Here in Connecticut, which has always prided itself on being one of the most expensive states in which to live, energy costs are going up, way up. This month United Illuminating received the go ahead for a 50% rate hike- thats for residential. My manufacturing business will see over a 75% increase in power cost- we will soon be paying over .25per kwh.
I think about this when I contemplate going out into the garage to start a new woodworking project. First the quartz heater goes on, then maybe the compressor. I’ve got an old Delta Unisaw with a 3 phase motor I run with a converter I’ll use to rough cut some wood. After cutting the wood it’s time for the joiner and the planer. The meter is spinning faster and faster and I am starting to think I should take up knitting instead.
I love working with chisels and planes, its peaceful and in my own mind it is what woodworking is really all about, but I can’t see going back to pit sawing my planks and hand planing every board flat and true. But maybe when the cost per kwh reaches .50 I will re think even that.
WIN
Replies
that's a lot per kwh... i pay about 11-12 cents kwh. maybe you can switch all your shop and business electricity to 3 phase...
Expert since 10 am.
What is the positive cost effects of a three phase machine?
Please elaborate.
What is the cost savings of a three phase machine vs single phase?
woodenhead,
In short general terms about 15% at smaller horspower we use in wood working, Bigger scale wood working that is. say a 24 inch planner 3 phase compared to a 24 inch planner single phase..
In the 15 inch size three phase can't compete against the smaller HP requirements of single phase..
So only if you actualy use the bigger stuff does three phase save money over single phase.. 95% of the time you are better off with single phase lower hp over higher HP three phase..
WIN,
I used to live in MA just to the north of you so I know how the meters can whizz around.
My answer was SUNBELT; no heating, no cooling; we dont even have a water heater and my personal luxury is no wardrobe; well shorts and flip-flops (steel toed).
Hank.
Ouch!
Connecticut has very high utility rates!
We are 5.9 cents KWh here in Calgary Alberta Canada and that's after the increase. I locked my rate in for 5 years - do you have any options that way?
The workshop is heated electrically, but I enjoy the hand tools too!
Good Luck.
Dear Quest,
As far as option go, here in CT, they are as follows:1) NoneIf one is willing to go "off the grid" then things open up a bit:1) Build a personal "Hydro-Electric" plant. With the anti-industrialists (Environmentalists), that shouldn't take too long. Maybe 30 years of studies and permitting.2) Personal Nuclear Plant........... Only slightly less involved than a dam.3) Solar..... Oh, that's right, the anti-industrialists have been touting that for 30+ years, but they never seem to get around to developing it. Actually "doing" must be for "others".4) None...AgainPerhaps I could just run an extension cord from your house to mine, and you could just bill me for the extra. That may actually make the most sense. Go figure.Best,John
John,We all thought you were insane for using a raised panel bit in a hand-held router, but it's living in Connecticut that should land you in the nut house. Oh wait, I live here too -- perhaps we'll meet in ceramics class at the Happy Glades someday.Mike
Dear Mike,
"We all thought you were insane for using a raised panel bit in a hand-held router" Oh, sure, next your going to tell me not to prime my woodstove with Black Powder...........Best,John
I run my world on solar, well, except in the winter, and then I use a generator to charge batteries. The nearest power line is about 50 kilometers away (thats 30 miles in the US of A). And I guess that I would jump on the line if I could. I manage to run anything up to 2 hp, but compressors amd vacume cleaners and such only when the generator is running. I don't know how to figure the numbers, but this system is not cheap, nor do I only have to pay a bill once a month to have electricity. I start twitching a little when I read about people heating with electricity, the concept doesen't exist for me. But with the whining done , we run a freezer full time, and live pretty well as most people, but with some adjusment. I can't belive that some people leave the lights on !!!!!! My point is, the option exists, and is doable.
Dear PTU,
BRAVO!!!!! Someone who walks the walk! Thank you! You are hearty sole, to be sure, and should be commended for it. I agree, it's doable, not fun, but doable. My Grandmother told us many stories about growing up with gas lights, coal & oil stoves, her parents had it even harder back in Slovenia. I remember those stories well, about living simply and relying on one's self. I keep them in the forefront of my mind these days, even more so, when I read about nutty dictators with Nuclear weapons. We may all be "off the grid" one day. Hopefully not.Best,John
Greetings John,
Well if you need a nuclear power plant, my wife is an ex-Russian nuclear engineer. I know she could probably put you in touch with someone in the "fleet" who could get you a deal on a slightly used power plant! The subs had very compact units - might fit inside a small shed. :):)
We have made a significant shift to wind power up here to supplement the coal and power dam electrical generation. It is amazing how much wind we have in this province, and not all of it coming from the politicians either!
I'll check with HD a see how much an extension cord costs. How much "juice" do you need?
By the way how much do candles cost at your local box store? :):) I am pleasantly surprised how many people are using the mini florescent lights now - my electrical bills have reflected the use of these energy saving devices.
Good Luck
Bob
Dear Quest,
Your wife is an Ex- Russian? How does that work? :-) I have read about Soviet reactors. I'll pass, thanks. Wind power is a good idea. Sure worked well enough for the last, what 500 years? We are entertaining wind farms here in the US, unless they are within sight of Ted Kennedy, that will not do........... Mini- florescence. I like them, I use them, to save the planet? No. To save money? No. To save from having to change light bulbs.. Yes. Do they save energy? Well, to me, personally, they do, but overall, let's look at it. 1) What's involved with building all new factories to produce these bulbs?
2) How much diesel is burned in the building of the factories?
3) How much electricity is used in the making of steel, for the building?
4) Concrete?
5) Copper mining for the wire in the new plant.
6) Paint, parking, etc.That's just the empty building. What about the machinery that makes these bulbs?
It all comes out of Taiwan, I know, but we're trying to save the planet here.
What about the mercury that is in the bulbs?
How many bulbs have to be in service for how long to offset the energy required to make them?(If a train that is one mile long, leaves NY and a similar train leaves LA at the same time..........)Bla, bla, bla...........Nobody has the answers. Which is fine, except that we are lead to beleive that this will "save the planet" or be "Green", which is a lie. Should we explore new technologies? Absolutely. Should we try to be better stewards of our home? Yes. Should we lie to each other in the process? No. Best,John
Do you think the initial construction / equipping, or periodic retooling for a plant to produce incandescent bulbs is cost free or more environmentally friendly?
Dear Jigs,
"Do you think the initial construction / equipping, or periodic retooling for a plant to produce incandescent bulbs is cost free or more environmentally friendly?"Cost free? No. More environmentally freindly? Let's look at that. I suppose that we could argue the costs of retooling an old inefficient factory against a modern computerized, robotic one. But as to one being more "Green"? Let's see:Old Existing plant:1) Existing building, no more trees to kill. Now given it is loaded with asbestos, lead and a million other nasties, but they are existing whether we build our new plant or not.
2) Retooling will be cost us less in initial layout than new construction, as we don't have to build a new building, sit through a million zoning meetings, meet with all the Greenies, that sort of thing.New building:1) Years and I do mean YEARS of zoning, environmental impact nonsense, design, redesign. 2) We have to kill a bunch of trees to clear the land for our new plant, parking lot, sidewalks, etc. That's bull dozers, explosives, chippers, big diesels, for a few months. That's if we're not driving pilings, or helixes into the soft ground.3) Meanwhile, somewhere, some strip mine is going full tilt, plundering Mother Earth for our materials:A. Concrete...... a few hundred cubic yards before we are done.
B. Iron...... For the thousand or so, tons of steel that we will need . Ever seen steel being produced? Not so Green, methinks. More like the fires of Hell itself.
C. Asphalt... Big Oil!
D. Now have to build. That's a lot of equipment we will need to construct. Cranes, dozers, pavers, Lulls.. etc. All diesel.... More big oil!
E. Our building will be welded... toxic fumes.
F. Our building will be bolted... pneumatic wrenches... diesel run compressors... more oil.
G. We need to paint.... God only knows what they do to produce that!We still haven't figured for office furniture, all the miles of wire & fiber optics, carpets, doors, that sort of thing. All of those have to be produced somewhere, and we still only have an empty building, without any landscaping or machinery inside it. Bla, bla, bla.My point is that there is no "Green" way to do these things. Not really. Not if one looks through the sell job of "Energy Star", and think about what it really takes to do these things. Why can't compact florescence bulbs just be sold as longer lasting? Or better? Some people need to delude themselves that they are "making a difference". Want to make a difference? Go spend time with your kids... buy your spouse a flower... go be nice to someone... visit an elderly neighbor. Never mind "Green". Best,John
If your line of thought is correct, we never would have torn down the candle factory to build the lantern factory.
Dear Tiger,
"If your line of thought is correct, we never would have torn down the candle factory to build the lantern factory."That is a cute attempt, but you obviously haven't read my posts. Allow me to expand on your comment. My line of thought is that the lantern replaced the candle because it was a better product, thus, market forces at work. (Go Capitalism!) I don't think that lanterns ever replaced candles based upon their emissions, or some effort to make them seem what they are not. "Save the planet from harmful green house gases emitted by paraffin candles...... buy a lantern instead." C'mon! I'm all for lanterns, look at the industries that they spun off and supported:1) Whaling
2) Metal working.
3) Glass production.All good stuff, in the name of progress & Capitalism. My complaints are two-fold:1) First of all, most of this "Green" stuff is a lie. If someone actually came up with a process that makes light-bulbs in a way that is more environmentally sound, and want to market it that way. Fine... I'm all for it. The reality is that it takes approximately the same amount of effort and process to make both types of bulbs. Just spare me the lies and "better-than" attitude of the "Greens". You want to make a better product, great, I'm all for it. I'll even buy it because it is better! 2) I'm all for progress, which means MORE industry. Not less. MORE power-plants (Go Nukes!). MORE building. Not tearing down dams, or putting so much regulation on industry that it bogs down forward momentum. One reason that we don't have a better power grid, in this country, is the "Greens" don't want any new building. Well, all the electrical power that we are supposed to living off of, has to come from somewhere. OK, that's it, you get the point............ unless you don't want to.Best,John
John,
First, My position on global warming is "don't worry". It is arrogant to assume full knowledge of climate variations as so many do. Using data from 100-300 years and extrapulating it into future predictions, is like declaring youself a MD after reading a med school brochure. Anyway, if Al Gore is right, and its all our fault, then whats happening now is because of grampa's model t, and my grand kids will pay for my F250. We live in a balance, the earthwobbles one tenth of a degree, the cockroach is back on top of the food chain. Not much we can do about it.
