Pinging Joerg

It would make a lot of sense for places like California. But not at

Our house could be a big fat net contributor, zero shade, on top of a hill, feeding in north of 5kW on the hottest summer days. Heck, we could probably even do 10kW.

We no longer need the compressor-based A/C so the energy footprint of our house does not noticeably change on hot days. We have a traditional A/C but last year in did not consumer a single kWh. Got to turn it on for an hour so the seals and bearings don't suffer.

Rooftop solar can make a ton of sense. If the politics behind it are

We have that here in the US as well. The result was devastating for ranchers. Feed prices skyrocketed, people abandoned their horses because they couldn't afford the feed, very sad.

That is why you need local generation. Concentrated solar is not going to deliver here unless you build major new transmission networks.

Nobody is going to wait for 15 years for a solar panel to pay off. Solar panels get interesting when prices drop further and efficiency increases so the panels start to generate profit after 3 or 4 years.

Not many people live in the same house for 15 years. So what if you sell the house?

The problem is that corn is totally unsuitable to create bio fuel. Sugar cane on the other hand is extremely suitable. Anyway, POET and DSM announced they will start to manufacture bio fuel from waste (the parts of corn plants that cannot be eaten) in 2013.

In Europe the electricity distribution network is already very large. Without having to deal with EVs there is no problem connecting a few CSP plants. Spain is the leading country when it comes to CSP.

You must have quite strange land use, if the commuters _on_avrerage_ will have to drive 100 km each day.

The commuters use their cars for 1-3 hours daily, thus stationary for more than 20 hours. Even block heater sockets on company parking lots (typically rated at 1 kW) could deliver 8 kWh during the working day, good for a 32 km return trip.

There is one 1.6 GW unit under construction just 250 km away and a slightly larger under construction in France, so with more realistic commuting distances and extended charge times, one reactor would be enough for 1 million electric cars.

No doubt the power densities are going to be high, if city center parking lots are all provided with charging stations. On the other hand, relatively short high voltage underground AC cables can be used, without creating too much capacitively loading (which in the worst case would require compensation).

I was referring to the typical installed heater and boiler power, not the fuse ratings.

Unfortunately, this is the reality with current battery prices and weights. For rare longer driving distances, some hybrid construction with perhaps 10 kW constant rpm diesel or fuel cell would make more sense.

I totally agree. Long commutes are another part of the problem with = energy=20 use. We need to make cities livable so that people can take public = transport=20 or walk/bike to a large extent. It is very irresponsible for naysayers = to=20 cite such extreme examples in order to make their points (and I'm not = sure=20 what that is)

Denmark.

Yes, another example of hyperbole and exaggeration, based on wrong=20 ASSumptions and worst case calculations, in order to ridicule a good = idea.=20 The alternative is to simply continue with business as usual which will = make=20 a lot of money for the few who benefit from Big Energy (oil, coal, gas) = for=20 the remainder of their lifetimes (10-20 years) which will leave their=20 descendants with an unhealthy world and a very different economy.

There will need to be changes in the type of energy used for heating.=20 Electricity is not really appropriate when there are sustainable=20 alternatives such as geothermal, passive solar, and biomass (wood = burning).=20 Or even using fossil (or synthetic) fuels such as kerosene and natural = gas=20 or propane which can produce heat at 95% or better efficiency. And, of=20 course, downsizing our homes, using effective insulation, and having = more=20 efficient living arrangements such as multi-unit buildings rather than=20 widely dispersed individual homes.

That is plenty for the average commuter. And some EVs, such as = electrically=20 assisted bicycles, need far less and are practical for many commuters. = And=20 there needs to be far more ridesharing, carpooling, and use of efficient =

public transportation such as rail.

There are many options that make a lot of sense, but they go against the =

economic business models that until recently worked because of continued =

growth and the illusion of unlimited energy. We have reached the peak = that=20 has been predicted for at least 60 years, and we must make some drastic=20 changes to survive. Some of us may choose to make these changes now,=20 voluntarily, and become accustomed to them, while others may hang on to = what=20 has for too long been considered the ideal lifestyle, and then be forced =

into an unfamiliar environment of cooperation, sharing, and efficiency. = It=20 will actually be a much healthier lifestyle, physically and = sociologically,=20 but many people have been brainwashed into thinking that conspicuous=20 consumption and isolation are the paradigms to strive for. But that is = only=20 because big business advertising continues to create the demand for = their=20 own profit.

