|
There's also no real impetus to somehow force it, it will happen naturally as old things break.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2012 22:55 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 06:51 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:I'm pretty sure I mentioned that efficiency is awesome, but not saving grace that will somehow make the world better. You'll find that while electricity production increases fairly steadily in the US, per capita electricity use has started to reverse it's upward trend over the past few years. This is at least partly attributable to large scale demand-side management programs in places like California, Vermont and other north-eastern states. It's a little strange for you to argue that it would be phenomenally easier to build carbon neutral nuclear energy than implement DSM programs when 1) DSM programs are without question the cheapest form of energy "production" and 2) they already exist on a large scale and generally have very good customer satisfaction and approval ratings.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2012 23:19 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:edit: also, all that saved energy is probably taken away from renewable, since renewable energy is so drat expensive and has to be bought at a subsidized rate. This is usually not the case. The secondary goal with most DSM programs is to delay the need to construct a new baseload plant, there's really very little about demand-smoothing that would prevent the business case for renewables like wind and solar from improving. One situation where you could argue that implementing efficiency programs does negatively affect the adoption of renewables is when you have an unforeseen large removal of an anchor customer from the grid (like when a large factory that takes 10-15% of the load for a particular utility shuts down unexpectedly and leaves the utility scrambling to cover their fixed costs) but that's because public perception tends to question why we're paying to reduce electricity use when electricity use has just been massively reduced. That argument doesn't make any sense, as it's the utility customers who generally eat the loss in any situation but it still happens. Narbo fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Sep 14, 2012 |
# ? Sep 14, 2012 23:26 |
|
Narbo posted:You'll find that while electricity production increases fairly steadily in the US, per capita electricity use has started to reverse it's upward trend over the past few years. This is at least partly attributable to large scale demand-side management programs in places like California, Vermont and other north-eastern states. This sort of information is available from Google Public Data, which uses sources like The World Bank and the US Census Bureau to make cool graphs. Solid lines are taken from data, dotted lines are taken from predictions US electricity consumption per capita for several countries [in kWh] (it does appear to be starting to fall, and note that this wouldn't be correcting for things like population growth, and Canada consumes a lot more electricity per capita than the US it seems ) Population growth rate for several Western countries (the US is the highest of the countries that I chose, it's predicted to remain relatively flat at about 0.7-0.8% per year, so we'll probably still be growing for awhile yet) The same plot, but just population instead of population growth
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 00:38 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:<SNIP> quote:How much power is used for standby in the US?...Worldwide? Here is a rough guide to costs, by appliance. http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/energy-and-water/saving-energy/standby-energy.aspx The installation of a simple master switch that turns off all the power to non-essential appliances is a simple yet uncommon fix. * I suspect that 1% should be >1% but haven't checked any source or done any calculations myself.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 00:44 |
|
This kind of term is also known as "phantom load" and some other terms. If we're talking appliances, then older appliances suffer the same problem so I don't think that your assessment is accurate. The growth of phantom power comes from the tendency to make more products that are remote controlled and things like that and doesn't really have anything to do with efficiency; in fact, most electronics and appliances these days have industry standards that attempt to minimize phantom load, but those standards might not be enough. These kinds of losses are usually dwarfed by efficiency gains in other areas While it's important to be aware of phantom load it's not really something that you need to concern yourself with if you're worried about a new refrigerator consuming more power than your old one from the 1960s. A brand new fridge or even a new computer won't really have any more phantom load than the older model. A new coffee maker with a digital display, a new remote controlled stereo, and things of that nature will all increase the phantom load of your home (unless your old coffee maker also had a display, your old stereo was also remote controlled, etc.) That 1% seems about right, phantom load is a small fraction of overall electricity usage. It's something that people can reduce if they're willing to be mindful about it (it seems silly to pay electricity for no reason, but people also love being able to control things remotely and not having to mess around with plugs or a kill switch whenever they want to turn something on) Did you think about your suggestion that a master kill switch is a "simple" solution? Sometimes, sure, you can just lay down a power strip and then hit the switch whenever you're done with that outlet, but I can think of some other scenarios where this would be cumbersome (and hopefully you didn't intend to imply that you could just have a big lever that controls "all nonessential appliances" because that would be a lot of work to setup, unless you just want to use a well-marked fuse box to cut power to entire room sections, which could work adequately with a little planning) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Sep 15, 2012 |