That said, and being a conservative, I believe we should conserve and not spend. If I get ten times the light for the same cost, great, but I should look for 100 times the light for a tenth of the cost. Resources is what made this country, inovation is what made it great. Conservation will maintain our riches.
pat
Hear! Hear! Nicely said. Unfortunately, too many people know too little about causes and effects when it comes to global warming to make this a comprehensive discussion -- in any venue. How many people realize that cows are a tremendous contributor? These beasts are literally farting and belching tons of greenhouse gases every year (believe it or not, more than the vehicles we drive). How about volcanic activity? Sure, an eruption is a relatively rare event, but for sheer volume, a volcano cannot be beat. When Krakatoa blew, it had an immediate and lasting effect on the world's climate. Even the earthquake that spawned the Indonesian tsunami affected the earth's rotation which in turn affects us all. Frankly, there are far too many variables to be analyzed for far too long for us to draw concrete, dogmatic conclusions. How about the previous two (or three, depending on who you listen to) ice ages? Those events took place without any contribution from humanity. The reality is that persistent global climate change is an ageless fact, one which preceeded us and will continue without our aid and abetment. We live in a dynamic world that is constantly changing, and that will continue long after we are gone.
Nonetheless, it is foolish to assume that mankind has not affected the world's climate, and it is foolish to do nothing about what we do not fully understand. Reductions? -- yes! Conserve? -- yes! Alternatives? -- yes! But in the end, there are climate factors that did not originate with us, about which we can do very little (perhaps we can get our good congressmen to sponsor a bill limiting volcanic eruptions or methane emissions from cows).
Michael
Edited 1/11/2007 1:54 pm ET by pzaxtl
"How many people realize that cows are a tremendous contributor? These beasts are literally farting and belching tons of greenhouse gases every year (believe it or not, more than the vehicles we drive)"
In the words of the great comedian Ron White "I am doing my part for global warming, I'm eating the cows as fast as I can, but I'm only one man!!!!!!!!!!"
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Dear Tiger,Amen!John
>>It is arrogant to assume full knowledge of climate variations as so many do. Using data from 100-300 years and extrapulating it into future predictions, is like declaring youself a MD after reading a med school brochure. If I recall correcectly from that Al Gore movie, he did not use 100-300 years of data, he used 600,000 years of data. The evidence seems to be pretty strong that global warming is real, and that human beings are causing it. But I'm optimistic we can do something about it. I recall a lot of footdragging from Detroit in the 60s and 70s over fuel economy and safety innovations. Maybe it's true it took 20 years for airbags to become cost-effective (or bug-free) and the same will be true of geothermal HVAC or whatever. But there's no doubt in my mind that the car I drive today is a far safer, higher quality product than what was available 30 years ago. Annoying people like Ralph Nader probably had something to do with it. That and a little foreign competition.I do drag my own heels when my wife wants to buy overpriced organic everything for political reasons or for dubious health-related reasons. But in the last few years, I've noticed the "health food" products actually tend to TASTE better, and now that they are landing on Safeway shelves, they are more competitive on price, too. Similarly, I'm sold on energy conservation for my home not just because it's a "feel good" political statement but because it really does make my house a better place to live in.
Dear Tom,
Your statement:
"But in the last few years, I've noticed the "health food" products actually tend to TASTE better, and now that they are landing on Safeway shelves, they are more competitive on price, too. Similarly, I'm sold on energy conservation for my home not just because it's a "feel good" political statement but because it really does make my house a better place to live in." Now, I am a hard core, free market conservative. (Go Nukes!) I am fully suspicious of Mr. Gore, who's own wealth is oil based, and jets around like its nobody's business. I don't care for Mr. Nader either. Everytime I fight with a triple sealed bottle of vitamins, it occurs to me that what I need is " Less stuff, for my own safety.". That being said, I, like yourself, will BUY THE BETTER PRODUCT. Organic tastes better? Count me in, energy conservation makes MY life better, or my house a better place to live in, I'm for that as well. Saving the planet............. I don't think that i am that important..... I think that it will survive without me.Best,John
Energy and petro-pesticide independance=national security.
Remember Free market is supposed to be based on fair play within markets, that is not the case. Tariffs and blackmarket copywright infringment cancel out free market benefits, and warp the curve.
Dear Whit,"Energy and petro-pesticide independance=national security." Ok, how many guesses do I get? I barley got out of HS.John
The original discussion was abou the high cost of living in new england and unionization in new england and the high cost of organic food and does it make sense to but it. My comment was to a market economy person who self described as conservative. What I am talking about is the high cost of pesticides because they use a lot of oil products and energy to make pesticides and fetilizers, which organic food uses a small amount of. as well as the national securioty issues that comes from dependence on oil and energy from other countries. One post said that his energy bill at his shop would be going up 75% THIS YEAR. tHAT MEANS he either has to fire someone, raise prices or go out of business. all because foreign oil producers and some wack jobs like the president of venezuela want to raise the price of oil. closing the Venzuela oil fields to the u.s., for 1 month, would raise the price of oil in the u.s. to $100+ dollars a barrell and shut down our economy. Therefore energy independance and eliminating petropesticide dependence=national security.
Biodiesel and ethanol=farmers as oil shieks, and the dollars stays here.
Tom,
Some points
When Al Gore got on the lift to express the jump in today's co2 levels, it is funny He did not show the whole graph. We have data that shows co2 levels were much (25-30%) higher 100 million years ago. No humans to blame for that.
As I said in my last post, I am all for innovation, but ther is something fishy about these "hybrids". My 1977 VW rabbit got 45 +mpg. At the time is was very cheap to buy. Today, most hybrids don't get 45mpg and they cost much more. I won't argue about safety advancements but, I did hit a deer and rolled that VW over 4 times in a corn field, everybody got out without a scratch. Luck I know.
Organic produce does indeed taste much better and has more nutrients, no question. I split my time woodworking and organic farming. Just like cows, what you feed the plants affects the taste.
Pat
I think Maybe I'll move out to the country and settle next to a stream. Then I can work wood with water power.
Enjoy woodworking with out electricity, paul
Dear Paul,
That would fine, except that when setting up shop, remember:1) Sawdust is toxic, so NONE of it can enter the water.
2) All Human activity is bad.
3) "Harvesting" water power will disturb the "ecosystem", so forget it.... it's bad enough that you have to kill trees for your "hobby."
4) The stream will be declared a "wildlife sanctuary", by the time you complete the permitting process, environmental impact studies, etc.
5) On the off chance that you get permission to exist on or near a "wet lands", your water wheel better be fish friendly..........that goes double for turbines.
6) Did we mention that humans are bad?
7) Once the picketing stops, and E.L.F. gets through terrorizing you, it should quite enjoyable.Go Nukes!John
Wnat was I thinking?
Paul
Get a Mr. Fusion, like the one that was in the car when Dr Brown went back for Marty in 'Back To The Future'. It runs on garbage and it's pretty small.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Dear High,
Now there you go! Capitalism at its finest! I'll have to check Amazon. I think that it is listed with the lightsabers.John
Dear High,
You know, if we had "Mr. Fusions", someone would be pining for the "good old" days when we had to run the time machines on plutonium, and the "Greenies" would be demanding Federal (our) money for studies on harnessing lightening because the garbage that was once fueling the "ecosystem" of the landfills is being misdirected, just so that some huge cooperation can make even bigger profits. It's not jealousy, or that they can't compete in an open market, they are just trying to " Save The Microbe". Best,John
Edited 1/9/2007 4:29 pm ET by Jmartinsky
Dang. People around here are screaming bloody murder because of a planned 29% rate hike... up from the current 2.6 or 2.7cts per kwh. One of my co-workers lives on the other side of the river (different county utility district) and pays about 2.1cts and teases me about it from time to time. Everybody around here is all-electric everything, other than gas fireplaces and BBQ's.
The (really) stupid part is that eight years ago, the greenies were pushing to *remove* the dams from the Columbia and Snake Rivers up here. Now that the political currents are leaning towards the blue again, those same rumblings are starting up again.
I'm not sure how these idiots think they're going to replace that many *gigawatts* worth of power generation without driving businesses (and by extension, people) in the region to the verge of bankruptcy. And by 'region', I mean the entire west coast. A very large percentage of that power goes to Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, & northern California.
Is the Millstone nuke plant still in operation over there?
I think they shut one or two of the nuke plants down. I am amazed how cheap power is in different parts of the country- maybe it is time to move.
Win
"The (really) stupid part is that eight years ago, the greenies were pushing to *remove* the dams from the Columbia and Snake Rivers up here." It remains to be seen whether removal of any dams is practical, but I would gladly accept a few more cents in KWH cost, and increase my conservation practices, in order to help ensure salmon runs into the next century.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 1/9/2007 12:29 pm by forestgirl
Dear FG,
Happy New Year, my friend! Seems to me that cost wasn't the issue on the left coast, as much as it was capacity. It seems unbelievable that there are "Brown outs" and "Rolling Blackouts" anywhere in the Free world. The reality is that we need more dams, not less, or we can burn more coal, or we can make more neutrons, and then there is the mythological Solar, that I have heard about since I was a kid. Fusion is in about the same league as Solar, but at least there has been some progress with that. Bottom line is that there is no free lunch. The reality is that our lives are dependent upon electrical power. The vast majority of people will continue to live "on the grid", so let's make the best of it. Progress is the name of the game. Let's get back to reality and start making some more juice.Best,John
"The reality is that we need more dams, not less, or we can burn more coal, or we can make more neutrons, ...." Or we can use less power by being efficient and sensible. I hail originally from Southern California, and 2 of my siblings and most of my many nieces and nephews liver there. I know first-hand just how wasteful people can be, and how oblivious they can be to the finiteness of our resources.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Dear FG,
I hear you, and I agree. I make my living along the local "Gold Coast" of Greenwich, CT. Plenty of waste. Huge homes with no one living in them. Completely wasteful. No question that we can all do with a little less. The reality is that we won't. I can't speak about the West , but "back East" the wealthy folks who build these huge homes, (Who support nice people, like me) with industrial sized electrical panels, who's water usage rivals that of a golf course, will do as they please at whatever the cost. As we all would. If electricity became scarce, a power-plant would be built with private money, on private land,......no zoning issues...... no months of reviews. It would be done. Period. making power harder to come by won't change the wastefulness. It will just make it harder on people who are struggling now. We can't control what others do. We can, however, control our own actions. Like yourself, I conserve where I can, but will continue to light up my PM66 and DC, and the like. Best,John
Just curious, what do you pay /kwh up in the great north west? Maybe we have the makings of a new poll? How much do you pay for power/kwh?
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Edited 1/9/2007 4:07 pm by bones
You might want to start the poll in a different thread, LOL, this one's gonna get messy methinks.
