Turning down the AC
Posted by Yankee on March 9, 2006 - 10:55am
The New York Times reports (from the other day, but we didn't cover it, did we?):
The Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory reported on Thursday that if every car and truck on America's roads was equipped with ventilated seats, air-conditioning-related gasoline consumption could be reduced by 7.5 percent, thus saving 522 million gallons of fuel per year.While I'm at it, I'll just throw this out there. If you're driving on a highway at 60mph, which is more fuel efficient: turning on the AC, or opening the windows? In my experience, this question always causes something of a disagreement.The seats tested have two built-in fans that suck warm air and moisture through their perforated leather and send it away from the driver or passenger.
Ventilated seats make drivers feel cooler, so they could save fuel by turning their air-conditioners down a notch, in theory.
And you can also use this as an open thread.
[editor's note, by Prof. Goose]Also, a heads up (hat tip: peakoil.com) on a CNN special on peak oil which will be aired Saturday, March 18, 8pm, anchored by Frank Sesno, and is called "We Were Warned: Tomorrow's oil crisis." (brief description here)
“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Some very interesting stuff at the new Hubbert tribute site. Personal as well as peak oil-related.
have some really interesting comments.
I was a high school senior in 1956.
http://www.prosefights.org/shattuck/shattuck.htm
ARTIST: Kansas
TITLE: Portrait (He Knew)
Lyrics and Chords
[Capo 3]
He had a thousand ideas
You might have heard his name
He lived alone with his vision
Not looking for fortune and fame
Never said too much to speak of
He was off on another plane
The words that he said were a mystery
Nobody's sure he was sane
/ Bm - / G - / D - / E G / :
{Refrain}
But he knew
He knew more than me or you
No one could see his view
Where was he going to
/ Bm / GE Bm / / G E /
He was in search of an answer
The nature of what we are
He was trying to do it a new way
He was bright as a star
But nobody understood him
"His numbers are not the way"
He's lost in the deepest enigma
Which no one's unraveled today
{Refrain}
And he tried
But before he could tell us he died
When he left us the people cried
Oh, where was he going to
He had a different idea
A glimpse of the master plan
He could see into the future
A true visionary man
But there's something he never told us
It died when he went away
If only he could have been with us
No telling what he might say
{Refrain}
But he knew
You could tell by the picture he drew
It was totally something new
Oh, where was he going to
I recall a funny comment by a Daimler engineer saying that they put in sunroofs so you wouldn't need AC, but Americans insisted on both.
Just joking, Dick, Rummy, just joking. Hm. Shouldn't be giving these guys ideas, should I?
We really have to do something about road rage.
I often see people get into a closed up, boiling hot car and turn on the AC without opening the windows at all. This puts a huge load on the AC. If they would just run a block or two with the windows open, it would make a lot of difference.
In Iraq, gunners man turrets that are basically sunroofs in the Hummers. By armoring a car with Plexiglas , the turret is invaluable in road warfare. (Think of The Gauntlet with Clint Eastwood armoring the bus cockpit but replace steel with Plexi.)
The main usefulness is if a Road Warrior -ish future develops.
I also use LEDs for marker lights and am considering HID conversion for headlights (brighter, 35 watts instead of 55 watts on low for each headlight).
Synthetic fluids all round. Mobil 1 in engine & differential, M-B in manual transmission, Valvoline in Power Steering and brakes.
Result 31 mpg city, 35 to 42 mpg highway (depending upon speed) and a car that will last my lifetime, barring accidents.
Sitting still in heavy traffic would be an obvious exception, but I keep the windows closed in that situation anyway, ever since the time I was stopped next to badly-tuned midsize truck that blew a dense cloud of diesel smoke directly in my open window :^)
And then what do they breath? Bottled air? A minority of people have cabin air filtration systems. How many of them work effectively, or are in working order, is moot.
And then there are the voc's generated by the various materials out of which the vehicle interior is manufactured.
It's all too much. I think I'll have another cigarette.
doug gabelmann
ottawa
Another point not often mentioned is that you probably wouldn't open your windows all the way at 60+ MPH, especially not at 75 or 80 like people drive around here. It's way too windy and noisy. So this introduces another variable in the comparison: windows cracked open an inch or two vs closed vs open all the way. My guess is that opening them enough to ventilate the car nicely is not going to create as much drag as opening them all the way.
The auto makers started doing away with those nice little side window vent wings during the late 1960 and early 1970s. It's a shame, because they provided very good ventilation in an un-airconditioned car. Those 'crotch-cooler' vents on either side under the dash also helped a great deal. Some of the cars from the 1940s and early fifties were even better in that regard, as some had these moveable vents in the center of the hood near the windshield that you could raise or lower.
