# 100 Percent Renewable Energy



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...d-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

Glad they are using mostly non polluting harvesting methods, but if they aren't building the system from renewable resources, they are not looking at the big picture. I notice the greenys like to gloss over the manufacturing and bird death (from the propeller type turbines) Just like electric cars are clean because they don't pollute while driving.


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

Wind and hydro-power are not without their own problems ... They also change the landscape. 

Which changes the eco system ... And not always for the better.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

> Because of the topography of the surrounding seabed, El Hierro, an active volcanic island with a population of about 10,000, could never hook up to Spain's power grid.
> 
> Instead, it used big barges to ship in *6,600 tons of diesel fuel* - the equivalent of 40,000 barrels of oil - each year, to power electricity generators. It was an expensive, time-consuming and dirty endeavor ... until now.


Replace by five windmills, wow!

Traditional hydro is often incredible destructive, these people are using the water as a giant battery (not a new idea but not often used) pumping water up when the wind is blowing and then using it to power the island when it's calm. Pretty impressive, even if it is still a grid.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

You also pay a lot more money for wind power. It works intermittently. You want 100% renewable energy? Burn wood. It's 100% renewable and it's a lot cheaper than wind power.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

BillS said:


> You also pay a lot more money for wind power. It works intermittently. You want 100% renewable energy? Burn wood. It's 100% renewable and it's a lot cheaper than wind power.


I liked your post by accident BillS. I agree about wood but you kind of missed the point with this story. By coupling the "pumped hydro" with the wind power it is not intermittent, that's the whole idea.


----------



## Radstev (Oct 6, 2011)

When I first saw the title I wondered if it was hardened enough to handle hurricanes, then I read the part about it having an active volcano. All it would take is a crack in the earth to drain the hydro portion. 

So it cost $110 million in debt to build, to replace $3.4 million a year in fuel. Between higher maintenance costs and interest on the debt was this a smart move?


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

*Wind power in the United States*

Wind power in the United States is a branch of the energy industry, expanding quickly over the last several years. As of the end of 2013 the capacity was 61,108 MW. This capacity is exceeded only by China and the European Union 11,895 MW of wind power was installed in 2012 alone, representing 26.5% of new power capacity. The EU wind industry has had an average annual growth of 15.6% over the last 17 years (1995-2011). Projects totalling 12,000 MW of capacity were under construction at the end of 2013, including 10,900 MW that began construction in the 4th quarter.
For the 12 months through July 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 176.8 terawatt-hours, or 4.31% of all generated electrical energy.
But like stated by some we should go back,way back and change to wood burning and coal that way we can compete with all the another third world countries and go back a few hundred years in history,WOW.
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/wind.asp


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

I know folks would like to leave coal behind but the facts are simple ... We are not there yet. (sorry)

TPTB were going to close the coal plant that my dad worked at down last year ... That didn't happen.

Then they were going to close it on 01/01/2015 and we heard that was not going to happen. Why ... It was only to come on line when extra power was needed. From what I heard it has never even been close ...

Then we have the green wind folks fighting with the birds folks. (Not pretty lol) Then we have the wave/tidal power folks and you get the folks screaming about the risk of marine mammals and fish being struck by tidal turbine blades and so on ... (the solar farms and the eco folks are starting to really heat up.)

Most folks in America like a warm house in the winter and a cool one in the summer. They also like a TV in just about every room. (and all that goes with that) They like all their "Electric Gadgets and Gizmos"...

I could go on but you get the point ... again I'm sorry ... I just call them as I see them. (I hope I'm wrong... but for now coal is still king)


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

*Andi said:


> Most folks in America like a warm house in the winter and a cool one in the summer. They also like a TV in just about every room. (and all that goes with that) They like all their "Electric Gadgets and Gizmos"...


The only way to reduce consumption by force is to raise power prices - something Obama is totally on board with.

