Replacing Fossil Fuels

[midlifebear]

Perhaps the turbines could be made in different colors.

Like on TeleTubbies?

Actually, I'm rather ignorant regarding the real kilowatt hours necessary to keep my ranch in 24/7 year round juice, but that's what we have. I inherited a wind generator from my father's farm. He installed two of them back in 1978-79. When he sold his farm I took one and my brother took the other. It's not terribly big, sits atop a 25 foot grounded tower and only needs a 10 mph wind for 8 hours each day to generate enough for simultaneous storage as well as day-time use. It also rotates on a pivot, so it always faces into the wind. The wind generator can, and often does, crank out loads of electricity in much higher winds than 8 mph. There's no such thing as a day without a breeze in the sagebrush steppe. And there are times, when the metering system indicates it, that the windmill needs to be stopped from rotating so it doesn't exceed the maximum stress of its sealed bearings.

We've added to that little wind generator several (actually 8 large banks) of solar panels on stationary poles. But the panels can be rotated automatically or by hand crank so we can orient them for maximum collection depending upon the season. Even on heavy overcast days they collect plenty of photons for daily use and storage. The only care they really need is to have heavy snow swept off them and be washed down either before or after sunset about once a month to keep them clean and efficient. Raking the lawn takes more effort.

The only changes from the system that my father had is that we no longer depend upon the delivery of direct current to the battery storage pit. Alternate current is generated and diverted to all the buildings on the property or to the storage pit batteries. Then some miraculous little box of wiring delivers all the AC we need, automatically, drawing all the stored juice we need at night. How it does this I do not know. I should, but I'm completely ignorant of how it does it.

As for the batteries, they aren't cheap. We have two cement vaults (the same manufactured for containing coffins) lined with butyl rubber and packed with the same enormous batteries that are used by heavy earth-moving equipment. These are not cheap and they do wear out. But in 2010 it's possible to replace them with permanent self-enclosed batteries that do not need servicing. It takes a forklift to take an old one out and replace it. But the new ones don't swell up after 10 or so years of service and threaten to explode. Supposedly, (it hasn't happened yet), the new generation of batteries just quit. An embedded strip of some magic material changes from green to screaming orange, indicating that it's time to pluck it out and replace it. Again, these batteries are not cheap. And dumb as I am, it seems that the battery storage issue is the weakest part of the system.

I should know more about this, but other than knowing how a complete circuit works, I'm terribly ignorant of the process I have working on the ranch. Two things I do know: 1. I had a nice long-haired itinerant electrician from Canada design and install our system (about $40,000, including his fee) and 2. When the skies darken and it looks as though a typical late summer lightning storm is brewing, There are big, safety orange male and female connectors we need to disconnect until the danger of a lightning hit is over. I also know how to find that gentle and very smart hippie from Canada who installed the system in case it needs to be repaired. One of the ranch hands insists he knows how to keep it operating, and he has made minor repairs. But I have more confidence in the guy from Canada.

Last year the lightning rod protecting my house was hit and curiously everything plugged into the east side of the building was wiped out: my PC, printer, washer/dryer, and all lamps plugged into wall sockets in rooms on the same side of the house. The lightning rod, itself, vaporized down to just a nubbin of metal sticking out of a block of cement.

What is involved in massive wind/solar energy production is beyond me. But it certainly works quite well on a small scale at my ranch out in the middle of nowhere on several thousand acres of dirt. And that includes heating all buildings with energy-efficient floor base heaters during very long winters. It's July 6th, and we still had need to turn on the heat last night.

The only thing I've yet to convert to electric is the on-demand water heating system. I installed three of the exact same systems I have in Europe and Argentina. They use on-demand propane to heat water almost instantly only when the hot water faucets are turned on. When there is no need for hot water there isn't any. However, the pilot light used in the water heating systems is ignited with a quick, electric spark. Why this system of heating water has not been adopted universally in the USA is something that makes absolutely no sense to me. Why have a 24/7 40, 50, or 60 gallon water heater keeping water hot -- either gas or electric -- when it's not needed? No one at the ranch has ever complained that we've run out of hot water after 10 guests camping on the lawn have taken 10 showers, one after the other.