# ? Sep 15, 2012 00:54 |
|
Cartoon posted:Unfortunately new appliances commonly bring another inefficiency with them. http://standby.lbl.gov/faq.html Standby isn't really a problem. In fact I would wager that it takes many more modern devices to add up to one older device like a 90s era VCR. Low Power standby has advanced by great margins in the past couple decades and will continue to decrease. The appliances with the potential for greatest efficiency gains are things like refrigerators, CRT televisions, HVAC, etc. In other words the large electricity uses.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 01:41 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:Why do I have to keep reiterating that I think EFFICIENCY IS A GREAT THING THAT SHOULD BE SRIVED FOR, I just think that getting everyone to do it is phenomenally more difficult than building carbon neutral nuclear energy sources. What exactly is hard to do about "people will naturally end up with more efficient appliances as the old ones break"? You literally have to actively strive to avoid getting a more efficient appliance when an old one breaks down. Everyone is already doing this. There is no difficulty. The difficult part is to not use less power when replacing old stuff.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 02:01 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:What exactly is hard to do about "people will naturally end up with more efficient appliances as the old ones break"? You literally have to actively strive to avoid getting a more efficient appliance when an old one breaks down. Everyone is already doing this. There is no difficulty. The difficult part is to not use less power when replacing old stuff. Does it matter that much? We're talking about cutting oil/gas/coal and replacing it, not dealing with future increases in power needs. Even if efficiency drops the power consumption by 50%, we still need to produce the other 50%, don't we?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 04:12 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:Humans are extremely bad at being efficient, especially with energy, as it requires effort and change, two things that as a species we do really really badly. Are you kidding me? You may be right about what we're bad at as a species, but what do you think requires more effort and change - using lightbulb X instead of Y, or having to research and develop and build a whole new system of energy? Efficiency is the quickest and easiest and cheapest way we can work towards solving the problem. We can save 50% of our costs for basically no investment. Ask Amory Lovins. I'm not just talking about lightbulbs and other appliances, I'm talking about the way we orient our buildings and the angles of the eaves, the way they are heated and cooled, the way the grid is structured, the way the demand peaks are met, etc. Everything to do with using less energy, while maintaining our lifestyles. Basically there is a gap between how much energy we presently need, and how much energy we can presently provide renewably. The best way to close that gap is to work from both ends - boost our renewable capacity, while simultaneously reducing our demand, through efficiency. Those saying we don't need to worry about turning the lights out because they're better lights, are missing the point. We're using things we don't need to use. That's what we have to cut out. That is the core of sustainability. Any system that is based on "now you don't need to be as efficient" is doomed to fail. You know why? Because it's not scalable. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. This conception of limtitless energy from limitless resources. Our resources aren't infinite. And even if you build thousands of thorium plants everywhere, you've still got to mine the fuel and ship it around and maintain them and everything. The less energy we use the better, and its saves us billions, if not trillions of dollars. The best example here is refrigerators. The thin line is size of the fridges, the thicker one is energy use. You can see they go up and up together til the 70s, then some standards come in. The industry complained that it would put them out of business of course, as they always do, but once they got over it, they made more efficient units, and now we save 200TWh per year, worth about $16.5 Billion. Just from fridges. Think of the savings we can make elsewhere. Pvt Dancer posted:Missed your post, sorry! Fantastic, thanks, this is what I'd love to have more of in the thread.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 04:30 |
|
There is a type of person who, when congratulated for using less electricity than their neighbors, will deliberately start using more electricity. You will never convince this person to use less power voluntarily. This person eats entire meals of pure meat to spite vegetarians and drives an SUV a few times around the block to spite environmentalists
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 05:13 |
|
Well, Japan has decided that fossil fuels are a better option than nuclear. Awesome. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19595773
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 05:30 |
|
Aureon posted:Does it matter that much? Only having to produce 50% as much energy sounds like a pretty good deal to me though there has to be an accompanying shift in the energy mix. Efficiency won't solve any energy problems alone but it's a fantastically cheap place to start.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 05:34 |