As to whether there is more energy lost at 60 mph with the windows open or with the AC on, I'd say that the answer is not so clear cut. It depends on the shape of the car, whether all the window are wide open, and how large of an AC you have an how high you have it turned up. If you're talking about over 70 mph, I suspect the window-open mode would expend more energy, If it's just 60 mph or below, I'd say that it depends.
Still, it's well to note the effect. Keep in mind that all the windows do not have to be fully open for good flow-through ventilation; you just have to have well-designed vents. And the idea of positive ventilation for the seats seems to have merit. (Just make sure that the exhaust from the front seats is not directed onto the rear-seat passengers!)
Remember that power required for a given speed goes up as the third power (cube) of the speed, as far as aerodynamic drag. That is to say if you double your speed, you require eight times more power to maintain that speed. This cube term really magnifies the effect of just cutting down your speed a little bit to save gas.
It is not correct that the total power required to proper a car increases as the cube of the speed. The total power to propel a car is composed of several components, the main ones being: i) rolling friction, ii) engine friction and other engine losses, and iii) aerodynamic drag. The first two rise more or less linearly with speed. It is only the power component consisting of aerodynamic drag that rises with the cube of the speed.
So, at low speeds (say up to about 40 mph, depending on the drag coefficient of the specific car) the power rises only slightly steeper than linear. But as the speed increases, aerodynamic drag starts to predominate and the speed/power relationship begins to move more into the cube rule-regime. That is why even very light race cars need very powerful engines.
The so-called cube-rule holds a little better for ships, but even there it is not clear cut. At low speeds a long slender ship will actually use more power than a more stubby one of the same displacement because it has more wetted area and hence more surface friction. But as the speed goes up, the power expended in pushing water aside and in wave making begins to predominate and the long slender ship will use less power for the same speed. It gets very expensive to get a ship to go over a certain characteristic speed that is determined by its length and hydrodynamic form.
Doubling the power will roughly double the rate of fuel consumption, but not the amount of fuel consumed in traveling a given distance. The reason is that in the high-power case, the vehicle is traveling faster, and hence covers the same distance in a shorter period of time, and hence the higher rate of fuel consumption takes place over a shorter amount of time. While it nowhere evens out, it's important to realize that doubling the power does not halve your gas mileage. (It makes it considerably worse, but not by a factor or 2).
Then ditto for all the other seats that might have a sitter sometime. Sell your AC to the uninformed to regain the entire cost of your new innovation.
I think you meant "Peltier", not stirling. ^_^;
With the average metabolism being 200 calories/day, that's about 80 watts. Create a source of hypothermia and insulate the rest of your body, and you'll need very little A/C to keep cool.
This is one reason I like to shift to neutral when coasting downhill; the engine burns a lot less fuel ticking over at 800 RPM than overcoming friction at road speed of 2100.
"Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and warned "the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime."
Cheney said the Iranian government "continues to defy the world with its nuclear ambitions" and that the issue may soon go before the U.N. Security Council.
"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group."
"The regime has shown it cannot be trusted. It hid its nuclear activities for two decades from the international community. It has refused to comply with its international obligations. This is about the regime and its behavior. That's what this is about and that's what our focus is."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/us.iran.ap/index.html
You may want to replace "Iran", "nuclear weapons" with "Iraq" and "WMD" and it all sounds too familair. Especially that last sentence I quote gives me the shivers. Deja-vu!
Attacking Iran may sound impossible, implausable, irrational, immortal, economic suicide etc.
The present US administration however are champions making decisions with such characteristics.
Or?
What better way to mask or phostpone PO by wrecking the world economy and take vast amounts of oil out of production (like happened in Iraq) by attacking Iran (and possible closure of the Strait of Hormuz)?
This is speculation but the Bush administration IS Peak Oil informed. I could go on and speculate attacking Iran is just part of a wider, long term strategic objective.
Sorry folks. It's gonna happen. Wait for the UN to become "irrelevant" again.
The U.N. is steeped in corruption from top to bottom and utterly ineffective in stopping wars. Holy Shishkebabs, you think the sainted Kofi Anan didn't know what junior was up to? If so, that bridge in Brooklyn is still for sale. And for you, a special price.
Now we talk about it, the US itself is represented by someone who has repeatedly called the UN irrelevant. That should tell something.
Glad you aggree with me Granddad.
But when you think of it if there was not UN, the majors would be starting to shoot without even bothering for justifications. At least it gives some time and a chance for sanity, IMO.
This is speculation but the Bush administration IS Peak Oil informed."
Bolten at the U.N. is saying," tangiable consequences".
I'm not saying/agreeing the train has left the staion, but the engine is running; however if the price increases that will be a driver so that oil is not the focus on their watch. Yes , the train may have already left the station. I pray it hasn't/won't.