Paul=20

Perhaps it can also include a sail. And maybe a beaver-powered (or=20 termite-powered) device that is even more efficient at converting = cellulose=20 into energy.

Paul=20

Correct. And that's what even some "professional" folks (or folks who think they are) fail to understand.

With the current tax incentives _and_ a fair market-rate over-capacity remuneration that can already be done. Meaning they should pay, for example, 50% of spot market price at peak usage if you provide peak power. But they don't, so ...

If the deal is right (a fixed 4c/kWh is not) then you will recoup your investment because they'll pay you the remaining value of the installation.

Out here they have algae plants to make biodiesel. Let's see.

But with EV there will be quite massive problems and that's the point. Stupid laws such as mandates by some "oh so clever" enviro-board are not going to legislate those problems away. That lesson will be learned soon.

Problem is, with stupid laws like that the prices of used Saturns and the like will begin to climb up steeply at some point. Cost of living will accordingly.

Using the EV as a load management battery is futile. I have asked this question at a large green-tech session: How is the utility going to reimburse the EV owner for the reduction in remaining number of charge-discharge cycles? Silence. You could have heard a pin drop in that rather crowded large auditorium.

It's still a lot cheaper to purchase a used vehicle or even rebuild one = from=20 junk, than to purchase a new vehicle, especially the overpriced (and=20 overpowered) hybrids that Detroit is pushing these days. And the other=20 bright side to that is the possibility of training and hiring people = locally=20 who can do the repair and rebuilding work.

And, of course, it is also a BAD law, as is any law that attempts to BAN =

something that people want, as long as it is not directly and = irrevocably=20 harmful to others. Much better is to use a tax which makes it = economically=20 favorable for people to use more efficient, safer, and cleaner = technology,=20 but also allow them to use what they wish if they are willing to pay a=20 higher cost which will offset the damage done by inefficient and dirty = older=20 cars.

Another fair method is to assess a fee at the time of annual emissions=20 testing based on the amount of emissions found AND the mileage recorded. = If=20 you have an old Corvette you drive only on weekends, you should pay only = for=20 the degree of environmental impact you make.

Must not have been very many really technologically savvy people in=20 attendance. It would be almost child's play to develop a meter at the = point=20 of charge which would monitor and record the power flow, and the utility =

would add whatever surcharge is necessary to the compensation for = pulling=20 power from customers' storage (or generation) into the grid.

The charge-discharge cycle problem is also an area for technological=20 advances which will happen when we are forced to get serious about this=20 whole energy problem. Ultracaps have almost unlimited cycle rates and = could=20 be the primary target for load leveling, while batteries could be used = as a=20 secondary means. And when EVs become commonplace, there will be many=20 opportunities for businesses that will specialize in rebuilding = batteries of=20 present day technology, such as Lead-Acid, NiMH, Ni-Cd, etc. If the=20 batteries are designed for easy servicing, they will be much more=20 economical, and they could be made as easy to swap out as we now do with =

propane tanks.

Paul=20

Doesn't matter. Your numbers are too low. In NL the avarage central heating boiler (natural gas) has a peak power of 20kW to 30kW for a house which has about 130 square meters (3 floors). In most cases the heating system is underpowered for cost savings.

An electric heater is usually around 2kW which may be enough to heat a small bedroom but for larger rooms you need way more power. The floor heating system in my living room can deliver about 3kW but that is not enough if it gets below 0 deg C (I still need to crank it up). I assume you are in Finland where it can get much colder. I recall walking around in Helsinki when it was -10 deg C. There is no way you can heat an entire house in with 6 to 9kW in such conditions. Check again!

So you would force people to live where you think they should live? How very nice, if you happen to be the land owner. BTW, it's not an extreme example. Ask Kalifornicans.

Yes, I'll be paying money to "big oil" for the rest of my lifetime. I happen to like their product. Oh, and I'll also be paying money to "big food" for the rest of my lifetime, for similar reasons. Grow up!

When you get the cost thing worked out, people will follow. Until then, you have no case.

So, on average, you want people to run out of fuel on the way home from work only half the time.

Spoken like a true leftist illiterati.

irresponsible

I wouldn't force anyone to live anywhere in particular. But I do not = support=20 the notion that I, as a taxpayer, should allow unsafe projects to = extract=20 energy, or pay for wars in order to obtain cheap oil, or damage the=20 environment and peoples' health, just so someone can afford to live in a =

remote area and commute to a job that could probably be done just as = well by=20 telecommuting. Again, another example of hyperbole to obfuscate the real =

issue, which is personal greed and often unfair competition, and the=20 paradigm that materialism and social isolation are normal and healthy.

