Question:

Now, rather than be Mr Gloom-and-Despondency as I appear to have been, here’s a suggestion, although it’s still centrally produce and requires a grid for distribution – wave power. Remember the ‘nodding duck’ experiment that was killed off by the combined power of the oil, gas, coal and nuclear lobbiests a few years back? Just the thing to take to alt.conspiracy!!solar water heater panel. Take a look at where these places are on a map and you’ll get some idea of the logistical problems you’d have servicing them from locally produced electricity. If you want an extreme example, I’d give you Stornaway or Lerwick on the Shetlands. 2)If it wasn’t for Beeching (for anybody who doesn’t know Beeching singlehandedly destroyed a highly comprehensive UK rail network in the 1960’s), we wouldn’t have to use large fleets of trucks to ship coal around.

I’d certainly agree that moving goods like coal by rail is better. 3) Many UK towns and cities are very near coal fields, so transportation would be over short distances. But you could always use gas! Just don’t tell the miners .

Many English towns – well those in Yorkshire and Nottingham, yes. But how about Warrington..or Truro? 4) Salter’s duck I know all about it! Government scientists altering the figures and so on.

Sadly, fiddled to kill of a promising experiment. 5) Yes the payback to the individual consumer for advanced conservation systems as per the Swedes can be considerable, but if government can provide a subsidy it would be more worthwhile.solar water heater panel.  If semiconductors keep getting smaller, transistors will eventually get smaller than atoms!  If we keep making cars smaller, they’ll eventually disappear! This is not to say that one can’t make reasonable critiques of various Greenpeace positions. Bruce Nordman

Response:

# Why is it that we have to “tax” functioning, efficient sources of # energy and “subsidize” pipe-dream technologies such as wind and solar # power? Greenpeace decrys the subsidy of the fossil fuel industry # indicating that this artificially supports its use and then advocates a # tax on it instead. Could there be some weighted agenda here? How about # letting market forces prevail? Firstly many of the fossil fuel based energy sources are or were subsidised. Secondly, wind power and biomass can both be competitive, solar is competitive for off-grid applications and remote areas, and is projected to become competitive for normal use at the turn of the century. Finally as someone has already pointed out, market forces don’t take into account the environmental impacts. # Conservation and efficiency are not “forms of energy”. They are euphemisms # for “do without”. Taking conservation to a natural limit would be the # use of no energy. Is this the goal of groups such as Greenpeace? This # sounds like a thinly veiled advocacy of the elimination of technology. Not if you’re reading literature from Amory Lovins, the World Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, Greenpeace, the Green parties in Europe, Friends of the Earth etc… Much of this literature advocates the use of highly energy efficient technology to cut our energy use by as much 75%(Lovins estimate) and certainly 30%(EPRI estimates 24-44% on top of 9% already planned by American utilities) without affecting living standards(or if you build energy efficient housing, increasing living standards), and without changing lifestyles. If you want further info, I can email you my essay on energy efficiency. # Small stations sighted locally with proper pollution safeguards can # provide relatively clean electricity (compared with trad stations) and # cheap space and water heating, which is the major consumers of energy. # # There are schools of thought that just the opposite is true. It is # easier to marshall the resources to clean up one large plant than to # apply the necessary technologies to dozens or hundreds of smaller # plants. And, of course, there are the economies of scale. # # And you cut down on transmission loses. # # Which are negligible on properly designed, ultra-high voltage systems. Someone already posted the 8-10% normal transimission losses. Also in the eastern bloc countries losses can be as high as 30%. In the developing world distributed systems can cut the costs of building up a reliable energy system significantly, and solar power is more competitive there than building huge power stations and elaborate but costly grids.solar water heater panel

Response:

“President Clinton is attempting to face the twin crises of economy and environment for the first time in years with his proposed energy tax,” said Greenpeace’s Steve Kretzmann.  ”If enacted, the tax could begin to chart a new and positive energy course for this country that finally factors in environmental protection.”

