A sound energy policy.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
A rambling of some thoughts regarding renewable energy, conservation and
energy production.
It will be a long post, I just have that feeling.

Now there is a few things that I may disagree with the vice president on,
but when he stated that "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but
it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy" I
could not agree more. Some people will yell that conservation can reduce
energy consumption by x amount, but they are missing the entire point. There
is times when people are thinking on an entirely different level when they
make a comment, and the people that criticize the comment just don't grasp
what they are saying. If it's from an ingrained myopic view, or just
ignorance, is up for debate, but that is besides the point.

The point of his statement was that conservation, as it is today, is not a
viable bases for any energy policy. Or basically, conservation, as it's
practiced today, doesn't really help, in regards to energy demand. There is
lots of people that will cuss me out, and say I'm full of bull.$**T, but they do not grasp the full picture, and the comments are beyond their comprehension. It is something I realized years ago, when I seen the practices used to promote energy efficiency. The way conservation is practiced in today's world, it often ends up wasting more energy than it saves. When it finally hit me is when I seen a bunch of electricians changing out florescent ballast in an office building. I said to them, "Didn't you just change them out two years ago?" The electrician said, "Yes, but we have to change them again, to meet current efficiency requirements." Two years previous, they had changed them to Mark3 energy saver magnetic ballast. But that year, they removed the almost new ballast, and put in electronic ballast. I done some figuring and come to the remarkable conclusion that the forced change out of the ballast two years ago, wasted vast amounts of energy, and was a very waste full practice. They would of conserved energy if they would of left the old ballast in for two more years "wasting energy" until they put in the electronic ballast that year. The energy that the ballast saved those two years, is less than the energy that it took to produce that ballast. So all you did was relocate the energy use, and added a lot of waste. Conserving is the last thing you did. Relocating energy use, instead of true conservation is the majority of stuff I see. It is like trying to grab an egg. If you try to hard, then you will destroy what you are trying to get. If they try to hard to achieve energy conservation, you will end up wasting more than you save. The concept of forced change out, and replacing operational equipment before it's useful life has come to an end, is fundamentally flawed. Unless the savings in energy is phenomenal, then it is a total waste of energy to change it out before it had finished it's service life. Once it has finished it's service life, then you should upgrade to the newest, most efficient system. The total environmental impact of replacing the system will already be incurred, so that's the time to do it. If you replace a$10,000 refrigeration system
for a model that is 10% more efficient, the monthly electrical cost is $500 a month, the service life is 10 years, and the system is still within it's scheduled lifespan. then you have just wasted energy. The accumulated energy impact for replacement is$1000 a year. The energy saved is $600 a year. If you change it with 5 years of life left, then you have thrown away$5000 worth of energy, to save $3000, The replacement system will have to be replace 5 years earlier, so you won't make up that$2000 in wasted energy
that was wasted by changing it 5 years early.

You may ask, why am I measuring energy in dollars? Well.. Because that is
the most accurate way I can discern energy used to produce a product, and
keep it running. You may say, "Well not all of that money goes to buying
energy to make the product!" but that concept is slightly flawed. Yes, there
is a lot of profit. But profit will be spend on other stuff that requires
energy to make, so it all energy spent to get the product made, and
delivered to you. The delivery man gets a pay check from it, but that pay
check buys electricity for his house, fuel for his car, and gas to keep his
house warm in the winter. If a person makes more profit on an item, then
that means that he don't have to sell as many to stay in business, which
means that every item that he sells has a higher energy tag to it, because
the energy to keep the business running will remain constant. The lights are
still on, the trucks still make their routs, but they just don't haul as
many units. So the per unit energy tag is higher.

All in all, if you spend $100 on a product that will save$10 in energy over
it's life, compared to a $20 unit, then you have just wasted energy. Because the$100 product has five times as mush energy overhead than the $20 product. You have, in essence, wasted$70 dollars in energy. Yes, the $20 product has 2 people producing it, and the$100 product still only has two
people producing it, and the actually energy used in making the product, is
the same, and they are producing the same number of unit's a year, but the
two people producing the $100 unit is using the extra profits to pay 8 other people to take care of their privet yachts, so you actually you have 5 times as much energy being used to support the production of the$100
unit. If you take use that frame of mind to look at the modern conservation
concepts, then you realize how much of a fallacy modern conservation is.

It makes the idea of forcing companies to spend large sums of money to save
a handful of power, look almost insane. You have all these big companies pop
up, to provide products to save energy, that the government forces people to
use, but the infrastructure that supports the companies providing energy
efficient products is consuming more energy than the products are saving.

Maybe the reason why we are having these energy shortages is because of
everyone building all this stuff to save energy.

