I don’t hate wind turbine generators!

[WF7A]

Shut-down of nuclear powerplants in Japan: Do you think the population is going to regret it?

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-marc...--finance.html

[K8MHZ]

Shut-down of nuclear powerplants in Japan: Do you think the population is going to regret it?

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-marc...--finance.html

If any country should be gun shy about nukes, it should be Japan.

[N2EY]

Ok – instead of piling onto the “other thread” lets just say my approach to the uses of alternate energy forms is simply to be pragmatic. I have and always will be a conservationist but I’ll never be an environmentalist.

The different IMHO is that a conservationist takes a look at all the issues and makes the best choice based upon all the available data and from that data they implement the best course of action instead of knee jerk reactions and emotional outpourings that are akin to a having a deeply religious experience.

Conservation is part of environmentalism. Always has been. The stuff about knee jerk reactions etc. isn't really part of environmentalism; it's what a few far-out folks do - on all sides.

For example, you preach repair, reuse and recycling - I do too. Which IMHO is a very good thing.

But some people take it to an extreme, hoarding anything that might have a possible reuse, waiting for recycling prices to rise, and saying "that could be fixed". Their ideas are good, they just take them to extremes. Do not confuse environmentalism with the extremeism of a few.

There are also folks on the other side of things who simply don't consider the situation at all. They drive gigantic vehicles long distances, then gripe about gas prices and demand that something be done. Recycling and such are too much trouble. Conspicuous consumption and all that.

I think there are some good ideas out there for alternate energy us but they need continue development to increase efficiency along with cost reduction.

Very true, but that's the case with almost all technologies. The first cars were quite expensive and impractical compared to the well-developed horse technology.

Also, one must realize that alternate energy sources like wind and solar vary with weather conditions and that a method must be provided to store excess energy when available and switching to the grid when necessary. Otherwise you will have to watch TV by candlelight

The solution that works well here in EPA is the grid-connected solar array. During times when the panels produce more than the home or business requires, the excess is fed into the grid. During times when the panels produce less than the home or business requires, the grid makes up the deficit. Completely automatic and no storage on-site.

At one time I considered adding a solar water heater to my home and I think that the cost at that time was well over $1000 to have it installed and at $400 for me to by the materials and install it my self. I realized that my investment, even if I did the install would not be recouped for ~8 years.

You only spend $50 a year for hot water? Amazing! What do you pay per kWH for electricity?

I also realized that both my wife and I were away from home for at least 10 hours a day and slept for another 6 -8 and so instead I installed an electrical timer that shut off the water heater while we were away and again while we slept, having it come on 1 hour before we used it for showering and washing dishes and overriding the timer when washing clothes. The timer cost me $29.95 at Ace.

And how much does it save? A well-insulated water heater doesn't lose all that much heat. If the water in the tank is at set temperature and no water is used, it takes a very long time for that water to cool off.

I also considered installing a solar water heater for my pool, here in FL, latitude 30N a pool solar heater actually extends the pool use for only 6 – 8 weeks and is idle the rest of the year. I solve that problem by using about 200 feet of dark green 5/8” garden hose that I had on hand, connecting one end of the hose to a pool jet, flaking the hose out on the pool deck and allowing the other end to drain back into the pool. The water temp coming out of the hose was about 8 degrees warmer than what was going in.

Great idea! What you did was to apply the solar-pool-heater idea, just in a different way.

Here in this adult community some folks consider me a pariah because I opposed our community paying for recyclables pickup. The city does not provide refuse pickup for multi-family dwellings and we pay a private contractor to empty the compactor of MSW once a week. The added cost to the community would be $165/mo. to pick up recyclables. I don’t oppose recycling but the reality is that this county only achieves a 45% recycling rate, the rest is land filled. The national recycling average BTW is around 34%. My premise is simply that the county is already saturated with over twice as much recyclables as they can ever dispose of and we would just be paying for the privilege of adding recyclables to landfill stream.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that you don't want to pay to recycle; that it should cost no more than landfilling.

Ironically, the three major proponents for our community recycling all own and maintain two homes and are using energy to maintain both of them 24/7/365. Notwithstanding the fact that the weather has been pleasant these last few weeks, all three are keeping their homes closed up and the A/C turned on. Our recreational center is less than ½ mile away along a scenic nature path however these same individuals will each drive their vehicles over there and back at least once a day. Unfortunately this seems to be the norm for a lot of green advocates, the "do as I say, not as I do crowd".