|
Narbo posted:Efficiency won't solve any energy problems alone but it's a fantastically cheap place to start. Even if we assume massive standardization/streamlining of design and regulation, there are only a few foundries in the world the world that can cast a PWR pressure vessel. In the case of CANDU-type reactors, the current global production of heavy water would be sufficient to provide for only one to two new reactors per year. Regardless of the exact reactor technology, we'd also need to ramp-up mining, fuel fabrication, and (don't forget!) training of specialized construction crews and reactor technicians.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:38 |
|
QuarkJets posted:There is a type of person who, when congratulated for using less electricity than their neighbors, will deliberately start using more electricity. You will never convince this person to use less power voluntarily. This person eats entire meals of pure meat to spite vegetarians and drives an SUV a few times around the block to spite environmentalists People who do not want to be convinced, eh?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 06:46 |
|
Narbo posted:Only having to produce 50% as much energy sounds like a pretty good deal to me though there has to be an accompanying shift in the energy mix. Efficiency won't solve any energy problems alone but it's a fantastically cheap place to start. Can't we do both? I don't know why we're even discussing this, it's the Energy Generation thread. Of course improving efficiency is important, but removing fossil fuels from the energy generation mix is at least just as important, if not more important.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 09:20 |
|
It seems to me that we should simply force the power companies to permanently shut down the fossil fuel plants first when efficiency lowers demand. Some form of incentives to keep the renewables up? Tax credit stuff if they shut down coal plants first? If we're doing 3000 TWh of electricity production from fossil fuels now (like that chart from a bit ago said), and we can cut that down to 2000 TWh worth - well that's a shitload less pollution and stuff. And it's effectively the same benefit as replacing that 1000 TWh production with renewables and nuclear.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 14:23 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:It seems to me that we should simply force the power companies to permanently shut down the fossil fuel plants first when efficiency lowers demand. Some form of incentives to keep the renewables up? Tax credit stuff if they shut down coal plants first? Yes, but meanwhile, we should replace the other 2 PWh with nuclear/renewables, too.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 15:09 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Can't we do both? I don't know why we're even discussing this, it's the Energy Generation thread. Of course improving efficiency is important, but removing fossil fuels from the energy generation mix is at least just as important, if not more important. Well that's what I mean by an accompanying shift in the energy mix. Efficiency measures make it easier to accomplish the switch to a greater share of renewables because you don't need to produce as much as you would have. Like GulMadred said, we will eventually reach a point where further efficiencies at the national level will be uneconomical compared to new renewable generation, and we should be preparing for that eventuality. In the mean time, it is undisputed that not producing a kWh in the first place is by far the cheapest option. Install Gentoo posted:It seems to me that we should simply force the power companies to permanently shut down the fossil fuel plants first when efficiency lowers demand. Some form of incentives to keep the renewables up? Tax credit stuff if they shut down coal plants first? I can speak to how it works in some Canadian jurisdictions, though I don't know much about American federal regulations. We have targets for renewable generation that ramp up over the next 15-20 years. So when they were put in place the generation mix by capacity might look something like 80% coal, 10% bunkerC, 5% NG, 3% hydro, and wind/biomass/tidal/solar making up the rest. By 2025, the share of renewables has to be 25% and that's going to take a big bite out of the share coming from coal and bunkerC because they're the oldest plants, NG is cheap, and there are new federal regulations around the amount of CO2 thermal generating stations are allowed to emit. So the four factors of increasing efficiency, renewable targets (with the force of law), increasing age of existing thermal stations, and penalties for carbon emission are designed to push us away from fossil fuel generation
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 15:17 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:It seems to me that we should simply force the power companies to permanently shut down the fossil fuel plants first when efficiency lowers demand. Some form of incentives to keep the renewables up? Tax credit stuff if they shut down coal plants first? In the economics of the "free market" fossil fuels remain the best option because all the infrastructure and technology is geared toward it, in addition to subsidies that the industry can lobby for. This will continue as long as there is some place to get fuel (arctic, antarctic, deep sea, domestic coal deposits waiting to be stripped) You seem just short of endorsing nationalization, which is what should be done
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 15:25 |
|
Hobo Erotica posted:
It seems to me that refrigerators are an extreme example, because they were so bad to begin with. I have trouble thinking of any other super common appliance or device that was that inefficient. Also, it seems like the really easy improvements are either done, or being pushed now through existing programs like energy star and CAFE. So I guess the question would be, what program would you actually expand or create to force additional efficiency improvements?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 16:16 |
|
lapse posted:It seems to me that refrigerators are an extreme example, because they were so bad to begin with. A refrigerator, freezer, and room air conditioner are all the same cycle so you could say that they were all very inefficient to begin with (and still are). That said, a 40% improvement in COP over 30 years is still an impressive accomplishment. It's not just about replacing a particular appliance one-for-one with a more efficient model. The more lucrative measures for households are in tightening up the building envelope and upgrading insulation especially in older housing stock. The graph of increased appliance efficiency doesn't consider the effect of switching from a house cooled by a room air conditioner and heated by oil or baseboards to a mini-split heat pump or geothermal system. New programs should be (are) focused on new construction; making sure at least ducts are roughed in instead of the builder just dumping baseboards in, siting and orientation, and generally just making it easier for the new occupant to perform upgrades. There's plenty of room for new commercial and industrial programs around HVAC, process improvements, lighting, etc. There is tremendous waste of energy in large commercial and institutional buildings in motors and lighting alone, controls and EMI systems are a huge growth area especially in hospitals and manufacturing.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2012 17:30 |
|
lapse posted:I have trouble thinking of any other super common appliance or device that was that inefficient. Cars are another standout. Although they have improved mightily in the performance and safety departments, all that came at the cost of fuel efficiency. Flaky fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Sep 16, 2012 |
# ? Sep 16, 2012 08:54 |
|
Flaky posted:Cars are another standout. Although they have improved mightily in the performance and safety departments, all that came at the cost of fuel efficiency. I'm pretty sure all cars have vastly improved fuel efficiency. It's just that americans used the fuel efficiency to build bigger cars, not save on fuel costs.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 13:12 |
|
Struensee posted:I'm pretty sure all cars have vastly improved fuel efficiency. It's just that americans used the fuel efficiency to build bigger cars, not save on fuel costs. At least part of that goes into crash safety standards, though. The CRX was a tremendously efficient and lightweight vehicle, but I don't think it could be legally sold as a new car today because it wouldn't stand up nearly as well in a crash as a modern car. But yeah, we also take those efficiency gains and spend them on bigger/faster.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 15:12 |
|
Struensee posted:I'm pretty sure all cars have vastly improved fuel efficiency. It's just that americans used the fuel efficiency to build bigger cars, not save on fuel costs. The Honda Civic of the 1980s had mpg in the lower 30s. The modern Honda Civic also gets mpg in the lower 30s despite huge efficiency and aerodynamic improvements. Part of it is that it's slightly heavier because it's slightly larger (~10 cubic feet), but almost all of the rest of the efficiency gains are eliminated by modern safety design and pollution controls.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 17:05 |
|
I'd certainly prefer to err on the side of pollution controls rather than pure fuel efficiency, personally. Also is that "fuel economy in the lower thirties" for city, highway, or mix? And is that comparing both using the new EPA formula or comparing the 80s car with the old EPA formula for efficency to the new one with the new formula?
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 17:18 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:I'd certainly prefer to err on the side of pollution controls rather than pure fuel efficiency, personally. I'm not arguing against it, I'm just stating why mpg hasn't really increased over the past couple decades.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 17:56 |
|
RE: the LED bulb argument, it has always been the case that it is expensive to be poor. Crappily made stuff costs less up front but breaks more often and leads to more money being spent in the long run. People should buy the more expensive but better quality item but often are unable. The answer will probably not come from something inherent to lightbulbs but a fundamental change in the relationship between producer and consumer.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 20:53 |
|
TURBO BUTTON posted:RE: the LED bulb argument, it has always been the case that it is expensive to be poor. Crappily made stuff costs less up front but breaks more often and leads to more money being spent in the long run. People should buy the more expensive but better quality item but often are unable. The answer will probably not come from something inherent to lightbulbs but a fundamental change in the relationship between producer and consumer. Pretty much; making an effort to upgrade your lightbulbs is middle class effort, the family trying to keep a roof of their heads won't be thinking about lightbulbs Maybe there's an argument to be made that fighting poverty lets people who end up leaving poverty make better energy decisions, which in turn helps fight poverty (by slightly bringing down electricity costs)
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 21:09 |
|