Puget Sound Energy, Seattle area. We pay $.076 - $.085/KWH. It's a weird formula. About half of our charge is at the 7.6 cents rate. On average, we pay about $.08.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 1/9/2007 6:54 pm by forestgirl
OK, I'll help. Southern California Edison charged me 16.4 cents/KWH on my last bill.
Bob
What really made me feel all warm and fuzzy is the sliding scale usage rates they use. My usage was 3 times the alotment. I called SCE to find out they arrived at that figure. Would my alotment for a 2600 sf 2 story house be greater than an 1100 sf single story one tract over? The answer I got is nobody really knows @ SCE anyway how the PUC came up with them and don't worry about it because most people's usuage is 2X. The beauty part for SCE is they just deliver the juice so they don't have to justify the rates. Nice 3 tierred system we have here in Cal.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
I thought the power companies had to go to the PUC and justify a rate increase for approval.
Not that the PUC arbitrarily set rates for them.
It's not that simple anymore. Under the 3 tiered system in Calif there are the producers, the transmission/exchange companies, and the customer-facing delivery companies. The transmission and delivery segments are fairly static and tied to infrastructure, generation on the other hand fluctuates the most and is directly effected by the fuel cost. All levels are subject to the PUC. The consumer's usuage scale baseline is set by who-in-the-hell-knows-but-approved-by-the-PUC according to SCE, who is just the delivery company. So talking to SCE about the usage charge or relativity of my baseline is like talking to the truck driver unloading the cars at the dealership about the cost of that shiney new vette.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Yeah, I didn't list out the tiers on the rates - just took the total bill and divided by total KWH. Electric rates are rather like airline fares - who knows how those work either!
Bob
Hi forestgirl, Wouldn't that destroy the ecosystems the dams have created? ........................ We all impact this planet and should be good stewarts, but not loose sight of why we are here.
Have fun with woodworking, Paul
" It remains to be seen whether removal of any dams is practical, but I would gladly accept a few more cents in KWH cost, and increase my conservation practices, in order to help ensure salmon runs into the next century."I don't know what your back ground on the subject is beyond a concerned environmentalist, but I *work* in a dam on the Columbia, so I have a front row seat to much of what goes on.Every single dam on either river has fish bybass systems specifically designed to allow the fish to 'go around' the dams, and employ people just to monitor and run those facilities to make sure the *fish* make it thru as safely as possible.On top of that, massive amounts of water are 'spilled' (by opening the flood gates and then regulating them) every summer to maintain water flows at optimum levels for the fish, and to ensure that certain key areas such as Hanford Reach (the last 'wild' section of the Columbia) maintain water levels beneficial to the smolts (baby fish).Additionally, operating constraints are imposed on the order in which we run the generators, so the most 'fish friendly' ones are ran first, regardless of whether they are more efficient. Government pressure to update turbines as much as possible to more fish-friendly designs is on-going... and the cost of improving turbines from 95% survival rate (i.e. if the fish decide to try to swim straight thru a running turbine vs. going around) to say, 97% is mind-boggling. When I first moved here and came to work I was told the running joke: that it would literally be cheaper to trap all the fish at the mouth of the river and air-freight them up to where they were headed than it is to pass them thru the dams. Back then... I didn't believe them. Now... I'm not so sure.I won't argue with you about more responsible and efficient power usage being the direction we all should head. But the damage to the salmon's environment was done long, long before the dams were put in... in the days when massive log jams were floated down the river to feed industry and homes, and *miles* of natural habitat were scoured out of existence. There is no feasible way to 'put things back the way they were' by simply removing the dams; to think otherwise is simply irrational dreaming. Whether there would be *any* benefit to the fish beyond the measures that are in place now is extremely doubtful. If anything, the Indian reservations and their carte blanche fishing (and hunting) 'rights' are more of a detriment to the fish survival rate than anything the dams represent.YMMV,Monte
This is an interesting topic. Once you take the politics out of it and look at the base technology we actually have or are close to, most of the alternatives don't measure up as remotely viable. Remember that energy is a business, not an entitlement. As a business it must make money or it will fail. And that's not to say we should stop looking, but we should realize where we are at and what is needed and where it may come from. I have some experience in cogeneration and I do a lot of reading on this subject, but I am no expert. Nothing beats nuclear power for low cost and low pollution (without accident). Solar and wind are prohibitively expensive at commercial scale. The proliferation of windfarms in the past were driven by a huge 5 year federal tax credit program. When the program ended so did all the wind farm expansion. Solar panels are very expensive and Kyocera, the largest producer of solar panels has a virtual world monopoly. No matter what mitigating measures are used, hydro changes the environment and changes fisheries.
Gasoline is by far the best source of motive power. Diesels do very well but pollute more much more than gas and cost a lot more to produce. Given the limits of battery technology the only reason to buy a hybrid is to make a "green" statement, which is fine if that what blows up your skirt. The econmics of hybrids are terrible, the best, the big Lexus SUV hybrid only takes 55,000 miles to break even on gas savings. When considering the hybrid think of all the extra energy and pollution that goes into making a much more complicated vehicle. Building, testing, shipping, installing, and dragging around the extra weight of the electric motor and controls to run the air conditioning compressor when a hybrid is stopped at a light makes an impact and that's the tip of the ice berg. Energy is just like water when you look at the total consumption to produce something vs. conservation impacts. At the height of the Calif drought a few years back one could forego showers for a year or forego four 1/4 pounders and have the same impact on water conservation.
Then consider the legacy of the spent lead acid batteries, even if recycled, there's even more energy consumed and polution released. Don't hold your breath waiting for the hydrogen car either. Hydrogen is made from oil, all other sources are insignificant by comparison. Even if it was free and it isn't, just to compress enough hydrogen gas into a liquid with an equal BTU yield to a gallon of gas takes somewheres around 40% of the energy in a gallon of gas.
What we really need is a boogey man across the sea. Where's the USSR when we need them? The space race was fueled by the cold war and the space race directly created the enabling technologies like semi-conductors that ultimately created this here PC and Internet were banging away on, not to mention the computer running the power delivery system in the cute little planet-saving Prius. We need a quatum leap type of break though in solar panel and battery technolgy to make electric cars work for the masses.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
I have thought about hybrids, and I believe that much of your analysis is correct- at least at present petroleum prices. There is, I believe, an important exception: taxis. Hybrids have not, at least to my knowledge, been much applied to livery service but there are several points in their favor for this application:1. The additional cost of the technology (~5,000-8,000 USD) is easier to amortize in a commercial vehicle that is in constant use- rather than in a private vehicle that is used largely for commuting (and thus sits parked most of the time).2. Taxis do a great deal of city driving- where the savings advantages of electric power are greatest- as opposed to commuting, where they are marginal.3. The drives to the airport/on the highway would permit charging of the battery on a regular bsais.4. Many cities have pollution/clean air issues that would benefit from replacing a sizable number of idling cars (cabs) with hybrid vehicles. In some cases, it might be worth offering a tax incentive (e.g. Houston, Los Angeles).5. The stop and go driving is smoother with an electric, rather than a conventional gas engine.I would just point out that over the long term, petroleum prices are likely to continue to rise, and the technology is just as likely to improve and become more cost competitive. I wouldn't bet against Totota... they have been right more often than not, and they are betting big on hybrid technology.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Too much stop and go or too little really hurts hybrid efficiency. The efficiency comes from regenerative breaking so the vehicle has to run on gas (achieve enough speed) to put a charge back in the batteries. It's a tricky proposition. A taxi in LA might do it, but a Taxi in NYC probably wouldn't.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
For a community of people who like to BUILD things, there sure are a lot of negative attitudes on this board about solving our energy problem. These are smart capable people here who should be taking a LEAD not whining about the problem!There are plenty of positive steps we can take to make a real difference. We can choose to live in smaller, higher-quality houses. We can buy more fuel efficient cars and drive them less. True, geothermal and photovoltaic are not yet cost effective for people in many parts of the country. But you can install solar hot water heating for a few thousand dollars and get free hot water, even radiant heating. I'm heating my whole house right now with a modern, air-tight, low emissions wood stove, burning a 12" x 4" hardwood log (properly seasoned) that I culled from one of my own trees. How much cheaper can you get?
For a community of people who like to BUILD things, there sure are a lot of negative attitudes on this board about solving our energy problem. These are smart capable people here who should be taking a LEAD not whining about the problem!
I think most here would jump on a bonified solution. You can have all the wizbang technology in the world, but the ones who make and sell it, have to be able to make a profit at it. In my area e-85 is big, but its a regional solution. Love the thought of corn and gas(no jokes), but then someone also pointed out that we don't have enough land mass to grow enough corn to make it a viable solution large scale. I don't see it a whining, just realistic. I would love to see a 4000 mile to the gallon care, that can actuall fit two people in it and haul cargo, but it's just not there yet. And as the others have mentioned the hybrids, really don't become breakeven until gas gets really expensive. I think they will get there some day, but its just not ready for prime time yet. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
>>I think most here would jump on a bonified solution. So what is a bonafide solution supposed to look like?
The 4000 mpg car? Zero emissions perpetual motion machines?
Dear Tom,
This is all very fun, but I think that hit the nail on the head. In the beginning:1) There was hyro.... but only where there was water.
2) Then there was coal fired which could go anywhere you had rail / water access.
3) Then there was oil which was "better"?
4) Then there was Gas which is "Greener"
5) Somewhere in the sequence was the "bonofied solution" of nuclear.There will always be people who have an ax to grind. The day that you developed a Zero - emission anything, someone will point out that you have to rape "Mother Earth " to get the raw materials. There is no end to it. The anti-capitalists will take full advantage of our modern way of life, and then attack those who make it all possible. It is a joke. An obvious one at that.Best,John
"5) Somewhere in the sequence was the "bonofied solution" of nuclear."
Don't bring Sonny and Cher into this thing....
Particularly Sonny.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Like so many serious issues (e.g. global warming), there isn't a single bonafide solution. The solutions will require new technologies, improvements in the old ones, changes in the ways we use them, and acceptance of the fact that some of the things we'll try won't work.
Unfortunately, whatever "solutions" are attempted will involve the political process and I'm not convinced that our political "leaders" will ever be able to resist the pressures. One one side, they hear from the folks that think that passing a few laws will make it all go away. On another side they're hearing from lobbyists with large war chests for campaign contributions. The lobbyists aren't always wrong, but the money always leaves a foul oder in the air - lol.
Dear Dave,
The solution to Global warming is two-fold:1) Take the money out of the research and "Global Warming" will be heard of no more. You know, like the "Coming" ice age that was all the rage in the early 70's.2) Turn down the Sun.Best,John
John -
There may be some merit to your first idea - the environmentally pure can be tempted by a soft rustling sound just as easily as a politician with a vote for sale.