All we need to do is double power prices for 12 months to get folks in the habit of turning lights off and unplugging stuff. The extra money earned can go into implementing green energy. Then bring prices back down to normal again.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

LincTex said:


> The only way to reduce consumption by force is to raise power prices - something Obama is totally on board with.
> 
> All we need to do is double power prices for 12 months to get folks in the habit of turning lights off and unplugging stuff. The extra money earned can go into implementing green energy. Then bring prices back down to normal again.


I doubt if that would work. First doubling prices only hurts the little guys. Instead there should be varying rates in which the price of energy goes up exponentially depending upon how much power is used. That way the poor and middle class can save money by conserving energy yet not be forced between having a warm house or food on the table. Energy hogs would pay the penalty.

Just a short-term jump in energy prices would only slow people down a bit. As soon as the price went down, consumption would go up. For example: remember the 55 mph speed limit? How much was gasoline then compared to now? How much in savings do we get by going slower? Yet how many people actually drive 55 now? Admittedly the vehicles of today are more efficient than then but then the price of gasoline is much higher today as well. Substantial savings could still be recognized by driving 55 mph instead of going 65 to 75 mph.


----------



## *Andi (Nov 8, 2009)

LincTex said:


> The extra money earned can go into implementing green energy.


It is going to take a little more than just implementing them from what I have be reading...

:bullit: Turbine Kills Bat, Shuts Down Wind Farm

Thirty-five windmills at a wind farm in Pennsylvania, are no longer running at night since a bat was found dead under one of the turbines.

According to the Associated Press, the farm was forced to shut down the windmills during the night time hours, after the bat, a supposed endangered species, was found dead in September.

http://www.briansussman.com/news/turbine-kills-bat-shuts-down-wind-farm/

:bullit: California Solar Tower That Can Kill Birds Dropped

A solar-energy company has dropped a proposal to build a 75-story solar tower near California's Joshua Tree National Park employing a kind of solar technology that can cause birds to ignite in midair.

The California Energy Commission was slated to vote on BrightSource Energy's project this month, before the company withdrew its application

:bullit: Birds Shut Down Missouri Wind Farm

A planned $400 million project to build a wind turbine energy farm in northwest Missouri appears to be dead because it is too close to a bird sanctuary.

Element Power of Portland, Oregon had planned to build a sprawling wind farm on 25,000 acres east of the Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge near Mound City, Missouri.

The company planned to sell power from its 200-megawatt facility to Kansas City Power Light.

But as soon as the plans were announced, bird lovers in the area began to protest the move, saying the proximity to the sanctuary would be disastrous for the birds that are supposed to be protected there

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/22/Birds-Shut-Down-Missouri-Wind-Farm

Right now ... We have a large internal fight going on among the green folks. (IMO) They are all screaming (well most) about climate change, till a bird falls from the sky from a blade or scorching them... etc.

Keep an eye open for complaints about wind farm noise.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> I doubt if that would work. First doubling prices only hurts the little guys. Instead there should be varying rates in which the price of energy goes up exponentially depending upon how much power is used. That way the poor and middle class can save money by conserving energy yet not be forced between having a warm house or food on the table. Energy hogs would pay the penalty.
> 
> Just a short-term jump in energy prices would only slow people down a bit. As soon as the price went down, consumption would go up. For example: remember the 55 mph speed limit? How much was gasoline then compared to now? How much in savings do we get by going slower? Yet how many people actually drive 55 now? Admittedly the vehicles of today are more efficient than then but then the price of gasoline is much higher today as well. Substantial savings could still be recognized by driving 55 mph instead of going 65 to 75 mph.


Great. So the hundreds of millions of "little guys" still don't turn out the lights when they aren't in use, but the one guy in the McMansion turns off his.

Fudging price signals just negates them.


----------



## DM1791 (Oct 6, 2014)

I think one big thing to keep in mind is just how small this market is. Small markets can, in certain very specific conditions, manage to move completely to renewable energy sources. 

