Posted by N9WOS on April 8, 2005, 10:38 pm
>Not necessarily. How much energy is consumed when capital equipment is
>depreciated for tax purposes? By an investment tax credit? By an interest
>deduction?
Let me expand on that just a bit.
> How much energy is consumed when capital equipment is depreciated for tax
> purposes?
In terms of a government taxation on a company in energy terms.
The company earns the right to consume energy, or products containing
energy, by selling products, or services. They charge the customers "energy
credits" for the energy required to provide the product to them.
(ie) They earn money.
The government doesn't put any penalties on energy that the company uses to
self to stay alive.
(ie) operating cost.
The government puts penalties on (they want a part of) unused "energy
credits" that have been collected, and energy containing products that was
purchased with those "energy credits" that is not needed to keep the company
running.
(ie) Free money, and products that won't be used by the company to stay
alive.
Depreciation is a scam the government pulled off on the industry, but that
is besides the point.
In this application, it can put in energy terms.
Go back to that $0,000 refrigeration unit I referred to earlier.
Remember that I stated that the life was 10 years, and the money wasted to
have one was $000 a year. One tenth of it's life is wasted a year. In 10
years, it's life is gone, and it's worth no energy. It's value has been
consumed, and it will carry no value to anyone.
The government, in their shallow wisdom, has put an arbitrary life span of 7
years on equipment. To them, when you buy a piece of equipment, then you
haven't actually spent the money on the business yet. You can still trade
the machine for it's original value in money. So the taxes for free, unused
money, will still apply. And as it's value is consumed by each passing year,
then they classify that energy value as being irrevocably lost into, used by
that company to operate. And money that is used to stay alive, is not taxed
in the same way, so they give money (energy credits) back because it is no
longer part of the energy that they can claim a right to.
>By an investment tax credit?
Basically, it's just the government saying that they won't take away part of
the energy you earned a right to use, if you give that "energy credit" to
someone else to use to earn more energy credits. Because, in the end, the
other person that is now earning a lot of "energy credits" (money) from
using the "energy credits" that he got off you to by energy, so he will have
paid you back, and given the government far more in in "energy credits" than
the government lost when it said it wouldn't take your "energy rights"
Basically along the same lines as, you got to have energy to get energy, or
the right to use energy.
>By an interest deduction?
Basically they don't want to take a chunk out of your "money" that you use
to pay for energy credits that you borrowed. They think that if you can use
that extra energy to earn more energy, to pay back your "energy debt"
faster, then you will en up giving them more energy credits to put into
something else, in the long run. Like energy to build fighter jets. Or fuel
to power those jets.
In the end, money is just an energy credit.
Posted by N9WOS on April 9, 2005, 4:50 am
> Finally, one of the problems with your accounting scheme is that it
> double-counts. Suppose I sell $00,000 worth of solar panels, making a
> profit of $0,000. I then use the $0,000 to buy a wind turbine. Does my
> $0,000 represent energy consumed to make the PV panels or the wind
> turbine? Clearly it cannot represent both, because that would be like
> making energy from nothing.
I will expand the subject.
(A big expansion!!!!!!!)
I will cover the way power flows through society.
I will cover how you are forming a parasitic power loop.
And I will cover how to slow the flow of power.
This is an energy economy
Money is just a token that holds an energy value.
And it has always been an energy economy.
Food is an energy source, and farmers create energy (food from sun light)
In an energy economy, you have the source, from which all things run.
The things that run off the energy source, sell back stuff made with that
energy, to keep the source running.
The stores sell stuff to people to live, and pay the energy source for
energy to run.
The people work to earn money from the factory, to pay the store, and pay
the energy source to keep the house warm.
Factories use products, and sell stuff to the energy source to keep the
energy source running, in tern buying energy to operate.
The energy source takes all that money coming in from each link in the chain
to buy stuff from the factory to keep producing energy.
If the energy source can produce twice as much energy with the equipment and
the price of the equipment stays the same, then he will sell energy at half
the price.
You may say that won't work, because he can just keep charging the same
amount.
Yes he can.
But he will be buying stuff that isn't needed, which is what it will cost to
keep the energy source running (keep him happy), then that mean that he isn't
producing twice the energy with the same equipment. He is still producing as
much energy from the same amount of stuff that is required to keep him
going.
He is still consuming as much of his own energy coming back to him in the
form of products, as he was before.
As long as the energy source can produce the same amount of energy that it
took to produce it, that loop will remain operational. And there will plenty
of energy to produce all the little intricate sub loops that stretch out
from the source.
Like people working at a factory to produce Lego blocks, that they buy with
the money they earned working for the factory that produced Lego blocks. The
energy source can run without the factory building Lego blocks, but the
factory, and the person can not live without the energy source. That sub
loop is being feed by the primary energy loop. Where do you think people are
getting money to pay the power company?