It's easy to say stuff like "face it, it's gonna happen," or "no way, they wouldn't dare," but that's just talk. People in these markets are backing up their opinions with real money. That automatically gives them more credibility. And the market averages everyone's opinion to come up with an overall consensus, which is another thing that's hard to get just by reading different people's opinions.
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/searchPageBuilder.jsp?z=1141929857810&grpID=44 28
These are the current odds for an air strike on Iraq by the following dates:
Jun 30, 2006 ------ 10.7% - 11.3%
Dec 31, 2006 ------ 23.6% - 24.7%
Mar 31, 2007 ------ 33.0% - 34.4%
If I recall correctly, you posted much the same sort of thing last week. (?)
While the March 31, 2007 odds of 33% look tempting, I have a real problem with this whole concept of betting on war, largely because it reduces war to the level of a sporting event, which I find vaguely obscene.
In case you've chosen to forget, a massive air attack on Iran will result in probably thousands of innocent people being killed or permanently maimed. Thus, if I were to make a wager that the US/Israel will attack Iran by such-and-such, it would be unavoidable that I would consciously or unconsciously be rooting for the attack to take place. By so rooting for an attack to take place, I would in essence be rooting for people to be killed and maimed, because the latter is unavoidably connected to the former.
Moral and ethical considerations aside, I just don't want to put myself in that position. Particularly since my nextdoor neighbor's kid will be leaving for Iraq in April to fly helicopters. If win my bet and he should come back home through Dover AFB, I don't want to feel that I somehow benefited by his death. I'm not by nature a superstitious person, but in this case, I just think it's bad luck all around.
All posters should remember that the world wide web is just that and postings that hint at an indifference in the West to suffering elsewhere will be read in such places and promote indifference or even approval of suffering in the West caused by attacks on it.
In many ways it is the wide swathes of people willing to give tacit support to such attacks by not revealing those that commit them are more important than the few willing to actually commit them. This is a lesson we learnt in the UK about the troubles in Northern Ireland. Think of how many people must know where Osama bin Laden is and none of them has been tempted by rewards equal to a life's income to turn him in. Do not swell their numbers.
The next attack could maim for life your kids or mine.
Do you realize how absurd your position is?
OK, there may be a few UN programs that have a positive, relevant effect on some people's lives. But even they are often only alleviating situations caused, or allowed to arise, by the UN's irrelevance or by the unwillingness or inability of the so-called "international community" (an oyxmoron if there ever was one) to act to prevent the problems in the first place.
I'd be happy to provide more details if necessary. My question is, does this sound about right, or am I missing something?
First try to save the money by cutting unneccessary purchases so you don't have to take a 30 year, 6.5 % loan to get your solar system installed. Or start piece by piece (Try To Stay Out Of Debt Coming Peak Oil!).
86% increase of costs is a lot. But is it more than what is ahead? Maybe, Maybe not.
No matter the price now, if the grid goes down, you will at least have some power.
That would be a great advantage - to have your lights on when the maraudering bands attack your house.
Darwin Award Winners only. The rest with a brain would use the electricity for something useful and be smart enough to turn the damn lights off at night. Duh.
Not with a grid-tie system he won't. He'll have to shell out thousands more dollars for batteries and an inverter to charge them.
At 6.5% interest it will take 35 years to pay back a loan of $6000 with this income stream. This doesn't take into account the panel degradation. Service live for PV panels is around 20 years though they have significant output past that.
The joker here is whether electricity will be 12 cents per KWH for thirty years. It would not seem so.
Would I do it again? No. It's worthless during a power outage because the system works only when the mains are active - there is no battery storage. When the utility company starts installing smart meters they will probably do the accounting in a different and less favorable way. Currently the meter is run backward when the panels produce more energy than I am using. Half the cost of the electricity is for transport and the other half is for the energy. Smart meters will only credit energy at 6 cents per KWH whereas the current system credits energy put back on the grid at 12 cents per KWH - the meter is just running backward.
This will make an immense difference. The utility company will argue that they are just buying energy so they should only have to pay the same rate thay pay other energy providers - 6 cents per KWH.
Don't get me started on the efficiency of the Trace (now Xantec) Suntie grid-tie inverter. It was touted as 96% efficient but my calculations show it to be around 60%. That made a big difference too. The unit has held up OK but I'm not at all pleased with its efficiency. They replaced it once and the replacement unit was less efficient still. Many calls to the company and no satisfaction. They named the processor inside after a grateful dead song so you can take it from there.
It was an unwise purchase, looking back. I assumed that electricity was going to be 25 cents per KWH by now so, in effect, I was buying an energy futures contract that didn't pan out.
That was very informative.
It's very helpful to get a reality check on home alternative energy systems now and then. Often, new technolgy doesn't start to show its problems until some extended amount of operating experience has been accumulated. Eventually, most of the bugs get worked out, but it can be a painful (and expensive) process.