Did Mr. Kretzman actually watch the speach ? President Clinton said that the energy BTU tax was the *best* way we could reduce the deficit. The government appears to want the “citizens” to use as much energy as possible so that the revenues generated will be applied to the deficit. How else will this tax reduce the deficit?  Why do we currently have a energy inefficient automobile trans- portation system? Could it be the perks and tax revenue that the government subsidized auto industry generates ? Let the free market (lower prices) drive a new transportation industry into naturally energy efficient and cost efficient modes of transpor- tation. Stop the current closed market government subsidized automobile transportation monopoly !  Give control of the roads to the Free Market !solar water heater panel

Response:

[...Drax] coal. This simple switch from high sulphur to low sulphur coal has cut pollution markedly without any additional flue gas control. Actually (although I confess I can’t remember where I saw the reference) there is little difference in the sulphur content of UK coal vs Columbian coal.

The trouble is that the main imported cheap coal which is causing all the fuss is Australian open cast mined coal and ex Eastern Block (mainly Polish) coal both of which are cheaper than British coal and have a much lower sulphur content. [...] Out of curiosity, what sort of fuel (or technology) do you propose for your local schemes? Both wind and solar are out for the UK, wind is out unless you live on the Orkney islands and in any case is so inefficient that it would require a whole vast array of ugly wind turbines scarring the scenery to power even a small village, irrespective of whether it’s fitted with Dekker aerofoils or vertical rotors or just plain variable pitch props, solar is our due to the climate, apart from maybe a month or so in the summer in the south of England (which is when you *least* need energy). The UK has the best wind resources in Europe (and some of the best in the world),solar water heater panel

Denmark has that honour. For effective wind power you need a reliable continuous wind. While Britain has some pretty healthy gales, it isn’t reliable enough to guarantee continuous power. Only Orkney in the far north has that and that’s why the only useable wind turbine was built there. The only other area which has any sort of wind power is East Anglia in England but the winds there are really only capable of driving wind pumps for drainage, not nearly enough to generate electricity in useable quantities. Part of the problem is that you need a reasonably flat terrain around, hills and mountains generate turbulance which causes the steering to swing wildly as the sails try to steer into an ever changing wind direction. That in itself eliminates whole portions of England, Wales and most of Scotland apart from some outer Isles like Tiree, Orkney and Shetland. In addition you have to find some way of harnessing excess wind to try and level out the peaks and troughs between days with gales blowing and days with a dead calm. Spilling the wind either through sail shutters or feathering the prop is just a waste of energy that could be used. Pump storage doesn’t offer a solution as you require a hill to pump the water up and hills and windmills don’t mix too well. Oh, and in case you ask, I did a research project many years ago on windmills, mainly historical, but I also looked at technology developments in recent times. I too thought they’d be a good way of generating pollution free, cheap energy. However, when you look at the costs, including the inevitable landscape ’scarring’ that would occur to drive even a small village, and the efficiencies involved, they really are pretty poor generators.solar water heater panel The swedes uses passive solar heating sytems even in the middle of winter. So we can, if we designed our buildings properly, or installed effective insulation in them.

Yes indeed they do. They also triple glaze their houses, heavily insulate cavity walls. Solar heating works to small extent but the Swedes use it for preheating the hot water supply before it’s fed to the main heater. It’s a small gain – takes the chill off the incoming water – but its expensive to impliment.solar water heater panel  The energy saving is small and takes a *long* time to pay back the cost of installation. Heat pumps might be a better bet but their your talking big money for an installation. Heat recovery from waste water is another possibility, a heat exchanger in the bath drain pipe in simple terms, but that’s *very* expensive too. A cellar helps reduce loss through the floor. An experimental house down in Milton Keynes in England was built using all these technologies and it was indeed very energy efficient and cheap to run. Unfortunately it also cost an absolute fortune to build and it’s doubtful if the extra building costs would ever be recovered in the expected lifetime of the house. All the above heat recovery systems still need an electrical supply to work and your back to the problem of generating it again. The fuel used for a local system could be coal or gas, or oil. However the beuaty of a CHP system is that once you have it up and running anyone can feed heat into the system.