It must come from people that work to keep the power company going.
People may say that the only energy cost in the generating equipment is the
energy it took at the foundry to produce it. But it takes the entire
community to support the foundry and the people that work there. The money
will work it's way out to the community, and into sub loops, until it
finally goes back through the primary loop, which is the power loop that
feeds the system.
The formula for the price of power is simple. If a machine that cost $
produces 10 watts of energy in it's life time. Then the electricity cost
$.1 a watt. If it takes 1 watt of energy to produce a machine, then 9 watts
of energy will be burnt up in the sub loops, until that final 1 watt of
energy is put back into a machine that will produce 10 more watts. All items
in the sub loops will have an equivalent energy cost of 1 watt for every
$.1. If something cost $.3 to buy, then it used 3 watts from the source.
link one used one watt of energy to mine the materials, link two paid link
one $.1 for those materials, and used one watt of energy to refine those
materials. Link three paid link two $.2 for the refined materials and used
one watt of energy to make it into a tool. Link four buys that tool for $.3
which cost 3 watts of energy. And he paid for that tool with money he got
working for the link that produced the power unit that supplies all the
energy to the system, the link that produced the power unit uses 1 watt of
energy to build the unit, and hires three people, that it pays $.3 each to
build the unit. Total energy cost to build the unit, $
It always cost as much energy to keep the energy source running as the
energy source produces.
If all the sub loops take up to much power too provide the equipment to keep
the source running, then the source can't get enough money off of the energy
it sells to produce the power to keep the system running.
Thus, the cost of power will go up, and that will shed extraneous sub loops,
it will keep going up until the money from the power going out will buy the
equipment used to produce the electricity
All right, now what happen if you throw two energy sources into the mix.
Lets use one source to form a primary loop.
Lets use energy from one energy source to bread the new secondary energy
loop..
In this case, a link that produces the equipment to sell the power company
to make power, uses some of the money to buy equipment to make power for
himself.
The power company buys the solar panels for $00K. The other is you that got
the windmill from the extra $0K that the power company gave you for the
solar panels. If the power company is the only one to sell to the community,
then the energy that he sells to the community will reflect cost that he put
into the system. His apparent energy cost to produce the power to the
system, will be greater and it will cost the people that use off of him,
more. Because it is taking more of his own power to get his panels to
produce the power to sell the community. It will be the power that he
produced, that will produce the windmill. The power loop formed by the
windmill is parasitic to the primary productive power loop that feeds the
community. If you had only charged him $0K, then the community would only
be paying 80% of what they are now. That means that there is only 80% of the
power that can be used throughout the system as there could have been.
To the community, that mean more of the power that's generated, needs to go
back into the power source to keep it running. But to the person that got
the windmill for a little bit of labor installing some solar panels, then
energy used to acquire the windmill was cheep. That is because it wasn't his
energy that was used to make the system. It took $00K of energy to provide
power for the community. 20K was parasitic loop that doesn't support it's
self at first, 80K was to the primary loop that went to supporting the
community.
The person that got the windmill, gets $0K worth, imposed a direct energy
load on the system. That windmill took 20K worth of power off of the power
company's system to make.
Now it's time for a parasitic loop to support it's self.
If the parasitic loop starts to sell power to the community, then he will be
able to buy another wind mill (made with his own power) to produce power
when that the first one quits. And then the loop is no longer a parasitic
loop. It is a self supporting loop, that no longer provide a hidden load on
the community. Anyone that buys equipment to produce power with money the
earned from the existing power supply (economy), is posing a direct load on
the power supply, that doesn't help the power supply. You may as well bought
a bunch of bricks for all they care. The turn around comes when the
parasitic source turns around and feeds to the community to self support it's
self.
There is no difference between a brick and a windmill, before the windmill
produces power. Either way, it increased the total energy impact to the
primary loop, to produce the source to feed the loop.
Now lets look at your case.
What makes it most interesting in your case is the fact that neither of the
powers sources were being bought to produce power for the primary source.
Both loops are secondary parasitic loops. Actually, one loop is a parasitic
of a parasitic loop. Anyone that buys a piece of power generating equipment
is making a parasitic power loop. The money he got, trickled down from the
energy source. He had $00k worth of energy. He spent that to get a power
source, but in the process of getting a power source, someone used the money
from his loop that was just starting, and made a third loop. To the primary
loop, it took 100K to start the secondary loop. To the secondary loop, it
took $0K to start the third loop. Power to create both loops came from the
primary loop.
The first parasitic loop took $00K worth of power.
The secondary parasitic loop took $0K worth of power.
Some people, like you, said that that would mean that the total impact for
the two systems would be $20k.
No, power doesn't flow like that. You each, represent a node in the network.
Power flows from one node to another. Power can only flow in series from him
to you. He is spending energy, you are receiving it. If there was a third
link that both of you was consuming off of, then you two would be in
parallel. But the link both you would be feeding off of, is producing $20K
worth.