As for the impact on wild life? We've yet to have any flying animal hit the wind generator and explode into a rain of feathers. We have, however, had to send a couple of red tailed hawks and a young golden eagle to the raptor refuge because, while dive bombing toward their prey, they hit a power line and broke a wing -- or worse.

 

[FRE]

Midlifebear,

Your situation is one where wind and solar power may be the best options. Apparently you cannot easily connect to the grid, so you have to provide your own power. Of course you could use a Diesel generator, but small Diesel generators are a real pain. Their life is limited and hauling fuel for them can be very inconvenient. Their best use is for standby power in case other sources of power fail.

In some remote areas, small hydro generators are useful. Usually they require a small dam, but there has to be a reasonable head for them to work.

Probably better lightening protection is available than what you have. Often a lightening rod will prevent a lightning bolt from striking by discharging the static electricity gradually. There are also devices to protect house wiring from lightening, but I don't know how effective they'd be in protecting sensitive electronic equipment.

Depending on circumstances, demand-type water heaters may or may not be more efficient than storage type water heaters. The one-type-fits-all approach doesn't work well. In your situation, solar water heaters might work well. Basically, it's a matter of cost. Obviously if the interest on the investment exceeds the savings, solar would not pay.

 

[midlifebear]

FRE:

Thanks for the link to the Green Choices web site. That's a very good resource for a lot of valuable information.

I noticed there was one glaring omission regarding how to maximize the mileage efficiency of -- well -- any fossil-fuel automobile.

Despite how inefficient combustion automobile engines are, on sustained drives of 20 miles or more (no stopping and starting at regulatory signs and red lights) all automobiles get the maximum mileage from a tank of gas when maintaining a speed of 45 miles per hour. At 50 mph the mileage begins to drop, but not by much.

Back in the glorious days of the first gas shortage in the early 1970s I was the proud owner of a 1969 Lincoln which, at normal highway speeds would average 9 mph. When the US government made 55 mph the MAXIMUM highway speed, my 8,200 pound curb weight luxo boat suddenly got 22 mpg -- sometimes even better with a tail wind.

So what if you were driving a terrible gas guzzler. At 55 mph (or a bit less) it still got you where you wanted to go on long trips -- and in the comfort of an interior almost the same size as a living room.

Zooom!

Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[vince]

Midlifebear. I had one of those on-demand gas heaters in my old place here. It was on the back porch and the shower had a window that opened out on to the same porch. It was always a bit exciting to hear the snap, snap. whummp as the heater kicked in! But now we are 100% solar for the water and the new tank is so well insulated that keeps the water up to shower temp for two days without sun.

Ok, so what about conservation and energy management? Doing with less and using less. How is it that Germans and the French and the Dutch can have very comfortable homes with all the modern conveniences and use about one-half the electricity per capita of Americans and Canadians and Scandinavians?

An average European household consumes 4,667 kWh, whereas a household in the US consumes 11,209 kWh and in Japan 5,945kWh per year . A US household uses three times more electricity for lighting, and twice as much in refrigerators than in the EU. Much of those saving comes just from using high efficiency household appliances.

Seems to me conservation reduces the use of valuable fossil fuels, reduces pollution and greenhouse emissions, more than building a "green" power infrastructure ever could. Don't the biggest energy savings come from simply not using it in the first place? In other words, using energy efficiently has a much bigger and more immediate impact than generating it efficiently.

 

[FRE]

Midlifebear,

When I lived in San Diego (1978 - 1994), I had two Packards. Both got about 10 mpg, no matter how I drove them. However, I didn't drive them very much.

According to this web site
1969 Lincoln Continental specs, specifications, tech specs 7.5 litre (7544 cc) V8 370.1 PS, 3 speed automatic
your Lincoln weighed 4910#, but still that isn't exactly light.