..and you have associated difficulties with fuel supply and pollution control. For example, a small coal fired station in Fort WIlliam in Scotland would require coal to be trucked in. Exhaust pollution from trucks. Oil or gas, beside being a non-renewable source, would have to be piped in. Very expensive requiring again, a grid system of some sort. LPG is a non-starter as again it’s non-renewable and it’s incredibly expensive. Wood and peat are out for obvious environmental reasons. Irrespective of how efficient a power station is, you still have to supply it with its basic commodity,solar water heater panel  the fuel it uses and if that fuel is not available on its doorstep, as in virtually all communities, it still requires a ‘grid’ system of some sort for the supply of the fuel, be it a gas pipeline grid, a rail network ‘grid’, a road network ‘grid’ or indeed an electricity ‘grid’. They’re all ‘grids’ of one form or another and each have their own downside. There are *lots* of remote sizeable communities scattered around Britain, just like Fort William. WHich would you rather see, pylons straddling hills carrying centrally produced electricity or a massive road network jammed with coal trucks pouring out pollution trying to service every remote but efficient power station in every small town in Britain? I know what I would prefer!! You see, that’s the reality of the situation here in Britain. You could burn rubbish I suppose, but with all the plastics etc around, you need *very* tight pollution controls, particularly if you want to stop toxic gases getting out, and a small community is unlikely to generate enough rubbish to keep its own station working. As a supplement? Maybe but you still need to get the main fuel in *and* control the pollution with a suitable flue gas cleaner that’s adaptable for both the toxic gases *and* whatever main fuel your burning. solar water heater panel

Response:

Drax is a one off coal fired station burning high sulphur coal.solar water heater panel  As you are well aware, there has been a lot of fuss in the UK over importing and burning low sulphur coal by generators rather than using the UK mined high sulphur coal. This simple switch from high sulphur to low sulphur coal has cut pollution markedly without any additional flue gas control.

Actually (although I confess I can’t remember where I saw the reference) there is little difference in the sulphur content of UK coal vs Columbian coal. Fluidised bed coal burning and its various spin offs will cut this even further. particularly if the flue gas recirculation technology gets off the ground and the UK government adopts a longer view than the current quick temporary fix called ‘dash for gas’. These gas stations will be lying idle in 25 years time. [For our US readers, gas as in natural gas, rather than petrol (gas) you put in your car] Fluidised bed technology pushes the burning efficiency of coal close to that of gas, while decreasing SO2 emmisions. The Swedish government – one of the most ‘green’ concious governments in Europe, if not the world, have already installed a fluidised bed coal burning station in the centre of Stockholm,solar water heater panel  not the sort of place you’d normall put a power station, and appear to be quite happy with it. Why hasn’t Britain used what is essentially a British invention and indeed closed the coal research station in England where these and other improvements on existing technologies were designed?

I fully agree. The British government has made a proverial pigs ear out of its energy policy. Incidently in New Scientist recently, it said that the American had recently tested successfully a fluid bed combined cycle system for coal, with effciceincies over 40% (I think). We don’t run ultra high voltage systems in the UK so our losses are greater. and in any case most of those loses are due to connection losses rather than straight I^2*R loses in the cables themselves. Even with a local station, you’ll have similar connections to make with the accompanying loses. At lower voltages, the losses are even worse,solar water heater panel  and don’t forget to include the loss incurred where you plug your socket into the wall, that’s classed as a transmission loss too.

You know more about this than I do. I merely quoted the figure to show how high losses are. Out of curiosity, what sort of fuel (or technology) do you propose for your local schemes? Both wind and solar are out for the UK, wind is out unless you live on the Orkney islands and in any case is so inefficient that it would require a whole vast array of ugly wind turbines scarring the scenery to power even a small village, irrespective of whether it’s fitted with Dekker aerofoils or vertical rotors or just plain variable pitch props, solar is our due to the climate, apart from maybe a month or so in the summer in the south of England (which is when you *least* need energy).