Like governments, and people changing out mercury vapor lights for metal
halide in an application where they don't really need true white light. They
say, "It may cost more over the long run with the more frequent bulb
changes, but the metal halide will only use half the power, so it will be
helping the environment." I say to myself, "you freaking ignorant piece of
#^*W$!!!!!!!!! The extra infrastructure required to change out the metal halide bulbs more often, consumes more energy than the metal halide bulbs save over mercury vapor." And thin they come out with a real wacko comment along the lines of..."And the metal halide bulbs will be more friendly to the environment, because they don't contain mercury, like the mercury vapor bulbs do." Just because Metal halide bulbs don't have "mercury" in their name, doesn't mean that they don't contain mercury, you freaking imbecile! All in all, government forced conservation, doesn't rank very highly on my list. I think we have to much of it as is. Energy conservation has it's place, but right now, most people don't seem to realize where that place is. The only real option we have, is to find ways to produce more energy. Be it via nuclear fission/fusion, solar, geo, wind, hydro, bio, or fossil. And with all ways of procuring energy, it takes energy to get energy. It takes energy to build ships, drilling rigs, and equipment to hunt for oil. It takes equipment to build a reactor. It takes energy to build a solar panel. Like people saying, we shouldn't worry about the energy shortages, we should just build PV panels. May I ask them this question.. Where do we get the energy to build the solar panels. If a drilling rig has no gas to run it's engine, then it can't drill to get the oil. The easiest way is to use the fossil fuel, and nuclear industries to produce the power now. The are already established, and the energy load that will be endured by using them to meet the demand, will be minimal, compared to the alternatives. And once you get enough excess energy into the system provided by those methods, then you can use that extra energy to support the expansion of the alternative energy sources. A crystal growing plant, can't produce silicon crystal for PV panels, if the coal fired power plant that powers it can't get enough coal to keep the power on. On that note, the ideas for a "solar breeder" is borderline stupid. Oh.Look... The crystal growing plant is using power to run some crystal growing furnaces. Whoopty do.. It's like using a solar panel to power an exhaust fan on a factory, and calling it a solar powered factory. To have a true "solar breeder" you would require all of the energy used in producing the panels, to be provide by panels you produce. The crystal growing operation needs to be powered by PV. All the energy for the homes of the crystal growing factory workers needs to be powered by PV. The vehicles that transport the workers to the factory needs to be powered by PV. All the industries that support the workers (hospital, food, consumables ..on and on) needs to be supported by PV. The infrastructure for mining and purification of all the elements to supply the crystal growing factory, their workers and related infrastructures, need to be powered by PV. The factory that puts the cells into the panels, and it's related infrastructures (metal foundries workers.. ec. ) need to be powered by PV. The people, and companies that distribute, and install the modules, need to be powered by PV. All the companies that build the inverters, batteries, and equipment to use the panels, and their related infrastructures, need to be powered by PV. And all the PV panels that power all of the above, needs to be replicated by the entire system, within the lifespan of the panels. That is why it is just easier to figure that when the panel has paid for it's self in dollar terms, (in reference to energy cost, at the date of it's production), then it is safe to say that it has yielded a positive energy payback, and that it's production has made a positive impact on the environment. And, all that PV breeder stuff is missing the entire point that, it doesn't mater if the energy is used to power the production process, or not. As long as the panels are in use, then that is more conventional energy that is free to go other places, or to be saved for a later date. If the PV production plant has 100KW of PV to run it, but the homes around it have to run off of a local power plant, or the homes have a distributed 100KW of PV, and the PV production plant runs off of the local power station. What's the difference? It will still take 10 or more years to pay back the energy it took the produce the panels. And for that 10 or so years, producing PV will actually cause a net burden on the energy supply. So, if we go crazy with production right now, we will need extra power from other sources to hold us over for the 10 or so years until we finally break even on production related energy burden, compared to the energy the panels are producing in the field. Take this formula based on an imaginary panel and community. Existing community takes X watts per year. Total cumulative energy usage producing a panel, will consume 1MW. The panel will produce 100KW per year. Total energy payback time is 10 years. You start panel production in the community. Panel production is 1000 unit's a year. That will increase energy consumption of the community by 1GW per year for the first year. Second year, with one year's worth of units in operation, you will have a net positive load of 900MW from the production. Third year, 800MW. Forth year, 700MW. ........ ......... Eleventh year, with ten years worth of units in the fields. Or ten times the yearly production, then the units in the field will be producing the same amount of energy as the PV production infrastructure is consuming. From that point on, you have a positive energy benefit to the community. In 20 years, you will have a net zero energy budget, from the time the factory started production. If the panel life is twice the energy payback time, then the total community energy payback of the factory will be 2X the payback of the panel, or the lifetime of the panel. If the total life expectancy of the PV panels is 20 years, then you will have to have a PV production industry with a power consumption that is equal to the energy usage of the community that is being powered by Pv production industry. Ten years worth of panels will be powering the PV production system, while the other 10 years of panels will be powering the community that is not related to the PV production system. I guess it is a way to provide extra jobs. You will basically employ half of the population in the PV industry to supply power to the other half of the population. The panels better have a life expectancy three or more times their payback period, or half the US population is going to be working for something that relates to the PV industry. Or we better find other sources of energy like fusion, or something else with a quicker payback period. Otherwise, the majority of the energy produced by the panels will be used in making more panels. Any way you go about it, if we want to get PV off the ground, we are going to have to find an existing source of energy to get the PV production system of the ground, and get it running. Otherwise, we will be the operator setting at the controls of an oil drilling rig that has no gas to run it's engine. My opinion is that solar thermal will be a better choice for large scale solar energy production. Energy payback is a lot quicker. On hydrogen. People say that it's not a useful energy source. I have to agree. No, it is not a useful energy source, but it is critical as an energy transport system. For years, the energy transport system, was the energy source it's self. That being oil. But that will no longer apply. Just like electricity is not a useful energy source. No, the world hasn't got one ounce of useful energy from electricity. It is just a transport. It carries the energy from a chemical reaction in a battery, to the circuitry in a radio. It carries the energy from a steam turbine in the power plant to the compressor shaft on your refrigerator. How would you like a drive shaft running clear from the power plant to your fridge, to power the compressor? Yes, hydrogen is not a very efficient transport system. The same can be said for electricity, but it works. It is also critical as energy storage. With all these non-reliable energy sources, then you need a storage system that can hold large quantities of energy to run us for many weeks, if the sun don't shine. And it has to be loss free storage. Not like batteries that run down over a few month. You put energy in a storage unit, and it has to be there three years from now. A 30 to 50 percent loss in conversion is acceptable, but once you convert it, it needs to be in a stable form. The energy has to be movable across long distances with little to no loss. And the transport system should require very little energy to operate. The transportation and storage infrastructure equipment should have an achievable lifespan of many decades. Movement of the energy to a car or other vehicle should be quick and simple. With compressed and metallic storage systems, and pipelines, Hydrogen meets those requirements. Batteries do not. Without hydrogen, then nuclear power plants will be required indefinitely as a power source during the nighttime, and any other time that the sun doesn't shine. Without a system that we can stockpile massive quantities of energy for a rainy day, month, year, then renewable energy will never be able to exist as a stand alone power source. And it's most likely partner will be nuclear power of some type. And as far as conservation, yes, it will probably have it's place in there, someplace. But, hopefully, it won't be the same concept of conservation that they are pushing now. Hopefully, by that time, energy conservation will actually achieve real reduction in energy required by the world to operate. N9WOS G Glenn Martin Jan 1, 1970 0 OK. I've pieced my way through your post and a number of things aren't clear. The example of 'conservation' you gave (replacing a recently purchased light bulb before its broken or worn out) is actually an example of waste. I think that we can agree that not conserving things is not conservation. The examples you sited were actually examples of beauraucratic nonsense which always waste time, energy and money. Your contention that conservation doesn't help regarding energy demand is also confusing. Surely reducing energy use will reduce demand. I grant you, it will only reduce the increase in energy demand over time but this will allow many power authorities to delay building new, less-efficient power plants for a number of years. When a plant has a lifespan of 50 years or more, getting locked into more wasteful technology now makes little sense when a delay of even ten years can realise savings in both energy and money. By the end of this decade, China expects to be in production of 'pebble-bed' nuclear reactors which have many benefits... -No-one can figure out how to make them melt down, even with the cooling system turned off. -They deliver 30% more "push" at the turbine which means 30% more power out of the same amount of fuel because they use helium instead of water. -They have less 'plumbing' in their design and the helium doesn't carry radioactivity into it the way water does (nor does it corrode it the way water does) which means less radioactive waste to be disposed of. -They're smaller than regular piles and more of them are required for a given level of power production but this means they can be mass-produced unlike regular reactors which have to be built on site. This will actually make them the cheaper option and they'll actually have a smaller footprint and less infrastructure than regular water-cooled reactors. Delaying a few years can make a huge difference. The last point I want to make is that the equating of energy and money is an iffy proposition for analysis purposes. A barrel of oil can rise from 40$ to 50$in a month but it won't have %25 more energy in it. Gas is consistently two times or more the cost it is in the US but it's no more powerful. When the new Volkswagen Beetle came on the market it ended up selling for twice as much as designed because of huge consumer demand. It cost no more in terms of energy or money to get it to the showroom floor. I've read claims that market forces can be factored out to allow equivalency of gass and dollars but I've yet to see evidence that this has been done or even can be done. In conclusion, though I'd like to thank you for bringing this topic up as it's one I'm very much interested in. Please continue to post. Glenn Martin .... a lot of stuff D Derek Broughton Jan 1, 1970 0 N9WOS said: There is lots of people that will cuss me out, and say I'm full of bull.$**T, but
they do not grasp the full picture, and the comments are beyond their
comprehension.