At one time, cars got their maximum mpg at around 40 mph or less, but with the emphasis on aerodynamic efficiency and higher gear ratios, apparently the speed at which maximum efficiency occurs has increased. With my Mazda 3, I beat the EPA mileage in city driving, mainly because I have a manual transmission and know how to use it to maximize fuel efficiency. Much of the printed material on maximizing fuel efficiency is incorrect. Excessively gradual acceleration increases the time spent in the lower gears and maximum efficiency is not obtained 'til in top gear. I average about 26 mpg in city driving; EPA for city driving is 22 mpg. Although the EPA difference between a slush pump and a manual transmission is generally very small, the actual difference is much greater for a driver who knows how to maximize efficiency. With a slush pump, the driver has less control and, in addition, there is slippage 'til the torque converter locks up. However, in highway driving, the difference in mpg between a slush pump and a manual transmission is often very small.

Just recently on TV I saw an advertisement for a Cadillac which will accelerate from 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds!! Unfortunately, modern engine technology is often used to obtain performance which exceeds what would have been expected of race cars in 1960 instead of being used to improve fuel efficiency.

Obviously more efficient cars cannot eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, but it is good first step towards reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[FRE]

Midlifebear. I had one of those on-demand gas heaters in my old place here. It was on the back porch and the shower had a window that opened out on to the same porch. It was always a bit exciting to hear the snap, snap. whummp as the heater kicked in! But now we are 100% solar for the water and the new tank is so well insulated that keeps the water up to shower temp for two days without sun.

Ok, so what about conservation and energy management? Doing with less and using less. How is it that Germans and the French and the Dutch can have very comfortable homes with all the modern conveniences and use about one-half the electricity per capita of Americans and Canadians and Scandinavians?

An average European household consumes 4,667 kWh, whereas a household in the US consumes 11,209 kWh and in Japan 5,945kWh per year . A US household uses three times more electricity for lighting, and twice as much in refrigerators than in the EU. Much of those saving comes just from using high efficiency household appliances.

Seems to me conservation reduces the use of valuable fossil fuels, reduces pollution and greenhouse emissions, more than building a "green" power infrastructure ever could. Don't the biggest energy savings come from simply not using it in the first place? In other words, using energy efficiently has a much bigger and more immediate impact than generating it efficiently.

Although I've never been to Europe, my impression is that houses in Europe tend to be smaller than here in the U.S. of A. Also, it seems that Europeans are more inclined to live in townhouses and apartments than we are and those have less outside wall and roof area for the living space.

Here we still have more incandescent lights than fluorescent lights, and that makes a difference. Our refrigerators tend to be much larger too.

A few years ago, I was in outer suburbia with a real estate agent. I pointed out a building and asked whether it was a library or something; it turned out to be a private house!! Some houses are so huge that the owners would almost require a full-time domestic staff to maintain them. Obviously that is not efficient.

Probably much of the difference exists because energy prices are higher in Europe. I've thought for years that we should shift a significant portion of our tax burden from the income tax to a tax on energy derived from fossil fuels. Actually, we are not paying the full cost of the fossil fuels we use when one considers externalities, such as the cost of pollution and the fact that much of our foreign policy is driven by the need to ensure a continuing supply of oil.

 

[midlifebear]

Midlifebear,

Your situation is one where wind and solar power may be the best options. Apparently you cannot easily connect to the grid, so you have to provide your own power. Of course you could use a Diesel generator, but small Diesel generators are a real pain. Their life is limited and hauling fuel for them can be very inconvenient. Their best use is for standby power in case other sources of power fail.

In some remote areas, small hydro generators are useful. Usually they require a small dam, but there has to be a reasonable head for them to work.

Probably better lightening protection is available than what you have. Often a lightening rod will prevent a lightning bolt from striking by discharging the static electricity gradually. There are also devices to protect house wiring from lightening, but I don't know how effective they'd be in protecting sensitive electronic equipment.

Depending on circumstances, demand-type water heaters may or may not be more efficient than storage type water heaters. The one-type-fits-all approach doesn't work well. In your situation, solar water heaters might work well. Basically, it's a matter of cost. Obviously if the interest on the investment exceeds the savings, solar would not pay.