However, the larger a system becomes, the more difficult it is to provide the necessary power availability with strict renewables. I think what we will see over the next 30-50 years is a complete revolution in energy production and distribution. I think small solar farms (20-30 panel arrays) will begin to really grow in popularity as the price of the panels continues to fall and the reliability of battery banks and components to provide that power both to the home and the grid becomes better and better. 

Even with that kind of grass-roots movement to provide green energy, you won't see power plants and grid lines go completely the way of the Dodo, though. With a system as large as the continental US, you simply can't. There is too much of our fundamental infrastructure (sewage plants, water pumping stations, hospitals, radar and air defense systems, etc) that are too important to risk on a possibly intermittent power supply.

That being the case, I think nuclear energy will become the standard, assuming the massive mountain of bureaucracy and red tape can be tackled. I'm even optimistic (though possibly a bit too much so) about the advent of realist Fusion power in the near (next 100 years or so) future. If we could have nuclear (fission or fusion) plants to form the foundational backbone of the power system, and small-medium sized solar farms to carry the load as much as possible, we could drastically reduce both our pollution footprint and our reliance on foreign sources of energy.

While I absolutely do not buy into the idea of human initiated global warming, I do think polluting the environment as little as possible is just sound reasoning. After all, I don't drop trash all around the house and pop a squat wherever I please. That's just not a clean way to live.


----------



## readytogo (Apr 6, 2013)

*`Everything is big in Texas`*

We here know that every time something new comes on line there will be controversies but the facts are that the world is changing and we need to change with it and yes we also need to do our part, we in this country take many things for granted we tend to over indulge in everything, like the old saying`Everthing is Big in Texas', we now have to get used to smaller or pay the piper is that simple. From changing the light bulbs to cutting back in driving to opening more windows and installing more ceiling fans. Just by turning the water heater to a body temperature setting you will save a lot or eliminating hot water for laundry and dish washing, it serves no purpose; the big double door refrigerator is an electricity eating dragon, turning the oven on just to make biscuits is a bad joke. In other words folks we need to start looking for ways to saved or stop blaming the government for our over indulgements and waste .


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> Great. So the hundreds of millions of "little guys" still don't turn out the lights when they aren't in use, but the one guy in the McMansion turns off his.
> 
> Fudging price signals just negates them.


We live off the grid entirely so we have no AC or forced air heat. We heat with wood. I burn dead trees. I use approximately 2 gallons of gasoline in my chain saw per year to heat my home and less than 20 gallons of gasoline in my truck. That's less than $80.00 per year to heat my home. Skyrocketing electrical rates aren't going to hurt me at all. Plus we keep our cabin hot in the winter.

We visit kids and friends who are on the grid and we nearly freeze in their homes. They are used to wearing sweaters and sweatshirts indoors but we are not. Some are on fixed incomes. The same is true of local stores. They all feel cold.

The point is that most of these people are not wasting huge amounts of energy. For many of them it would literally be a decision between gasoline to get to work or money to pay the rent or no electricity. Many are that close to bankruptcy. Especially with the economic policies of the current administration.

A graduated scale would provide incentives to reduce the amount of electricity used. Those who refuse to would pay the penalty. If you have a better solution than to penalize those already trying to conserve electricity I would sure like to hear it.

I didn't used to concern myself about what the rich did with their money and I still don't. However, after working around them for awhile I don't really care if they pay higher rates for the extra resources that they use. In fact, I think that they should. I absolutely do not believe the poor and middle class should be penalized for the lavish use of resources by the rich.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> We live off the grid entirely so we have no AC or forced air heat. We heat with wood. I burn dead trees. I use approximately 2 gallons of gasoline in my chain saw per year to heat my home and less than 20 gallons of gasoline in my truck. That's less than $80.00 per year to heat my home. Skyrocketing electrical rates aren't going to hurt me at all. Plus we keep our cabin hot in the winter.
> 
> We visit kids and friends who are on the grid and we nearly freeze in their homes. They are used to wearing sweaters and sweatshirts indoors but we are not. Some are on fixed incomes. The same is true of local stores. They all feel cold.
> 
> ...