Personally, I have no doubt that global warming is a reality. Furthermore, I have no doubt that people are making a contribution to the warming. The operative phrase there is "a contribution". Too many people seem to believe that we're "causing" it, think that we can "stop" it, and are demanding laws to do so by next Tuesday. And, our vote hungry politicians are all to ready to play along to keep their approval numbers up. - lol
I'm all for reducing greenhouse gas emissions over a period of time but it has to be a world-wide effort. Shutting down a coal burning power plant in CA doesn't do much good if two more start up in China or somewhere.
Some of the effort is going to have to be directed toward rising sea levels. New York City may be under water in 100 years (would that be a bad thing?) so some advanced planning may be in order.
My house is a few miles south of San Francisco Bay and ~150' above sea level. I wonder what it would be worth as a beach front property? - lol
Dear Dave,
I agree with most of your thinking. In particular if NYC was underwater, would that be a bad thing? It probably would be, but like yourself that would almost certainly leave me with waterfront property, so one must take the good with the bad. Your rationale about the power-plants is correct as well. You reminded me of a study that I read about smog. It was along the lines that due to environmental laws, smog has been reduced by some percentage, therefor, the smog is no longer reflecting the sun's energy, but allows more of it to reach the Earth and therefore causing the planet to warm up quicker. :-OYou know, let's just say that "We don't know". All this is theory, non of this has been proven. as a kid I remember "studies" that "suggested" that the entire North East "might" be barren from Acid Rain. This is not science. "Suggesting" something "might" happen. Science is iron clad proof. Here is a cause, here is an effect, in a repeatable, predictable manner. The weather people can not tell us what the weather will be like, this time next week. OK, fine, so let's stop pretending that we know what is going to happen in 50 years. we don't. Period.Best,John
You are on the right track. I think global warming is nothing more than numbers manipulation.
Paul
Dear Cole,
Is the Earth warming? Who knows....... If it really were, I imagine that it would be pretty easy to prove. Is the climate changing? I'm sure that it is. It ALWAYS is. I fish, and one thing that you can be sure of is that the ocean will be different from year to year. Is the weather warmer, GLOBALLY, as "GLOBAL WARMING" would indicate? I'll bet that the folks in Denver would argue no. Oh, but Global Warming predicts harsher winters in some places... yeah, OK, right. Hey, Greenies.......Call it "Climate Change" and then don't bug me until you can get your stories straight. PREDICT and BE RIGHT, or go get a job and EARN money like the rest of us. Try funding your own studies, for a change. Never mind "xyz MIGHT be happening". My three year old can come up with "what if" scenarios. OK, I'm ranting...... (But I'm right...)Best,John
Ditto,
Paul
"Like so many serious issues (e.g.global warming), there isn't a single bonified solution." Yes, I think there is. Kill all the people in the world except for one male. This will insure no reproduction and the one male will soon be dead. In a few million years, the earth will be almost back to a primeval state again. When did man actually improve on nature. Whatever he does to help himself is always at the expense of nature. I want to live and I am sure you do too, so the destruction of nature is the price we pay at the expense of the natural world.
The last time I checked, man was as much a part of nature as any other living thing on the planet. That is, unless we were transplanted here by aliens (there are a few wack jobs that believe that one as well). Unfortunately, all of these neo-fascist earth #### would have us believe that humanity is a blight on the natural world with the earth better off were we extinct. Frankly, mother nature doesn't always do so hot herself -- think: asteroids, super volcanos, mega earthquakes, typhoons, etc. If Ms. Nature is so devoted to preserving the life on this planet, she seems to be shooting herself in the foot.
Michael
"man was as much a part of nature as any other thing on the planet."
Oh yes, this takes me back to a botany class many years ago. The prof actually liked to have the students argue with him - He said it made them think. Man is a part of nature, but because he is so different from the other beings - his increased reasoning power, I think you will find he is separated from other biological life.
"Frankly, mother nature doesn't always do so hot herself." That, I will disagree with. Asteroids, super volcanos, mega earthquakes, typhoons, etc. are all a part of mother nature. That is what makes the earth and all nature what it is. This is identity. It has nothing to do with preserving life, though in many ways it helps develop life and make it more adaptable to the environment.
Man is a part of nature, but because he is so different from the other beings - his increased reasoning power, I think you will find he is separated from other biological life.
So, let me guess: this capacity we developed independent of nature? Of course not! -- our "abilities" are a product of nature at work -- which makes us a part of nature.
Asteroids, super volcanos, mega earthquakes, typhoons, etc. are all a part of mother nature. That is what makes the earth and all nature what it is.
Yes, and they are also responsible for far greater species elimination than any resulting from human activity. After all, survival of the fittest is nature's great contingency. Should all known animal species go extinct because of our behavior, are we behaving any differently than nature designed us to, being the fittest surviving species? Should a less sapient organism be responsible for the extinction of another, I doubt it would notice or care, in fact, it happens, from time to time. But because we have this "gift" being self-aware, we are burdened with the responsibility for the well being of the natural world. But that does not make us any less a part of the natural world.
Asteroids, super volcanos, mega earthquakes, typhoons, etc. are all a part of mother nature
Gee, would global warming and cooling be a couple of those "etc's" that "are all a part of mother nature"?
Humanities contribution to global warming began over a million years ago when the first hominid learned to control fire - and the earth has gone thru several heating and cooling cycles since then.
Our "contribution" to the problem has certainly increased since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the early 18th century, but I still have no idea of how much we're contributing to the warming and how much of it would be happening if we weren't even here. I really don't believe that earth was some kind of Eden-like place until three hundred years ago.
Close, but no cigar.
To be uber-efficient, the world needs to be organized like NYC, high rises with centralized hvac and electrical etc., set aside areas for shopping, and a big park. In other words everyone on the planet crammed together on say, the eurasian continent- the rest of the world would for be for r and r, and power generation.Expert since 10 am.
You may be right. But just think, after all the world developments (big bang), it may be in the near east.
Edited 1/13/2007 12:22 am ET by tinkerer2
I used that high mpg only as an example. I would go with the hybrid if the ROI was there. I'm in the market now for a car and looked at the Prius and others, but when comparing the TCO (Total cost of ownership), it just was not an attractive option until gas hits well over $4. I think it (the technolog not gas prices)will get there, and I will definately give the technology a look, but I'm not buy the technology for technology sake. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
I get 60 MPG with my Golf deisel, way better than a hybrid parked.
The intended thrust of my comments are to "get real" not to be negative. When people are fooled by non-solutions based on politics instead of science they are lulled into a false sense of security and think they are actually helping while real solutions aren't being pursued as effectively if the exact same time, money and public support where brought to bear on real solutions. It's just good old smoke and mirrors.
Back to my CA draught reference. The State was pushing residential water conservation. The City of LA was actually imposing fines on residential consumers. Low flush volume toliet replacement subsidized by taxes and the rate payers was in overdrive. I even had trouble getting water trucks in SoCal for my construction projects because they were hauling water to Santa Barbara to water lawns for big bucks. Santa Barbara was courting the All American Oil Pipeline to ship them water after trying to block that project by rewriting the rules as they went along for 5 years. Presummably otherwise rational people were talking about towing ice bergs from the artic and pooh-poohing desalinization plants to maintain the esthetics of the Cal coast. Meanwhile the commercial, industrial and mega-agribusiness users continued to consume NINETY FOUR PERCENT of California's water and much of that under a conservation averse use it or loose it policy. That's why a year of water equals a pound of beef in terms of water use. BTW I found all this out when researching an idea I had to market grey-water recycling systems for landscape use. (That turned out to be impossible to permit because of the dangers of aspirating grey-water with sprinklers.) Well eventially we got an El Nino or two and it rained enough so things went back to normal. It's doubtful it will be raining electricity or oil anytime soon.
BTW PV as we know it is prohibitively expensive anywhere. I have built several small solar power cellular repeaters in the Mojave Desert where PV absolutley kicks ####. The installed cost was about $20,000 per kWH and it takes a 3kW system to dependably run a 1kW load. A full blown cell site requires about 50kW to operate. Do the math and even if the money was there where are you going to get the acreage for the panels and what of the environmental impact of that? Keep in mind that 1600 watt blow dryer in your bathroom is a 1.6kW load.
E85 is another non-solution not because of the technology but because of government screwing around with the economy and paying farmers not to grow corn through subsidy programs and artifically effecting the price of corn for the last few decades. The amount of corn available for ethanol is a drop in the bucket compared to animal feed stock. To seriously make a dent in the fuel consumption the amount of corn required would drive the price through the roof and nobody would be able to afford milk and meat. I suppose I could ride my bike to work (52 miles/day) so I could have a White Russian and a steak once a month.
Nuclear is the answer. Ignorance and fear are the problems. Get over it.
John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
PS: I did my part for energy conservation recently. My power bill was $300 2 months ago. I turned off the freezer in the garage and set the solar-heated pool pump timer from 8 to 6 hours a day. Saved a $100 a month and a bunch of kWHs.
Edited 1/11/2007 2:00 pm by Elcoholic
Nuclear energy maybe wonderful but the advocates never seem to be willing to say where to put the waste, I of course want the cheep juice but think (NIMBY) we should ship the spent fuel rods to Texas or next door to who ever wants the juice (I live on the west coast). Troy
Dear Troy,
Nuclear Waste....... where to put it it...... hmmmmmm...........1) Certain Middle Eastern countries come to mind.
2) Certain Asian dictatorships.
3) Shoot it into the Sun.
4) Or we could put it in the underground facility that we have constructed.
5) We could recycle it by adding it to our ICBM's.... a little spice, for #s 1 & 2.
6) We could put it at your house.