FRE:

I'm not a great fan of having a giant white tank full of compressed gas that, for lack of another term, is really just a bomb waiting for some deer hunter to ignite with his rifle. However, when retrofitting the original old ranch buildings and building my new home I was sold on the giant propane tank because a new truck, even a 4 x4 which is requirement out here, can be converted to run on propane. Therefore, when the propane guy comes out to fill the tank he's also delivering fuel to run a propane-burning vehicle. The tank has the safety hose connections for filling a vehicle. But, of course, I've yet to buy a truck or automobile and convert it to propane. Also, propane, although less expensive (at the moment) compared to a gallon of gas, doesn't provide the same "punch", therefore less torque, and the mileage isn't as good. Other than that, they seem to run and wear out the same over time.

But take heart. This "replace fossil fuels" thread has renewed my interest in hitting the books, internet, and whatever else is available on the subject regarding solar and wind generation so I might (that's a BIG might) more fully understand the system I've got in place and how to maximize it --maybe even get my hands dirty an repair it myself, when and if necessary.

As for "The Grid" that's a sore point with me. You may be amused to hear about this. Because of inane State laws, I had to install 22 miles of power poles and lines from my place to the nearest "grid" along High 93. This particular finger of the local grid is run by Wells Rural Electric Company and I had to put in the 22 miles of poles and lines because my main buildings (home, ranch hand bungalows, barn, etc.) are 23 miles away. If everything had been 25 miles, or more, away from the pseudo public utility known as WREC, I wouldn't have had to do a thing. Adding insult to injury, once I paid for the installation of the poles and power lines, WREC (by State law) took ownership. Even though I paid for everything, WREC owns it. And had I not aggressively purchased every available section and partial section from Highway 93 to my original ranch (a swath of about 40 sections) anyone who might have purchased property within 2 miles on either side of my power line that I do not own could and still can tap into the power for free. Fortunately, the sagebrush steppe is a checkerboard of privately owned sections and public sections owned by the Bureau of Land Management. A section is a square mile or 640 square acres. I was just damn lucky to have the cash and a watchful attorney purchase all those sections when they became available before someone else did. It sounds like a lot of dirt, and it is. But at the time it was possible to buy a section of privately owned land for about $3,000.

Still, I'm connected to Wells Rural Electric's "grid." Yet, we've never had the need to pull juice from WREC. Quite the opposite. The electric meter runs backwards, thus whatever excess we generate trickles onto WREC's power lines. In return, they issue my LLC "credits." In many other States the power companies who collect excess privately generated power hand over a check that can be cashed for real money. But, alas, not here in The Great Silver State. Point of fact, there's no way I could afford to make monthly payments to electrify my ranch. It's a non-working working ranch: that is, it doesn't produce anything. It's just all fenced off from my neighbors, the Winecup/Gambels Ranch who, like all ranchers, can let their cattle range free (a proud fact among the ranchers of Nevada). Needless to say, I'm not very popular with my neighbors who covet all those square miles of fenced off range. In Elko County and some other parts of the State, I'm known as a famous "prairie fairy." And to piss even more ranchers off, when I kick the bucket everything I've amassed in north eastern Nevada goes directly to the Shoshone tribe. Hell, they lived here for thousands of years before the railroad showed up. I think it's time they got a break. As for the installing all the wind and solar, it was only possible to accomplish what I did because the Federal Government had grants and loose change to underwrite wind and solar generation for private farms and ranches. Not any more.

Oh, and WREC sends me a monthly "bill" for the trouble it takes for them to carefully measure the "credit" I have accrued each month, plus another $22 (it was originally just $15) to be a member of WREC. And no, I cannot use any of the "credits" to pay that monthly bill.

When the lightning struck last year, my only solace was the transformer that exploded along with some other stuff had to be replaced by WREC at their expense.

As for lightning rods, you are quite right. We've now got this 40 foot hollow aluminum pole stuck in concrete and anchored by guy wires to attract/disperse ozone before it get's too close to a building. With the right antenna wired to the top of it I'm certain I could attract UFOs.

