The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Thin Film's Time in the Sun
First Solar's thin-film technology is now challenging silicon panels at large-scale solar-power facilities
First Solar is the real deal walt. As conventional energy get s more expenisve getting first solar thin films for your roof will be a no brainer. Really exciting this company is, good to see them in full production.
Actually, antidoomer, I don't see this as doing much of anything for me. I live in Western MA and currently, my electric bill runs about $35/mo. My propane bill, on the other hand, is currently running about $2,000+ per year with about 3/4ths of that being burned in the months of Dec, Jan and Feb.
Sure, I could dump the propane burner and switch to solar-electric but we all know how notoriously inefficient resistance heating is.
At this point, shelling out $25 grand to save myself $35 a month seems foolish. Less, of course, you're buying... Then it would be a no-brainer.
So at current electricity rates you're spending 425$ a year for non heating electricty, and 2000$ a year on Heating. First Solar Panels are designed to last a minimum of 25 years. So let's go with your number that you can cover your home in panels for 25grand. you're energy needs are about $2500 a year, and I agree that energy will become more expensive, but hey lets' go with the cheap 2500 a year. Even in this conservative estimate you'll be in the black in 10 years. Now let's say your energy cost double to $5000 a year and the mass production of solar panels allows you to cover your home for $15000. That's where my "no brainer" statement in the future is based on. Three years to pay it off.
Theantidoomer, your math leaves a lot out. Are you saying he could heat his home, in Eastern Massachusetts, all night long, in the dead of winter with solar power? What kind of battery bank would he need to run all night, not to mention sometimes for weeks at a time when the sun does not shing?
Really, no one in Massachusetts heats with solar power, for very obvious reasons.
Ron Patterson, The Doomer ;-)
Ah Batteries you ask. This is where the NaS batteries added to the electric grid will come in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery
http://blogs.spectrum.ieee.org/tech_talk/2007/07/sodiumsulfur_batteries_...
Hey! Wild and crazy idea...he could - BUY INSULATION! Caulk, weatherstripping, etc. I'm sure $5,000 worth would put a huge dent in that bill and pay for itself lickety split. Anyway, it's always said that you should spend your money on efficiency before you spend it on alternative energy because you get a bigger bang for your buck and then it's a lot easier (need a smaller system) to go alternative afterward.
Insulation and air sealing are the key my friends.
2005-2006 average July KWH electrical usage for my home (890 kwh), this July after adding insulation and weatherization and replacing the AC with a 17 SEER (517 kwh), and the summer has been warm in the Twin Cities.
Yeah; they live in too big houses with inadequate insulation.
Cheaper to build a tiny winter house in the back yard than try to heat the stupid behemoth all winter. Or dig a hole and have a winter 'cave' with a greenhouse on top of it.
As for zoning, better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission, I think. The government will be broke, too, you know.
You can do a lot of shoveling and rock picking for 25 grand. Heat it with a catalytic pellet stove if that suits you, and grow some food and save money (or make money) with the greenhouse on top. We live in stupid houses. I've got one, and I'm planning to live the way the original farm builders did: close all the doors and only heat the kitchen.
Or build a cold fusion box. (www.infinite-energy.com)
I've got room for windmills, though, so that's also on the agenda.
Why the need the heat the home all night long?
Wouldn't superinsulation be more than adequate to keep the temperature from dropping below "dangerously cold"? Personally I would much prefer to have the heating off at night - I sleep much better when it's cold, but the wife has a fit at that suggestion. Admittedly I live in a much milder climate than MA, but we also have lousy insulation: even so, on the coldest nights of the year (where it might hit 0C = 32F briefly) the indoor temperature would never drop below 10C with the heating off.
wizofaus, we keep the thermostats (5 zones) set at 55 F. On sunny days, when the outside air temperature is in the twenties, the house heats up nicely and with a bit of help from the woodstove, inside temps stay above 60. It's when the sun doesn't shine -- which, as Darwinian says, can be days at a time -- or when the outside temps are down in the single digits or even below 0 F, that the house really gets tough to heat. We are well-insulated but even so, inside temps will go well down into the fifties at night (and then, of course, the furnace kicks on). The other thing that I've learned is that once the house really cools off, it's pretty tough to warm back up.
55F (~12.5C) is definitely quite low to set a thermostat...I assume you have it somewhat higher during the day?
Still, I remember watching something about houses in Sweden, which presumably gets just as cold as MA, that required no extra-energy inputs for heating. A combination of superinsulation and some sort of passive heat exchange system was enough to keep the temperature very comfortable all year around.