The UK has the best wind resources in Europe (and some of the best in the world), even inland. The swedes uses passive solar heating sytems even in the middle of winter. So we can, if we designed our buildings properly, or installed effective insulation in them. The fuel used for a local system could be coal or gas, or oil.solar water heater panel  However the beuaty of a CHP system is that once you have it up and running anyone can feed heat into the system. Right I have a meeting now I have to go Look forward to replies about this Chris

Response:

John Higdon writes (in part): Conservation and efficiency are not “forms of energy”. They are euphemisms for “do without”.

Not necessarily.  The 486/33 on my desk at home uses a LOT less   energy than the PDP 11/35 I used to use back in my college days,   but which would you rather use?   My car, an ‘84 Rabbit, solar water heater panel. Name another form of “alternative energy” that can provide dependable baseload power. There are none. That’s why this tax is unfair. It goes after the utilities that service large cities. Fossil fuel stations have being getting a lot of stick lately (quite rightly), however with Combined Heat and Power system they can achieve efficiencies of over 70% (in terms of energy in vs useful energy out).

Unfortunately, fossil plants pollute the local areas as well. Another tradeoff. Small stations sighted locally with proper pollution safeguards can provide relatively clean electricity (compared with trad stations) and cheap space and water heating, which is the major consumers of energy. And you cut down on transmission loses.

But it’s often cheaper on O&M costs when you plant 2000-3000 MW(e) at a single site and ship the electricity everywhere. And nuclear power plants are usually placed away from large urvan areas. Tino — “Always keep a litter bag in your car. It doesn’t take up much room, and if it gets full, you can just throw it out the window.” – Steve Martin

Response:

Clinton’s presidency has got to be an engineer’s dream! I mean, to have “the heat content of energy” uttered in a State of the Union speech? We haven’t had a President who lay awake nights reading steam tables since uh..solar water heater panel? How about letting market forces prevail? Conservation and efficiency are not “forms of energy”. They are euphemisms for “do without”. Taking conservation to a natural limit would be the use of no energy. Is this the goal of groups such as Greenpeace? This sounds like a thinly veiled advocacy of the elimination of technology. Small stations sighted locally with proper pollution safeguards can provide relatively clean electricity (compared with trad stations) and cheap space and water heating, which is the major consumers of energy.

There are schools of thought that just the opposite is true. It is easier to marshall the resources to clean up one large plant than to apply the necessary technologies to dozens or hundreds of smaller plants. And, of course, there are the economies of scale. And you cut down on transmission loses.

Which are negligible on properly designed, ultra-high voltage systems.solar water heater panel

Response:

This would suggest to me that a tax on electrical heating systems combined with a subsidy to promotoe other froms would be the most desireable or socially more just system. Why is it that we have to “tax” functioning, efficient sources of energy and “subsidize” pipe-dream technologies such as wind and solar power?

Because the one that you choose to tax does more bad stuff that isn’t in the price of the energy. Greenpeace decrys the subsidy of the fossil fuel industry indicating that this artificially supports its use and then advocates a tax on it instead. Could there be some weighted agenda here?solar water heater panel How about letting market forces prevail?

Yes, their is a weighted agenda here.  There are ‘externalities’ in any system of commerce that the price of a product does not include. The goal is to ‘internalize the externalities’.  For example, my car exhaust makes my niece cough due to an asthma problem.  I don’t pay for that, my sister-in-law does via her health insurance.  To fully reflect my impact on her life, my car or gasoline should be taxed to subsidize her health care.  The ‘problem’ with this wonderland scenario is that it is damned hard (some say impossible) to properly quantify and allocate the externalities.  I personally believe that the political process can not under any circumstance keep a tax limited to covering the externalities of the taxed item.solar water heater panel  IMHO, no tax is a good tax. Conservation and efficiency are not “forms of energy”. They are euphemisms for “do without”.