Side note: There's currently a major issue with those self-starters who are collecting used cooking oil and filtering it for use in their diesel engine vehicles. The IRS is actually notifying such entrepreneurs on how much fuel tax they owe the Federal Government. That, in my opinion, is a reason to join the tea bagger movement. Although, I personally loathe the tea baggers. But it does make one reconsider. :smile:

 

[FRE]

Midlifebear,

The situation you faced with the power company and related regulations certainly was unfair. It’s even worse that the situation my mother’s parents faced when they built a house out from Jackson, TN, in about 1911. They could have had the power lines run to their house by paying for them, but then people living closer to town would have been able to get power without paying for the lines. So, they did without electricity. They had a windmill to pump water, used kerosene lights, and used coal for heating.

Possibly there could be a constitutional issue involved. If so, perhaps the ACLU could be persuaded to take up your case. It just is not reasonable that anyone should have to pay to connect to the grid at such a great expense, especially when after you pay for all that, the utility company assumes ownership. I do not see how that could be legal. Probably the law which forced you to connect was the result of lobbying by the power company.

From 1963 to 1970, I worked for a manufacturer of engines and generators. When a gasoline engine was converted to run on propane, there was a slight reduction in power unless the engine was slightly modified to take full advantage of the propane, in which case it developed more power. The modifications consisted of eliminating the manifold heat risers and increasing the compression ratio. However, now that engines have fuel injection, the situation is somewhat different. During World War II, when Chicago converted their ‘busses from gasoline to propane, they found that engine life was considerably extended, probably because propane, unlike gasoline, does not interfere with lubrication.

 

[midlifebear]

Midlifebear. I had one of those on-demand gas heaters in my old place here. It was on the back porch and the shower had a window that opened out on to the same porch. It was always a bit exciting to hear the snap, snap. whummp as the heater kicked in! But now we are 100% solar for the water and the new tank is so well insulated that keeps the water up to shower temp for two days without sun.

Ok, so what about conservation and energy management? Doing with less and using less. How is it that Germans and the French and the Dutch can have very comfortable homes with all the modern conveniences and use about one-half the electricity per capita of Americans and Canadians and Scandinavians?

An average European household consumes 4,667 kWh, whereas a household in the US consumes 11,209 kWh and in Japan 5,945kWh per year . A US household uses three times more electricity for lighting, and twice as much in refrigerators than in the EU. Much of those saving comes just from using high efficiency household appliances.

Seems to me conservation reduces the use of valuable fossil fuels, reduces pollution and greenhouse emissions, more than building a "green" power infrastructure ever could. Don't the biggest energy savings come from simply not using it in the first place? In other words, using energy efficiently has a much bigger and more immediate impact than generating it efficiently.

I'm in complete agreement. Energy conservation and using energy more efficiently is preferable to generating as much or more than we do with fossil fuels. Currently I'm in the market for a new electric range/stove and refrigerator to replace the current ones in the main house as "a lovely parting gift" for the cook who bakes bread every day and keeps my home spotless year round. Normally, I only come back to Nevada for no more than a month or less. But I've discovered that just because there is the Energy Saver Star on an appliance doesn't mean that it really does save energy. We're still "discussing" the replacement issue with a copy of Consumer Report planted between us. However, the biggest power hogs I have are the well pumps. I have two wells, only one is necessary to keep the ranch hands and cook happy and clean so I have a pad lock that keeps the second one turned off. Sadly, neither well is free-flowing, which would help a great deal. Yet another reason not to raise live stock out on the Big Chunk of Dirt.

 

[freyasworld]

I'm in complete agreement. Energy conservation and using energy more efficiently is preferable to generating as much or more than we do with fossil fuels. Currently I'm in the market for a new electric range/stove and refrigerator to replace the current ones in the main house as "a lovely parting gift" for the cook who bakes bread every day and keeps my home spotless year round. Normally, I only come back to Nevada for no more than a month or less. But I've discovered that just because there is the Energy Saver Star on an appliance doesn't mean that it really does save energy. We're still "discussing" the replacement issue with a copy of Consumer Report planted between us. However, the biggest power hogs I have are the well pumps. I have two wells, only one is necessary to keep the ranch hands and cook happy and clean so I have a pad lock that keeps the second one turned off. Sadly, neither well is free-flowing, which would help a great deal. Yet another reason not to raise live stock out on the Big Chunk of Dirt.