Ah. Well, then, there's not much point in commenting since your entire post
was clearly beyond my comprehension.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Glenn Martin said:
OK. I've pieced my way through your post and a number of things aren't
clear.
The example of 'conservation' you gave (replacing a recently purchased
light bulb before its broken or worn out) is actually an example of waste.
I think that we can agree that not conserving things is not conservation.
The examples you sited were actually examples of beauraucratic nonsense
which always waste time, energy and money.

The best conservation is conservation that doesn't cost a penny.
Like shutting off the lights when no ones there.
Like not running the engine of the car for hours while sitting in a parking
lot.

But spending large sums of money chasseing after fractional amounts is
actually wasting energy.
Because the energy that your money releases into the environment is far more
than the energy you saved.
Your contention that conservation doesn't help regarding energy demand is
also confusing. Surely reducing energy use will reduce demand. I grant
you, it will only reduce the increase in energy demand over time but this
will allow many power authorities to delay building new, less-efficient
power plants for a number of years. When a plant has a lifespan of 50
years or more, getting locked into more wasteful technology now makes
little sense when a delay of even ten years can realise savings in both
energy and money. By the end of this decade, China expects to be in
production of 'pebble-bed' nuclear reactors which have many benefits...
-No-one can figure out how to make them melt down, even with the
cooling system turned off.
-They deliver 30% more "push" at the turbine which means 30% more power
out of the same amount of fuel because they use helium instead of water.
-They have less 'plumbing' in their design and the helium doesn't carry
radioactivity into it the way water does (nor does it corrode it the way
water does) which means less radioactive waste to be disposed of.
-They're smaller than regular piles and more of them are required for a
given level of power production but this means they can be mass-produced
unlike regular reactors which have to be built on site. This will
actually make them the cheaper option and they'll actually have a smaller
footprint and less infrastructure than regular water-cooled reactors.
Delaying a few years can make a huge difference.

(Cha...ching!!!!!!!!!!!) You get it!!
That applies to almost every product.
Waiting for a better product to come along, instead of uselessly replacing ,
or building stuff now, is and easy form of conservation.
The last point I want to make is that the equating of energy and money is
an iffy proposition for analysis purposes. A barrel of oil can rise from
40$to 50$ in a month but it won't have %25 more energy in it.

You don't get the point.
The energy that is actually IN the product, does not equate to the total
amount of energy that is released to the atmosphere in the production of
that product. If they charge and extra $10 a barrel, do you think they are just going to sit on that$10 for eternity. No, they are going to spend it.
What are they going to spend it on, cars, radios, guns, houses,... On and
on... All of those take energy. So when the price of a barrel of oil goes
up, the environmental impact will also rise.
Gas is consistently two times or more the cost it is in the US but it's no
more powerful.

But the companies that is in the production line get a lot more money. That
money goes to the shareholders, and is eventually spent on more energy using
products. So the environmental impact has actually gone up.
When the new Volkswagen Beetle came on the market it ended up selling for
twice as much as designed because of huge consumer demand. It cost no
more in terms of energy or money to get it to the showroom floor.

Yes it did.
The show room floors didn't have to sell as many cars that month to stay in
business. So the environmental load of running the car dealership was placed
on fewer cars. Those being beetles, so they had an increased environmental
impact. Or they spent the extra money on improvements to the dealership, or
bought a fancy sports car to drive around in. So in the end, the added
demand and price did increase the environmental impact that selling the cars
I've read claims that market forces can be factored out to allow
equivalency of gass and dollars but I've yet to see evidence that this has
been done or even can be done.