The point of the price signal is to get people to make the moves you have made for yourself. By softening the price signal they can put on a sweater and ignore the problem.

Prices contain information for the consumer. By fooling with price signals, you are essentially telling someone a lie about the true cost. If they believe the lie, they behave in a different manner than if they knew the truth.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> The point of the price signal is to get people to make the moves you have made for yourself. By softening the price signal they can put on a sweater and ignore the problem.
> 
> Prices contain information for the consumer. By fooling with price signals, you are essentially telling someone a lie about the true cost. If they believe the lie, they behave in a different manner than if they knew the truth.


Obviously not everyone can, will or should live as we do. High prices will just ensure that the poor and middle class will face hardship while the rich will continue to squander our resources. Sounds like socialism and communism to me (and also sounds like things are becoming under the current administration).

So what is your remedy?


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> Obviously not everyone can, will or should live as we do. High prices will just ensure that the poor and middle class will face hardship while the rich will continue to squander our resources. Sounds like socialism and communism to me (and also sounds like things are becoming under the current administration).
> 
> So what is your remedy?


Well, if high prices won't cause people to change behavior then why send a price signal at all?

Yes the poor and the middle class will face hardships, just as we do today. There is nothing wrong with facing some hardship and overcoming it. After all we are prepping to overcome hardships we suspect may come.

If you want people to change how they use energy then prices are the most effective way to get people to do that. Look at the struggle over car styles and gas mileage. We have a government that wants us to move to higher mileage cars, but doesn't want higher gas prices, similar to what is being discussed here. We all know that every time gas prices spike folks quit buying gas guzzlers and start buying Priuses (Priusi?) You want folks to burn less gasoline? $10/gallon gas like they have in Europe will make that change in a hurry. CAFE standards, not so much. We've been trying CAFE standards since the mid-1970s because we don't want the "hardships".

Prices are how people know they need to make a change. If you want changes, allow people to feel the price and make the adaptation they need to make. If people are insulated from prices then they don't need to make a change.

My "remedy" is the same as Adam Smith's. Allow people to know the true price and let them make their own decisions about what is best for them and their families. In other words I suggest freedom of choice, informed choice, rather than social engineering or worrying about the rich.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Boy, I'll tell you one thing - - the folks on "energy assistance" or living in Section 8 housing with "utilities paid" do NOT care about power usage. They turn the A/C down as far as it goes and then leave the doors and windows open. I can provide pictures for proof, but then people would call me a racist.

We need to abolish most all forms of welfare, including paying for the power of people who just don't care about conservation.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

LincTex said:


> Boy, I'll tell you one thing - - the folks on "energy assistance" or living in Section 8 housing with "utilities paid" do NOT care about power usage. They turn the A/C down as far as it goes and then leave the doors and windows open. I can provide pictures for proof, but then people would call me a racist.
> 
> We need to abolish most all forms of welfare, including paying for the power of people who just don't care about conservation.


You would only be a racist if you thought white people in the exact same circumstances would behave differently. I can tell you that if my utilities were completely paid for I wouldn't care about waste.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> Well, if high prices won't cause people to change behavior then why send a price signal at all?
> 
> Yes the poor and the middle class will face hardships, just as we do today. There is nothing wrong with facing some hardship and overcoming it. After all we are prepping to overcome hardships we suspect may come.
> 
> ...


You're missing my point. I do believe in raising prices. I just believe that people should be able to reasonably pay for the minimum amount of power necessary for their health and well-being. Anyone who wants extravagance should pay dearly for it.

Adam smith needs to revise his beliefs. Sometimes there is no choice when prices get too high. A responsible working person/family should not have to chose between necessities. All working people should be able to afford the _*basics*_ of food, shelter, transportation, energy (in all it's forms), and medical care. Once those basics are met then by all means get wild with prices.