Just had a chat with a friend of mine he has a farm in Devon I asked him what he did about water....now please bare with me this is a bit beyond me....boys toys stuff!

Right he feeds his troughs from a well, he uses a 1000 gal header tank, 2 solar panals and 2 x 12volt marine batteries in parallel whatever that means, he contected the batteries to an inverter (Doh) and runs a 240v pump to top up the tanks. The header tank is gravity fed and each trough has a ball cock. He also uses the water for pressure washing also.

now I am sre some of you guys can make sense of that, basically he said it costs him nothing to pump water around his farm!

 

[vince]

Just had a chat with a friend of mine he has a farm in Devon I asked him what he did about water....now please bare with me this is a bit beyond me....boys toys stuff!

Right he feeds his troughs from a well, he uses a 1000 gal header tank, 2 solar panals and 2 x 12volt marine batteries in parallel whatever that means, he contected the batteries to an inverter (Doh) and runs a 240v pump to top up the tanks. The header tank is gravity fed and each trough has a ball cock. He also uses the water for pressure washing also.

now I am sre some of you guys can make sense of that, basically he said it costs him nothing to pump water around his farm!

It's not exactly free because he had expenses for the panels and the batteries and the other bits and pieces it took to make the system.

But sure. That's exactly what I was talking about earlier. He is using the energy of the sun to pump water in to a storage tank. Then the force of gravity powers the water around the farm on demand. He could also use different mechanical systems attached to the water stream to utilize the stored energy to turn a mill or do other work. Also, as the water falls out of the tank to go to the cow trough, he could recover some more electricity if he used the force of the water to turn a small dynamo and charge the batteries again.

He could use a windmill to raise the water to the tank as well.

All these thing are fun to play with and I think they all have a role in reducing the use of fossil fuels. The solutions will be both large scale, as in major conservation efforts and improved nuclear technology and small local, private efforts such as your friend's, that could have a major impact in how we generate and use energy.

An example is that billions of people should have solar water heaters on the roofs of their houses or apartments. They are low-tech, reliable and cheap and they save major amounts of fossil fuels that would otherwise be used.

 

[FRE]

I just read an article about water shortages in Australia. In some areas, they are supplementing natural fresh water with desalinated sea water. The desalination equipment uses electricity generated from coal. That could be a good application for solar power.

A problem with solar power is that it is intermittent and there are no economical ways to store the electricity for when the sun is not shining. But for sea water desalination, that need not be a problem. The desalination system could run when the sun IS shining, and enough desalinated water could be stored for when the sun isn't shining. So, although solar power is not practical for providing a major portion of the power required by most countries, in places where continuous power is not required, it can be very useful.

As Vince pointed out, solar water heaters can be very useful. When I lived in Fiji, I had one and rarely had to use the electric back-up.

 

[dandelion]

Fre, I think these posts have identified some areas where wind and solar on a small scale can reduce overall electricty load. The problem you had with them is the issue of covering the time when they are not available, which meant having alternative power stations running and ready all the time. If someone installs solar water heating, then there is a good chance it will work to some extent even on bad days (for example, even in winter in the UK). Midlife, Im not sure from what you said how much energy on the ranch is really costing. How does the cost of plant and batteries compare to simply buying electricity from that power line you were forced to install anyway? One of the advantages of centralised power generation is the scale economy of the equipment. I see that on the one hand you were forced to install lines, but on the other subsidised to install generators. Nice for somebody, but did this to some extent cancel out?

As to lightning rods: Im sure they are not meant to vapourise. A lightning rods purpose is to attract lightning, but once its got its attention, it has to do something with it! I remember someone once telling me about being in the natural history museum in London (which is a bit gothic and full of dinosaurs) in a storm watching lightning repeatedly hitting the towers. Presumably the conductors did not vapourise at first strike.