BTW, our natural gas bill is about $300 a year - which includes hot water heating and stovetop cooking. At that rate, extra insulation would take quite some time to pay itself off...but I'm still keen to have it done, if nothing else to allow the house to maintain a more consistent temperature.
It's called net metering, as long as you're connected to the grid. Check it and all incentives for any state or Fed at http://www.dsireusa.org/
Off-grid, you are correct and batteries will be required.
Wrong.
Passive solar, well-insulated buildings work just fine. No batteries required.
antidoomer, this is why I became a doomer: I can afford neither one of these.
This week I interviewed for a job that pays about 2/3 of what I'm making today (which isn't a lot, mind you but is above the median). Why am I considering this? Because, currently I am driving 50 miles to and from work every day by myself and taking this job would allow me to carpool to work with my wife.
Now, as of today, the "economics" of the job change don't work out. It probably costs me about $5,000 per year to drive that 50 mile/day round trip, when I factor in insurance, wear and tear, etc. But what happens when gas goes to $5 per gallon or more? What if I can't buy gas because of rationing or outages?
Now -- Yes -- being a forward thinking guy, I could go today and probably get a $25,000 adjustable-rate home-equity loan and go buy solar panels for my roof. But I already owe $10k on such a loan + I have a tractor payment + a car payment. Then, there are the other expenses -- mortgage, food, propane, car repairs, medical, $200 per mo. to help my disabled mother make ends meet... you get the picture.
I'm not telling you this to try and get sympathy. I'm just telling you that I'm already in "collapse" mode. I see my expenses spiraling ever higher, my pay stagnating (and likely declining) and the last thing I need is another $25,000 loan to be payed back at 10% interest.
My prediction: The only way I will ever have PV on my roof is if Hugo Chavez takes pity on me and decides that I should have it.
Yes, and how about those who don't own a house to put the solar panels on and couldn't get a loan even if they did? Most of the green energy strategies I've seen focus on people who own a house and can afford the initial cash layout to switch to energy-saving or off-the-grid technologies. It's not impossible to do this if you rent, but it's harder.
Plenty of people don't own property, have no assets (except a car) and little disposable income. They won't have the technical knowledge or the money to convert their car to biofuels or buy a hybrid. They can't insulate their apartment or replace the windows or buy lower-energy appliances. They are dependent on their fossil-fuel burning cars to get to their low-paying jobs because public transit is virtually nonexistent and there are no jobs closer to home. Food and health care (if they are lucky enough to have health care), consume nearly their entire budget. The long-term picture for these people is not pretty.
Thoughts like these make me a doomer, too.
Hi Conchita,
I'm glad you brought this up - tough subject.
re: "Food and health care (if they are lucky enough to have health care), consume nearly their entire budget."
I was just inspired by hearing a group of (young) people share how they felt empowered for the first time to take action in regard to the environment.
The problems are serious - but perhaps not intractable. There is still the "social capital" (people working together) - and that can be developed. (Also, btw, there are state and other grants available for starting CSAs.) It's work - but doable. The food part may be easier to tackle than the health care.
http://www.communitygarden.org/
If you get the food part down, you'll have the health care down. Ninety percent of health problems are due to the foods people eat.
that 10% 'll get ya--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
There are a few solar projects that renters could try. I've seen designs for homemade passive solar thermosiphon panels that will fit in a south-facing double-hung window. They could also buy or build a solar cooker. One can also buy those "solar shower" bags at any camping supply store; fill them up, put them out in a sunny spot every morning, and you've got a hot (well, warmish anyway) shower when you get home. They should also be able to at least prop up one or more PV panels on the south side of the house, these could be riged up to provide power to recharge batteries and cordless equipment if nothing else.
There are also things that renters can do to improve energy efficiency. All the years I rented, we made and used draft dogs at the base of all exterior doors. I installed plastic over all windows each winter. We used thick insulating curtains; another possibility is to make insulating shutters or shades to really insulate those windows every night. Of course, renters can always change out the incandescents with CFLs. Most landlords would probably let a renter change out a standard thermostat for a programable one. Of course, renters can always just set the temps down and bundle up in the winter, use fans and dress cool in the summer.
If the renter is pretty sure that they is going to be staying in that unit for a while, then they could talk with the owner and see if they couldn't negotiate something a little more substantial. If the renter is willing to contribute the sweat equity and materials, maybe the landlord would be willing to knock a little off of the monthly rent in exchange for installing a more substantial conservation or solar retrofit. Or, if the renter isn't that handy, maybe they could negotiate an increase in rent in exchange for the landlord doing things that will decrease the renter's energy bill.