The reason you think that, is you keep thinking the money is going to
something that doesn't require more energy. But you are forgetting that the
money always ends up going back to something that requires energy. Give a
child $10 and you could say that it didn't have an environmental impact. But it does. That child will end up buying a stuff toy that requires lots of energy to make. In conclusion, though I'd like to thank you for bringing this topic up as it's one I'm very much interested in. Please continue to post. Glenn Martin That is what I like to do, make people think. N N9WOS Jan 1, 1970 0 Depending on wide scale H2 usage as a energy source will quickly wipe out the O3 layer in the upper atmosphere. Thus wiping out most life on earth.. Is that a viable choice? If you answer yes.. then you're a lost cause. More fear mongering. Did you even read the article you linked to? That article also took a good stab at fear mongering on it's own. It left out a very important piece of information. H2 will react with hydroxyl radicals to the total effect of increasing water content in the upper atmosphere. It will slow the repair of an ozone hole/ozone formation. With all things being equal, the ozone hole would increase. That is if all other energy use stayed the same, and you started dumping hydrogen into the air. But all things are not equal. If you go to a hydrogen economy, with renewable energy sources, the amount of ozone destroying products entering the stratosphere, that means that the hole won't need to repair it's self as quickly, because there is less stuff actively making a hole. And there will be lower amounts of other substances that enter the stratosphere, that inhibit ozone repair, and those substances are far more damaging than the hydrogen that people are complaining about. And it is hardly the only source of stratospheric water. CH4 counts in there highly. Even the article reluctantly admits that the effects will be a net positive, at the bottom!! It is just the environmentalist playing politics. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030902074301.htm http://www.you.com.au/news/2055.htm Ok.. adjusting for atomic weight... Total atmospheric Ozone world wide. 3 x10^15g * mole(Ozone) /48g == 6.25x10^13 moles of Ozone. Estimated release of H2 from Hydrogen economy.. 6 x10^13g *mole(H2)/2g == 3x10^13 moles of H2 released per year. Adjusting for chemical reaction quoted above. min(3x10^13, 6.25x10^13) == 3x10^13 moles.. or ~48% of ozone layer converted to water vapor in a single year. Read the articles you link to, will ya! Where in heck do they talk about H2 reacting with O3? H2 reacts with OH. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/nov2001/1005320570.Ch.r.html Look at this article, notice what is required for hydrogen to react with O3. The oxygen in O3 can react with H2 after the oxygen is no longer in the 03 molecule. By that time, there the O3 molecule is already destroyed. http://www.emep.int/ozone/lagr_pho/chemical_reactions.html N N9WOS Jan 1, 1970 0 That's not to say that nobody ever makes stupid decisions in the name of conservation, just that I doubt it happens as often as you think. That is what I use to think. After I started looking at the entire loop, then I now realize that it is happening so much that it is almost shameful. Sometimes, relocating energy use *is* conservation. Many would claim that electric power plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines, and that electric cars are therefore an example of conservation by relocation. Similarly, I use less primary energy if I charge my cell phone from the wall socket than if I charge it from my car battery. Part of that cost for the electricity is from burning the fuel in the power plant. For large industrial users, that is the primary fraction of the power cost. But for residential users, that is not the primary fraction. The primary fraction for residential users is the infrastructure cost. The equipment maintenance schedule to replace and repair the equipment supplying your home. That money runs line trucks, builds transformers, and harvests trees for poles. All of it is less efficient than the primary power circuit that charges your phone. Considering that product prices are often not tied to the cost of production, I doubt the accuracy of this method. Changes in PV module prices haven't fully reflected changes in manufacturing cost in years. The energy prices that went into making the panels that are on the market "today" is included in the price. When the other panels make it to the market, then you can bet energy price is part of it., And even if they don't charge any more, to reflect the price of gas and oil used in production, then that means that the producer just made less profit, so he can't spend as much on "fun" stuff, so in the end, the energy released into the environment to produce that panel, will be relatively locked to the price. Got a particular product in mind? I can't think of one like that. I'm sure there are *some* people who will spend more than the value of the energy they will save on a product in the name of conservation, but there aren't many of those. Pro-conservationists are well aware of that, and you can bet that the companies spending money to produce low-energy appliances are aware of that. Consider a clothes washer that requires$125/year for energy to operate
versus a high-efficiency one that requires $70/year for energy. Suppose the "regular" washer costs$300 and the high-efficiency one costs $800. Which one is cheaper? Most people would say the$300 washer is cheaper,
but over a 12-year lifetime (many washers last much longer) you'll save
$160 if you buy the$800 washer.

Now, many people don't think long term and focus only on what they have to
spend today. Others simply aren't going to drop an extra $500 on a washing machine when that money is needed to, say, feed the kids for the next couple of months. Still others simply don't have the extra$500. That is
the true problem with conservation -- the up-front costs are too high for
too many people.

Another example would be the compact fluorescent lamp. I don't know how
much energy it takes to produce a light bulb (sounds like the beginning of
a joke, doesn't it?), but I do know that CFs are several times more
expensive than an ordinary bulb. I also know they have several times the
lifespan, and use several times less energy. Finally, I also know that
over its lifespan a CF will save both energy *and* money. That might not
be a good reason to immediately throw away all of your conventional bulbs,
but it is good reason to replace them with CFs as they burn out.

Anybody else remember the days when you could take your light bulbs back
to the store to have them recycled?

You are using your brain, that is all one can ask for.
Most people I see, are not using their brain.
I agree that forcing companies to immediately institute conservation
measures, whether they make sense or not, is stupid. Is anybody suggesting
that?

T8 lights, anyone?
Forced usage comes to mind.
Considering that the amount of energy consumed per unit GDP has been
decreasing in the U.S. since about 1920, I would guess that's probably not
the issue. I think the real issue is that power plants are very expensive
and nobody wants to build one unless they have to. Combine that with the
fact that the public utilities in California -- where electricity
shortages have been most acute -- are bankrupt, and where do you think the
money for new power plants is supposed to come from?