Whoever it was, you probably have a point about americans having bigger houses, fridges, cars, which naturally use more energy simply because they are bigger, but that is still a reflection of energy being cheap. Make it more expensive and everyone takes fuel efficiency more seriously, which would include thinking about whether they really need a fridge that big. Or whether they really need to heat/cool all that huge house. Cheap energy affects peoples decisions on everything, including the best size of house to live in.

 

[FRE]

Fre, I think these posts have identified some areas where wind and solar on a small scale can reduce overall electricty load. The problem you had with them is the issue of covering the time when they are not available, which meant having alternative power stations running and ready all the time. If someone installs solar water heating, then there is a good chance it will work to some extent even on bad days (for example, even in winter in the UK). Midlife, Im not sure from what you said how much energy on the ranch is really costing. How does the cost of plant and batteries compare to simply buying electricity from that power line you were forced to install anyway? One of the advantages of centralised power generation is the scale economy of the equipment. I see that on the one hand you were forced to install lines, but on the other subsidised to install generators. Nice for somebody, but did this to some extent cancel out?

As to lightning rods: Im sure they are not meant to vapourise. A lightning rods purpose is to attract lightning, but once its got its attention, it has to do something with it! I remember someone once telling me about being in the natural history museum in London (which is a bit gothic and full of dinosaurs) in a storm watching lightning repeatedly hitting the towers. Presumably the conductors did not vapourise at first strike.

Whoever it was, you probably have a point about americans having bigger houses, fridges, cars, which naturally use more energy simply because they are bigger, but that is still a reflection of energy being cheap. Make it more expensive and everyone takes fuel efficiency more seriously, which would include thinking about whether they really need a fridge that big. Or whether they really need to heat/cool all that huge house. Cheap energy affects peoples decisions on everything, including the best size of house to live in.

I have a much bigger house than I need; I live alone in a three-bedroom house. However, I don't heat and cool all of it. The main living area, including living, dining, and kitchen areas; powder room, master bedroom with its ensuite; are upstairs. There is insulation between the upstairs and downstairs and a door at the bottom of the stairs. The upstairs and downstairs are separately cooled, and I don't cool the downstairs unless it is in use. The radiant floor heating is zoned. So, even though the house is bigger than I need, it is energy efficient.

Here in the U.S., hot air heat is the most common type of heat. Usually there is one furnace for the entire house, and although hot air heat can be zoned, it doesn't work especially well. One reason hot air heat is so common is that it can easily be combined with cooling, although with less than optimal results. The air registers are generally at the ceiling level so, despite what HVAC contractors say, there is considerable temperature stratification, i.e., the ceiling is hotter than the floor during the heating season, which is not efficient. Also, circulating air consumes more energy than circulating water.

Building codes have requirements intended to improve energy efficiency, but they don't go far enough. As I've said a number of times before, a significant portion of the income tax should be replaced by a high tax on fossil fuel; the tax change should be phased in gradually to provide time to monitor its effects and permit people to adjust. However, additional steps would have to be taken to ensure that rental housing is energy efficient. Owners of rental housing are generally unconcerned with energy efficiency if tenants will be paying the energy bills and usually when tenants are looking for housing, they have no way to predict what the energy costs will be. Here in Albuquerque, often the cost of utilities is included in the rent, but then the tenants have no incentive to use energy efficiently.

 

[FRE]

There is an article in the current edition of "American Scientist" magazine on liquid fluoride thorium reactors that is very good. Although it is quite thorough, it is written in a way that those of us who are not physicists can understand it. Here is a link to the magazine:

American Scientist Online

 

[798686]

I read recently that current all-electric vehicles are no greener than normal petrol or diesel engined cars. On average, the carbon produced to provide the electricity used is equivalent to 90-130g/km. About the same as efficient small conventional units.

Hybrids are better, as they use the petrol engine to provide electricity for the hybrid motor, rather than taking it from the grid. Although some cars, such as the Prius, are more carbon intensive to produce, for some reason.

Modern, light, conventional engined cars w/stop-start technology, etc., or certain hybrids, would seem to be best currently.

