workforce.
But, if you are feeling down on owning solar, you might want to consider renting it at close to what you pay your utility now. Click on the map at the bottom of one of the links found at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
You might want to be careful about Texas, it's wind generation is large and growing: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page /trends/table20.pdf.