I seldom worry about the rich but too many making the major decisions have no clue what it's like for the common person. How many poor people do you see in the legislature making the laws or running large corporations? Is it possible that they are out of touch with reality and the impact that their policies have on the poor and middle class?

The problem with your proposal is that choosing between necessities is like getting up in the morning and choosing between suffocation, a heart attack, a stroke, or getting hit by a bus. Where's the "choice" in that?

Or we could take the solutions proposed by our government and simply let (in some cases "make") prices skyrocket and then "subsidize" the "poor" with tax dollars. Now that's the way to conserve energy and teach responsibility ... right?

And under the current regime it makes more sense financially for a low-wage working person to go on government assistance than to continue struggling for the necessities. (Which should be the subject of a different thread.)


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

LincTex said:


> Boy, I'll tell you one thing - - the folks on "energy assistance" or living in Section 8 housing with "utilities paid" do NOT care about power usage. They turn the A/C down as far as it goes and then leave the doors and windows open. I can provide pictures for proof, but then people would call me a racist.
> 
> We need to abolish most all forms of welfare, including paying for the power of people who just don't care about conservation.


If it's free and abundant and useful people will waste/abuse it. By raising prices on energy we ensure that we (those working and paying taxes) will just be saddled with higher utility bills by those who get the subsidies.

We absolutely need to drastically tighten up and change our welfare and public assistance programs. Right now the welfare class is an important voting entity that the leftist are exploiting for their own political futures. Plus leftist economic policies virtually ensure that the poor will not only remain poor but that the middle class will become poor as well.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> You're missing my point. I do believe in raising prices. I just believe that people should be able to reasonably pay for the minimum amount of power necessary for their health and well-being. Anyone who wants extravagance should pay dearly for it.
> 
> Adam smith needs to revise his beliefs. Sometimes there is no choice when prices get too high. A responsible working person/family should not have to chose between necessities. All working people should be able to afford the _*basics*_ of food, shelter, transportation, energy (in all it's forms), and medical care. Once those basics are met then by all means get wild with prices.
> 
> ...


What's a necessity? If the poor get free Obamaphones they clearly are covered for more than necessities now. If prices of utilities went up then those impacted by the price change can use less, substitute other forms of energy or cut out luxuries. Let's face reality. By any rational standard of poor there are no poor in the US. Even the homeless are people who are mentally ill or so alcohol or drug addled they can't figure out how to get assistance.

BTW: Adam Smith has been dead for about 300 years. I don't think he is going to change his mind.


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

mike_dippert said:


> If money is the only consideration for the implementation of widespread renewable/clean energy generation and responsible usage, mankind is doomed.
> 
> Generating energy from renewables is all well and good, but what happens when our demand for electrons exceeds our ability to produce them?
> 
> ...


you bring up a very good point, and the chances of people actually learning become lower when "clever" people become involved. Gore for example made people want to cause more "global warming through his Clever rants" 
Interest based financial systems are not designed for efficient use of energy, no matter what the source.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

mike_dippert said:


> You can't force people to care by making it unaffordable not to.


Nope. 
But you CAN use the extra money to build powerplants that meet current environmental specs. That takes care of the "running out of electrons" problem.

Screw all the dead bats, birds, etc. Anyone who complains about dead critters should prove they can live without electricity themselves!


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> What's a necessity? If the poor get free Obamaphones they clearly are covered for more than necessities now. If prices of utilities went up then those impacted by the price change can use less, substitute other forms of energy or cut out luxuries. Let's face reality. By any rational standard of poor there are no poor in the US. Even the homeless are people who are mentally ill or so alcohol or drug addled they can't figure out how to get assistance.
> 
> BTW: Adam Smith has been dead for about 300 years. I don't think he is going to change his mind.


The necessities are those things needed to sustain life. Obviously in the USA our standards are a little higher and rather than mere "subsistence" level existence I would include necessities to make life at least somewhat comfortable.

One of the problems I see with our discussion is that you seem to be defining the "poor" as those on government assistance. I've mentioned the working poor who are those I'm concerned with. These are the people who are not on gov. assistance or they get it in limited portions. These are the people high energy prices will negatively affect the most.

For many it will be the difference between supporting themselves and caving in to government assistance. Huge, blanket type, one-size-fits-all approaches are the simplest to implement but normally are the least effective.

Just who would high energy prices help the most? The power companies? The petroleum industry? The politicians?

Who would they impact the most negatively? Everyone else! We had a "large" (large for around here anyway) employer who closed their doors a couple of weeks ago. The reason was high energy prices. Simply put, they could not remain competitive at the current rates they were charged for electricity. Now there are more people on unemployment than before and more people signing up for public assistance with bleak prospects of future employment. And more people deciding which is most important; heat in winter, gas in the car to get the remaining working spouse to work, a house or rent payment, or food on the table. Wow, congratulations ... high prices for electricity really made a great impact here! But look at all the energy saved since that power hog of an employer is now shut down! Actions have consequences that sometimes reach into place we don't think about.

One of the best (meaning highest paying with the best benefits) employers in the Flathead Valley (Kalispell) has had an in/out of business cycle for many years due to high energy prices. Every time they shut down there are layoffs and more people on public assistance and unemployment which negatively impacts the surrounding communities in many ways. It like throwing a rock into water ... the impact causes ripples that spread all across the water.

It's time to stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Exorbitant energy prices are one thing the village idiot (Obamao) foresees to force energy conservation and "make" alternative energy a more desirable economic alternative. His answer to the economic havoc he causes is to raise taxes and give more money to the "poor." His policies create the problem then his policies make the problem worse.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!!!!!!

The far left doesn't have the answer. They only make the problems worse. The far right doesn't have the answer. They only make the problems worse. How about some creativity in dealing with issues? Some things are not as clear as it seems on the surface. We don't want to create a dozen more problems with our solution to one.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Oh, and my condolences to the Smith family. May he rest in peace.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

I don't favor high energy prices any more than I favor low energy prices. All prices should be set by the markets for those products giving everyone clear information on the current value of that item.

As for who the poor are, as far as I know anyone who might be considered poor is already eligible for a wide range of government assistance, including the working poor. As we all know from the last Presidential campaign 47% of the country pays no income taxes and many of those actually get the Earned Income Credit (EIC) which gives them a refund on taxes they never paid. That is also welfare in my opinion.

With the vast amount being dedicated to transfer payments, I find it hard to imagine anybody who could be even remotely considered poor who doesn't qualify for some form of assistance already. I don't see any need for more programs that provide more welfare by distorting prices.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> I don't favor high energy prices any more than I favor low energy prices. All prices should be set by the markets for those products giving everyone clear information on the current value of that item.
> 
> As for who the poor are, as far as I know anyone who might be considered poor is already eligible for a wide range of government assistance, including the working poor. As we all know from the last Presidential campaign 47% of the country pays no income taxes and many of those actually get the Earned Income Credit (EIC) which gives them a refund on taxes they never paid. That is also welfare in my opinion.
> 
> With the vast amount being dedicated to transfer payments, I find it hard to imagine anybody who could be even remotely considered poor who doesn't qualify for some form of assistance already. I don't see any need for more programs that provide more welfare by distorting prices.


Believe it or not there are still people who pride themselves on supporting themselves. I know many who could qualify for public assistance but simply won't do it. I know others who are on the edge of qualifying who are struggling.

Unfortunately high energy prices affect more than just the poor. They affect us all.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> Believe it or not there are still people who pride themselves on supporting themselves. I know many who could qualify for public assistance but simply won't do it. I know others who are on the edge of qualifying who are struggling.
> 
> Unfortunately high energy prices affect more than just the poor. They affect us all.


So instead of them accepting welfare in its current form you're going to give them a form of welfare by screwing around with energy prices? To me that sounds like deceiving them into accepting welfare that they don't want.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> So instead of them accepting welfare in its current form you're going to give them a form of welfare by screwing around with energy prices? To me that sounds like deceiving them into accepting welfare that they don't want.