There were the same sort of disappointments and complaints when people jumped on the latest fad and started buying those newfangled horseless carriages. A natural selection process sets in, where the poor products go under and the better ones succeed.
A couple of years ago I did some work on generating methane from agricultural biodigestors for which I think they can pay back (theoretically) in 6-8 years w/o any fuel escalation cost needed. PV has never looked like a good deal to me.
Also it is not clear to me whether you are using present value analysis (and if so what is your assumed rate of discount . . . 6.5%???) or whether you are using the internal rate of return method or what method at all.
If the installation is a good idea, then my guess is that the true cost would not require anything like an 86% increase in utility rates to justify it. Does not make sense to me. I'd have to see a lot more numbers to understand the situation, however.
Also, if your "true" interest rate as stated on the "Truth in Lending" form is above about 7%, I would think that it would probably make very good sense to finance over ten or fifteen years rather than thirty.
On the other hand, as my old friend the octopus said, if you expect hyperinflation, then ignore the nominal financing costs entirely and borrow to the max over thirty years for whatever you want in your wildest dreams.
I think that like most people he is not using NPV. This grossly overestimates the real value of the system, because he is not discounting his future revenues, while most of his expenses would be now.
Don't do it Tim, it is worthless. Better buy a wood/coal furnace, isolate your house, even buy a Prius and convert it to plug-in. Currently solar panels are not much more than a hype.
- My purpose is to evaluate whether this makes economic sense; or, put another way, what assumptions have to be met in order to justify this as an investment.
- This would be a grid-tied system with no battery backup. My backup is a gasoline-powered generator for outages lasting more than a few hours.
- The system size is calculated on the basis of my current and projected annual energy demand, with the goal of exactly matching that demand. The utility will pay zero for excess production.
- 2005 consumption was 6,252 KWH.
- This would be a nominal 5 KW system; that's the solar contractor's estimate to provide the desired amount of power at this location. Installed cost estimate is $40,000 ($8/KW). CA rebate is $2.80/KW and there is a federal tax credit up to $2,000, leaving a net cost of $26,800.
- In order to evaluate the economics I assumed financing with a conventional real-estate loan, about the cheapest money available. I could take the money out of an investment, but it's yielding more than 6.5% so that wouldn't make much sense. If there's a better way to evaluate this, show me.
- Financing with a conventional mortgage adds the extra benefit of income-tax deduction for the interest portion. I'm not in the high bracket any more so I assumed only a 15% tax benefit on the $1,752/yr of interest.
- Figuring all that up, I get a net annual cost of $1,861 for the system finincing. 2005 cost for electricity was $994. Therefore I would be saddling myself with an extra $867 per year above what I currently pay for electricity. Makes no sense!
Thanks to everyone for the comments so far.It is less expensive to replace certain appliances to save electricity than it is to purchase solar panels to create electricity.
Look at the Sun Frost (http://www.sunfrost.com/) refrigerators/freezers. They supposedly use only 20% of the energy.
Look at solar water heating prior to looking at solar panels.
Look at plasma computer monitors.
Etc, etc.
A great tool to purchase is "Kill-A-Watt" electricity monitor. http://www.energyfederation.org/consumer/default.php/cPath/398_388_254
And of course, don't forget about those phantom loads.
A kilowatt saved is one less kilowatt you need to design in.
Rick
Nonetheless, convincing local libraries to stock and lend this device is a worthy endeavor. There is obviously a big demand.
doug gabelmann
ottawa
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/7657/
When I had a good UPS hooked to car batteries, I made an ammeter for the battery side to serve as the gauge for how much power I was using while on batteries. (I also had a "gas gauge" voltmeter to show charge left.)
When you use an extension cord, there is a voltage drop. By hooking a Fluke (set to show AC volts) at 2 spots on one of the conductors, a voltage is shown representing the voltage drop from the resistance of the wire itself. A good cord will have a small voltage drop of course, but Flukes can show millivolts. Plug in the known load (like a 60 watt incandescent lamp checked with a borrowed Kill-A-Watt) and note the voltage shown on the Fluke. Now you have an official Mad Maxout Kill-A-Watt.
Should be easy to test. Just plug it into an unused outlet and leave it alone. Check it after a day or longer.
I bought one a while back and recommend them highly. What an eye opener. The phantom load from VCR/TV's is incredible. Hell, even the dishwasher pulls a phantom load! Power strips and Kill-A-Watts more than pay for themselves very quickly. Be prepared for push-back from other residents in your home!
Anyone know of an easy method of getting load data from 230V service items? I know you can get a clip meter around one wire, but that involves more work and exposure than I care to deal with. I have learned how to read the house meter to get rough estimates as 230V items are very power hungry, that's why they're higher voltage - to reduce amps. WARNING: neighbors and loved ones will be convinced of your insanity as you scurry back 'n forth turning on-off loads and reading the meter!