 

[FRE]

I read recently that current all-electric vehicles are no greener than normal petrol or diesel engined cars. On average, the carbon produced to provide the electricity used is equivalent to 90-130g/km. About the same as efficient small conventional units.

Hybrids are better, as they use the petrol engine to provide electricity for the hybrid motor, rather than taking it from the grid. Although some cars, such as the Prius, are more carbon intensive to produce, for some reason.

Modern, light, conventional engined cars w/stop-start technology, etc., or certain hybrids, would seem to be best currently.

That doesn't take location into consideration.

Here in the U.S., we get about 50% of our electricity from coal and about 20% from nuclear. If an electric car is recharged using electricity generated from coal, then there may be little or no reduction in pollution. However, if it is recharged from electricity generated from hydro power or nuclear power, then there will be a considerable reduction in pollution.

In any case, electric cars would reduce the amount of oil we import. And, as we move away from using coal for power, the advantages of electric cars would increase.

The main advantage of current hybrid cars is that they can greatly improve fuel efficiency for city driving. Unfortunately, their advantages for highway driving are minimal. So, for people who do A LOT of city driving, current hybrids make a lot of sense. But for people whose driving is mainly on the highway, it is questionable whether a hybrid can be justified.

 

[798686]

That doesn't take location into consideration.

That's true, sort of. The figure given: 90-130 g/km, is an averaged out figure. It's lower in places like Norway (lots of hydro-electric) and France (80% nuclear?) - but higher elsewhere.

Hybrids do seem to make a lot of sense for town driving; whereas normal, efficient engined cars may be better for long-distance driving - or even diesel, which averages more miles per gallon.

Other ways to improve efficiency too, I guess. High-end cars using aluminium spaceframes, such as Jaguars - mean high performance can be achieved using smaller, more efficient engines due to the weight reductions.

Maybe electric cars will come into their own when there is a more developed infrastructure - altho a lot of the time it would just mean getting energy from coal-fired powerstations instead of from oil. I guess it has to go hand in hand with a change to hydro and nuclear etc. Altho the UK is shying away from nuclear at present...

 

[FRE]

That's true, sort of. The figure given: 90-130 g/km, is an averaged out figure. It's lower in places like Norway (lots of hydro-electric) and France (80% nuclear?) - but higher elsewhere.

Hybrids do seem to make a lot of sense for town driving; whereas normal, efficient engined cars may be better for long-distance driving - or even diesel, which averages more miles per gallon.

Other ways to improve efficiency too, I guess. High-end cars using aluminium spaceframes, such as Jaguars - mean high performance can be achieved using smaller, more efficient engines due to the weight reductions.

Maybe electric cars will come into their own when there is a more developed infrastructure - altho a lot of the time it would just mean getting energy from coal-fired powerstations instead of from oil. I guess it has to go hand in hand with a change to hydro and nuclear etc. Altho the UK is shying away from nuclear at present...

I expect electric cars to become common, but there are other possibilities.

Here in the U.S., because of poor city planning, we have become dependent on cars as the primary mode of transportation, even in urban areas. It is impossible to get to work or do the shopping without driving a car. There are, however, exceptions. In some of the large easter cities, like New York and Philadelphia, there is good public transportation and many people there neither own cars or have a driver's license. The dense population of those cities makes public transportation efficient. Those cities were developed before private cars existed, so everything had to be either within walking distance or near the public transportation system. Other cities are so spread out that it is difficult or impossible to have an efficient public transportation system.

So, there are two ways to replace fossil fuels for transportation:

1) Plan or re-design cities to make public transportation efficient, and / or
2) Design cars that do not require fossil fuels.

 

[798686]

Yup - I guess it's easier here in that respect, since we have fairly extensive (if crowded) public transport, so it's possible to get to most places. Clean, safe and affordable public transport would seem to be a good incentive to getting ppl out of cars.

Carbon capture technology has been mentioned over here to make new coal-fired powerstations cleaner. Not sure how expensive it is tho - or whether our planned powerstations will have it. Most of our utilities are owned by French or German companies, stupidly, so I suppose it's harder to put political pressure on them to do it.