7) How about ocean dumping? Makes fish ladders look like small potatoes.As to the NIMBY, all of this stuff has to go somewhere. Powerplants, infrastructure, fuel rods, the works. Period. you don't want a computer factory next to your house and neither do I. Thanks to Modern shipping methods, we don't have one. But it is somewhere. So what. Best,John
My dw says I can't bring it home even if it makes a nice self warming floor material. If we could send it to the mid east with out it coming back in small packages and suitcases I would go for that. Just to stir the pot a bit more I was reading that the price per kw for solar power has dropped 75% in the last twenty years. There is a home builder that was able to get a large discount from a solar electric company because he did enough homes to bring the cost down more I seemed to thing it dropped the price from about 20k per house to 12k per house. Still takes a long time to pay for itself though. Anyway a fun thread. This from a leftwing, libertarian greenie anarchist with a mind that has been accused of being like concrete (all mixed up and set solid)
Dear Troy,
You don't sound too lefty, that coming from a conservative. I have no problem with solar..... if it works. I have read about a company that has made roofing shingles that are solar panels. Sounds nice....... I have been in the home construction industry for better than twenty years and know that gimmicks won't make it, nor does "one size fits all". Here in New England, I doubt that solar will ever be more than a theory, but in the middle of the country or the Southwest... who knows? I have read about geothermal, again a nice idea, Iceland runs most of their country that way, but we're a bit short on volcanic activity here in CT. Wind power... again, nice as long as you can't see it from Massachusetts. Let's explore all ideas, but to kid ourselves that conservation will cure our ills, is just not realistic.Best,John
Geothermal doesn't just exist in volcanic areas or hot soil conditions. My house is heated geothermally. Very nice heat. Very expensive for initial installation - so much so that it is a question if it will ever pay out. Well, with the rising price of fuel, it may not take so long. Once the system is paid for, it should really be cheap heat. And I have AC now - something I've never lived with before.
Dear Tnkerer,
Hey that's pretty cool. They are actually experimenting with geothermal at a local college, here in CT. We'll see how that goes.Best,John
Dear Troy,
I owe you an apology! Your opening line was great!.... "My dw says I can't bring it home even if it makes a nice self warming floor material"What a cool idea! Self warming floor material, made from spent fuel rods! may be able to double as a night light. Nice, soft glow....... romantic! It would probably keep the bugs away as well. Might play Hell with radio reception, but who cares.... a lead lined room with a cable connection and we're good. There are some great spin off possibilities as well:1) Self warming clothes.
2) Car seats.
3) Pet sweaters.
4) Athletic supporters.
5) Under garments.
6) Bed sheets and so on.If we could just figure out that little radiation business, we would be in good shape. But hey!............ No greenhouse emissions!Best,John
No problem its amazing how a seemingly innocuous question can stir up a hornets nest on this site. I do think that most of the people on this issue do care about it and would like to see solutions. Troy
NIMBYism surely won't get it done, that's for sure. When I was in the oil business before '88 I used to wonder why those protesting local off-shore oil production, refining and pipelines we're driving their oil-fired micro-busses and picketing in front of indirectly oil-fired TV cameras broadcasting to millions of indirectly oil-fired TV sets in 'all-electric', but actually indirectly oil-fired suburbia. The hypocracy was (is) amazing. If we were honest we would see that environmental politics has boxed us in to oil dependency, yet we refuse to admit it and hope the government will save us. I say as long as we're burning dead dinosaur juice we should burn their's before we burn ours. Remove the gov't interference and let the price go to $5-6 gallon as the free market will determine. Then the economics will be there to support the development of viable alternatives. The continued "Prius" style bandaid approach (PC Photo Op Feel Good BS) coupled with the politics of oil will ultimately leave the US high and dry. The Greenies want to turn Priuses into plug-in hybrid electrics even thought that hurts the efficiency. If we continue on the PC over good science path we're on, we will be at the mercy of the oil producing nations that have the oil, have radically different ideology, and pretty much hate our guts in general. Then my friend, we will be so far past screwed, it will take the light from screwed about 100 years to reach us.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
The real solution would be to harness the festol easyguide or what ever it's called debate and all of our energy problems would be solved;)Troy
Our biggest cities are probably one of the biggest users of electric power. Do you really think it would be practical to store the spent radioactive material in down town New York. I say put a bidding price on the spent material. If the price goes high enough, eventually some state will willingly accept it. That is capitalism at its best.
Maybe a bidding contest to keep it away:) In all seriousness unfortunatly the advocates of nuclear energy tend to gloss over this problem it maybe solvable but it has not happened yet. After the yucca mountain mess it would seem that they have a ways to go. I don't think solor, wind or bio mass will solve all of our problems but it would seem that the more choices the better. Troy
I can hardly vision of any big energy project that is harmless to the good old earth. When I came here I was dismayed to see what surface coal mining does to the landscape. People here rant about these windmills. Of course, nuclear is intolerable. So many people complain about Hydroelectric. What is out choice. I couldn't see my blank screen without the light that electric power gives. Oh yes, even my geothermal requires power to heat and cool my house. The problem isn't all that simple and I think we should do what we can to lessen the deleterious effects of any energy project. I originally came from near Cheyenne, Wyoming. I think that if you could harness all the wind power in Laramie county,WY (Cheyenne) that it would solve the worlds energy needs. Probably exaggerated, but the wind surely does blow. It blew me all the way to West Virginia!
Maybe lots of small projects are part of the solution. Anyway stay sharp.Troy
I started this post because I was in a funk about the cost of power. Seems like I struck several nerves with a lot of different folks, and,
BIG SURPRISE
Everyone has a different opinion.I have been meeting with power brokers- no not that kind- the kind that broker electricity, to find out more about my options as a manfacturer in CT.Since CT is now "deregulated" (take note those posters who feel government intervention is the root of all evil) we now have a two items on our power bills. One is for delivery charges. This cannot be changed. The company who delivers your power no longer generates it- they have sold their plants and are now just in the delivery business. The second portion of your bill covers the actual cost of generating your electricity.
So in this new free market we can all go out and get bids from the several companies who want to sell us juice. Will they save us money?
No, the increase will be just a penny or two less than what we would have paid, but still much more than our rates were last year. It turns out that all of New England is congested. We don't have enough power lines coming in from the rest of the grid, i.e. the US and Canada, so we can't suck in the juice fast enough. This means we pay, directly or indirectly, congestion charges. Hence the high cost of juice.I am still learning, have a few more meetings to go with power brokers and aggregators, but it is disconcerting to learn that even these guys cannot understand or explain all the line items on my power bill.To me there is only one bottom line- We live in a free market society and the laws of supply and demand apply. Maybe we will all get smart and become more energy efficient, maybe some of us will go off the grid, and maybe we will build more nukes, but if I had to be I would say we will never, ever see a kwh cost less than .11 cents again in this state.
'Nuff said- I need to get back to work on my windmill.
WIN
Not sure you would want to, but have you looked at the option of running your equipment at night?
I used to work at a Water District that only ran the pumps at night due to the savings in power costs. Literally millions of dollars a year if we didn't run pumps during peak load times. When I was younger I worked at a plant that made glass lined water heaters, we worked 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. because of the break they got on the power.
Many providers will give a substantial break on rates if you run your equipment in those off peak hours.
We o run on off peak hours for some of the time. But we do not run two shifts so a night shift is not possible right now.
Thanks
Win
That's why I phrased my response the way I did. It's a very complicated issue, and I don't want to go tearing down any dams if it doesn't do any good.
"But the damage to the salmon's environment was done long, long before the dams were put in... " Oh, but it continues every day of every year. I'm sure you know that, but just in case anyone out there doesn't.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Forestgirl, there is a lot more to the salmon story than the dams. The biologists all point at statistics showing that the salmon runs declined as the dams were installed, and it is inarguable that the runs did decrease in size in that time period.
What they neglect to consider are the other potential causes that occurred in the same time frame: The ocean going fleet doubled in size; The number of gill net permits on the Columbia more than tripled. Fishing take by the Indian tribes more than tripled; Some idiot that worked for Washington Fish and Wildlife introduced pike into the upper Columbia as a game fish, (we have a threatened species in decline, so we introduce a top tier predator, DOH!!!); Idaho Fish and Game, killed off all of the sockeye in one of the lakes on the upper reaches of the Salmon River, to enhance the trout habitat; The ability of those with irrigation diversions to grab more water increased hugely as the cost of heavy equipment dropped to the point they could afford to push huge artificial gravel bars, (dams), across rivers to divert water down their ditches, completely eliminating fish passage up or down the river, at the time when adults are trying to come upriver to spawn, and the little fish are headed down stream towards the ocean. The irrigators drawing water from small tributary creeks gained the ability to completely dewater the creeks and disconnect them from the main rives, depriving fry the ability to seek shelter in cooler water as the main river heats up in the summer; the list goes on and on. A lot of changes were underway in the middle of the last century. Many of them with a negative impact on the health of the environment. There is a well written book, "The Great Salmon Hoax", written by a former attorney for the power companies that is probably the best pro-dam book out there. I won't pretend that it is unbiased, but it does present a good perspective from the other side, and if you actually read study both sides, you will realize that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The dams most certainly have a negative effect on the Salmon. There are many more things that also effect the salmon, that would be less expensive and just as effective to undertake, but the politics of making corrections that impact the commercial fisheries, agribusiness, and the Indian Tribes, is a lot more distasteful to the politicians.
There is a lot of pseudoscience involved in the argument on both sides, but there isn't really any proof of a causality between the dams, and the decreased Salmon populations. It does make very good sense to blame it on the dams, because then the BPA foots most of the cost of mitigation.
If the green house effect causes the Northwest to be hotter and drier, what effect will that have on the Salmon?
By the way, my cost for power is$0.0478 per kW, because most of it is hydro.
"Forestgirl, there is a lot more to the salmon story than the dams. " Surely you don't think I didn't already realize that. A major (if not the main) threat to salmon, from what I gather (no, I don't study the issue) is development and runoff. Ocean life of all kinds suffer from problems here in the Puget Sound. Do a quick Google on:"hood canal" "dead zone" and see what you come up with.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
The unifying theme in the salmon story is the "tragedy of the commons". Each special interest has managed to carve out its own advantage, but the overriding interest- that of the environmental and biological cost- has not. Perhaps that is because salmon don't vote; or more particularly because they don't contribute to political campaigns.It is interesting to see that in the last few years, the economic impact of tourism has begun to change the calculus a bit. Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Don't worry! Nacy Polosi, and Harry Reed are in control, everything will be fine! They will get rid of the tax breaks for the power company's. They (the power company) will finally have to pay there fair share of taxes and that causes your rates to go down! (snicker, snicker). Seriously, that is a steep power cost for sure. In Va a year and a half ago, we were around 4.5 - 5 cents/kwh, but we had a lot of hydro and coal fired generators. I feel for you man. Here in IL, Ameren power rates just went up 50% (no thats not a typo). The new rate will be (estimated) 14c/kwh. Makes me want to sing "carry back to old virginny". It stings, but not much you can do. Grin and bear it. Yes sir may I have another! Take care.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Dear Bones,
I'm with you! Hey, one question, for all of the Greenies.... when we all switch to electric cars, where will all of that extra power come from? ............. Oh, that must be someone else's problem........John
While everyone is bashing the environmentalists for the problems in Connecticut, I feel that some facts are in order.