But in this case, he feeds you $00k you feed the windmill maker $0K, and
the solar panel maker $0k.In a parallel circuit feeding from you. In the
end, it cost him $00k in energy to get the panels. The panels only cost
$0K, but getting the panels from you cost $00k. If he left you out of the
circuit, and got the panels directly from the node that you got them, then
it would of only cost him $0K and you would of never had $0K to buy a
windmill. A windmill that would of never been built. And $0K of energy that
would of never been used. Getting the panels from you, increased the energy
used to get the panels by $0K
And if you say, "Well.. He will just spend it on something else that cost
power to make"
You are correct.
Power will always find it's way through the loop, and come back to the
source.
The question is how fast it travels through the loop.
The longer it takes for it to travel around the loop, the less energy is
consumed. The longer you hold onto the money (energy), before sending it on
down the line, the slower fuel (energy) will be consumed.
The way to reduce total power in the system, is to reduce the speed at which
it travels through each node in the circuit. If a device you own, takes less
money (energy) to operate, then you will end up getting a back log of money
(energy credits). You are forming a resistance to the power flow. You will
start to consume less money off of the circuitry upstream, and thus total
power flow (energy used by society) will be reduced. Anything that increases
the rate at which money is spent by any one node in the energy network of
society, will never reduce the power consumed by society.
Does that make things clearer?
Posted by Paul Dube on April 7, 2005, 8:22 pm
Bravo! Well Done Sir N9WOS
I am very impressed by your knowledge and understanding of
our current energy situation (crisis).This article should be posted
in newspapers throughout the country. You should think about
taking up politics and making things "right". Thank you for enlightening
the ignorant masses (me included) as to the "Big Picture" and looking at
things from outside "The Box"
Thoroughly impressed............ Paul ....................
> A rambling of some thoughts regarding renewable energy, conservation and
> energy production.
> It will be a long post, I just have that feeling.
> Now there is a few things that I may disagree with the vice president on,
> but when he stated that "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue,
but
> it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy" I
> could not agree more. Some people will yell that conservation can reduce
> energy consumption by x amount, but they are missing the entire point.
There
> is times when people are thinking on an entirely different level when they
> make a comment, and the people that criticize the comment just don't grasp
> what they are saying. If it's from an ingrained myopic view, or just
> ignorance, is up for debate, but that is besides the point.
> The point of his statement was that conservation, as it is today, is not
a
> viable bases for any energy policy. Or basically, conservation, as it's
> practiced today, doesn't really help, in regards to energy demand. There
is
> lots of people that will cuss me out, and say I'm full of bull.$**T, but
> they do not grasp the full picture, and the comments are beyond their
> comprehension. It is something I realized years ago, when I seen the
> practices used to promote energy efficiency. The way conservation is
> practiced in today's world, it often ends up wasting more energy than it
> saves. When it finally hit me is when I seen a bunch of electricians
> changing out florescent ballast in an office building. I said to them,
"Didn't
> you just change them out two years ago?" The electrician said, "Yes, but
we
> have to change them again, to meet current efficiency requirements." Two
> years previous, they had changed them to Mark3 energy saver magnetic
> ballast. But that year, they removed the almost new ballast, and put in
> electronic ballast. I done some figuring and come to the remarkable
> conclusion that the forced change out of the ballast two years ago, wasted
> vast amounts of energy, and was a very waste full practice. They would of
> conserved energy if they would of left the old ballast in for two more
> years "wasting energy" until they put in the electronic ballast that year.
> The energy that the ballast saved those two years, is less than the energy
> that it took to produce that ballast. So all you did was relocate the
energy
> use, and added a lot of waste. Conserving is the last thing you did.
> Relocating energy use, instead of true conservation is the majority of
stuff
> I see. It is like trying to grab an egg. If you try to hard, then you will
> destroy what you are trying to get. If they try to hard to achieve energy
> conservation, you will end up wasting more than you save. The concept of
> forced change out, and replacing operational equipment before it's useful
> life has come to an end, is fundamentally flawed. Unless the savings in
> energy is phenomenal, then it is a total waste of energy to change it out
> before it had finished it's service life. Once it has finished it's
service
> life, then you should upgrade to the newest, most efficient system. The
> total environmental impact of replacing the system will already be
incurred,
> so that's the time to do it. If you replace a $0,000 refrigeration system
> for a model that is 10% more efficient, the monthly electrical cost is
$00
> a month, the service life is 10 years, and the system is still within it's
> scheduled lifespan. then you have just wasted energy. The accumulated
> energy impact for replacement is $000 a year. The energy saved is $00 a
> year. If you change it with 5 years of life left, then you have thrown
away
> $000 worth of energy, to save $000, The replacement system will have to
be
> replace 5 years earlier, so you won't make up that $000 in wasted energy
> that was wasted by changing it 5 years early.