No deception at all. I'm not talking about anyone subsidizing electric rates or companies. I'm talking about a graduated scale for prices that rewards conservation and discourages abuse.

It's like a new car. The dealership makes a greater percentage of profit selling a luxury model than they do an "economy" car. I had an old appliance salesman summed it up another way: He could sell a wringer washer for $125.00 or an automatic washer for 175.00. The thing was that they cost him about the same so he made an extra fifty dollars if he talked them into buying the automatic washer.

Let those who want the luxury of using more electricity pay for it. Let those who want to save money by using less have that option.

No subsidies involved at all.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> No deception at all. I'm not talking about anyone subsidizing electric rates or companies. I'm talking about a graduated scale for prices that rewards conservation and discourages abuse.
> 
> It's like a new car. The dealership makes a greater percentage of profit selling a luxury model than they do an "economy" car. I had an old appliance salesman summed it up another way: He could sell a wringer washer for $125.00 or an automatic washer for 175.00. The thing was that they cost him about the same so he made an extra fifty dollars if he talked them into buying the automatic washer.
> 
> ...


Energy is typically priced on a flat rate. If you use less your bill is less. If you lower the price for some customers even further you are subsidizing them. If you want to encourage conservation then you should make the discount available regardless of income.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> Energy is typically priced on a flat rate. If you use less your bill is less. If you lower the price for some customers even further you are subsidizing them. If you want to encourage conservation then you should make the discount available regardless of income.


Uhmmm ... the "discount" is available to all regardless of income. Since it's based on the amount of electricity used a "rich" person using less electricity would pay the same per-watt rate as a "poor" person using the same (reduced) amount of electricity. Likewise a "poor" person using an extravagant amount of electricity would pay the same rate as a "rich" person using an extravagant amount of electricity.

Its' not a subsidy at all and it's completely based on the amount of electricity used. It simply rewards everyone who chooses to conserve electricity.

_ "If you want to encourage conservation then you should make the discount available regardless of income."_

Since it does exactly what you want to happen in the quoted reply it must be a good plan ... right?


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> Uhmmm ... the "discount" is available to all regardless of income. Since it's based on the amount of electricity used a "rich" person using less electricity would pay the same per-watt rate as a "poor" person using the same (reduced) amount of electricity. Likewise a "poor" person using an extravagant amount of electricity would pay the same rate as a "rich" person using an extravagant amount of electricity.
> 
> Its' not a subsidy at all and it's completely based on the amount of electricity used. It simply rewards everyone who chooses to conserve electricity.
> 
> ...


Well, you were talking previously about the poor and middle class as though the same opportunity would be unavailable to someone with means. In other words you made it sound like another redistributionist scheme and we have too many of those now.

At this point I would say what you are proposing would still be a distortion of pricing, but at least it isn't another redistribution scheme.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> Well, you were talking previously about the poor and middle class as though the same opportunity would be unavailable to someone with means. In other words you made it sound like another redistributionist scheme and we have too many of those now.
> 
> At this point I would say what you are proposing would still be a distortion of pricing, but at least it isn't another redistribution scheme.


Nope, I mentioned how exorbitant prices would adversely affect the poor and middle class but my proposal was always based on the amount of electricity used and it was always to encourage conservation in the most _effective_ (and fair!) way I can think of.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

mosquitomountainman said:


> Nope, I mentioned how exorbitant prices would adversely affect the poor and middle class but my proposal was always based on the amount of electricity used and it was always to encourage conservation in the most _effective_ (and fair!) way I can think of.


Well, I don't see a reason to argue it further if it isn't a disguised redistribution scheme. However, I don't see anything unfair with the pricing based on usage we see today. I suspect in selling this idea you'd run into a lot of people like me who saw this as a redistribution scheme first unless you leave out the stuff about the poor. You need to express it differently.