Not really. While I agree that they are not being optimal users, what is the actual energy cost to do what those fols are doing? Driving less than a mile a day? If the weather is nice, how much does the AC actually run?

There may be other considerations, too. Some folks have allergies which, at certain times of year, are greatly helped by staying inside with the house all buttoned up and the heat or AC and its filters running. Same for driving rather than walking.

I'm an advocate of using clotheslines rather than hot-air drying. When it's hot and sunny outside, it makes no sense to be running a heating device inside an air-conditioned house just to dry clothes!

But there are times when a dryer is needed - bad weather, for example, And there are some things that really shouldn't go on the line.

Point is, use the right tool for the right job.

I guess my point is this – sure, there are alternate energy sources but until I start seeing a lot of solar panels on commercial buildings (instead of gov’t bldgs) I’ll know the cost is still too prohibitive for the average consumer. The same goes for wind turbines, when corporations begin investing them as energy sources to provide power to office buildings or factories I’ll sit up and take notice. In both cases without gov't subsidies.

I think that's not a valid analysis. Here's why:

There are all kinds of subsidies for energy in the USA. The only difference is how visible they are. This is particularly true of new technologies. How many tax dollars were spent to develop nuclear? How much does the taxpayer subsidize oil by military protection? What do extraction companies really pay for leases to get oil, gas and coal from public land?

Waiting for industry to go solar or wind is like saying hydroelectric plants like Hoover Dam and TVA should have only been built when private industry could build them.

There's also the whole issue of eminent domain for things like dams.

New technologies often need help to get going. If everybody waits for perfection, the industry never gets going.

And also, if you really want to make alternate energy systems work, you are going to have to make some sacrifices yourselves. For example do you really need whole house CH&A or need to take a shower for twenty minutes? How about walking or bicycling to the Mini-mart instead of driving?

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

As for recycling and such, it's important to consider future costs and the "what if everybody did that"
scenarios. For example, by not recycling, the landfills fill up faster, which will eventually drive up the trash-removal price. (This is one reason my county pushes recycling). Save today but pay a lot more tomorrow.

I think a big part of the problem is that Americans tend to think short-term and ignore the long-term. Then they wonder how they got where they are.

Another big issue is that some technologies are highly situation-dependent. In an area where electricity is cheap and plentiful (often because of subsidies you don't see), installing solar panels might result in a very long payback time, and not be worth doing. Someplace else, it might make perfect sense.

There's also the fact that conservation only goes so far. I take 5 minute showers, wash most clothes in cold water, plan car trips to minimize mileage, etc. But I still need a water heater, washer, car, etc. which need energy to operate.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KT1F]

Yesterday I listened to this podcast

Winds of Change: The DeepCwind Consortium

which relates to this: DeepCWind Consortium

Pretty good stuff about plans for floating wind farms off the coast of Maine.

[KW4MW]

Conservation is part of environmentalism. Always has been. The stuff about knee jerk reactions etc. isn't really part of environmentalism; it's what a few far-out folks do - on all sides.

For example, you preach repair, reuse and recycling - I do too. Which IMHO is a very good thing.

But some people take it to an extreme, hoarding anything that might have a possible reuse, waiting for recycling prices to rise, and saying "that could be fixed". Their ideas are good, they just take them to extremes. Do not confuse environmentalism with the extremeism of a few.

There are also folks on the other side of things who simply don't consider the situation at all. They drive gigantic vehicles long distances, then gripe about gas prices and demand that something be done. Recycling and such are too much trouble. Conspicuous consumption and all that.



Very true, but that's the case with almost all technologies. The first cars were quite expensive and impractical compared to the well-developed horse technology.



The solution that works well here in EPA is the grid-connected solar array. During times when the panels produce more than the home or business requires, the excess is fed into the grid. During times when the panels produce less than the home or business requires, the grid makes up the deficit. Completely automatic and no storage on-site.




You only spend $50 a year for hot water? Amazing! What do you pay per kWH for electricity?



And how much does it save? A well-insulated water heater doesn't lose all that much heat. If the water in the tank is at set temperature and no water is used, it takes a very long time for that water to cool off.



Great idea! What you did was to apply the solar-pool-heater idea, just in a different way.