> You may ask, why am I measuring energy in dollars? Well.. Because that is
> the most accurate way I can discern energy used to produce a product, and
> keep it running. You may say, "Well not all of that money goes to buying
> energy to make the product!" but that concept is slightly flawed. Yes,
there
> is a lot of profit. But profit will be spend on other stuff that requires
> energy to make, so it all energy spent to get the product made, and
> delivered to you. The delivery man gets a pay check from it, but that pay
> check buys electricity for his house, fuel for his car, and gas to keep
his
> house warm in the winter. If a person makes more profit on an item, then
> that means that he don't have to sell as many to stay in business, which
> means that every item that he sells has a higher energy tag to it, because
> the energy to keep the business running will remain constant. The lights
are
> still on, the trucks still make their routs, but they just don't haul as
> many units. So the per unit energy tag is higher.
> All in all, if you spend $00 on a product that will save $0 in energy
over
> it's life, compared to a $0 unit, then you have just wasted energy.
> Because the $00 product has five times as mush energy overhead than the
$0
> product. You have, in essence, wasted $0 dollars in energy. Yes, the $0
> product has 2 people producing it, and the $00 product still only has two
> people producing it, and the actually energy used in making the product,
is
> the same, and they are producing the same number of unit's a year, but the
> two people producing the $00 unit is using the extra profits to pay 8
> other people to take care of their privet yachts, so you actually you have
> 5 times as much energy being used to support the production of the $00
> unit. If you take use that frame of mind to look at the modern
conservation
> concepts, then you realize how much of a fallacy modern conservation is.
> It makes the idea of forcing companies to spend large sums of money to
save
> a handful of power, look almost insane. You have all these big companies
pop
> up, to provide products to save energy, that the government forces people
to
> use, but the infrastructure that supports the companies providing energy
> efficient products is consuming more energy than the products are saving.
> Maybe the reason why we are having these energy shortages is because of
> everyone building all this stuff to save energy.
> Like governments, and people changing out mercury vapor lights for metal
> halide in an application where they don't really need true white light.
They
> say, "It may cost more over the long run with the more frequent bulb
> changes, but the metal halide will only use half the power, so it will be
> helping the environment." I say to myself, "you freaking ignorant piece of
> #^*W$!!!!!!!!! The extra infrastructure required to change out the metal
> halide bulbs more often, consumes more energy than the metal halide bulbs
> save over mercury vapor." And thin they come out with a real wacko comment
> along the lines of..."And the metal halide bulbs will be more friendly to
> the environment, because they don't contain mercury, like the mercury
vapor
> bulbs do." Just because Metal halide bulbs don't have "mercury" in their
> name, doesn't mean that they don't contain mercury, you freaking imbecile!
> All in all, government forced conservation, doesn't rank very highly on my
> list. I think we have to much of it as is.
> Energy conservation has it's place, but right now, most people don't seem
to
> realize where that place is.
> The only real option we have, is to find ways to produce more energy. Be
it
> via nuclear fission/fusion, solar, geo, wind, hydro, bio, or fossil. And
> with all ways of procuring energy, it takes energy to get energy. It takes
> energy to build ships, drilling rigs, and equipment to hunt for oil. It
> takes equipment to build a reactor. It takes energy to build a solar
panel.
> Like people saying, we shouldn't worry about the energy shortages, we
should
> just build PV panels. May I ask them this question.. Where do we get the
> energy to build the solar panels. If a drilling rig has no gas to run it's
> engine, then it can't drill to get the oil. The easiest way is to use the
> fossil fuel, and nuclear industries to produce the power now. The are
> already established, and the energy load that will be endured by using
them
> to meet the demand, will be minimal, compared to the alternatives. And
once
> you get enough excess energy into the system provided by those methods,
then
> you can use that extra energy to support the expansion of the alternative
> energy sources.
> A crystal growing plant, can't produce silicon crystal for PV panels, if
the
> coal fired power plant that powers it can't get enough coal to keep the
> power on.
> On that note, the ideas for a "solar breeder" is borderline stupid.
> Oh.Look... The crystal growing plant is using power to run some crystal
> growing furnaces. Whoopty do.. It's like using a solar panel to power an
> exhaust fan on a factory, and calling it a solar powered factory. To have
a
> true "solar breeder" you would require all of the energy used in producing
> the panels, to be provide by panels you produce. The crystal growing
> operation needs to be powered by PV. All the energy for the homes of the
> crystal growing factory workers needs to be powered by PV. The vehicles
> that transport the workers to the factory needs to be powered by PV. All
the
> industries that support the workers (hospital, food, consumables ..on and
> on) needs to be supported by PV. The infrastructure for mining and
> purification of all the elements to supply the crystal growing factory,
> their workers and related infrastructures, need to be powered by PV. The
> factory that puts the cells into the panels, and it's related
> infrastructures (metal foundries workers.. ec. ) need to be powered by PV.