Some folks quibble about the difference between ‘conservation’ and ‘energy efficiency’.  On a strict interpretation ‘conservation’ does, in deed, mean ‘do without’.  Most folks, however, use ‘conservation’ to include ‘energy efficiency’.  I replace an incandecent bulb with a compact fluorescent bulb.  It reduces my electric use from 100w to 20w. Have I ‘conserved’ or have I ‘energy efficiencied’?  Doesn’t matter. I cut use of electricity at NO reduction in service.  I have not ‘done without’.  To the extent that things such as CF bulbs are thought of as ‘conservation’ by the typical person, your statment is false.  I have not ‘done without’ anything, yet I have cut my electrical use in half by measures that are commonly called ‘conservation’ even if they don’t meet the strict definition.  The ‘bottom line’ is that there are many many MW-hrs to be saved by small changes in the products we consume with no change of life style or services used.solar water heater panel  The purchase of new refrigerators and CF bulbs substitutes very nicely for the purchase of new generating capacity.  It is, for all practical purposes, the same as a source of energy.  The 80w that is no longer consumed by me as waste is avalable to someone else as a new, to them, ’source’ of energy.  You can argue the semantics all day, but this fundamental reality remains. Taking conservation to a natural limit would be the use of no energy. solar water heater panel

An ‘absurdum ad reductum’ (sp?) argument.  One might just as well argue that an obese person should not reduce food intake from 8k Cal/day to 4k Cal/day since if they went to zero Cal/day they would starve… We can cut consumption for both the obese person and for the electric consumption of our homes and offices by 1/2 with no loss of any quality of life (and in many cases, an improvement). Is this the goal of groups such as Greenpeace?

Not that I know of, but I’m not a spokesman for Greenpeace. This sounds like a thinly veiled advocacy of the elimination of technology.

It isn’t.  It is an advocacy of common sense.  Payback periods on CF bulbs tend to be about 1 to 1.5 years WITHOUT REBATES.  With rebates, you get some outragious payback periods (few months).  Heck, I can get a CF bulb for $5 from Home Depot that has a rebate built into the price (no paperwork for me).  It replaces a 100w bulb, but uses about 20w.  IF you have a bulb on 10 hrs/day, that is 1kW-hr/day. IF it costs a dime a kW-hr, that is 10 cents/day.  New cost is 2 cents/day. Net is 8 cents/day ROI.  You will have ‘payback’ in about 2 months. (62 days).  It is quite possible (in a porch light left on all night, for example, as security lighting) to have a bulb installed just after you pay one bill, and hit payback just after paying the next. To NOT install the CF bulb is simply stupid.  To advocate it is simple common sense.  Unfortunately, the ’search costs’ for most folks to figure this out are not worth it to them, so it makes sense for someone like a Utility or Gov’t to do the research,solar water heater panel figure out what makes sense, and put out ‘the word’ in things like newsletters in the power bill so that the average couch potatoe doesn’t have to think about it, they can be eased into making a change of habits. Ditto the use of solar water and space heating.  It is incredibly economical to use solar for domestic water heating in the sunbelt. It isn’t done because even advocates, like myself, can find it hard to get motivated enough to sink $1000 into a solar water heater that won’t hit breakeven for 5 years.  So you put together a rebate system, or a tax break system, or a financing system, or just mandate it by law (such as was done for Calif. swimming pools) to coax the lard bottoms (like myself into doing something that is rather smart to do anyway.   — ‘Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has  genius, power and magic in it.’  -  Goethe I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed. solar water heater panel

Response:

Small stations sighted locally with proper pollution safeguards can provide relatively clean electricity (compared with trad stations) and cheap space and water heating, which is the major consumers of energy. There are schools of thought that just the opposite is true. It is easier to marshall the resources to clean up one large plant than to apply the necessary technologies to dozens or hundreds of smaller plants. And, of course, there are the economies of scale. I’d agree with this though.

Okay, but to clean up the emissions from Drax power station is costing (apparently) over a billion pounds, because of the size of the clean up system needed! And its done nothing for the efficiency of the plant. By using combined heat and power which uses fuels more efficiently, you use less fuel and so save money that way. And you cut down on transmission loses. Which are negligible on properly designed, ultra-high voltage systems.

According to data from the 1992 Digest of Uk Energy Statistics, transmissions loses around are 10% Chris

Response:

Why is it that we have to “tax” functioning, efficient sources of energy and “subsidize” pipe-dream technologies such as wind and solar power?