FWIW: I don't dispute anything you said above. but I do have a comment about your future job. Will it be around during a major recession? All things equal if existing job with the 50 mile commute is more likely to remain during a recession, your better off keeping it, even if oil prices continue to rise. I believe there is a high probablity that we will roll into a recession within the next 6 to 8 months. When it happens it should cool off energy prices for a period, during which time you can re-asess your situation. Trees don't grow to the sky and neither did the stock market or real estate. Energy is unlike to travel there either.
Another thought is to have your mom move in with you. If she has her own place, she would probably save a significant amount of money, which means that you probably won't need to send her cash, and perhaps she might be able to contribute to your own household expenses (groceries, utilities, etc). I would look any other options available to lower your costs without sacraficing your salary first. Another low cost solution is to increase the number of heating zones (ie it doesn't make sense to heat a room when no one is using it).
Since I really don't know you, perhaps none of these suggestions are useful to you. However, I am sure if you consider your options you can think of several methods to cut your expenses. Best of luck to you.
Thanks, TechGuy. I've wrestled quite a lot with the job question and I don't have a clear answer as to which job would be more likely to disappear in an economic downturn. And there are additional considerations -- one being that I'm seeing evidence that someone in the organization may have thoughts of off-shoring my position. Suffice it to say that I don't feel like I have a lot of control over my employment situation.
We did, in fact, try to move my mother in with us, but that didn't work. She is severely disabled and needs someone within shouting distance at all hours of the day. My wife and I both work so living with us wasn't an option.
The heating zones we have are pretty well placed. Basically, any room with a door has it's own zone (exc the bathroom and one small bedroom). So, I don't think that would help us.
I'll ponder your job advice. Thanks for good wishes.
I hear ya... a lot of the solutions people discuss on here require a large amount of money that many of us (I assume - maybe it's just me) don't have
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
I trust you are refering to the inefficiency in making the electricity, because resistance heating is 100% efficient at converting the electricity into heat.
In any case, there are better ways of capturing solar radiation for heating purposes, including evacuated tubes and passive approaches.
Yes, JB, my neighbor just installed an evacuated tube set up. And, yes, I'm envious.
I'm hoping that at some point in the future, I will be able to consider something like this. But until (a) I make more $$$ or (b) I get some bills paid, it isn't an option.
Thanks, btw, for setting me straight as to why electric space heating is considered inefficient. I misunderstood the problem.
Actually, resistance heating is 100% efficient-- maybe you meant expensive.
The cost of electric heating isn't that much out of wack with the cost of propane heating. From the DOE site, with a 90% efficient propane furnace, it costs about $24 per million BTU. Electric resistance heat costs about $31 per MBTU. Electric air source heat pump would cost about $20 per MBTU.
So if those panels ever come down to the equivalent of 10c per kwh, or if peak-propane (I hope not) begins to stare us in the face, solar PV might be just the thing afterall.
just an fyi but using a ground source heat pump should reduce that heating bill by a great deal.
more importantly, improving the insulation on your house will pay off much quicker.
Never use resistance heating when you can use a heat pump and get COP(coefficient of performance) greater than 5. What that means is for every 1 unit of energy in, you recieve 5 of heat! If the compressor is located in the house, you get 6 units worth of heat dumped into the house!
The best use of solar for heat is passive solar...put low E glass on south facing walls. Free heat and no losses transforming it to electricity and storage.
Hang drying clothes has to be worth a few nuclear plants by itself. We are totally stupid about the obvious.
You could possibly build what I refer to as a "Solar Wall." It's a type of solar air heater that's like a window on the outside of your house...but it's not.
http://store.altenergystore.com/Solar-Air-Heating/c469/
You don't need to buy something fancy like that. I'm sure one could be constructed out of simple materials.
Also, consider some sort of insulating draperies or "insulating storm shutters" that you can close at night and in rooms that aren't being used during the day.
Is this scalable? How long will the known reserves of cadmium (600,000 tons) and tellurium (21,000 tons) last?
Yes, but what's the estimated ultimately recoverable resource? Tellurium is especially uneconomic to extract currently due to the very low concentrations it occurs at. Tellurium may well have to become considerably more expensive for the reserves to increase much, but the amounts needed for thin-film solar are presumably not that great. Still, there is currently a global supply shortfall.
http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/aug06/resources.html
(The first article on this page, actually more directly related to PO than the tellurium article, is a new one for me).