> The people, and companies that distribute, and install the modules, need
to
> be powered by PV. All the companies that build the inverters, batteries,
and
> equipment to use the panels, and their related infrastructures, need to be
> powered by PV. And all the PV panels that power all of the above, needs to
> be replicated by the entire system, within the lifespan of the panels.
That
> is why it is just easier to figure that when the panel has paid for it's
> self in dollar terms, (in reference to energy cost, at the date of it's
> production), then it is safe to say that it has yielded a positive energy
> payback, and that it's production has made a positive impact on the
> environment.
> And, all that PV breeder stuff is missing the entire point that, it
doesn't
> mater if the energy is used to power the production process, or not. As
long
> as the panels are in use, then that is more conventional energy that is
free
> to go other places, or to be saved for a later date. If the PV production
> plant has 100KW of PV to run it, but the homes around it have to run off
of
> a local power plant, or the homes have a distributed 100KW of PV, and the
PV
> production plant runs off of the local power station. What's the
difference?
> It will still take 10 or more years to pay back the energy it took the
> produce the panels. And for that 10 or so years, producing PV will
actually
> cause a net burden on the energy supply. So, if we go crazy with
production
> right now, we will need extra power from other sources to hold us over for
> the 10 or so years until we finally break even on production related
energy
> burden, compared to the energy the panels are producing in the field.
> Take this formula based on an imaginary panel and community.
> Existing community takes X watts per year.
> Total cumulative energy usage producing a panel, will consume 1MW.
> The panel will produce 100KW per year.
> Total energy payback time is 10 years.
> You start panel production in the community.
> Panel production is 1000 unit's a year.
> That will increase energy consumption of the community by 1GW per year for
> the first year.
> Second year, with one year's worth of units in operation, you will have a
> net positive load of 900MW from the production.
> Third year, 800MW.
> Forth year, 700MW.
> .......
> ........
> Eleventh year, with ten years worth of units in the fields.
> Or ten times the yearly production, then the units in the field will be
> producing the same amount of energy as the PV production infrastructure is
> consuming. From that point on, you have a positive energy benefit to the
> community.
> In 20 years, you will have a net zero energy budget, from the time the
> factory started production. If the panel life is twice the energy payback
> time, then the total community energy payback of the factory will be 2X
the
> payback of the panel, or the lifetime of the panel.
> If the total life expectancy of the PV panels is 20 years, then you will
> have to have a PV production industry with a power consumption that is
equal
> to the energy usage of the community that is being powered by Pv
production
> industry. Ten years worth of panels will be powering the PV production
> system, while the other 10 years of panels will be powering the community
> that is not related to the PV production system.
> I guess it is a way to provide extra jobs. You will basically employ half
of
> the population in the PV industry to supply power to the other half of the
> population.
> The panels better have a life expectancy three or more times their payback
> period, or half the US population is going to be working for something
that
> relates to the PV industry. Or we better find other sources of energy
like
> fusion, or something else with a quicker payback period. Otherwise, the
> majority of the energy produced by the panels will be used in making more
> panels.
> Any way you go about it, if we want to get PV off the ground, we are going
> to have to find an existing source of energy to get the PV production
system
> of the ground, and get it running. Otherwise, we will be the operator
> setting at the controls of an oil drilling rig that has no gas to run it's
> engine.
> My opinion is that solar thermal will be a better choice for large scale
> solar energy production. Energy payback is a lot quicker.
> On hydrogen.
> People say that it's not a useful energy source. I have to agree. No, it
is
> not a useful energy source, but it is critical as an energy transport
> system. For years, the energy transport system, was the energy source it's
> self. That being oil. But that will no longer apply. Just like electricity
> is not a useful energy source. No, the world hasn't got one ounce of
useful
> energy from electricity. It is just a transport. It carries the energy
from
> a chemical reaction in a battery, to the circuitry in a radio. It carries
> the energy from a steam turbine in the power plant to the compressor shaft
> on your refrigerator. How would you like a drive shaft running clear from
> the power plant to your fridge, to power the compressor? Yes, hydrogen is
> not a very efficient transport system. The same can be said for
electricity,
> but it works.
> It is also critical as energy storage. With all these non-reliable energy
> sources, then you need a storage system that can hold large quantities of
> energy to run us for many weeks, if the sun don't shine. And it has to be
> loss free storage. Not like batteries that run down over a few month. You
> put energy in a storage unit, and it has to be there three years from now.
A
> 30 to 50 percent loss in conversion is acceptable, but once you convert
it,
> it needs to be in a stable form. The energy has to be movable across long
> distances with little to no loss. And the transport system should require
> very little energy to operate. The transportation and storage
> infrastructure equipment should have an achievable lifespan of many
decades.
> Movement of the energy to a car or other vehicle should be quick and
simple.