The problem here is political and regulatory, apparently when the state deregulated the power industry they set up a system that allowed the utilities to base their billing on the highest cost they pay for power, even if it only for a few hours during the month, and apply that rate to all bills for the month rather than base the bills on the true overall cost for the power.
John White, Shop Manager, Fine Woodworking Magazine
Thank you, John!!! Nothing like a little light on the subject. Deregulation of the power industry was a HUGE mistake, IMHO. What happened here on the West Coast a few years ago was despicable.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Re: Deregulation was a huge mistake" ABSOLUTELY! But I am, perhaps like you, somewhat torn by the issue. I scowl at the SUV's that pass me at 75mph as I sanctimoniously nurse 55 mpg out of my new Prius and I shake my head at the 7000 s.f. houses with all of three occupants, but the reality is our conservation or lack thereof, will primarily be driven by market forces, and that is exactly what we are seeing with $3.00 gas ( ok it went lower, but I think $4.00 is about what it should cost, expecially if you figure in the price of W's little war).
Of course in my next breath I am complaining about the price of power.Solar and wind power were considered impractical not too long ago but I think they are worth another look. Win
You make a good point John. I would also ask what type of generating capabilities do you have. I heard nuclear, but what about others. If you can generate power local, you generally have cheaper power i.e. VA. We had hydro which is green somewhat, and Coal (does your enviro regs allow). It matters also in relation to cost of transmission. If you have to truck (figuratively) the power in, I could see that. I'm also curious how much of your cost represents taxes the govt collects? It all plays into the total. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Hi bones, ......guess who the government is ?
Have fun with woodworking, Paul
The reps, the great voters of that state elected, I hope!
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Thanks John. I had a feeling that there was more to this story than was revealed at first.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Some quotes taken from an Article in the New York Times on the 16th of October last year. October 16, 2006
A Power-Grid Report Suggests Some Dark Days Ahead
By MATTHEW L. WALDCompanies are not building power plants and power lines fast enough to meet growing demand, according to a group recently assigned by the federal government to assure proper operation of the power grid.The group, the North American Electric Reliability Council, in its annual report, to be released Monday, said the amount of power that could be generated or transmitted would drop below the target levels meant to ensure reliability on peak days in Texas, New England, the Mid-Atlantic area and the Midwest during the next two to three years.Planning for adequate capacity has become more difficult with the restructuring of the electric industry. Where a handful of top-to-bottom companies once generated power, transmitted it and delivered it, hundreds of companies are now involved in only one or two phases of the process. At the same time, getting permits to build new power lines has become more difficult.The report predicts that demand will increase by about 19 percent over the next 10 years in the United States, and slightly less in Canada, and that the construction of power plants and transmission lines to carry that load will fall far short of what is needed. In this country, utilities have contracts with new power plants for only about a third of the capacity that will be needed; in Canada, the number is about two-thirds.
Moksha,
your "report" doesn't allow for the fact that there are and have been gains in non polluting methods of power generation like wind..
I've watched as wind turbines increased here in Minnesota to a tremendous degree. , Once rare they are now almost common. The only weakness with them has been political. Currant administration is doing much to stop them.. most recently the military put a hold on them because they culd possibly emit a radiation that might interfer with the radar of certain low flying airplanes..
Hmmmmmmm,,,,,,....... towers at 200 feet, planes not able to go below 1000 feet?
Do you think that the owners of coal and oil will take kindly to a loss of their market for fuel? They've managed to convince the pipeline companies and the railroad companies. (much of their income comes from hauling coal) to prevent high voltage power lines from crossing either a pipeline (no matter how deeply buried) and railroads.
Many tracks have not been abandoned simply because to do so would mean the power lines could get to urban population centers (cities) where it can be used..
It takes less than six months to order build and erect a wind generator. Yet it can take more than 5 years to get power from them to the end user..
Sure solar power hasn't proven cost efficent as yet, Doesn't mean it won't and the cost per panels is declining which indicates its simply a matter of time..
Minihydro usage is not wide spread at all. but it could be..
Put a pond on top of hills and collect rain water, allow that rain water to flow out when demand is high and there is even a further reduction in peak demand (which is what drives the contsruction of all plants..
Dear Frenchy,
Your comments are convenient, in that there is no real way to verify them, one way or the other. A couple of things seem apparent:1) Wind Farms... Me, I love em, but........Military......"towers at 200 feet, planes not able to go below 1000 feet?" I think we can assume that the military is more interested in "EMITTED RADIATION" which by definition covers a larger area than just 6" away from the towers. It would be a bummer to have some bomber slam into all those turbines...... not too green.2) Your comments about high voltage wires not being able to cross RR tracks is absurd. Here in CT there is nothing BUT high voltage hung all over and across RR's. You're trying to convince us that there are NO High voltage wires run over RRs, cross country? There are NO wires that cross from North to South, or East to West, carrying power from Canada or from somewhere else? I'm not convinced.3) " It takes less than six months to order build and erect a wind generator. Yet it can take more than 5 years to get power from them to the end user.." If that is the case, and I don't know that it is..... it is appalling.4) Solar...... maybe someday.5) Mini hyro?....... Doesn't sound too promising, but mabe somewhere.6) "I've watched as wind turbines increased here in Minnesota to a tremendous degree." We know that this and all other problems have been George Bush's fault. That was in Clinton's two terms, right? Oh more recently? Must be because the Democrats hold Congress now. (I'm sure that the economy will start showing an improvement as well)Best,John
Jmartinsky
That is the currant hold on power lines here in the midwest. The military's objection to possible radiation from them.. they've been used for more than a decade in California and elsewhere but suddenly there is a problem with them?
As for railroads and powerlines, IN europe it is common to run power lines alongside railroads, Here they aren't allowed within some specified distance..
this information comes from a customer who owns one of the new windmills, he recieves a check for the potential power usage but thus far no power is able to get out.. it's prevented by a railroad track near his property..
I do agree that solar is a someday thing..
Mini hydro will only work where heavy rainfall happens at elevations. Since there is no potental for fishing problems and the overflow can be controled it's as clean as any energy source can make it..
Actaully I give full marks to our republican governor for his support for wind generators. He helped get the currant program thru the state. He's doing much to eliminate the obsticals to effective transmission of power.. He's fighting some pretty big people and Yes Bush is one of those..
He's fought Bush before, If you recall our state has a program whereby we encourage Minnesotains to buy perscription drugs in Canada. (in direct defiance of Bush)
Will the economy improve in the near future?
Well Bush Sr. raised taxes and it took several years ofr that to have a benefical effect, too late to help Bush but just in time for it to help Clinton..
We first need to pay for our war in Iraq.. Historically this nation never pays for it's wars, they allow inflation to minimise the cost and move on.. For an example we spent about the same amount of money fighting Vietnam 600 Billion but never raised taxes to pay for it.. the result is that during the end of Nixons term during Fords term he went arround with WIN buttons (whip inflation now) and The worst problem happened under Carter.. 19% remember it?
So for a while we're goiung to have to endure some inflation to pay for Iraq.. I suggest you acquire fixed assests now..
Frenchy,
The article did not reflect my views, just seemed to be pertinent to the discussion. No question that the electric generation industry is caught in a bad situation, because of global warming and the current conclusion that coal generation contributing to it. It was about six months ago that my reading led me to the conclusion that nuclear power is the only viable answer to the problem. Researched the stock market for companies that would benefit with a strong switch to Nuclear and bought shares in three of them. Since that time those shares have inched up quite rapidly as in the last three months the technical press is beginning to print articles that point up the same conclusion. Now of course the deal with China to build nuclear plants did not hurt the stocks that I purchased.
One of the factors in my decision was our congress, it always waits until something is nearing total disaster and then overreacts; which leads me to believe that large tax breaks or even subsidies for Nuclear plants will be forth coming.
Talk is cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey, a favorite saying of my mother-in-law; so, to put your money down where your conclusions lead you, rather than just talk about it is important to me.
Moksha
Dear Moksha,"Talk is cheap but it takes money to buy whiskey" I love it! I could refute it with suggestions about "smash & grabs", or armed robbery, but a day at a time, whisky is not part of my life, so I'll move on. I think that we are overlooking a tremendous resource. Here is my suggestion:1) Build a fence (Wall..... think Soviet) along our border with Mexico. Yeah I know, but I can dream.
2) Put in a series of gates, perhaps ten.
3) At each gate have a wheel, (Think Conan The Barbarian).
4) Have those wheels hooked up to generators.
5) We should have enough power to light up the S.W. United States.Now, I am an evil, conservative so if it were up to me, I would have no gates. At least none that weren't electrified. On the other hand, in the interest of compromise, I offer my "multi-gate" as a nice, green, solution.Best,John
Actually you pump it up the hill from around 11:00 pm until 9:00 am, (non peak lowest power rate time period varies by local), and then run it through the same pipe and through the generators during peak demand and sell it back to the power company. Industrial rates can drop by 50 to 80% for operating during non-peak hours only. So even with the mechanical losses, you can still make money.
Pumped storage is the industry term for what you're describing. It works, and under the right circumstances it can be profitable. Generally it's pretty nip-n-tuck given the normal prices for hydro power.One thing I don't think has been brought up yet... you can't really 'ship' VARS (reactive power) like you can KW (real power). At some point you need to have local plants online to provide voltage support even if you get some of your KW from outside the region. So the 'not in my back yard' mentality is kind of comical in that sense.
John -
A couple of nights ago, the evening news had a piece on the new electric/hybrid concept cars being introduced at the Detroit auto show.
SWMBO thought that they were pretty neat and asked me what I thought. I told her that it would be do-able but we'll need to seriously increase our power generation capabilities, and improve the whole transmission and distribution system to make it work.
She went into mild shock, however, when I told her that I was curious about what will happen if gasoline use declines and the government starts losing revenue from gasoline taxes. You can bet your bippy (yeah, I'm that old) that some genius will want to increase the taxes on something to make it up. - lol
Dear Dave,
You are right across the board. My (humble) opinions:1) Hybrids... Not worth it. Marginal gains in MPG, lots of batteries and chemicals for the land fills.2) Electrics:
A. Personally, I like the idea of a straight electric car. Simple, quiet, but the battery technology is just not there yet. (I mean a real vehicle, not an oversized golfcart. )
B. There are some vehicles that could be electric right now. City buses, someone mentioned taxis, school buses, and probably some garbage trucks. Vehicles that are not far from the grid, have regular routes and speed & weight is not much of an issue and in a city like NY, getting rid of of those diesels might make for a cleaner, quieter city.
