|
7596. arkymalarky - 7/23/2008 10:44:44 PM Plus my mortgage is below 5%, and I'd like to see interest rates go back down if I refinanced the house. 7597. thoughtful - 7/24/2008 1:45:40 PM I suspect the costs of panels have dropped since then. Also, if you can find anyone issuing them you may try a heloc (home equity line of credit). We just got one to help pay for the new house and surprisingly the bank was not only willing to give it to us, but they waived the maintenance fee the first year and gave us a $100 gift certificate to the local grocery store! Who knows, next they might even give away toasters!
The other alternative you might look into is solar thermal panels to heat your hot water. It won't pay for us, but it does make sense for quite a few people. 7598. alistairconnor - 7/24/2008 2:23:02 PM iii : my opinion is that all the biofuels and similar (e.g. wood to ethanol) are, at best, barking up the wrong tree - they are about substituting petroleum to fuel internal combustion engines. ICEs were only ever a good idea because petroleum was extraordinarily cheap. Fuel cells or batteries are far, far more efficient.
In particular, cellulosic ethanol (for which, despite all sorts of claims from start-ups, there is no proven economic process) comes with the same huge handicap that all ethanol systems have : no matter how clever your enzymes or whatever, you end up with an alcohol/water solution that you need to distill. That is very energy-intensive, and basically kills the whole deal from the point of view of energy returned on energy invested. The best those people can do is to use cheap fossil energy (e.g. gas or coal) to produce transport fuel (alcohol), with little or no net energy gain.
Far better to use the feedstock (wood waste, grass, whatever) for heating : turn it into pellets, and replace your fuel oil burner (like I did). 7599. iiibbb - 7/24/2008 3:06:20 PM Energy problems will have to be solved using multi-faceted approach. Biofuels are superior environmentally to fossil fuels because at least the carbon was recently sequestered.
Until we can quit getting the majority of our energy from oxidizing carbon biofuels are worth pursuing. Not all biofuels are created equal because the energy needed for production is a consideration. Wood is better because the energy density is higher, and the energy required for production is lower, than agricultural crops. Additionally, trees can be harvested year-round as opposed to perennial crops.
Personally, I think our near-term energy needs are best answered by nuclear. However, perhaps I had misconceptions about solar. I had a friend who was an engineer in energy years ago and he was not too keen on solar. Lately I keep hearing reports that it is feasible in places. A friend of mine built a house that is off the grid and she gets most of her power from solar, but they had to build a custom house and make a lot of sacrifices to make it work for them. They certainly don't have a surplus that they could charge a car with. Incidentally they use biodiesel in their vehicles. 7600. iiibbb - 7/24/2008 3:11:00 PM The limitation for burning biofuels for energy is usually transportation distances. Biomass just isn't dense. Unless you could make pellets on-site. There are studies out there that have portable power plants... so it may work out.
Basically it's all about infrastructure. Which technology is most easily adopted or adapted. That's why I think nuclear will win for the next 50-100 years... however I only see it as something we use to transition to truly sustainable energy. 7601. thoughtful - 7/24/2008 3:42:42 PM Solar pays at this point due to the subsidies. Without it, it is still cost prohibitive. Though there are some applications that continue to make sense. A buddy at work owns lots of land in the adirondacks and is nowhere near any grid so solar w/batteries is how he powers his cabin.
Under normal circumstances, though, you shouldn't have to make a lot of sacrifices to get the benefits from solar...unless you want to go totally off grid. Our area allows net metering so when we produce more than we need, our meter will spin backward. Also, if we go to time of day metering, we should make out even better as we'll be producing power during the peak usage time when rates are higher and using power during the off peak hours when rates are lower. Not bad.
Also, our house will have no 'sacrifices'...at least not from our pov. It will be smaller than the average 5000 to 8000 sq ft mcmansions they build in our area, but we don't consider that a sacrifice at all. We want a smaller home...less to heat, less to clean, less to insure, less to tax....
The only sacrifice we are making is the home is expensive to build...geothermal, solar, icynene, low-e windows, tankless hot water heaters all cost more than standard alternatives. And we are adding a lot of custom features to the house that costs $$$. But from the look and feel of the place, other than the solar panels on the roof, the house will look and feel and operate like a normal house. Except it won't have an oil tank and it won't have outside air compressors for central air. 7602. arkymalarky - 7/24/2008 4:22:04 PM Unfortunately I already have a home equity loan, so that's out until the house is paid for. Which isn't too long, since our utilities aren't very high now. I also want to replace our hot water heaters with tankless ones. That we can do now.
I don't get the appeal of big houses. Ours is 2000sq ft and is way more than enough for two people. If I'm ever alone I want something tiny. 7603. iiibbb - 7/24/2008 5:06:04 PM We live in an 1800ft home. It's a little cramped from a storage front. If it had a basement it'd be perfect. I also need a shop so I can get out of the garage. That would need climate control, but I probably wouldn't keep it anywhere near what is home-comfortable. 7604. jexster - 7/24/2008 10:13:48 PM I think Concerned wins the Climate Change argument
Arctic has enough oil to power USA for twelve years
I'm a faggot and I'll be dead by the time that reservoir's depleted and another discovered at the South pole
Why should I give a fuck about AC's grandkids, polar bears and fucking baby seals???? 7605. jexster - 7/24/2008 10:14:33 PM 7606. jexster - 7/27/2008 4:46:33 PM The Indian "Volkswage" $2500 Nano
 7607. jexster - 7/27/2008 6:25:49 PM Your windfall profit dollars at work
Play EnergyVille - an Interactive Game brought to you as a public service by Chevron 7608. concerned - 7/28/2008 4:26:07 PM Hydrogen is a great energy delivery system, but you still have to generate it using electricity (where do you get the electricity)
The short answer to that is 'nuclear power'. 7609. concerned - 7/28/2008 6:27:32 PM Number of gas and oil wells in Lake Erie: 480.
Number of gas and oil wells on US side of Lake Erie: 0. 7610. concerned - 7/28/2008 6:34:21 PM Re. 7590 -
AD -
I know you don't like Lomborg's take on climate science, but is there anything you actually disagree with him about, factually? 7611. thoughtful - 7/28/2008 6:39:09 PM w or w/out nuclear power, electricity generation is far more efficient than internal combustion engines so even with using current technologies, we're better off with electric cars. 7612. concerned - 7/28/2008 6:51:53 PM Number of gas and oil wells in Lake Erie: 480.
Number of gas and oil wells on US side of Lake Erie: 0.
This is nothing to feel righteous about. 7613. jexster - 7/28/2008 7:42:27 PM Tata Nano Sets the Auto Standard
Macaca Mobile Debuts to Rave Reviews 7614. concerned - 7/28/2008 8:35:16 PM Makes good pothole filler when hit by another vehicle, too. 7615. concerned - 7/28/2008 8:42:19 PM Acceleration: 0 - 43mph: 14 seconds
Top Speed: 65mph
|