> With compressed and metallic storage systems, and pipelines, Hydrogen
meets
> those requirements. Batteries do not.
> Without hydrogen, then nuclear power plants will be required indefinitely
as
> a power source during the nighttime, and any other time that the sun
doesn't
> shine. Without a system that we can stockpile massive quantities of energy
> for a rainy day, month, year, then renewable energy will never be able to
> exist as a stand alone power source. And it's most likely partner will be
> nuclear power of some type.
> And as far as conservation, yes, it will probably have it's place in
there,
> someplace. But, hopefully, it won't be the same concept of conservation
that
> they are pushing now. Hopefully, by that time, energy conservation will
> actually achieve real reduction in energy required by the world to
operate.
> N9WOS
Posted by N9WOS on April 7, 2005, 9:28 pm
> This article should be posted
> in newspapers throughout the country.
Ahhhh... I don't know about that.
The idea of my horrible grammar, and spelling
posted across every newspaper, makes me cringe. :-0
Posted by MrE on January 30, 2006, 8:35 am
One word.. "Halliburton" Must I say more?
>A rambling of some thoughts regarding renewable energy, conservation and
>energy production.
> It will be a long post, I just have that feeling.
> Now there is a few things that I may disagree with the vice president on,
> but when he stated that "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue,
> but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy"
> I could not agree more. Some people will yell that conservation can reduce
> energy consumption by x amount, but they are missing the entire point.
> There is times when people are thinking on an entirely different level
> when they make a comment, and the people that criticize the comment just
> don't grasp what they are saying. If it's from an ingrained myopic view,
> or just ignorance, is up for debate, but that is besides the point.
> The point of his statement was that conservation, as it is today, is not
> a viable bases for any energy policy. Or basically, conservation, as it's
> practiced today, doesn't really help, in regards to energy demand. There
> is lots of people that will cuss me out, and say I'm full of bull.$**T,
> but they do not grasp the full picture, and the comments are beyond their
> comprehension. It is something I realized years ago, when I seen the
> practices used to promote energy efficiency. The way conservation is
> practiced in today's world, it often ends up wasting more energy than it
> saves. When it finally hit me is when I seen a bunch of electricians
> changing out florescent ballast in an office building. I said to them,
> "Didn't you just change them out two years ago?" The electrician said,
> "Yes, but we have to change them again, to meet current efficiency
> requirements." Two years previous, they had changed them to Mark3 energy
> saver magnetic ballast. But that year, they removed the almost new
> ballast, and put in electronic ballast. I done some figuring and come to
> the remarkable conclusion that the forced change out of the ballast two
> years ago, wasted vast amounts of energy, and was a very waste full
> practice. They would of conserved energy if they would of left the old
> ballast in for two more years "wasting energy" until they put in the
> electronic ballast that year. The energy that the ballast saved those two
> years, is less than the energy that it took to produce that ballast. So
> all you did was relocate the energy use, and added a lot of waste.
> Conserving is the last thing you did.
> Relocating energy use, instead of true conservation is the majority of
> stuff I see. It is like trying to grab an egg. If you try to hard, then
> you will destroy what you are trying to get. If they try to hard to
> achieve energy conservation, you will end up wasting more than you save.
> The concept of forced change out, and replacing operational equipment
> before it's useful life has come to an end, is fundamentally flawed.
> Unless the savings in energy is phenomenal, then it is a total waste of
> energy to change it out before it had finished it's service life. Once it
> has finished it's service life, then you should upgrade to the newest,
> most efficient system. The total environmental impact of replacing the
> system will already be incurred, so that's the time to do it. If you
> replace a $0,000 refrigeration system for a model that is 10% more
> efficient, the monthly electrical cost is $00 a month, the service life
> is 10 years, and the system is still within it's scheduled lifespan. then
> you have just wasted energy. The accumulated energy impact for
> replacement is $000 a year. The energy saved is $00 a year. If you
> change it with 5 years of life left, then you have thrown away $000 worth
> of energy, to save $000, The replacement system will have to be replace 5
> years earlier, so you won't make up that $000 in wasted energy that was
> wasted by changing it 5 years early.
> You may ask, why am I measuring energy in dollars? Well.. Because that is
> the most accurate way I can discern energy used to produce a product, and
> keep it running. You may say, "Well not all of that money goes to buying
> energy to make the product!" but that concept is slightly flawed. Yes,
> there is a lot of profit. But profit will be spend on other stuff that
> requires energy to make, so it all energy spent to get the product made,
> and delivered to you. The delivery man gets a pay check from it, but that
> pay check buys electricity for his house, fuel for his car, and gas to
> keep his house warm in the winter. If a person makes more profit on an
> item, then that means that he don't have to sell as many to stay in
> business, which means that every item that he sells has a higher energy
> tag to it, because the energy to keep the business running will remain
> constant. The lights are still on, the trucks still make their routs, but
> they just don't haul as many units. So the per unit energy tag is higher.