C. We used to have "on the grid" electrics... trollies. They worked very well and it is a crime that they ever went away. Some progress is not good.3) Taxes: You better believe that they will find some other way....4) Infrastructure... Only one answer until "Mr. Fusion" becomes available. More power-plants. More towers with wires.Best,John
Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future... and always will be.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Dear Glau,"Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future... and always will be." You know, I hope that you are wrong. It is pretty amazing technology, pretty close to a "free lunch"............. If someone could get it to work.Best,John
Most of the taxes on gasoline, are used for the construction, maintenance and operation of the highways.
The Federal taxes on gasoline are primarily spent on building the highways. The state taxes generally finance the Highway Patrol, and the construction and maintenance.
So, if not fuel taxes, how do you propose to pay for the highway system.
Dear Jigs,
"Most of the taxes on gasoline, are used for the construction, maintenance and operation of the highways. The Federal taxes on gasoline are primarily spent on building the highways. The state taxes generally finance the Highway Patrol, and the construction and maintenance. "I would argue that, in general, our tax money is terribly mismanaged. The politicians that want to raise taxes always think that WE can do with a little less. How about THEY try doing with a little less? That being said, personally, I would just like some transparency, some truth as what the "real" costs are. We go from gasoline, to electric, but electric is going to cost more than it does now due to infrastructure, supply/ demand & taxes. OK, that's fine. But let's just say that. No more smoke & mirrors. Have some guts. Here is what it REALLY takes. This is the REAL environmental impact of all this change. Same with Hydrogen, or magic or whatever we propose as the "next best thing". Best,John
Yeah here in Mich. when gas hit about $3 a gallon, the use dropped like a rock, so did the taxes from said gas and suddenly Lansing was having a cow over it. Did not seam to care that Exxon made more money then any company ever in the history of the world but what the h@#$ you little people are not sending enough tax money to the state? We better do something about this. So (Get this) some brilliant people in the state government wanted to increase the taxes on gas. UH, the reason they were getting less was the cost was so high that people were not using it as much, and the fix is to make it cost more?
I don't get it.
As for the rest of this well hydrogen is not a fuel source it is a storage system. You have to have a lot of energy to make it or you have to use oil and what does that do for you? You may as well use the gas to start with. And no one seams to like Nuclear so....
If their was a really practical way to build a vehicle with better fuel economy that people would buy, trust me GM, Ford, DC, Honda, Toyota, and all the rest would be running to do it. These guys want to sell you things that move you from place to place they really don't care how it works as long as you will buy it and they can make money doing it. So if they could they would. And as for the battery powered anything what happens when the batteries die? That does happen and in the hot areas and the cold areas batteries tend to have even more problems. So how much will replacement batteries cost for my Car? I hate to think of it. The ones for my cordless drill cost enough thank you.
And I ask anyone to name a new source or either energy or motive power. We have had the basic electrical tech for a long time, and internal combustion, and the idea of burning coal to get anything is not new. So what is a new form that we have had? Not many out there even nuclear is over half a century old. So the idea that we will just invent a new form because we need it seams to be wishfully thinking.
As for the environment has anyone looked at how bad it was a hundred years ago or so? We have done major improvements in the last 50 years but we don't seam to get credit for it. I have photos of areas in West Virginia that look like hell on earth and I have been their and it is now a very nice areas. (the New river gorge. Look at old photos of a place called Sewell) We have improved, it just has been slow. And if you want to save energy how about getting all of the companies that have their lights on in their building and parking lots to shut them off when no one is using them. Why dose a mall parking lot need to be completely lighted at 4 in the morning when the mall closed at 9?
Lets save the earth I am all for it I mean I live here too, but don't make it so expensive to live here that I starve to death doing it.
Doug Meyer
jmarinsky,
Please let me answer your question about electric cars..
First here in Minnesota we passed a law that said the power companies need to buy power where it's offered at market prices.. In addition we required the power companies to invest in wind power..
Many farms collect more from the wind across their land than they do from the beans they grow..
Second politics suxs when it comes to power. It takes a little more than 6 months to order, build, and errect one of those great big windgenerators. It tkes over 5 years to get power lines to them, not due to envormental concerns, rather simply because the coal and oil companies require extensive reports done to Run power lines.. the latest has to do with the defence department..
They want to check every windgenerator at peak power to ensure that they won't put out a signal which interfers with their radars..
Now why they worry about a radar signature at 200 feet when they are restricted to 1000 feet or higher, I'll never know..Any B2 bomber flying along at 200 feet should be reported!
The coal companies (and the railroads that haul coal) won't let a high power line cross their tracks, so they can effectively block many of the best wind sites from ever shipping power out. Some places haven't had a train across the tracks in a couple of decades but the tracks there are still owned by a railroad even if abandoned for tax reasons..
Same with regard oil pipeline. it doesn't matter how deep it's buried , any oil pipeline blocks the transmision of high voltage power!
Finally most electric cars are hybreds.. that is they have their own little generator on board to provide elctricity..
Or, when we switch to hydrogen fuel cells, where are we getting the hydrogen?
Bob
Dear Bob,
Well, due to all the rising sea levels, I guess that we should take it from the oceans. Perhaps that will keep NYC from going under. We will just need electricity to break down the sea water, more electricity to compress it, diesel fuel, rubber & steel to ship it, an entire new infrastructure to distribute it, (that's more building, plundering Mother Earth......bla, bla, bla.)Except for that..... it's free. Just think what it will be like when people start rallying against "Big Hydrogen".Best,John
John,
Last time I saw any numbers, the amount of enery required to extract hydrogen from sea water was 7 times the amount of enery you could get back from that hydrogen. That's not a good trade off, particularly when places like California don't have any spare electricity to do the extraction.
Bob
Dear Bob,
Who cares if it makes sense or not.... it how it makes us FEEL that counts! Go Nukes!John
Check with the State of Conn. and local power supplier. NOW solar panels will be cost efficient for you. Plus the tax breaks are great for residential and commercial. No, I am not a solar panel salesman. I have a friend who owned a 3 flat apartment biulding. He went from 200+ a month to light and cool the common areas to $13.00 a month!!!!
A three flat apartment building for $200. a month. That's cheap. I pay $300. plus a month just for my home, during the summer it can get over $350. a month.
Remember, He is theLandlord pays the el;ectrical for the common areas, the outside secirity and the halls and basement storage.
Yea I see what you are saying. I just thought that it would still run a lot more than a single residence, maybe not, I don't know. Sorry I may just be talking about stuff I don't know anything about. Just seemed cheap I guess.
the initial cost is expensive to install solar, but the saving will add up. It is possible to have your meter run "backwards" on the sunniest days in Illinois.
Commona areas run 24 hrs, 7days.
"Run your meter backwards on the sunniest of days..."
Here in Texas, most ulitity companies won't let that happen!!!
You have to sign a "Co-generation" agreement, in my case with an Electric Co-op, they put what is called "Detents" on their meter in which it will not allow the meter to run backwards. Then...they make you buy YOUR buy-back meter that also only runs in the opposite direction when the electricity flows into their lines...Then, they required a half a million dollar liability insurance to cover if your power generation backfeeds into their weather down lines and hurts/kills a lineman.
Then the real Kick in the Kisser is the buy back amount is less than half what they sold their KWH at....
From what I've read, selling back to the Utility is a last resort. Having your extra power go into heat or heating water, so you don't buy their power to do that, is one way to handle the extra KWH generated.... but if it's summer there's only so much hot water you are going to need...
So much for "free" energy, Huh?
Bill
>>Then, they required a half a million dollar liability insurance to cover if your power generation backfeeds into their weather down lines and hurts/kills a lineman.Isn't there technology available to eliminate this risk? Like, a transfer switch installed for a couple/few hundred bucks whenever you're putting in solar or a back-up generator?Gee, could it be your electric companies down in Texas don't know about this?
Tom,
I had an "Entertech 1800" wind generator with a 14' three-bladed rotor. It was designed around a A/C motor. If an ordinary washing machine motor is speeded up by 5%, it turns into an A/C generator that automatically is in sync of 60 cycles with the electric company. The thing is with this type of generator that when the power grid goes down, the generator's fields also collapse in a fraction of a second, but not quick enough for the Electric Company's view.
No transfer switch was needed as the control box could be set not to allow the unit to unlock it's hydralic brake thus locking the blades. I my opinion, the electric company didn't want Co-generation and since mine and one other generator were the only ones, they saw to complicate the path of those tried....
Insulation and Conservation are the two Most effective ways to cut utility costs. Plus, they have the fewest moving parts to oil, repair, or replace... Bill
Bill
One thing has struck me a few years ago, (I live in CA's central valley, Fresno area to be more direct) I was pondering what the effects of an eco-terrrorist attack would be on our area. If the electricity were gone for say two weeks there would be no lights, no refigeration for food or A/C for comfort (summertime temps 45+ days over 100), no water from the tap, no sewage treatment or transport, no grocery store operations past the few days, no gas or deisel pumped out of tanks, no communication, no law enforcement after a few days, no fire supression... the list goes on and on, oh and no posting on the knots forum;)In a blink of an eye in human history we (our nation) have become utterly dependant on power in whatever form for our very survival as humans, I am not even talking about "National Security" here. Not very wise or bright in my estimation. If the whole nation were without electricity for any time beyond a week or two there would be massive starvation, deaths due to freezing in many places in the winter time, deaths due to overheating in the summer many places. We have been comforted into a state of sheer dependance. Bravo to those with wood heat and their own wood lot. Ditto to those with food production capabilities, and independant water supplies.Our nation is in a precarious place and we cannot rely on our "leaders" to plan a way out of this mess. We must instead plan our own ways to survive and thrive in spite of where we have found ourselves. This goes way beyond what we will pay in $ for comfort and convienience, this is truly survival at its most basic level.Just thought I'd lighten things up a bit.... BTW, don't count on the UN to save us, they're not that capable. P.S. I am not a survivalist, just a ponderer.
I'm not a survivalist either. But just because we live in the country and have power outages now and then, I like having the wood stove for back-up heat.
In the event of more extended outages, which could happen for any number of reasons, I'd like to have solar back-up for my well pump, maybe a little additional solar electric for the refrigerator and lights, and a composting toilet.
However, I discovered it's not so easy to get all this installed. For one thing, the county is not enthusiastic about composting toilets. A Clivus Multrum toilet not only is expensive, but also would entail having an addendum attached to my deed to indicate "there be 'alternative technologies' here!".
In my opinion it is in the consumer's interest, and in the national interest, to make these alternatives more accessible. That will take some political leadership and willpower, but there ought not be any "red state/blue state" divide over this.
Hey maybe you could become the Roy Underhill of CT!
http://www.pbs.org/wws/program/pgallery01.html
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
If Roy stops to figure out how much he is making an hour with those hand tools he will probably cry.