If I understand correctly, you're saying that you don't want to pay to recycle; that it should cost no more than landfilling.



Not really. While I agree that they are not being optimal users, what is the actual energy cost to do what those fols are doing? Driving less than a mile a day? If the weather is nice, how much does the AC actually run?

There may be other considerations, too. Some folks have allergies which, at certain times of year, are greatly helped by staying inside with the house all buttoned up and the heat or AC and its filters running. Same for driving rather than walking.

I'm an advocate of using clotheslines rather than hot-air drying. When it's hot and sunny outside, it makes no sense to be running a heating device inside an air-conditioned house just to dry clothes!

But there are times when a dryer is needed - bad weather, for example, And there are some things that really shouldn't go on the line.

Point is, use the right tool for the right job.




I think that's not a valid analysis. Here's why:

There are all kinds of subsidies for energy in the USA. The only difference is how visible they are. This is particularly true of new technologies. How many tax dollars were spent to develop nuclear? How much does the taxpayer subsidize oil by military protection? What do extraction companies really pay for leases to get oil, gas and coal from public land?

Waiting for industry to go solar or wind is like saying hydroelectric plants like Hoover Dam and TVA should have only been built when private industry could build them.

There's also the whole issue of eminent domain for things like dams.

New technologies often need help to get going. If everybody waits for perfection, the industry never gets going.



As for recycling and such, it's important to consider future costs and the "what if everybody did that"
scenarios. For example, by not recycling, the landfills fill up faster, which will eventually drive up the trash-removal price. (This is one reason my county pushes recycling). Save today but pay a lot more tomorrow.

I think a big part of the problem is that Americans tend to think short-term and ignore the long-term. Then they wonder how they got where they are.

Another big issue is that some technologies are highly situation-dependent. In an area where electricity is cheap and plentiful (often because of subsidies you don't see), installing solar panels might result in a very long payback time, and not be worth doing. Someplace else, it might make perfect sense.

There's also the fact that conservation only goes so far. I take 5 minute showers, wash most clothes in cold water, plan car trips to minimize mileage, etc. But I still need a water heater, washer, car, etc. which need energy to operate.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jeez!


For example, you preach repair, reuse and recycling - I do too. Which IMHO is a very good thing.
I preach reduce, reuse and recycle. Although repair is also a good idea, fits in with reduce and recycle

You only spend $50 a year for hot water? Amazing! What do you pay per kWH for electricity?

And how much does it save? A well-insulated water heater doesn't lose all that much heat. If the water in the tank is at set temperature and no water is used, it takes a very long time for that water to cool off.


it was in the early 90's electricity was 9.5 cts / kwh My actual Hot Water demand was about 4 hours a day. - that's $0.38 a day or about $139 a year. $1000/$139/yr = 7.2 years - Ok it ain't 8 years - satisfied? Again - early 1990's - old type water heater - not the well insulated kinds we have today, it cooled down very quickly until I added a "blanket".


If I understand correctly, you're saying that you don't want to pay to recycle; that it should cost no more than landfilling.

No you didn't understand correctly. I said that my county transfer station was over saturated with recyclables and even though this county fairs better than most - on an overall average it still recycles less than one half of curb side recyclables (about 45%). For my community to add to the recycling stream would mean that (a) our recyclables would end up in the landfill anyway or (b) our recyclables would displace those collected from another neighborhood. In other words, the net tonnage of recyclables is a finite number, any amount collected over and above that amount will be land filled.

Example. One year this county collected ~9400 tons of aluminum cans from the bins and actually recycled around 2540 tons. That left 6860 tons of Al cans that were land filled. Now if my community had contributed 10 tons of Al cans that year to the recycle stream the net amount collected would have been 9410 tons. The county would still only recycle 2540 tons and 6870 tons (not 6860) would go to the landfill. The net gain to the recycling effort in re aluminum cans would be zero. Our ten tons, which now already go directly to the landfill would effectively still go there via the recycle route due to a well meaning but futile gesture that would cost us over $2000/year.

And before anyone questions the numbers - Yes aluminum cans that year were recycled at a 27% rate and I said that "on average" this county recycles at ~45% rate. Due to the proliferation of paper mills in this area we recycled newspapers, office paper and cardboard which brought up our average.

BTW - due to the high cost of fuel recyclables pick up is now only every other week.