You may continue to pay more and more to "Big Oil" for their products = that=20 you have been conditioned to like. And you will indirectly pay more when = the=20 cost of "Big Food" transported inefficiently over thousands of miles, = using=20 fossil fuels, rises along with oil prices. And then, finally, you will = no=20 longer be able to pay those prices when you lose your job because your=20 company has folded or your stocks go "phtt" or your bank goes under and = your=20 home is worth less than your mortgage. Maybe not you, personally, but = many=20 like you. And we all need others to be in good economic health to = survive.

So, you may become poor and hungry if things get really bad. Then, = maybe,=20 you can "eat your words". It is you that should "grow up", as you may = also=20 need to "grow your own food", and "grow a pair - of viable brain cells = to=20 rub together".

then,

The cost thing is being worked out every day as more people become = homeless,=20 jobless, and desperate. You may be smug and happy as part of the 1% now, = but=20 there may be very little of real substance that will allow you to = maintain=20 that position indefinitely. Many of the mighty have fallen, and many = more=20 should have, and probably will, as our "business as usual" and "get the=20 economy growing again" mantras prove incapable of working.

commuters.=20

efficient

from

Don't be ridiculous. Statements such as yours cast much doubt as to your =

credibility and intelligence. If you are commuting more than 75 miles = each=20 way, in a personal vehicle, there is something seriously wrong with your =

lifestyle and business model. That means you will be on the road 3 to 4=20 hours every day, fighting traffic and road rage, just to engage in = whatever=20 sort of business actually requires your physical presence. Such a = commute=20 adds a lot of stress to your life, which will cut it short even faster = than=20 what you are already losing in time wasted driving. In the rare cases = where=20 such a commute is actually necessary (and I challenge you to provide = some=20 realistic examples), then a hybrid vehicle or other alternative may be=20 necessary.

the

continued

drastic

to

be=20

efficiency.=20

is=20

their

Leaning to the right does not make you right. You have not provided much = of=20 a logical argument for your viewpoints, or even rational reasons for=20 thinking the way you do. Much of the hyper-conservative rhetoric is = based on=20 an unstable foundation and many assumptions about the future based on = the=20 past, which imply conditions that are no longer valid and which cannot=20 continue. There is also much wrong with the typical liberal agenda, and = our=20 society can no longer afford to allow the mass production of mentally = and=20 morally deficient people who must be supported by welfare or contained = at=20 public expense in jails, because they cannot make any positive = contribution=20 and instead impose a dead weight upon any chance of the advancement of=20 civilization.

Perhaps we need to cease labeling policies as left or right, and instead =

choose a different axis we can all support, such as "up" instead of = "down".

And to get back to NG relevance, electronics and other aspects of = technology=20 can and perhaps must be used to assure a pleasant future. Otherwise, we = may=20 find ourselves emulating the Amish, or reverting to Aboriginal = existence.

Paul=20

In other words, you *WOULD* force people to live where *YOU* want them to. ...and no it's not hyperbole. That is what *YOU* are advocating.

I've been "conditioned" to like freedom, yes. I have gotten rather used to it and people like you get the hair on the back of my neck up because you do want to take that freedom away.

Speaking of hyperbole... You'd better look in a mirror before posting again.

More of your leftist doom and gloom hyperbole. You're nuts!

Are you on antidepressants? You should be.

Tell that to the Kalifornicans. I happen to have a 30mi commute every day with a 200mi commute on the weekends. That fits your average but I'll be walking on Friday nights and Monday mornings. I85 is rather busy those hours, so it's probably not very safe.

More hyperbole. You're really the hypocrite's hypocrite, aren't you?

I don't lean on anyone. I don't even want to lean on you. Now please do the rest of us that same favor.

My viewpoint is very logical; cost. Stop taxing me to create your market. First, it's wrong. Second, it won't work. If your pet project can't stand on its own, it *will* fail. The crooks might get away with some real money, though. ...as we've seen so often recently.

No, stupid, it's based on logic. If it's real, they will come. It's pretty clear that an idea has failed when government forces the issue.

Yes, Herr Dr. Mengele!

"Can't we all just get along?"

Seek help!