Win
Winchester,
Is it time for you to go off grid?
Consider these options. a diesel powered generator powered by waste cooking oil. Resturants give it away free if you agree take it regularly.
Buddy of mine uses this appraoch, Has cheap Chineese version of the old John Deere two clyinder diesel driving a 10 kw generator (massively more than he needs)
He paid less than $2000 for the diesel generator a decade ago.. run flawlessly ever since.. He charges on old forklift battery he bought for scrap prices. Flushed out the old lead sulfate and it's worked fine since..
Generator goes to the house in high demand situations or he uses the battery and an invertor when he sleeps at night.. He had a solar panel as back up but that put out so little power compared to his needs he uses it only to keep the battery chraged up when he's away..
Another friend off grid has a home made wind tower.. Cheap airplane blades off a C54 driving a 24 volt truck alternator on a swivel platform. Mounted on an old radio station tower he bought for scrap metal prices..
I know a place that has mini hydro. He lives on top of a hill and captures all the rain water that falls into a big holding pond which drains into the mini hydro at the bottom of the hill and from there into the storm drain.. Never freezes even in 40 below weather, moving water does that!
If you are creative go off grid and stop paying to polute!
Winchester,
Here in North Central Texas, at the back of my lot, I have 3 different electric company's highlines. The one we've been with for the past 30 years is an Electric Co-op. This company now charges a monthly meter reading cost of $15, plus my useage. The KWH charge is 9.89 cents, but when you add in the monthly charge it comes can average between 12 & 15 cents a KWHour.
In the early 80's I put up a 1.8 KWH wind generator, but because any extra power went back into their lines, this Co-op required me to buy special meters and to carry $500,000 in extra liability insurance. Going through the Homeowner's policy, it was an additional $25 a year....Climbing a 50ft tower for yearly maintance wasn't a happy event. Besides, 50 ft looking up does not seem as far as 50ft LOOKING DOWN...
I also built a "Batch Solar Heater" that preheated a 40 gallon water tank before it went into my propane water heater. It worked from the last freeze in the Winter to the first freeze of the Fall, but had to be drained during the cold season. Double and triple glass was just too expensive, then.
So, as I currently see it. The best thing I can do is use as much insulation as possible, and use as little electricity and Propane as possible. Solar air heat from a series of 2X4' black panels for sunny and cold days might help as long as one can keep the number of moving parts down to a bare mininum... and have steel shudders like a rolltop desk to cover them in stormy or summer weather.
Until battery technology is vastly improved or until a simple 10kwh Hydrogen powered home generator system is cost and maintance effective, making the most out of as little power we have to purchase is the only answer.
Bill
I'm in KY and I just met a lady from MA who sold all her property to move here and live on the lake. She said the cost of living here is unbelievable compared to what she is used to. I suspect much of the north east has become so unionized/socialized, they are well on their way to becoming France.
<"She said the cost of living here is unbelievable compared to what she is used to. I suspect much of the north east has become so unionized/socialized, they are well on their way to becoming France.">A few facts (I am not from either Massachusetts or Kentucky, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. I am not from France either).Massachusetts is #2 in the nation in per capita income. It is 28% above the national average. Kentucky is #42- which is 18% below the national average. This accounts for much of the difference in the cost of living. Strange how such a socialist state can be doing so much better economically than Kentucky. Considering that Massachusetts is smaller, has fewer natural resources (e.g. no coal or minerals to speak of), poorer land for farming, a shorter growing season- it's kind of surprising that it whups Kentucky so badly. So what do these socialists get for their high spendin' ways?Well, Massachusetts is also #2 in educational ranking of the 50 states... Kentucky is 31. Actually, the 5 top states for education (e.g. high school graduation, reading at grade level, etc) are 1. Vermont 2. Massachusetts 3. Connecticut 4. New Jersey and 5. Maine. Hmmm... sounds like them socialists are doing purty good in edukashun...It is also interseting to note (whenever someone starts a fight about regional differences in spending and taxes) that since WWII, the northeast states have sent more tax dollars to the federal treasury than they have received in government spending projects. For the south, it has been the reverse. In other words the northeast has been subsidizing the south. So tell me, who exactly are the socialists?It is not uncommon for older people to migrate from the northeast to the south for economic reasons- if you are on a fixed income, and don't have children in school it will be cheaper to live in the south, and many don't miss the grey New England winters. But I'll bet if your lady friend develops a serious illness, she'll be thinking of the Brigham or the Mass General pretty damn quick...Have a nice day,Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Well, I live in NY which is #1 in taxes, but plummeting in test scores, business start ups, and depending on what part of the state you live in, income. NY has consistently eroded its population base from census to census, as well as its economic base. I watch as year after year our youth go off to college and never return because there is nothing here for them -- except high taxes, low wages and excess legislation. If that is socialism at work (we are after all a blue state -- blue like a corpse) then I have nothing but disdain for those policies and the ones that enact them.
Michael
Actually New York is #5 in state per capita income, 16% above the national average (BTW, these stats come from that well known pinko organization- the U.S. Department of Commerce: http://bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2006/spi0306.htm)As for education, New York is #15- not stellar but in the top third. I was born in NYC- both of my parents were raised there and I trained there. My sense is that the economic/educational circumstances vary depending on where you live. The public schools in Forest Hills and Dobbs Ferry are very good- those in Washington Heights and depressed rural communities don't do nearly as well. Economically, upstate is hurting because of the loss of manufacturing jobs, while the region around NYC/Westchester/Nassau does much better. My sense is that the government has been a significant part in the problem. The state government- Pataki, the house and senate leadership and its cadre of lobbyists and corruption has been at best ineffectual. Bloomberg has been much more successful in NYC- partly because he is a maverick who does not carry as much baggage as his opponents. Whether Spitzer will be as effective remains to be seen.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Sounds about right. All in all, it still sucks to live here -- at least in my neck of the woods (which Eliot Spitzer has characterized as being like Appalachia).
Michael
I think that Jersey is #1 in Taxes........ I'm sure that makes you fell a whole lot better!John
Yes you’re right. We don’t have any good hospitals is KY. Our women give birth down by the creek, our children never have shoes, and most of us don’t have enough sense to come in out of the rain. I just thank God we have people like yourself to pass along the wisdom of why it makes sense to tax everyone to the point where you essentially become the property of the state. Personally I would rather live in a state where wages and the cost of living is low and a person still has a chance to succeed with little or no government and/or union interference, but that’s just me and of course I have no sense. Remember our KY state motto, “None Of Them There Books Allowed”.
<"Personally I would rather live in a state where wages and the cost of living is low and a person still has a chance to succeed with little or no government and/or union interference...">Succeed? #42? Let me know when you pass Alabama (#41). What is your major export? Whining?For years, people like you have been moaning about how if they only had a bigger tax cut and less government "interference", they would "succeed". And year after year, it hasn't worked. Meanwhile, all those "socialist" states that you decry keeping growing faster- despite having no natural advantages...except an educated work force. Now that globalization has really begun to bite, and the manufacturing jobs that left the northeast for the south are leaving the south for Asia, you still can't disparage education enough.Here's a clue: when you're deep in a hole... stop digging.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
You are right about everything and I am wrong about everything. Have a nice day!
"#41 and #K42". West Virginia, where I live must surely be #49 or #50. You know what, I like it here and I suppose I will stay here till I die. My kids were well educated. My house is about seven miles from a major teaching hospital. Good church. Good friends. Please don't fault me. We are all different and I have lived in enough areas that I can see a beauty in every landscape. When I was in the apartment business, I had a tenant (woman doctor) who spent a good part of her career here making a good retirement. Her husband was a manager of a large hospital in Peking, China. A lot of the Chinese live that way. When she retired, she took her retirement to China, where it is worth much more, rejoined her husband, and lived happily ever after.
No argument from me. The parts of West Virginia that I have hiked were quite beautiful- even in the pouring rain. If someone chooses to live somewhere, and they like it, more power to them. I just have a problem with smarmy comments like:"much of the north east has become so unionized/socialized, they are well on their way to becoming France."People up here are just as fond of their woods, lakes and churches as anywhere else. New England is the land of the town meeting- an exercise that is more democratic (and less socialist) than anything that takes place in D.C. The yahoo attitude behind such comments doesn't get much truck in these parts.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
much of the northeast has become so unionized/socialized, they are well on the way to becoming France.
Yes, that smarted on me a little also. As usual, we are together. I might even be happy in France, but for now I'll take the good ole US with all it's faults. I lived in the Finger Lakes region of NY. What a pretty place. I guess that is almost North East.
I used to think unions only served to keep the lazy slackers and screw ups employed. I was a member of ASFME and Teamsters at UPS. Now I ahve changed my tune. Try leading a stable steady life outside of the unions. Moving every two yerass to find work, and being downsized for cheaper labor, often being replaced by persons of interesting citizen status. Never having any equity in your home, or knowing your nieghbors who move in and out every couple of years. I have been lucky to avoid that, but will my children? I am more than willing to pay an extra $50-$100 for a fine piece of furniture made in the USA than sanve it and have a life of instability and worry. A fornmer nati-union republican is now a pro-union republican.
I can't remember mentioning anything about unions except from a quote , but yes, although I am not particularly pro union, I think unions serve a purpose. It would certainly be worse without them but I think they have sometimes gone a little overboard. When we moved here the meat cutters were striking the local grocery for better pay. They were getting more than twice the pay, with a two week on the job training, than my wife was getting having spent seven years in college/hospital, training and with six years experience. Remember that, in college, it not only takes of your the time, but you pay for the education and are taxed for the money you earned to pay for it. I'm not bitter but do think those meat cutters were getting more than their share.
I worked in a union shop once where a nonproductive employee was caught stealing the product. The management fired him but when the wife came with her sob story, he was reinstated against the wishes of his co-workers. Oh boy.
I think one of the goals of the union is to see that the business makes enough money to stay competitive and keep the employees employed.
As always, no two thinking people agree on everything so I'll let "you all" have a turn.
Parlez Vous New York?
steveky,
You seem to think that unions cost and social obligations cost, well you are correct!
As far as you take it.. Minnesota has a high social cost. because we offer many amenities that people find important.. Good schools, safe communities, great health care, Museums, art galleries, theaters, Pro sports, community sports,
Because we attract peple to those things we have great employment much higher than the nations average, higher pay, and longer life..
You can live cheaper in places Like Mississippi or Lousiana but with higher crime, lower pay, less employment, shorter life..
Funny how you always get what you pay for isn't it?
Edited 1/14/2007 10:19 pm ET by frenchy
Sir I wish you well and I'm glad you're happy. Have a nice day.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled