|
The attraction of single dwelling solar panel heat/electrical production and wind turbine installation very quickly reduces when you calculate how little it can actually contribute...
Wind turbines within the boundary layer are practically useless at actually generating electricity when needed, so an energy store is required, typically an immersion heater for hot water in an insulated tank... Solar panels can either provide low grade (low temp heat) for domestic heating/ hot water or electricity, but again they may need an energy store...say hot water or in the high solar regions coolth...so run the a/c or better a structure cooling system. In order to deliver 'meaningful' reductions in grid based energy requirements the domestic infrastructure needs to be adapted to exploit the revised energy production methods... But at times they look pretty damn good.... http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1256684981.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1256684827.jpg They'll be installing the three 9m diameter wind turbines at the top of one of my buildings next month..... |
Quote:
Excellent. Your personal effort is commendable. I mean that sincerely. But your efforts had little to do with smart meters. I say "little" because the smart meter was used to make you more aware. I say "more" aware because were likely already aware that you could improve their habits. But a very large population in American is not ready to do what you have done in your household. Those who are likely to live an life with energy conservation as a primary directive, don't need smart meters (at the cost of billions of dollars) to tell them conservation is key. And in your last paragraph, you credit the results to a lot of things that have a bigger factor (IMO) than the smart meter. The point I made in my opening post is that smart meters will not provide the kind of results the government hopes it will. It will be a waste of money...money which I believe can be put to better use. It will do little for the consumer, but it will do wonders for the grant recipients. Better use of the billions of dollars? Home solar and wind programs. Are there other opportunities that have immediate impact and return also? Absolutely. But this is not the focus of our goverment. I haven't seen a public service announcement on energy conservation in years! And if there is something on the "tele" that borders on a conservation message, it usually ends with some corporate advertisement. |
My next door neighbor works as a project manager remodeling gas stations. he's been doing it for a long, long time. Changing then into convenience stores, car washes, etc.
he is busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contert right now. Why? Because the federal government is paying the entire bill to convert all the interior lights to LED. Wiring, fixtures, the whole nine yards. Many stations are using it as an excuse to re-wire the entire building, all on your dime. The cost is upwards of $60k for some of the stations, the cost vs. energy saved will probably never be a break-even. It will never pay for itself. YOUR STIMULUS DOLLARS AT WORK! but it makes the enviro-tards "FEEL" good. |
BTW, anyone who thinks if they spend many thousands of euros on triple pane windows, upgraded appliances, insulation etc in order to reduce their electric bill enough to save 52 euros a month it results in a net savings is out there. really, really out there.
Spending a whole bunch of money to save a little is not smart. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are right, it is not smart. It's brillant! A net saving (or return) month after month, year after year is what makes any investment worthwile. Good thing you are not a financial advisor.:eek: Improve your reading comprehension. That was a savings after all upgrade costs were deducted or compensated by a tax rebate.:rolleyes: |
Quote:
Why is not a large portion of the American population not willing to reduce their energy expenses? Is it individual stupidity, general ignorance or the government's fault? Just because in America you refused to accept that capatalism is not the best choice in all situations doesn't mean you too cannot benefit with some rational action. That was where you went wrong with nuclear power many years ago. I believe improvement to the average house in insulation and reducing heat absorbtion as well as more efficient appliances will reduce the energy use far more than solar or wind power will. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As a data point, my in-laws used to live in a home built in the 1970s. Insulation was good for the day, the windows were replaced with quality double paned units, appliances were quality but not high efficiency. Size was about 3000 sq ft total. They built a new house, almost 6000 sq ft of it. The home was made out of Ecoblock, styrofoam forms 12" thick that were filled with concrete. Argon filled Andersen windows, lots of attic insulation, high efficiency appliances. Their utility bills are less than with their old house, even with 2x the size. They're not green (far from it), just practical. |
Quote:
None of the improvements to efficiency would require a smart meter, you are brillant, so that helps. Our dollars would be better spent in the manner described by the OP, more immediate ROI. |
Quote:
You could make it pay by designing in passive solar (window over hangs to allow sunlight in the winter, block it in the summer, etc), and super insulating. Except, that Super Insulating was much much more cost effective. Price up adding 12" of fiberglass insulation in your attic. It is worth it for almost everyone, anyplace. Yep, this winter the house here in Houston will be getting: Radiant Barrier 12-18 inches of extra insulation in the attic Attic fan Next few years, doors and windows will be changed, to much more efficient ones. Short term, change our wooden blinds to the "see through" Silhouette type. The windows with silhouettes have no dew on them in the morning. They definitely create an insullation effect. |
[QUOTE=onewhippedpuppy;4977625]I would argue that educating homeowners would have likely had the same impact, you simply would not have been able to quantify the improvements as clearly. To what degree does the French government subsidize energy improvements for a home? Many American homeowners don't have the thousands of dollars to replace windows, doors, re-insulate, etc. Still more likely don't realize how much money they could save. Reducing energy usage through improving home efficiency would certainly have been a better use for our stimulus dollars.