> All in all, if you spend $00 on a product that will save $0 in energy
> over it's life, compared to a $0 unit, then you have just wasted energy.
> Because the $00 product has five times as mush energy overhead than the
> $0 product. You have, in essence, wasted $0 dollars in energy. Yes, the
> $0 product has 2 people producing it, and the $00 product still only has
> two people producing it, and the actually energy used in making the
> product, is the same, and they are producing the same number of unit's a
> year, but the two people producing the $00 unit is using the extra
> profits to pay 8 other people to take care of their privet yachts, so you
> actually you have 5 times as much energy being used to support the
> production of the $00 unit. If you take use that frame of mind to look at
> the modern conservation concepts, then you realize how much of a fallacy
> modern conservation is.
> It makes the idea of forcing companies to spend large sums of money to
> save a handful of power, look almost insane. You have all these big
> companies pop up, to provide products to save energy, that the government
> forces people to use, but the infrastructure that supports the companies
> providing energy efficient products is consuming more energy than the
> products are saving.
> Maybe the reason why we are having these energy shortages is because of
> everyone building all this stuff to save energy.
> Like governments, and people changing out mercury vapor lights for metal
> halide in an application where they don't really need true white light.
> They say, "It may cost more over the long run with the more frequent bulb
> changes, but the metal halide will only use half the power, so it will be
> helping the environment." I say to myself, "you freaking ignorant piece of
> #^*W$!!!!!!!!! The extra infrastructure required to change out the metal
> halide bulbs more often, consumes more energy than the metal halide bulbs
> save over mercury vapor." And thin they come out with a real wacko comment
> along the lines of..."And the metal halide bulbs will be more friendly to
> the environment, because they don't contain mercury, like the mercury
> vapor bulbs do." Just because Metal halide bulbs don't have "mercury" in
> their name, doesn't mean that they don't contain mercury, you freaking
> imbecile!
> All in all, government forced conservation, doesn't rank very highly on my
> list. I think we have to much of it as is.
> Energy conservation has it's place, but right now, most people don't seem
> to realize where that place is.
> The only real option we have, is to find ways to produce more energy. Be
> it via nuclear fission/fusion, solar, geo, wind, hydro, bio, or fossil.
> And with all ways of procuring energy, it takes energy to get energy. It
> takes energy to build ships, drilling rigs, and equipment to hunt for oil.
> It takes equipment to build a reactor. It takes energy to build a solar
> panel. Like people saying, we shouldn't worry about the energy shortages,
> we should just build PV panels. May I ask them this question.. Where do we
> get the energy to build the solar panels. If a drilling rig has no gas to
> run it's engine, then it can't drill to get the oil. The easiest way is to
> use the fossil fuel, and nuclear industries to produce the power now. The
> are already established, and the energy load that will be endured by using
> them to meet the demand, will be minimal, compared to the alternatives.
> And once you get enough excess energy into the system provided by those
> methods, then you can use that extra energy to support the expansion of
> the alternative energy sources.
> A crystal growing plant, can't produce silicon crystal for PV panels, if
> the coal fired power plant that powers it can't get enough coal to keep
> the power on.
> On that note, the ideas for a "solar breeder" is borderline stupid.
> Oh.Look... The crystal growing plant is using power to run some crystal
> growing furnaces. Whoopty do.. It's like using a solar panel to power an
> exhaust fan on a factory, and calling it a solar powered factory. To have
> a true "solar breeder" you would require all of the energy used in
> producing the panels, to be provide by panels you produce. The crystal
> growing operation needs to be powered by PV. All the energy for the homes
> of the crystal growing factory workers needs to be powered by PV. The
> vehicles that transport the workers to the factory needs to be powered by
> PV. All the industries that support the workers (hospital, food,
> consumables ..on and on) needs to be supported by PV. The infrastructure
> for mining and purification of all the elements to supply the crystal
> growing factory, their workers and related infrastructures, need to be
> powered by PV. The factory that puts the cells into the panels, and it's
> related infrastructures (metal foundries workers.. ec. ) need to be
> powered by PV. The people, and companies that distribute, and install the
> modules, need to be powered by PV. All the companies that build the
> inverters, batteries, and equipment to use the panels, and their related
> infrastructures, need to be powered by PV. And all the PV panels that
> power all of the above, needs to be replicated by the entire system,
> within the lifespan of the panels. That is why it is just easier to figure
> that when the panel has paid for it's self in dollar terms, (in reference
> to energy cost, at the date of it's production), then it is safe to say
> that it has yielded a positive energy payback, and that it's production
> has made a positive impact on the environment.
> And, all that PV breeder stuff is missing the entire point that, it
> doesn't mater if the energy is used to power the production process, or
> not. As long as the panels are in use, then that is more conventional
> energy that is free to go other places, or to be saved for a later date.