Also, I've got hard data on just about everything in the house. But there is still a ~75W phantom load that I haven't yet found. Some idle day I plan to use the breaker box to narrow down where that darn load is. Now that we've gotten rid of the easy fat, that final mystery load is a significant number (75W running 24/7). Anyone have any thoughts about what it might be? Smoke detectors? I'm reasonably certain that it isn't anything that's plugged into an outlet.
If you know about electricity like I do, it gets real easy. For most people, electricity gets almost like magic. I've been experimenting with electricity since childhood. (and got bit a few times too)
On the Sun Frost ... I think you've gotta want to save that incremental amount (or be off grid an 12v) to really justify it.
With the Kill-A-Watt I found that my $600 Kenmore refrigerator/freezer uses about 1.2 kWh per day. As opposed to the 0.77 to 1.02 kWh quoted for the much more expensive Sun Frost RF19.
Actually, I think an improvement since the 70's is that real energy efficient appliances have entered the mainstream (front load washing machines, etc.).
For my actual Kill-A-Wat results, I found that running 58 hours and 41 minutes consumed 2.90 kwh. Using my calculator:
average consumption 49.418 watts
KWh per year = 432.90
$40.58 per year at 0.09375 cents min charge
$73.77 per year at 0.17042 cents max charge
$3.38 per month at 0.09375 cents min charge
$6.15 per month at 0.17042 cents max charge
(the crazy max and min charges were Southern California Edison rates a couple summers ago)
That's a bit of a joke, actually. Chances are your contractor will be bankrupt in ten years so the contract won't be worth much.
Your contractor is claiming your system will provide a yearly output of 6.252 megawatt hours per year. That comes to an average of 17.128 KWH per day. Reasonable average for a 5000 watt system I'd say. Depends entirely on where you live. I live in one of the best areas for PV. Your mileage will vary a lot depending on cloud cover.
Furthermore, you're not going to generate a consistent 17 KWH per day all year. You'll be producing 23 KWH during the summer and 14 KWH during the winter. If you don't use much air conditioning, a good portion of the summer generation may be a freebie for the power company.
Call your electric utility company and ask what their policy is going to be when they install smart meters. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. Instead of twice as much you could easily be paying four times as much because you typically generate electricity during the day and sell it to the power company. You then buy it back in the evening. If you're buying it back for twice the selling price then that has to be figured into your costs.
That's why I didn't get a 5000 watt system. The 2000 watt system reduces my electric bill to about $5 for five months a year and I never have a month where I generate excess capacity. During the winter I usually pay about $25 a month.
People hyperventilate about hyperinflation but I think it more likely we'll suffer a multi-year killer recession/depression. In that case the price of electricity could remain stable or even drop. The wild card in all this is just how much we can conserve if we really tighten our belts. My guess is it's a lot.
You're absolutely right. It's an investment that doesn't make sense. Been there. Done that. Given the uncertainties, I think your numbers are way too optimistic. Right now PV's are du jour and the price has sky-rocketed. Wait for awhile until the nut-cases who can't run numbers find out just how bad a deal it is. Nut-cases like me, I might add. Chuckle.
- On a purely personal, economic basis, PV is tough (if not impossible) to justify sans very hefty rebates and tax credits which vary widely from state to state. However, you HAVE contributed to the community good by reducing the load required to be put out by the power company (at peak load times BTW), helping to delay or prevent the building of additional powerplants.
- You have helped to reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.
- You are helping to decentralize the grid, making it less susceptible to large scale blackouts. And, dare I say it, terrorist attacks.
All intangible benefits, but benefits none the less.Finally,
4. A car that is more luxurious and therefore more expensive than the absolute cheapest, most economical car is also a bad investment from a purely economical standpoint. But we make these kinds of choices every day.
So I wouldn't lament your choice too much. Get out there and watch your meter run backwards once in a while :-)
That's why I can chuckle about making a financial decision that's probably not justifiable on a purely economic basis. The panels have a long life and I get a kick out of the $5 electric bills during the summer.
And you're absolutely right. I find watching the meter run backward very entertaining.
I'm also pumping energy onto the grid during the hottest part of summer days because I live in an adobe house that stays cool in the afternoons and doesn't require air conditioning.
I hope the electric utilities will have an enlightened attitude and credit energy pumped back onto the grid at the same rate they charge for energy taken off when smart meters rule the wires.
Thanks for pointing out some of the benefits. If Tim does go for this I hope he scales back a bit. A 2000 watt system should be quite large enough.
One other thing. I installed the system myself and saved a bunch of money. My system would have cost $24,000 if professionally done. I bought the panels and converter for $12,000 and made a fun project of it. The wiring was easy. The tough part was installing the panels on the roof in a manner that satisfied San Diego building inspectors. I ended up camped out down there because they were concerned that these weight of the panels was going to collapse my roof! These same people would rubber stamp the plans to replace my asphalt shingles with tiles! Never underestimate the power of a building inspector to make your life miserable. And that's when he's having a good day.