If there is a power shortage, then the power utilities should be the last
one that's bankrupt.
Smells of price controls, and head people taking money out of the cookie
jar.
A few years ago, many power companies would send somebody to your house --
free of charge -- to give you advice on how reducing your power bill
through conservation. Why? Because they hoped it would delay the need to
build a new power plant, thus saving the utility money. Some utilities may
still be doing this.

That is being nice.
Or they could have just increase the electricity price to force you to use
less energy.
That is how supply and demand is suppose to work.
When there is a gas shortage, price goes up, so people drive less. Thus,
demand will drop to meet supply.
I think you've gone a little overboard here. By your definition, no power
source can sustain its own use. And while, strictly speaking, that might
be true, "solar breeder" is meant in a similar sense that "nuclear
breeder" is; that is, that the plant produces its own primary fuel. No,
it's not a perfect parallel. Still, a nuclear breeder first requires
uranium to be mined and purified; the miners, refinery workers, and
reactor employees all go home at night; etc. Not all of that is powered by
nuclear power, nor can it be unless the mining equipment all runs on
electricity. And running the entire world on 100% nuclear power would be
differ considerably.

All money runs in a loop. There is no place at the sun to deposit $5 to get some energy. The sun is the source of the power (energy) for the system, but it is not in the system loop. The people getting power off the sun, sell power to the manufacturers in the city, and to the home of the people in the city. The manufacturers use that energy to make products. The generating people take that money and spend it on products to keep the place running. Those products cost money. The same money that the companies pay for energy is paid back to the companies in labor, and parts. It is a continuous cycle where all money flows through the people that are at the energy source. That is currently the oil and coal companies. Based on that, you could say that if the oil company increase price of their product based on a shortage , then they will just end up paying more for the products they by, and an endless spiraling loop to infinity will be created. That would be true if you didn't take into account the way market economics, and supply and demand is suppose to work. As the price goes up, then demand will drop off to the point that it meets supply. The energy going into producing the products to keep the source running will drop a bit. If the energy source get to expensive, then they will consume off an energy source that doesn't put as much demand on the market that it's supporting. The price that the energy source is getting for what it can produce is a bit higher, but so is what it's paying out. It will naturally equal out, that is how the market is suppose to work. That's why it irritates me for people to complain about gas prices. That is the way it's suppose to work. Higher fossil fuel prices, makes other energy sources more viable. A free market will naturally consume off the cheapest source of energy. When renewable energy gets cheaper, then it will be the primary source. Do you think the folks who drilled the first oil well had a full tank of gas? This isn't news. New energy technology *always* requires old energy technology in order to get off the ground. But if you don't maximize conventional sources now, then you won't have any old energy to work with. Solar thermal for large-scale electricity production is only practical in areas with lots of clear, sunny skies. Clouds tend to prevent the mirrors from focusing the sun's beams. It's a solution in some areas, but certainly not everywhere. That is why I think a centralized production system will be the primary setup for solar powered generation. Power will be generated in the desert regions, and transported via hydrogen and high voltage trassmission systems to the rest of the US. P Paul Dube Jan 1, 1970 0 Bravo! Well Done Sir N9WOS I am very impressed by your knowledge and understanding of our current energy situation (crisis).This article should be posted in newspapers throughout the country. You should think about taking up politics and making things "right". Thank you for enlightening the ignorant masses (me included) as to the "Big Picture" and looking at things from outside "The Box" Thoroughly impressed............ Paul .................... N N9WOS Jan 1, 1970 0 This article should be posted in newspapers throughout the country. Ahhhh... I don't know about that. The idea of my horrible grammar, and spelling posted across every newspaper, makes me cringe. :-0 N N9WOS Jan 1, 1970 0 Do the calc's you'll find the quite a few intermediate reactions and final end product greatly favor the conversion of O3 +H2 into water vapor and O2. Note: More water vapor shifts the equilibrium even further to the right. and further reduces Oxygen radicals needed to form O3. http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030617b2.html "However, the authors of the report say uncertainty remains about the effects of hydrogen on the atmosphere because scientists still have a limited understanding of the hydrogen cycle." http://www.theozonehole.com/hydrogeneconomy.htm "The estimates of potential damage to stratospheric ozone levels are based on an atmospheric modeling program that tests the various scenarios that might result, depending on how much hydrogen ends up in the stratosphere from all sources, both natural and anthropogenic." "The question of whether or not hydrogen is bad for the environment hinges on whether the planet has the ability to consume excess anthropogenic hydrogen, explains Eiler. "This man-made hydrogen will either be absorbed in the soil -- a process that is still poorly understood but likely free of environmental consequences -- or react with other compounds in the atmosphere." Are you ready to make the big bet??? If you loose, most of humanity dies off. Uuuuu......... aren't you missing something? There is usually two parts to water. Hydrogen, and oxygen. You are so obsessed with the hydrogen, that you are missing the oxygen part. The extra oxygen introduced into the atmosphere will neutralize additional natural, and man made hydrogen. So in the end, additional existing hydrogen will be neutralized, and directly replaced with man made hydrogen if it's vented. The hydrogen side is a closed system, but the oxygen doesn't just disappear. The atmosphere forms a closed system in it's self. If you pump hydrogen and oxygen out from splitting water, they will naturally have a tendency to cancel each other out, in the environment. So you will end up back where you started. Water. If the hydrogen consumes some oxygen atoms from the ozone layer, that means there is additional oxygen atoms from the splitting process that no longer have a pair. (ie) Oxygen enrichment. There is two supply chains in the hydrogen economy system. The hydrogen side, which is via pipes and storage, and the oxygen side, which is via the normal atmosphere. The hydrogen production plant is venting pure oxygen to the atmosphere, and capturing the hydrogen to be used a fuel. When you burn hydrogen, you need air, which contains oxygen, and you end up with water. Both supply loops are completed, and you end up with what you started. Water. Actually, now that I think about it, hydrogen enrichment of the atmosphere is the last thing I would be worried about. I would worry about oxygen enrichment. If you build up massive amounts of hydrogen in an energy reserve system, then that means that you would have an unimaginable number of metric tons worth of oxygen that has been freed into the atmosphere. And it will remain there, until they hydrogen is burnt, or till it's vented which will allow it to neutralize the excess oxygen, there by, creating water. If you increase the free oxygen content of the atmosphere, what will that do to the ozone layer? (smiles) It seems the people doing the atmospheric modeling has also overlooked half of the equation. That being the oxygen side. Such a pity. N N9WOS Jan 1, 1970 0 You missed some fundamentals.. 