Wind and solar are not pipe dreams, but existing technologies which simply need the economic push of tax breaks to gain wider introduction.  ”Functioning”, “efficient”: you left out “polluting.” How about letting market forces prevail?

Because the market does not take into account the externalities of pollution and social/environmental costs, unfortunately. Conservation and efficiency are not “forms of energy”. They are euphemisms for “do without”. Taking conservation to a natural limit would be the use of no energy. Is this the goal of groups such as Greenpeace? This sounds like a thinly veiled advocacy of the elimination of technology.

You sound like a thinly veiled ecophobe.  Doing without IS what we need to do– present energy use is short-sighted, wasteful, and inefficient.  Who says anything about taking conservation to its “natural limit”?? By definition, conservation implies NOT going to its limit.  Somehow, I doubt the elimination of technology and energy usage are the goals of ANY environmental groups, no matter how ‘radical.’ Jon. “In wildness lies the preservation of the world.”solar water heater panel

Response:

1. What is the total energy consumption (TEC) per year in U.S.?

In 1990, total U.S. energy consumption was 81.5 quadrillion BTU, of which 23.4% was coal, 41.3% petroleum, 23.8% natural gas, 11.5% other.  [1992 Statistical Abstract of the United States, table 911.] Energy consumption per capita was 327 million BTU in 1990, compared to 335 million BTU in 1980. Energy consumption per dollar of GNP was 19,600 BTU in 1990, down from 23,800 BTU in 1980 and 27,500 BTU in 1970. [1992 Statistical Abstract of the United States, table 913.] Residential energy consumption in 1987 averaged 101 million BTU per household.  Freestanding single-family homes used the most, 115 million BTU, while units in buildings of five or more units averaged 64 million BTU.  Families with total income under $5,000 averaged 83 million BTU, compared to 96 million BTU for families with incomes between $20,000 and $24,999 and 129 million BTU for families with incomes over $50,000.  [1992 Statistical Abstract of the United States, table 920.] solar water heater panel

Response:

John Higdon writes (in part): Conservation and efficiency are not “forms of energy”. They are euphemisms for “do without”. Taking conservation to a natural limit would be the use of no energy. Is this the goal of groups such as Greenpeace? This sounds like a thinly veiled advocacy of the elimination of technology.

Bingo.  I commend your attention to Virginia Postrel’s brilliant essay “The Green Road to Serfdom” in the April 1990 issue of Reason magazine.     Alan T. solar water heater panel

Response:

Here is a press release from Greenpeace.  I don’t work for Greenpeace; contact it directly at the telephone numbers given if you need more information.  Greenpeace Says BTU Tax Draws Clear Line Between Past and Future of Energy  To: National Desk, Environment Writer  Contact: Steve Kretzman, 312-666-3305, or Blair Palese, 202-319-2494           both of Greenpeace    WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Reacting to the sea-change in domestic policy announced by President Clinton in his address to Congress last night, Greenpeace praised the new BTU tax proposal as a necessary first step to returning the United States to the forefront of environmental protection and economic success.    ”President Clinton is attempting to face the twin crises of economy and environment for the first time in years with his proposed energy tax,” said Greenpeace’s Steve Kretzmann.  ”If enacted, the tax could begin to chart a new and positive energy course for this country that finally factors in environmental protection.”    The tax, according to reports, will exempt only solar, wind power, and efficiency measures.  It will tax all other sources according to their heat content.  While some energy sources will bear a greater percentage increase in price, their price relative to each other should not change — except for energy efficiency and renewables which, by virtue of their exemption, will become more competitive on the energy market.    President Clinton also announced an end to funding for nuclear power research and development.  ”Finally we have a president who understands how enormously expensive and destructive nuclear power is,” Kretzmann said.  ”Greenpeace fully supports this effort to end the squandering of taxpayer dollars on this obsolete, polluting and unpopular source of energy.”    Yearly subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries of approximately $50 billion have traditionally weighted the market heavily toward these sources.  Numerous recent studies, including Greenpeace’s “Energy for Employment,” demonstrate that clean energy sources create more jobs and are cheaper overall than traditional energy sources.    ”We’re hopeful that the Clinton administration has indeed taken steps to ensure that the burden of this tax does not fall unfairly on those who can least afford it,” said Kretzmann. “Greenpeace is adamant that any tax must be socially, as well as environmentally, just.”  President Clinton also mentioned his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with accompanying worker and environmental parallel agreements.  ”In its present form the NAFTA does not adequately protect workers or the environment,” Kretzmann said.  ”President Clinton will have to renegotiate the NAFTA itself if he wants to protect the groundwork he laid with his energy tax last night.” solar water heater panel