You must install them via a permit process because that's how the state documents that the system is real for purposes of the rebates.
I applaud efforts to conserve energy and don't want to be a killjoy about PV panels. If I ever decide to move to a more remote location I'm sure I'll consider the panels a good investment. If I move without taking them they add at least $6K of value to the house. Potential buyers are turned on by showing $5 a month electric bills.
My guess is that electricity will become more expensive over the next five or ten years and that makes the PV investment look better too.
If we were high utilizers and paying $0.25 per watt from PG&E, it would pay off in less than 15 years (assuming rates don't increase). Systems make the most financial sense when they lop off the use that falls only in the highest rate categories. I am happy, though, knowing that I have electricity produced on my roof that will probably last for the rest of my life, no concern about rate increases, and almost no fuel comsumption or CO2 production from now on.
Spending money is about what our personal values and wishes are more than strict economics. A person I was speaking with who lived in Nevada was planning on spending around 30-40,000 on solar panels at his B&B there. He was being belittled by his brother for the cost and responded - "you have $130,000 worth of 3 SUVs in your garage - that's your statement - this is mine."
This being said, there is a lot of hype about PV and we do need to be realistic what we're doing and why. Also, at current costs, PV will clearly remain a statement product more than a realistic financial/investment choice.
One altruistic motive for installing panels is that the more get manufactured the quicker production costs should come down. Last I looked the cost of PV panels is pretty stable and the technology is twenty years old. Crystalline PV may be about as cheap as it's gonna get.
I really like the tone of these posts though. I'd one hundred times rather have PV's on my roof than a big ole CO2 generator in my driveway. And $6000 wasn't all that much money. The guy with the Tahoe loses that much driving away from car lot.
There's something to be said for priming the pump. The more money invested in PV the more will become available for investment in R&D. Money talks and there are worse things than being an early adopter.
But anyone who is trying to pencil this out as a shrewd financial investment needs to be aware that the numbers don't work yet. There are some big gambles.
PS. my 1991 Civic still going strong with 41 mpg
Viewed as an energy futures investment, your solar is like an open-ended contract, so time is on your side. You may not be winning today, but maybe you will next year.
This has a big positive effect on solar, if you can minimize your consumption during the peak hours, because they coincide with peak solar generation! You are selling at $0.32 and buying back at $0.09. Haven't yet figured out the equations to calculate how much this improves the dismal economics, though.
So, that basically assumes 12% inflation of just about everything every year for the next 20 years. Your only realistic chance would be to get struck by hyperinflation.
It is just really easy to keep using more watts and more watts and more watts...without solar (like me).
Rick
There is an Aussie company at:
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/
That is making some pretty amazing claims for being able to deliver PV at less than grid cost. It relies on concentrator technology, which I know is a viable and real-world PV technology that I have not up to now seen in a consumer-level product. I'm going to keep my eye on this bunch and see what develops.
Any other opinions? Are they on the level? Perhaps on the level but too hopeful?
FWIW, and I'm far from an expert, but buy the Kill-A-Watt and zealously eliminate your kW demand to the absolute bare minimum before buying the first panel. The payback is immediate. And more importantly, PV sizing is a second-order function. A 2kW system requires 4x surface area over a 1kW system.
Also, do solar hot water before solar electric. Payback on that is faster.
Say, what??
This is incorrect. We have an 18 panel nominal 3kW system on our roof. If we had 9 panels, it would be a 1.5 kW system. Each is rated at 165 watts, and is roughly 20x50 inches. Inverter is same size either case.
Ummm...{ blushes at results }
Never mind.
How about recycling some of the methane too?
If people want high tech I think another good innovation would be car windows that could darken electronically while the car is parked in the sun. Kind of like those sunglasses except that you'd have to be able to un-darken them while driving.
Sure, you could get the same effect by stuffing in a sun shade, and some people still do that, but today's generation wants everything to be push button and automated. Air conditioned seats and electronically tintable windows, that's the wave of the future.
I'm waiting for the print based PVs to come to the market. This could cut the investment cost by 50-90% which changes everything. It may make energy storage (batteries, ice making in your situation) a more affordable part of your plan. No need for smart meters so you may not need to be connected at all.
Not even on the table, is it?
I grew up in western New Mexico. Given the distances involved in most travel, 55mph is just culturally or socially feasible in the mountain and intermountain west.
Now, if we want to have multiple speed limts for various classes of vehicles, I suppose that would be ok. But I suspect there are other, less complicated solutions, like a gas tax or rationing.
The idea I like is a ration system whereby when you reach your ration limit, you can still buy fuel, but at a much higher price.