Fact - Empty Aluminum cans weight slightly less that 1/2 oz. so that ~65000 cans weight one ton. You might be able to get 3 tons of uncrushed cans into a two-car garage.

[KC8VWM]

The problem with recycling is the fact they place so many restrictions and processing requirements into the mix before they will "accept" it.

For example, rinse out all those aluminum cans and bundle up those newspapers scenerio.

Most people don't have the desire to work, package and process these materials on behalf of these people for free.

If they want the stuff I am throwing away for recycling purposes, they should accept it all as is, where is, with no warranty expressed or implied etc... I just throw out the junk, I am not about to operate a recycling processing center... They want to have the materials pre processed before accepting it, but my time is limited and I don't get paid to do anything like that for them. They should employ thier own people for that function.

[N2EY]

The problem with recycling is the fact they place so many restrictions and processing requirements into the mix before they will "accept" it.

For example, rinse out all those aluminum cans and bundle up those newspapers scenerio.

We don't have to do that here. Bundling and washing aren't required at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

Jeez!


For example, you preach repair, reuse and recycling - I do too. Which IMHO is a very good thing.
I preach reduce, reuse and recycle. Although repair is also a good idea, fits in with reduce and recycle

OK, fine. Point is, even after that's done, we all still need SOME
stuff (energy, cans, etc.) and it has to come from somewhere.

You only spend $50 a year for hot water? Amazing! What do you pay per kWH for electricity?

And how much does it save? A well-insulated water heater doesn't lose all that much heat. If the water in the tank is at set temperature and no water is used, it takes a very long time for that water to cool off.


it was in the early 90's electricity was 9.5 cts / kwh My actual Hot Water demand was about 4 hours a day. - that's $0.38 a day or about $139 a year.

Your hot water heater only uses 1000 watts? I've never seen one that small.

Did you measure your actual electricity use for hot water heating, or simply assume certain things and calculate it? If the latter, you might be surprised.

$1000/$139/yr = 7.2 years - Ok it ain't 8 years - satisfied? Again - early 1990's - old type water heater - not the well insulated kinds we have today, it cooled down very quickly until I added a "blanket".

So in fact any savings are more likely due to the blanket than to the timer.



If I understand correctly, you're saying that you don't want to pay to recycle; that it should cost no more than landfilling.

No you didn't understand correctly. I said that my county transfer station was over saturated with recyclables and even though this county fairs better than most - on an overall average it still recycles less than one half of curb side recyclables (about 45%).[/quote]

OK, now I get the first part (that the county would probably not actually recycle it.)

But how do you know that your county fares better than most? Lots of counties in the USA. Around here, they recycle everything that gets put in the stream that is recyclable.

Fact - Empty Aluminum cans weight slightly less that 1/2 oz. so that ~65000 cans weight one ton. You might be able to get 3 tons of uncrushed cans into a two-car garage.

That's a LOT of cans!

I think we may be able to agree on one thing: that the real-world practicality of various "green" things varies all over the place, depending on location and situation. If you really do pay $139 a year for electricity to heat hot water, a 7-8 year break-even-point replacement doesn't look so great. OTOH, if I pay $1000 a year for the energy, that same $1000 replacement makes a lot of sense.

Same for lots of things. It all depends on the situation. Trying to force one blanket rule isn't always practical.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KW4MW]

OK, fine. Point is, even after that's done, we all still need SOME
stuff (energy, cans, etc.) and it has to come from somewhere.

YADDA YADDA YADDA

73 de Jim, N2EY

You know what?- I'm done with this. Either you can't read and comprehend very well or you just want to argue. You can waste more of your time on this, mine is more valuable and I can spend it more constructively talking to a brick wall than I can trying to justify my remarks to the poster child for "Why Johnny can't read"!

[N2EY]

You know what?- I'm done with this. Either you can't read and comprehend very well or you just want to argue. You can waste more of your time on this, mine is more valuable and I can spend it more constructively talking to a brick wall than I can trying to justify my remarks to the poster child for "Why Johnny can't read"!

I don't want to argue; I want to discuss. When I see something posted that doesn't add up, I will sometimes challenge it. Your claimed hot-water cost just seemed low, that's all. And it turns out your numbers are the result of estimates, not measurements.

My reading comprehension is just fine - perhaps your writing needs a bit of work.

73 de Jim, N2EY