Response:

The tax, according to reports, will exempt only solar, wind power, and efficiency measures.  It will tax all other sources according to their heat content.  While some energy sources will bear a greater percentage increase in price, their price relative to each other should not change — except for energy efficiency and renewables which, by virtue of their exemption, will become more competitive on the energy market.

Since solar and wind account for <1% of the electricity produced, it looks like environmentalists and the rest of us will be paying more for the electricity that we use.  Since the utilities will be allowed to just pass this tax on to the consumers, I don’t see any incentive to switch. How does “energy efficiency” get onto the energy market? Believe it or don’t, it takes _real_ BTUs to light up your house.   President Clinton also announced an end to funding for nuclear power research and development.  ”Finally we have a president who understands how enormously expensive and destructive nuclear power is,” Kretzmann said.solar water heater panel  “Greenpeace fully supports this effort to end the squandering of taxpayer dollars on this obsolete, polluting and unpopular source of energy.”

Looks like we’ll be buying that technology back from Japan, France, and Korea at the end of the Administration.   Yearly subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries of approximately $50 billion have traditionally weighted the market heavily toward these sources.solar water heater panel  Numerous recent studies, including Greenpeace’s “Energy for Employment,” demonstrate that clean energy sources create more jobs and are cheaper overall than traditional energy sources.

They also don’t provide base load power. I see no incentive for a utility that needs more base load capacity to build a windmill.   “We’re hopeful that the Clinton administration has indeed taken steps to ensure that the burden of this tax does not fall unfairly on those who can least afford it,” said Kretzmann. “Greenpeace is adamant that any tax must be socially, as well as environmentally, just.”

Sorry. Won’t happen. How about some logic, idiots? 1. The poor mainly live in cities. 2. Cities are served by large utilities. 3. Large utilities need HUGE amounts of baseload power. 4. Baseload power consists of large plants that can stay running all the time. 5. The only large plants that can stay running all the time are fossils,    hydro, and nuclear. 6. Fossils, hydro and nuclear are being taxed. 7. Consequently, the poor will be taxed. This is an extremely “socially unjust” (in your words) tax. Sorry Bill, try again. —      ”Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders…” solar water heater panel

Response:

Sorry. Won’t happen. How about some logic, idiots? 1. The poor mainly live in cities. 2. Cities are served by large utilities. 3. Large utilities need HUGE amounts of baseload power. 4. Baseload power consists of large plants that can stay running all the time. 5. The only large plants that can stay running all the time are fossils,   hydro, and nuclear. 6. Fossils, hydro and nuclear are being taxed. 7. Consequently, the poor will be taxed. This is an extremely “socially unjust” (in your words) tax.

So what about a minumum energy threshold? ie you are allowed to consume x amount of electricity before you becaome liable for a tax. Admittedly this does have one problem in this country (UK) at least, in that electric heaters are the cheapest form of heating to install, they are however horrendously expensive to run. This would suggest to me that a tax on electrical heating systems combined with a subsidy to promotoe other froms would be the most desireable or socially more just system. Fossil fuel stations have being getting a lot of stick lately (quite rightly), however with Combined Heat and Power system they can achieve efficiencies of over 70% (in terms of energy in vs useful energy out). Small stations sighted locally with proper pollution safeguards can provide relatively clean electricity (compared with trad stations) and cheap space and water heating, which is the major consumers of energy. And you cut down on transmission loses.solar water heater panel