Energy ration cards for everyone planned
When I posted this link on peakoil.com (I didn't express any opinion about it) the reaction was highly mixed. In general, US members were aghast, and felt it would be a complete restriction on their liberty - the sort of policy that only a centralist state would ever consider.
My impression was that even the suggestion of such a rationing system would be political suicide in the US.
For the same reason, there's deep opposition to national ID cards.
Even browsling in internet could hardly be called anonymous, technically.
A simple raise in the gas tax would do miracles at so much lower cost.
An increase in the gas tax might be easier on paper, but a lower speed limit is far more likely to actually happen.
Right now I drive through one FastLane to get on the Pike, and then through another to get off. My account is automatically debted depending on the separation of the two FastLanes. This non-procedure would stay the same with a speed-depend toll, except that I would know my fee would be held down if I did not speed. If speed was important to me, and my bank account well-padded, then I would not give the speed-based toll a second thought.
I'd also love to see a system that rewards high MPG cars by levying a lower tax. That could work in the above tax scheme because a high MPG car needn't be replaced so the portion of the tax normally applied to the new car account wouldn't be levied.
Think forced savings account that can only used when buying a car with significantly better mileage than the present one.
We might as well get used to big brother anyway because license plates will be transponders within five years. Your driving habits will be a matter of public record. That's how they're going to make rationing work.
There is a pretty good payback time right now for efficient refrigerators, washers, dryers, and of course the CF or LED lighting.
Depending on how many kids and tvs you have ... it might be eaiser to make the bills small by that path.
Of course, I don't use (have, or need) AC, so I don't know how that changes the solar equation. If you need AC in your area, and the peak rates are bad enough, then maybe the solar payback works out.
No kids, just the two of us. No AC at all (it never gets hot here). Fridge is about 10 years old; same for washer. Propane dryer, water heater, range, and forced-air heat (still looks like a bargain at $1.39/gal). House is actually heated mostly by woodstove and ceiling fan, plus solar gain in winter, and maybe an hour of forced-air to warm up in the colder mornings. Climate is very mild, average winter lows in the 40s and summer highs in the 60s. We use some CFs already.
The bills aren't all that bad now, about $1000/yr. My question isn't about how to reduce energy consumption, it's why solar does not pencil out economically. That conclusion will still hold even if I reduced consumption by 50%.
My conclusion so far: Electricity is still relatively cheap, even at $0.19/KWH. Rates will have to go up almost double before widespread change will occur.
So - what price will NG have to reach before CA utility rates go up to $0.36/KWH? Is that realistic? And will the State allow utilities to raise rates that high, or will they interfere and mess up the economics again?
Well, given a set of technologies and market prices for those technologies, one could create a little table ... with the prices to displace X, Y, Z percent of electrical use with solar, and then again to reduce X, Y, Z percent of electrical use with efficiency.
My sense is that we've made more progress on the efficiency end than on the rooftop solar production end.
Shrug. I had a really old fridge, and the new one will actually pay for itself in 5 years (2 down, 3 to go).
But like some in the UK government, they still believe they can raise production:
Probably a typo in the news story? Maybe the Norwegian word for 2004 looks a lot like 2005. :-)
Oil production continues to fall
Looks like Schlumberger screwed up.
The North Sea--based on a HL plot that I did--peaked in 1999 at 52% of Qt, and they have been downhill ever since.
The top 10 major oil companies working the North Sea were predicting that the North Sea would not peak until 2010. These are the same guys telling us not to worry about world oil production, Saudi Arabia, Russia . . .
Hee. I posted that at PeakOil.com. I got it from Ericy's comment here at TOD. :)
Heh. When I saw the promo in Jan I was wondering what the program would be like, but when it never came up in Feb, I was wondering if CNN killed it for some reason. Despite this, I was still in the habit of checking CNN's site every week to see whether this thing was ever going to show up.
The thing that irks me is that GMU is only about 2 miles from my office. Had I known earlier, I could have snuck out of the office to see the preview. Come to think of it, had I know the actual show title, I would have had more luck googling for the thing, and might have heard about it sooner, but evidently the show title hadn't been decided upon when they made the preview.
In the interview with Wolf Blitzer, it sounds on the surface that there may be some good aspects to the program. I am sure that each of us will find things that we hate about the thing.
Usually Wed of every week is when they update the website for CNN presents, and then you get a lot of extra content and guide and the links that they might choose to use - perhaps with some clips. We will have a clearer idea then how good a job they have done..
It's too bad that it's not about "peak oil" per se. Supply disruption in a generally tight market is not the same thing. It would be interesting to see a full blown mass media presentation of a true peak oil scenario. No hurricanes, no terrorism, just oil fields declining and new production not able to keep up. I guess that's not dramatic and visual enough for a TV show.