QuarkJets posted:Pretty much; making an effort to upgrade your lightbulbs is middle class effort, the family trying to keep a roof of their heads won't be thinking about lightbulbs Usually for low-income families the only way they have to control their energy costs are small measures like lightbulbs, anything else is definitely out of reach. Low-income families are more likely to be renting as well. Lots of DSM programs recognize this problem and address it with income-eligible programs. For example, Efficiency Vermont has a weatherization program: EVermont posted:Eligible households include any whose incomes are at or below 60% of Vermont’s median income, based on household size. Weatherization agencies can also assess major appliances and replace inefficient models in households whose incomes are less than 80% of Vermont’s median income. Where they'll send a few contractors to a home and perform all the weatherization and some minor insulation for free. Manitoba Hydro goes a little further: ManHydro posted:Qualifying homeowners will receive: So they'll provide the light bulbs, a hot water tank wrap, pipe insulation, faucet aerators, etc. for free for households under LICO criteria. Once you recognize that there are families that will simply be unable to participate in energy saving programs due to the cost, the only thing that makes sense is to provide the services for free.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2012 21:52 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:Also is that "fuel economy in the lower thirties" for city, highway, or mix? And is that comparing both using the new EPA formula or comparing the 80s car with the old EPA formula for efficency to the new one with the new formula? From my experience it's a mix. When I was driving a CRX and monitoring my fuel economy I was getting around 33 MPG driving a combination of freeway, back roads, and in town.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 01:50 |
|
quote:Humans are extremely bad at being efficient, especially with energy, as it requires effort and change, two things that as a species we do really really badly. Changing your lightbulbs is something that you have 100% control over, and something you can literally do tomorrow while buying more Cheerios. You don't have to lobby a congressman to maybe get something done a few years from now, you don't have to wait for new technology, you don't have to convince your crazy parents or neighbors of anything - you can just choose to go to Wal Mart and do it yourself. If that is not the low-hanging fruit of energy consumption, then no such thing exists. If people don't even want to change their loving lighting, then I'm pretty sure that they aren't going to want to change their entire loving economy & society in order to pave the way for thorium reactors.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 10:32 |
|
I really wasn't thinking of just lightbulbs when I said that, that's literally the easiest and cheapest form of energy saving you can do, using that as a base mark for ease of efficiency as a whole is stupid. Also, this thread is getting wildly off topic. What are people views on the pros and cons of Solar thermal?
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 10:53 |
|
Pros: Very clean Popular with Green voters Cons: Probably at least 4x as expensive as nuclear.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 12:19 |
|
I am extremely lazy, and I have taken the time to change to CFL bulbs in every fixture except my Kitchen, Dining Room, and three special bulb fixtures that take a small bulb. It fits my lifestyle because I don't have to change them as often.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 12:55 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:I really wasn't thinking of just lightbulbs when I said that, that's literally the easiest and cheapest form of energy saving you can do, using that as a base mark for ease of efficiency as a whole is stupid. I'm substantially biased against, but i'll try. Pros: Nearly no human cost Nearly no rare materials needed popular as gently caress Somewhat scalable Cons: Cost (27c/KWh, Andasol's) Cost Cost (Three times, since it's over three times the normal cost) [ Unreliability (Even molten salt storing can't prevent a rainy day) Grid problems Lack of adequate batteries and/or long-range transmission ] Land use (Not an issue in central America or Australia, but come down in Europe to put a few scores of stadium-sized plants) heavily location-dependant Aureon fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Sep 17, 2012 |
# ? Sep 17, 2012 13:25 |
|
No one ever seems to mention the sheer quantity of water you need to keep the vast array of mirrors clean, along with the difficulty of getting it where solar power is situated (In arid, sunny regions at high altitude). The biggest solar thermal complex in the world (Solar Energy Generating Systems, Mojave) has an installed capacity of 354mW but only has a capacity factor of 21% (thanks wikipedia!), considering the enormous footprint it takes up (483,960m2), this doesn't seem like much, though I guess the land has no other use.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 14:34 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:this doesn't seem like much, though I guess the land has no other use.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 14:54 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 06:51 |
|
Yeti Fiasco posted:No one ever seems to mention the sheer quantity of water you need to keep the vast array of mirrors clean, along with the difficulty of getting it where solar power is situated (In arid, sunny regions at high altitude). 500k m^2 is just a square of 700x700m, though. Nuclear has the smallest land footprint of anything.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2012 15:21 |