Response:

1. What is the total energy consumption (TEC) per year in U.S.? 2. What is the New BTU tax based on the TEC? 3. How much a family of 4 needs to contribute to the new tax? — Disclaimer: Of course, don’t be ridiculous! The article doesn’t represent             the viewpoint of my Laboratory and should not be liable for             any legal or moral dispute.                solar water heater panel

Response:

The recent postings of: raise a number of interesting issues. Regarding electric heating and nuclear power, it should be clear that, for northern utilities at least, they have very little to do with one another.  The load factor for electric resistance space heating is somewhere in the range of 20 to 35 percent, based upon diversified peak load – the “average” peak load seen by the utility.  This is NOT<< a load that a nuclear unit can easily satisfy directly.solar water heater panel  Most responsible analysts (people that consider more than just O&M costs, like the OECD NEA for example) suggest that the economics of base-load nuclear units become questionable below an annual capacity factor in the 70 to 80 percent range. True enough, it is technically feasible to use pumped-hydro or compressed air energy storage to cover low load-factor loads, but economics are another matter.  (These add to the capital and operating costs of the energy supply system but don’t add any energy.  They thus drive the economics in the wrong direction.) Of course there ARE<< viable alternatives electric space heating: distributed natural gas (where available), oil, and propane come to mind.  Electric and dual-fuel heat pump technology can also be used to reduce the electricity required for space heating and to reduce the peak-coincident space heating load.  Of course, none of this directly affects the prospects for nuclear power development (in this region at least) because the electricity displaced would be sourced from intermediate- or peak-load plants: OIL-FIRED plants.solar water heater panel  The indirect effect of these “demand-side” load management technologies on nuclear power prospects remains interesting, however.  Such DSM technologies will modify the load-shape of the utility, reducing its peak and increasing its annual load factor. Because they are typically implemented using rate-based incentives, they can also reduce the capital requirements for the utility, which no longer has to invest in gas turbines and transmission capacity to meet the peak load.  The DSM can thus leave the utility with higher load factors and a lower debt load — a good position from which to invest in capital-intensive nuclear units.  [Now, explain to me again, why is it that pro-nukes don't like DSM and anti-nukes do?] Tax equity?  There’s an oxymoron if ever there was one!  Seriously, one shouldn’t ” . . . just tax the companies . . ” because it would be unfair.  It would also be foolish, from a pro-nuke perspective. Taxes are a price of citizenship!  I know, I know we all have cottage (or high-rise) industries of lawyers and accountants devoted to little but tax avoidance, but this is just the price of life in a free society.  Taxes are, in a fundamental sense and at some level, something that must be borne in our common interest. Sure, lots of the money’s wasted, but that gives me no right to argue that some other citizen should pay my fair share of taxes. Large users also generally have electricity bills that are big enough to have forced them to use fairly advanced technology to control their loads.  Having done a lot of conservation and DSM already, they might have little room to move to reduce consumption and avoid the tax.  They also maintain a high annual load factor, 80 percent or more in our area. They therefore represent a load that can be serviced by nuclear power plants.  If you really want to build more nuclear plants,solar water heater panel  is it sensible to stick industry with the whole tax and (perhaps) force them to adopt entirely different technology such as CHP?  You might<< be able to convince me that this is a good idea, but I’d be surprised to see the typical pro- nuke advocate argue for it. (Not that it would be a bad idea for them to try!  It’s actually good training for an advocate, a judge and a citizen!)

Response:

Related Posts

• Water from snow!servamatic solar water heater
• Brownouts Coming?solar water heater india
• REI vs. North Face ? solar water heater pipe????
• solar water heater india and should I move to LA Now
• Reliant Energy solar water heater panel increasing their electric rates
• Solar water heater question solar water heater plans
• best way to get to Bogor, Indonesia?solar water heater systems
• Hot water tempering valve with solar water heater solar water heater systems
• solar water heater sources solar water heater pipe
• Electric hot water heater solar water heater systems and solar hot water