About 20 years ago I had a discussion with some other people about how nuclear energy is the only technology ready for immediate deployment in order to solve the upcoming energy crisis. Someone else was strongly opposed to nuclear energy. Then someone asked the person opposing nuclear energy: what are you going to do when the lights won't work in the morning because we are out of energy?

Thats the end of the story. There was nothing but silence after that question.

You can go on about government plots, renewable energy, etc, etc, but once you run the numbers you'll see that there are many scams and not many real options. Nothing has or can be decided. Big companies are just flipping coins when deciding to invest in a certain technology or not.

However... The one thing I observed during the past 20 years is that oil and gas are not running out. Actually more and more is being found. I'm not so naive to think that the 'rest' of the oil, coal and gas won't be used when there are alternatives. Every last bit will be scraped from the earth's crust and will (eventually) be burned. Thats the reality.

advocating.

Again, kneejerk emotional response from someone who claims to be the = voice=20 of reason. Asking someone to pay for the privilege of living where s/he=20 chooses is not forcing anyone to do anything, but just reduces the = burden of=20 those who would otherwise essentially be subsidizing such a choice. If = you=20 pay the true cost of the infrastructure needed to support your chosen=20 lifestyle and location of your home, more "power" to you. But if you=20 encroach on wilderness that I value by forcing the building of roads, at = MY=20 expense, to allow you to zip along to/from work in your BMW or Lexus or=20 whatever, then I should have a say in the matter. "This land is your = land,=20 this land is my land". Which means the 99% have a hundred times more = claim=20 on it than you do.

used

because

Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. So if your=20 selfish desires have a negative impact on what I and many others = cherish,=20 then we as a majority have the right to limit what you may want to do. = And=20 remember, "freedom is not free". Your freedom to engage in energy waste = and=20 materialistic ideals has been paid for by many people of modest means = who=20 have suffered and died for your freedom.

when

These things are happening every day, to people who recently didn't = think it=20 could happen to them. But you can make like an ostrich and bury your = head in=20 the tar sands until reality kicks your butt.

Time will tell. Actually, the outlook is only gloom and doom for those = who=20 cling to unsustainable materialistic ideals, and certainly it hurts much =

worse when you fall from such a height.

rather

Most EVs get, or at least should get, 200 miles on a full charge. And = since=20 you are only going 30 miles a day most days, your battery should be = topped=20 off by the time the weekend comes around. But I suppose that is too=20 complicated a concept for someone who has presented such poorly thought = out=20 arguments to other ideas, and seemingly only to rail against reasonable=20 suggestions for an improved future, clinging to an antiquated and = logically=20 doomed paradigm.

life,

in

actually

then

Care to explain where my statements are hyperbole, and yours are not? = Your=20 own example may or may not be typical, but it seems reasonable, and = would be=20 fully supported by most EVs. But you chose to make the ridiculous = statement=20 that you'd be walking if you had to go more than 75 miles without a = charge,=20 and embellished that with the image of you bumbling along the shoulder = of=20 the I85 dodging Dodges and semis.

You lean "with" the "right", who lean on their flawed economic = principles=20 and outmoded ideologies for support. And you also lean on the 99% of = people=20 who struggle to survive, and often suffer and die in foreign wars for = the=20 sake of your lifestyle and "freedom".

market.

stand

I'm not taxing you to create a market, but only to level the playing = field.=20 The big energy companies and other corporate interests do not pay their = fair=20 share of what it really costs everyone to make their obscene profits.=20 Trucking is much less efficient than rail transport, yet the trucking=20 industry is heavily subsidized and the railroads are penalized, mostly=20 because the teamster's union is so powerful, and because rail transport = not=20 only uses much less fuel per mile-ton, but also uses far fewer people. = We=20 should not have to subsidize an industry just to keep people working.=20 Instead, we need to create a society (as was envisioned at the dawn of = the=20 machine age), where people would not need to work long, hard, hours, but =

instead could spend more time enjoying life. But materialistic and=20 individualistic goals have resulted in the two-wage-earner family and=20 latchkey kids and fractured families and overextended debt and other = evils.

I agree that it is wrong when government forces the issue. There is way = too=20 much interference of government in our lives, and often for the wrong=20 reasons. But we need government to protect the average citizen from the=20 abuses of corporations who value profit over the health and welfare of = the=20 people and the environment that belongs equally to ALL of us.