> If the PV production plant has 100KW of PV to run it, but the homes around
> it have to run off of a local power plant, or the homes have a distributed
> 100KW of PV, and the PV production plant runs off of the local power
> station. What's the difference? It will still take 10 or more years to pay
> back the energy it took the produce the panels. And for that 10 or so
> years, producing PV will actually cause a net burden on the energy supply.
> So, if we go crazy with production right now, we will need extra power
> from other sources to hold us over for the 10 or so years until we finally
> break even on production related energy burden, compared to the energy the
> panels are producing in the field.
> Take this formula based on an imaginary panel and community.
> Existing community takes X watts per year.
> Total cumulative energy usage producing a panel, will consume 1MW.
> The panel will produce 100KW per year.
> Total energy payback time is 10 years.
> You start panel production in the community.
> Panel production is 1000 unit's a year.
> That will increase energy consumption of the community by 1GW per year for
> the first year.
> Second year, with one year's worth of units in operation, you will have a
> net positive load of 900MW from the production.
> Third year, 800MW.
> Forth year, 700MW.
> .......
> ........
> Eleventh year, with ten years worth of units in the fields.
> Or ten times the yearly production, then the units in the field will be
> producing the same amount of energy as the PV production infrastructure is
> consuming. From that point on, you have a positive energy benefit to the
> community.
> In 20 years, you will have a net zero energy budget, from the time the
> factory started production. If the panel life is twice the energy payback
> time, then the total community energy payback of the factory will be 2X
> the payback of the panel, or the lifetime of the panel.
> If the total life expectancy of the PV panels is 20 years, then you will
> have to have a PV production industry with a power consumption that is
> equal to the energy usage of the community that is being powered by Pv
> production industry. Ten years worth of panels will be powering the PV
> production system, while the other 10 years of panels will be powering the
> community that is not related to the PV production system.
> I guess it is a way to provide extra jobs. You will basically employ half
> of the population in the PV industry to supply power to the other half of
> the population.
> The panels better have a life expectancy three or more times their payback
> period, or half the US population is going to be working for something
> that relates to the PV industry. Or we better find other sources of
> energy like fusion, or something else with a quicker payback period.
> Otherwise, the majority of the energy produced by the panels will be used
> in making more panels.
> Any way you go about it, if we want to get PV off the ground, we are going
> to have to find an existing source of energy to get the PV production
> system of the ground, and get it running. Otherwise, we will be the
> operator setting at the controls of an oil drilling rig that has no gas to
> run it's engine.
> My opinion is that solar thermal will be a better choice for large scale
> solar energy production. Energy payback is a lot quicker.
> On hydrogen.
> People say that it's not a useful energy source. I have to agree. No, it
> is not a useful energy source, but it is critical as an energy transport
> system. For years, the energy transport system, was the energy source it's
> self. That being oil. But that will no longer apply. Just like electricity
> is not a useful energy source. No, the world hasn't got one ounce of
> useful energy from electricity. It is just a transport. It carries the
> energy from a chemical reaction in a battery, to the circuitry in a radio.
> It carries the energy from a steam turbine in the power plant to the
> compressor shaft on your refrigerator. How would you like a drive shaft
> running clear from the power plant to your fridge, to power the
> compressor? Yes, hydrogen is not a very efficient transport system. The
> same can be said for electricity, but it works.
> It is also critical as energy storage. With all these non-reliable energy
> sources, then you need a storage system that can hold large quantities of
> energy to run us for many weeks, if the sun don't shine. And it has to be
> loss free storage. Not like batteries that run down over a few month. You
> put energy in a storage unit, and it has to be there three years from now.
> A 30 to 50 percent loss in conversion is acceptable, but once you convert
> it, it needs to be in a stable form. The energy has to be movable across
> long distances with little to no loss. And the transport system should
> require very little energy to operate. The transportation and storage
> infrastructure equipment should have an achievable lifespan of many
> decades. Movement of the energy to a car or other vehicle should be quick
> and simple. With compressed and metallic storage systems, and pipelines,
> Hydrogen meets those requirements. Batteries do not.
> Without hydrogen, then nuclear power plants will be required indefinitely
> as a power source during the nighttime, and any other time that the sun
> doesn't shine. Without a system that we can stockpile massive quantities
> of energy for a rainy day, month, year, then renewable energy will never
> be able to exist as a stand alone power source. And it's most likely
> partner will be nuclear power of some type.
> And as far as conservation, yes, it will probably have it's place in
> there, someplace. But, hopefully, it won't be the same concept of
> conservation that they are pushing now. Hopefully, by that time, energy
> conservation will actually achieve real reduction in energy required by
> the world to operate.
> N9WOS
>
XML site map
>depreciated for tax purposes? By an investment tax credit? By an interest
>deduction?