[QUOTE] I would argue that this kind of knowledge has been available in the States at least from 1973. How many Americans perminately changed their livestyle to be more energy efficient? When you educate, provide metrics (smartmeters), provide assistance like tax rebates for home energy improvements, mandate insulation standards that are high and strict, builders held to those standards with tough laws and enforcement and add it the "stick" of higher costs if you do not change, then you will see improvement on a wide front. Social engineering goes on constantly in all societies. Some just do a better job at it then others. |
Quote:
And if you are at this point in the thread and still think that smartmeters will not help as part of the solution and that windpower and solar for homes is the better major part of the solution, it proves my point about you. |
many utilities now offer loans to weatherize your home - here it is 0% interest for E* windows
the information I posted shows that smart meters drastically reduced energy bills - see the BGE quote above but if you have a religious aversion to energy conservation, you will continue to ignore actual data, preferring speculation |
Quote:
Unless the entire home infrastructure is adapted (sometimes fundamentally) then the energy produced by both solar and wind power is wasted if is cannot be used immediately.... The ROI of simply installing a small wind turbine and 'plugging it into the home' is measured in decades, which whilst it 'may' be worthwhile for a percentage of long term residents it remains, at this moment an inefficient solution. The biggest single step that can be done now.. as has been mentionned a few times already is to reduce energy 'wastage' that is endemic to the majority of domestic units. This would cut domestic energy bills with very little or no capital cost to the users... The next step is to replace energy hungry appliances by more efficient ones (the disposal of the old items is a real issue however) which again 'could' yield savings on domestic bills. Then the potential of solar and wind power can exploited more rationally...because 'right now' they do not make financial.. or ecological sense.. |
|
Guys, there is another side to the meter issue. Its a win win win for the power company. Three things in play here. Meter reads better so more money for company and you get a higher bill, company gets government money to install etc, and the main one is the company then gets exact information on how much energy is being used. They know exactly how much they are generating. The best way to run a power plant is wide open- 100%. If their users are only using 60% then they can sell off 40%. But they have to know how much power they need first. We built one of the first type of systems in the 1980's in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. It was a microwave system but told us how much power was being used by all of our sub-stations. It worked. We then sent the extra juice to places like Los Vegas for a profit. They tell us it about the green- it's about the green dollar. The rest is just hype.
|
Power Producers typically are not the power distrubutors these days. At least in the US.
|
Red Beard, In some states yes but most at least here in the south do generate and distribute. Or, they have all joined together and own the generation plant. Depends I think on the regulations of the state. Out west most of the power companies have spit into three different companies. Transmission, generation and distribution with maybe a fourth, nuclear. If they own a part of the plant, then they still profit from wheeling the power where ever they can.
|
I heard about the smart meters on NPR yesterday morning. I was still half asleep, but when they summarized the plan, my brain was thinking, "what the hell?"
We have high unemployment, structural defects in the financial industry, and record deficits, amongst a host of other problems, and "smart meters" gets crossed off the to-do list? I like Souk's solar plan much better. In fact, when solar grid-tie pricing falls below $3/watt, I'm going to make the leap. Any extra return from the government would soften the blow of the capital costs. Then again, the best use of grant dollars would be solar water heating. It has the highest efficiency, with vacuum tube efficiency exceeding 80%. Homes with electric water heating would see dramatic cost savings and very quick payback times. The biggest obstacle is ignorant, passive consumers. They'd rather spend the bucks on unnecessary junk and trinkets. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website