1. O3 is far more reactive than ordinary O2. 2. Likewise O2 gas will remain closer to ground. As it's density is greater than our atmosphere.. (Ever seen an O2 balloon float.. It won't happen). 3. Meanwhile H2 has far less density, thusly any leakage will ascend fairly quickly. No, oxygen doesn't stay close to the earth. The atmosphere is far more complicated than that. http://spacescience.nrl.navy.mil/introupatmsci.html Yes, the O2 concentrations, based on percentage of total gas volume, no longer make up the normal percentage, at altitude. Interestingly enough the percentage of O2 remains about the same when compared to N2 and Ar. All three evenly reduce in density as altitude increases past 800km+. The ozone layer is around 20 to 30 Km above the earth's surface. Some say 10 to 70Km Notice that the H and H2 levels don't start rising from natural hydrogen buoyancy until about 150Km But, elementary oxygen "O" becomes the primary atmosphere component from 250Km to 700Km. O is broken down from O2 by light. Anything above 500Km, O and H2 are the primary substances. Anything above 600Km, O , H2 and H are the primary substances. Anything above 700Km, H2 and H are the primary substances. Notice that 700Km is way above the top of the ozone layer. The hydrogen concentrations, based on total gas density, at the ozone layer is negligible. The enriching effect from it's buoyancy doesn't make it a major part of the gas makeup, until you get past the 200Km range. Thus, no affect on the O3 layer, because the hydrogen is way above the O3 layer O concentrations at those altitudes will produce a decent amount of attrition of the H and H2 molecules. If you raise the O2 levels at ground, the O2 concentrations at altitude will naturally even out. And since the O level is directly feeds off of the O2 layer by photonic actions. I can easily say that O concentrations will increase accordingly. Thus, I can postulate that a hydrogen based economy, based off of the splitting of water, with a large portion of hydrogen in storage, and oxygen vented, will actually reduce the hydrogen content of the upper atmosphere, as a result of hydrogen attrition from elevated oxygen levels. And, as a result of elevated O2 And O levels, the natural production of ozone will actually increase. http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch2.8.htm http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2407/hw/ozone_kinetics.pdf http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/ozone.htm G Glenn Martin Jan 1, 1970 0 N9WOS said: The best conservation is conservation that doesn't cost a penny. But spending large sums of money chasseing after fractional amounts is actually wasting energy. This doesn't actually disagree with my post. I was merely pointing out that the example the first poster used of 'conservation' was, in fact, "chucking out perfectly good stuff" or "waste". This is the very opposite of conservation and so shouldn't be used as an example of conservation. Because the energy that your money releases into the environment is far more than the energy you saved. The only energy my m,oney releases to the environment is either my body heat which is released anyway or energy upon combustion. Since all old, tattered bills are burnt anyway, this makes no difference. Waiting for a better product to come along, instead of uselessly replacing , or building stuff now, is and easy form of conservation. On the other hand, there's always better stuff coming down the pipe in most technologies. If I waited for the best computer technology, I'd never own one. You don't get the point. The energy that is actually IN the product, does not equate to the total amount of energy that is released to the atmosphere in the production of that product. If they charge and extra$10 a barrel, do you think they are
just going to sit on that $10 for eternity. No, they are going to spend it. What are they going to spend it on, cars, radios, guns, houses,... On and on... All of those take energy. So when the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the environmental impact will also rise. The only problem with this is that when gas and oil prices go up, the economy actually slows down resulting in less purchasing and manufacturing and thus less energy expenditure. If you can point me toward a study or essay that confirms your conclusion, please do so. But the companies that is in the production line get a lot more money. That money goes to the shareholders, and is eventually spent on more energy using products. So the environmental impact has actually gone up. But if I follow this argument to its' logical conclusion, because gas costs twice as much in Europe it has twice the environmental impact despite the fact Europeans drive less and generally use smaller, more energy-efficient cars. I contend that the PRICE=ECONOMIC ACTIVITY=ENERGY USAGE formula is a lot more limited in its' usefulness than you think. Yes it did. The show room floors didn't have to sell as many cars that month to stay in business. So the environmental load of running the car dealership was placed on fewer cars. Those being beetles, so they had an increased environmental impact. Or they spent the extra money on improvements to the dealership, or bought a fancy sports car to drive around in. So in the end, the added demand and price did increase the environmental impact that selling the cars had. Only if the money was spent as you say rather than being banked and provided that money had the environmental effect you say it did. Frankly I find that a pretty shaky assumption. The reason you think that, is you keep thinking the money is going to something that doesn't require more energy. But you are forgetting that the money always ends up going back to something that requires energy. Give a child$10 and you could say that it didn't have an environmental
impact. But it does. That child will end up buying a stuff toy that
requires lots of energy to make.

Or he'll buy something that requires much less energy to make or he'll
save it to buy the latest fad doll which has doubled in price due to demand
but took just as much energy to make or buy something that's completely
recyclable . All these are possibilities with very different environmental
impacts. It's not a very good fit this energy equals money thing.

Glenn Martin

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
On the other hand, there's always better stuff coming down the pipe in
most
technologies. If I waited for the best computer technology, I'd never own
one.