My sense is that the scenario with the hurricane and the terrorist strike isn't the major thrust of the documentary - they might do something along these lines at the start of the film to hook the viewers or some such.
Sesno did the interview with Blitzer which I excerpted at the other open thread here he talks about hydrogen and unconventional sources (tar sands).
The original promo for the program in Jan had the voiceover "The world is running out of oil - how much is left, and who gets it". This sounds like it is hitting peak oil square on the noggin to me.
We will see more next week when more material is posted on the CNN website.
Why TOD-NYC and TOD-UK threads do not appear at the main TOD site? If I'm not mistaken it was not like that a while ago, at least for TOD-NYC.
UK has the good chance of having the "honor" of being the first developed country experiencing the effects of PO&PNG, so I find their situation rather intriguing.
http://www.policypete.com/Misc/DOEandCANADA1.htm
The US Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (US DOE/EIA) has a history of providing poor forecasts as illustrated in their International Energy Outlook 2003 (IEO2003) forecast for Canada. In the IEO2003 they stated:
"Canada's conventional oil output is expected to increase by more than 200,000 barrels per day over the next 2 years, mainly from Newfoundland's Hibernia oil project, which could produce more than 155,000 barrels per day at its peak sometime in the next several years. Canada is projected to add an additional 500,000 barrels per day in output from a combination of frontier area offshore projects and oil from tar sands."
Assuming the total increase of 700,000 b/d for Canada was for the 2003 to 2005 period, the US DOE/EIA was only off by 710,000 b/d. In 2003, Canada's total liquid hydrocarbons (TLHs) production was 3.11 mb/d and in 2005 it was 3.10 mb/d (US DOE/EIA data/I used TLHs data because they include NGLs in their forecasts), a decline of 10,000 b/d. If the baseline was 2002, then they were off by only 555,000 b/d. That's not bad for the US DOE/EIA. I had made what I thought was a good case in my book that Canada's oil production would not increase by anything approaching 700,000 b/d for the 2002 to 2005 period.
It is interesting to see that Canada's oil production decreased 29,000 b/d in 2005 (US DOE/EIA oil production data). Part of the decrease is due to prolonged shutdowns in production from oil sands operations, which seems to be a persistent problem. Production has also decreased in Atlantic Canada due to declining production from the Hibernia and Terra Nova fields (Hibernia actually had a peak of 204,264 b/d in 2004). Atlantic Canada's oil production declined from 336,885 b/d in 2003 to 304,847 b/d in 2005. The White Rose field was brought on- line in Nov. 2005 so that will slow the decline of Atlantic Canada's oil production.
The US DOE/EIA is projecting that global oil production will not peak before 2037. I would not bet any money on their forecast.
Roger Blanchard Sault Ste. Marie, MI
Mother? (she always knows the answer ;)
Also, Kenneth Deffeys, on Energy Bulletin honrs King Hubbert (and explains his "Stone Age" comment:
"..I do have an apology to make for a line in my February Current Events comment on this website. After stating that the world oil peak had already occurred on December 16, 2005, I reported that the Bush administration hoped to double the direct solar electric generation from the present one percent to two percent by the year 2025. My fingers got away from me and typed out: "By 2025, we'll be back in the Stone Age." I'm sorry that some readers thought that I actually meant that we would be wearing furs and hunting buffalo with flint spear points. It's called "hyperbole." Nevertheless, I have been looking into acquiring some property on the Arkansas novaculite belt. Great flint."
What buffalo?
Beat Homo and poke his eyes, or watch him self-mutilate in public displays of misplaced disgust.
((Good SHOW on here Ma, you're missing it!...))
"God has cursed us," he says, looking toward the sky. "Why else are we allowed to suffer for so long? What have we done wrong?"
When Salat looks up, all he sees is a relentless sun beating down on his country. There's not a cloud in sight. Forecasters confirm Salat's worst fears -- little or no rain is expected in the coming weeks."
Poor Salat, never knew what hit him and his family. His godz never do answer back, but The Silent, Uncaring Mother who knows best also doesn't Hear him.
Very sad. I bet he rolls down the window.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/09/btsc.koinange.kenya/index.html
It doesn't work like that. The AC compressor is either ON or it's OFF. It can't be sort of on. Full on or full off.
"Homo - same,
sapien - thinks (no, not wise, just barely thinks)"
"Hmmm," She says, "I bet 'Same' 'Think'er is a HERD if I remember.. or flock. What shall we call a Herd of Humans...mmmmmm...Killz?? DeafDumbnBlind? Or just another ape but wit little Hair left to keep himself warm?"
(just do NOT argue with Her...sssshhhhh... sneak out the back quick-like... Gimme three steps, Give ME three steps Mother, give me Three steps for the Door - Gimme shelter no more... you mean ol' horror...)