----------



## mosquitomountainman (Jan 25, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> Well, I don't see a reason to argue it further if it isn't a disguised redistribution scheme. However, I don't see anything unfair with the pricing based on usage we see today. I suspect in selling this idea you'd run into a lot of people like me who saw this as a redistribution scheme first unless you leave out the stuff about the poor. You need to express it differently.


Thanks for the advice. I'll certainly keep it in mind.


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

Is this true? and can we do this here in the US? And is this worth anything ? Someone posted this on FB&#8230;


----------



## Tirediron (Jul 12, 2010)

there has to be a bit of truth to it, captured magnetic field, I kind of doubt the 2000 watt heater part, but any transformer is a coil of wire wrapped around something. I can see it powering the led lights, but not much more than that.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

faithmarie said:


> Is this true? and can we do this here in the US? And is this worth anything ? Someone posted this on FB&#8230;


Welcome to the world of troll science  Of course it has been around for decades (car that runs on water, perpetual motion, mysterious carburetors), but the internet makes it soooo much easier for them.

The video is a complete fake.

Like Tirediron stated, they are always built on actual physics principles to lend an air of plausibility but they just completely disregard reality.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

faithmarie said:


> Is this true? and can we do this here in the US? And is this worth anything ? Someone posted this on FB&#8230;


Nope... what they aren't showing you is the super magical mysterious super flux refrigerator magnet hidden deep within the device that can't be recreated in any lab anywhere in the world due to their ultra-secret proprietary process that got the inventor killed when he refused to sell the design & prototype to the major energy companies.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

This is, in my humble opinion, the best option for a sustainable power supply.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/nov/20/us-firm-unveils-plans-for-mini-nuclear-reactors

Now, however, Hyperion Power Generation - a US company based in New Mexico - has brought the dream of tiny nuclear reactors one step closer with its Power Module. This nuclear reactor - or "battery" as the firm calls it - is not much larger than a hot-tub and could supply thermal energy at a rate of about 70 MW. That could be converted into about 27 MW of electricity, which would be enough to supply about 20,000 US households.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

RevWC said:


> ....however, Hyperion Power Generation - a US company based in New Mexico...


Not any more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen4_Energy

...but I wish them "Good Luck"!


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

LincTex said:


> Not any more:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen4_Energy
> 
> ...but I wish them "Good Luck"!


Yea, I saw the name change. Bill Gates has invested in Toshiba on their small Nuclear system as well. http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor Also being developed by Livermore, Argonne, and Los Alamos.

https://str.llnl.gov/str/JulAug04/Smith.html


----------



## offgridcooker (Mar 5, 2012)

readytogo said:


> But like stated by some we should go back,way back and change to wood burning and coal that way we can compete with all the another third world countries
> http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/wind.asp


Wood is an excellent renewable energy source, an is even carbon negative if you save the char.
Of course you would need a clean burning appliance.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

offgridcooker said:


> Wood is an excellent renewable energy source, an is even carbon negative if you save the char.
> Of course you would need a clean burning appliance.


Wood burning sucks! I lived in Mammoth mountain for 5 years the air pollution was terrible and the smell of burnt wood adheres to everything. I would like to see the 12 million that live in LA gathering enough wood for one night.


----------



## offgridcooker (Mar 5, 2012)

RevWC said:


> Wood burning sucks! I lived in Mammoth mountain for 5 years the air pollution was terrible and the smell of burnt wood adheres to everything. I would like to see the 12 million that live in LA gathering enough wood for one night.


There is a lot of potential for wood in rural areas. Wood contains about 1/3 the energy per pound of LPG.
The new wood heater designs burn fairly clean.


----------



## helicopter5472 (Feb 25, 2013)

Nothing would make me sleep more soundly knowing there is a small nuclear plant under my house


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

helicopter5472 said:


> Nothing would make me sleep more soundly knowing there is a small nuclear plant under my house


It does put a ruptured fuel oil tank in perspective.


----------