The main point is to know when to upgrade.
Do it when the technology has just made a large advance to the point that
the foreseeable coming equipment will just be a marginal improvement,
and/or, the existing equipment needs replace anyway.
The only problem with this is that when gas and oil prices go up, the
economy actually slows down resulting in less purchasing and manufacturing
and thus less energy expenditure.

That is what, true, unadulterated, conservation looks like.
People consuming less energy and products to survive.
True conservation, and economic growth, are fundamentally at odds.

It gets me when an organization is pushing a "conserving" product, and they
say, "Every dollar you save, will put 3 dollars into the economy"
What????????? How can something that reduces the amount of money spend on an
item, increase the money in the economy??????????? There is something
fundamentally wrong with that statement. If you don't have to spend as much
on energy, then you will put less money into the economy, because you won't
have to spend it.

If you can point me toward a study or essay that confirms your conclusion,

I can't at this time, I'll have to look around.
But it is not a very big leap in logic.

If the consumers use half the oil at the elevated price, then the producer
gets the same amount of money to produce half the oil, so he will take the
rest of the money that is no longer needed for oil production and spend it
on other stuff. That stuff requires energy to make. Or if they buy the same
amount of oil, then the producer is getting twice the money, which he will
still spend on stuff that takes energy. Thus, either way, the total
environmental impact of each gallon of oil sold, is increased.

That is with conditions.
The conditions are that, the price of all other sources of energy remain the
same. (ie) oil goes up, but NG and coal does not. The person that gets twice
as much for his oil will still buy products that reflect the unchanged
prices of the other energy sources, so he can buy more, which increases the
environmental impact of people buying his oil.

If all of the energy prices go up because of an all around lack of supply,
then the environmental impact will not increase, because anything the oil
producer wants to buy will cost twice as much. So, in reality, when all
energy sources go up evenly, then the actual energy value of a dollar, is
reduced by the opposite amount. So, in the end, he can't buy anything more
than he could before.
But if I follow this argument to its' logical conclusion, because gas
costs twice as much in Europe it has twice the environmental impact
despite the fact Europeans drive less and generally use smaller, more
energy-efficient cars. I contend that the PRICE=ECONOMIC ACTIVITY=ENERGY
USAGE formula is a lot more limited in its' usefulness than you think.

It's a direct, and painful conclusion, but it's one I have already thought
about, and agree with. If, via taxes, and other government controls, you
double the price of gas. There is only one natural conclusion, when you by
that gallon of gas, half of the money is going to the government, or other
organization. The government will use that to buy equipment, and services.
That money will be supporting an organization that is consuming large
quantities of energy. When you buy that gallon of gas, you give them more
money to spend on products and energy. In total, when you buy a gallon of
gas, you also buy a gallon of gas for the government. So, the economic
impact of you buying that gallon of gas is doubled. The government may not
spend it on gas, but they will probably spend it on electric bills, or
products that support the organizations that the gas taxes prop up.

If the government can reduce gas usage by 50% with the tax that doubles the
price, you will end up with about the same amount of energy used if you
would of left the price alone, and let the people use twice as much.
Only if the money was spent as you say rather than being banked and
provided that money had the environmental effect you say it did. Frankly
I find that a pretty shaky assumption.

Money doesn't just sit around in a bank.
If everyone went to get all their money out of a bank at once, the bank
couldn't come up with the money. The reason banks allow free checking, and
stuff, is because they used deposited money to loan to people, in an effort
to make more money. That money that is loaned to someone, it is used to buy
equipment and products that take energy. Products that they would not of
been able to buy before. So, if you put it in a bank, you are giving it to
someone else to spend. And the original owner of the money will not just let
it sit in his bank account forever. He will spend the money (that he wouldn't
of had without the inflated price) on a product that requires energy. Or
beneficiaries will spend it, after he dies.

Or he'll buy something that requires much less energy to make or he'll
save it to buy the latest fad doll which has doubled in price due to
demand but took just as much energy to make

But selling that doll will get the seller twice as much money, and that
extra money will buy the seller twice as much as it would of without the
inflated price, and twice as much stuff, equals twice as much energy used.
or buy something that's completely recyclable .

If he buys something recyclable, then he is still paying for the
environmental impact of the company producing that product, and if it's a
recycled product, then he is paying for the environmental impact of the
company recycling the product.
All these are possibilities with very different environmental impacts.
It's not a very good fit this energy equals money thing.

People keep telling themselves that, but it doesn't make it true.
Like you referring to putting it in a bank, or a recyclable product, or the
like, but that doesn't get around the fact that where ever you point, it
will always lead back to the energy source.

Money is the exact opposite of energy. Energy flows one way, money flows the
other way through the economy. You could basically say money is Antienergy.
It's value is the exact opposite of the sum of the energy in the system.
More energy feeding the system, the higher energy value that money has.
(ie)Energy is cheap so people waste it. It is given to a person in exchange
of services that took energy to perform. Like a person that trims trees. His
work may cost nothing in the way of produced energy, but the person that
trims trees, needs energy to stay alive. He needs energy to heat his house,
and power his car. And he gives that money to other people that use energy
to produce food, so he can eat. Basically, you are giving him a receipt to
get energy, so he can stay alive, to trim your trees. So him trimming your
trees has an environmental impact equal to the amount of money have to you
pay him to do so.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
The ozone layer is around 20 to 30 Km above the earth's surface. Some say
Data points irrelevant.
1. Your dealing with log rhythmic tables..

And the reactable area is logarithmically larger too. The is a substantial
quantity of gas in that area, even at the vastly reduced pressures, and
densities.
2. Atmosphere above 100km.. is officially defined as space..

What the hell does that have to do with this discussion?
(very thin- Aerodynamic surfaces no longer function. )

What the hell does the ability to use aerodynamic surfaces, got to do with
it's contribution to the chemical reaction.
Again.. non-sequitor.. (measuring space. atmosphere density too low
to have any impact.) )

There is many more metric tons of H2 in that area than the human race will
ever create in are lifetimes, and you say it won't have an impact?
As for low H2 density.. below 100Km.. It's as expected since the
overall reaction equilibrium heavily favors the water vapor/o2 side
of H2 + O3 -> H20 +O2. One would expect low H2 concentration.. And
that doubling atmosphere H2 inputs would continue to drive the
reaction with available O3.