Jawohl, Herr Mengele was actually right about the need to promote = healthy,=20 intelligent humans, as would normally be the case except for the popular =

notion of reverse Darwinian selection. But it was wrong, and evil, to=20 arbitrarily slaughter people based only on their race, or even on actual =

genetic deficiencies that hamper their abilities to contribute to a=20 civilization that is becoming increasingly complex and technologically=20 challenging. Humans are the only animal that actually subsidizes the=20 breeding of inferior traits to the point where they must be controlled = or=20 artificially supported, with no redeeming qualities. It is morally wrong = to=20 kill a human being just for being sub-normal, but I believe that we, as = a=20 society, must not allow their proliferation by providing cradle-to-grave =

welfare and actual bonuses for having children. If someone can survive=20 without criminal behavior or artificial support, they are welcome to = have as=20 many children as they wish. But it is wrong to ask those of us with the=20 ethical, moral, physical, and mental capacities to survive, to provide = for=20 their needs with no expectation of responsibility. Thus, if somebody = begs me=20 to take care of them because they have inheritable defects or = ethical/moral=20 deficiencies, I should be able to demand that they do not have children = who=20 will perpetuate the problem. They may do so voluntarily, and choose = their=20 preferred form of birth control, or have vasectomies, tubal ligations, = or=20 sterilization, for which I would happily foot the bill and even give = them a=20 $5000 bonus. Much cheaper (and more humane) than providing for a = sub-normal=20 child or institutionalizing a criminal after s/he has caused millions of =

dollars worth of damage to society.

instead

Yes, what's your problem with that? Or do you want to live in a state of =

constant competition until you are no longer fit to compete, and then be =

trampled underfoot by those who are bigger, stronger, smarter, or more=20 vicious. Not my idea of utopia. More like "bungle in the jungle".

we=20

existence.

It is people like you whom I simultaneously detest, fear, and feel sorry =

for. You have totally bought into the lifestyle ideals that were set up, =

perhaps unintentionally, by collusion among auto makers and energy = companies=20 who promoted "big iron" and "zoom-zoom" to appeal to the base simian = traits=20 of competition and belligerence, and drove up the profits by increasing=20 demand. Also, suburban sprawl created longer commuting distances as well = as=20 the isolationism that was not very prevalent before WW2. And at that = time it=20 seemed like energy supplies were limitless and there was no end to=20 expansion, and no ill effects from our extravagant way of life and the=20 superiority of the American economy and military-industrial complex.

But it seems that it is impossible to engage in a rational argument with =

right-wing-nuts, and even leftist-weenies who at least have some = compassion=20 and sense of humanity, even if their sensibilities are flawed and many = of=20 their policies unsustainable.

Paul=20

Perhaps. But where is the profit of the previous owners? If I buy a house which has solar panels I'm not going to pay extra for the panels. The owners can take them from the roof and mount the panels on their next home.

People just don't realize how much energy is in fuel. A fuel tank of a big car contains about 2.5GJ of energy. Thats 684kWh. Most of that energy is still wasted but there is much room for improvement.

Get rid of zoning laws. In many areas it can be as simple as that. The Romans didn't have zoning laws, so why do we?

Teach people how to use wood stoves properly instead of blanket-bans. What I really hate is when AGW freaks do what they recently did: "Oh, if we ban wood burning thenall the soot goes away and we'll fix the climate". Wot utter nonsense. That has moved these guys really close to crackpot status.

As I said, if the deal is right he will have recouped the pro-rated expense plus hopefully a little profit.

Not going to happen. Then you must look for another house to buy. Provided that the deals are good which right now they aren't. Just like they aren't for LED lighting.

True. But this kind of fuel won't be there forever. Which is why I believe it was futile to all but stop any nuclear generation research. We should have continued that research, or should re-start it.

Make sense. But only if another tax of same public impact is abolished. I am against any kind of new tax that increases the overall tax burden for our country.

It doesn't require much tech knowledge. Everyone on the podium knew that a new battery for a EV costs north of $10k. If one discharge action by a utility reduces its life by 1/2000th that cost is five bucks, no matter how you toss and turn it. And you only get very few kilowatts to show for it.

Ultracaps are a gazillion miles away from reaching any useful capacity for this. But there is a more pressing argument which also caused some consternation when I brought it up: The utility does not need that buffer at night. They'll need the juice out of the EV battery on a hot afternoon. But the EV owner will need that very same juice _in_ the battery to get home. That's a wee problem ...