You talk about me coming to conclusions that have no basses.
Now that is a conclusion with no basses.
You are stretching it a bit thin here.
Above that O3 density too low to do anything of value.

To do anything of value, in reference to blocking UV rays. But that has no
bearing on it's contribution to the chemical reaction, formation, and
destruction of the 03 layer. Do you actually think that the formation, and
destruction of the 03 that feeds the ozone layer only happens in the areas
that it is dense enough to perform it's primary beneficiary act? That being
blocking UV light.

N

Jan 1, 1970
0
Self correction.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
There is many more metric tons of H2 in that area than the human race will
ever create in are lifetimes, and you say it won't have an impact?

Strike that remark.
After doing some calculation.
We could produce that much.
100,000's of cubic Km's but it's could be surpassed.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Do you base this conclusion on anecdotal evidence and assumptions, or do
you have some hard data? A great many of the people who make decisions
about conservation measures are quite familiar with life cycle analysis.
In my experience, they tend to make their decisions based on hard data. In
the absence of the hard data, their decisions are sometimes difficult to
understand ("you want to spend *how* much on light bulbs?!"). Sometimes,
the only way they can get the hard data is to try something out -- perhaps
a measure only makes sense if it lasts a year or more, but nobody knows
whether it will in, say, a factory environment -- in which case they may
make a decision that turns out poorly, but do so for the sake of avoiding
a hundred poor decisions in the future.

I was just wasting a little time, throwing out a few thoughts.
It is just my opinion
If you want o put any stock in that opinion, it is up to you.
It is not my job to change your mind.
If you chose to disagree with it, so be it.
I don't know that I agree with your analysis of the "primary" fractions,
but I agree with the gist of your argument.

So be it.
Perhaps, but how does the energy expenditure for all of that compare to
the amount of electricity produced by the utility? What is the overall
efficiency when you take that into account?

Local utility here, is an REMC.

http://www.sciremc.com/ratetariffs.php

By definition, they can not make any profit.
The generating company is an REMC.
By definition, they can not make any profit.
Anything they charge, has to be used to cover what it was billed for
They charge a little over $0.022 per KWH for large users. That is based off of price to generate the power, plus losses to get it to the user. There is a recurring monthly charge that is imposed to cover cost of providing service to the user. That is$60 per month
And there is a peak KW hour cost to cover the percentage of the total line
capacity you are using.
That is $8.55 per peak KW Thus, paying for the repair of the line, and replacement when needed. Industrial users pay a little more for their energy, at about$0.025 per KWH
But that is because they have a more dynamic load.
Large machines shutting off, and one, surges, ec. which causes additional
losses for the utility.

Lets assume that delivery efficiency is about the same for rural users.
So the rest is charges to cover no electrical usage.
Home users are charged $16 for the utility connection (faculty charge). That covers the cost of providing the transformer, pole and other equipment, and it's maintenance. First 750KWH is$0.076 per KWH.
That is electricity plus line usage charge.

$0.076, -0.022 =$0.053 per Kw hour, or the majority of the money.
(ie) Helps pay for the repairs and upkeep to the transmission system you are
using.
If you don't use any power, you don't utilize any transmission system,
so you don't have to pay for it, if you do use it.

Next 750 KWH is $0.055 per KWH You have already paid your share of the line cost to get electricity to your house, so that portion starts to go down.$0.055 - $0.022 =$0.033 per KWH.

Over 1.5 MWH is $0.0465 Per KWH.$0.0465 - $0.022 =$0.0245 per KWH.
The line usage portion is about equal to the cost of the electricity from
there on up.
Not necessarily. How much energy is consumed when capital equipment is
depreciated for tax purposes?

The government spends money, don't they?
I don't buy it. As I pointed out in my previous post, the amount of energy
tied to one dollar of GDP (in real dollars) in the U.S. economy has been
falling since 1920 -- this in spite of energy prices that have been rising
since the 1970s. In other words, *despite* rising energy prices, the
amount of energy expended every time a dollar is spent *decreases* with
time. So if I make a solar panel for $300 this year and sell it for$400
next year, the amount of money spent on the panel for energy equivalence
purposes must be greater than $300 but less than$400, right?

If you use that extra $100 to keep yourself alive, or buy what ever you want to spend it on, then yes, that is part of the energy cost in producing that panel. Because you have to be alive to produce the panel, or it won't get produced. And you have to get some profit to spend on other stuff, or you will no longer see a reason to produce the panel, so it won't be produced. So, without that energy spent, then the panel won't get produced. Finally, one of the problems with your accounting scheme is that it double-counts. Suppose I sell$100,000 worth of solar panels, making a
profit of $20,000. I then use the$20,000 to buy a wind turbine. Does my
$20,000 represent energy consumed to make the PV panels or the wind turbine? Clearly it cannot represent both, because that would be like making energy from nothing. To try to make that statement, means that you don't get the point. It's a mater of perspective. The energy that is consumed for the other person to buy the panels includes the price that you paid, plus the extra that you tagged on. So he is basically paying the energy cost for your wind turbine and the solar panels. But to him, the energy cost of the panels is$100,000.
He can't tell that only $80,000 is actually covering the energy cost of the panels, and that the extra$20,000 is actually going to be spend on
something else.
Who was forced to use them, and by whom? I've heard of rebates and other
incentives to *encourage* the use of T8 lights, but never any mandates
(funded or unfunded) or policy initiatives with the force of law
*requiring* their use.

http://www.maine.gov/bgs/energy/2003/Requirements6.doc

"2.5.2.2 Mercury vapor lamps shall be replaced with metal halide or
high-pressure sodium lamps of equal or greater light output, but fewer
watts."

If they ban Mercury vapor, then they definitely should band MH because it
waste a lot more energy than MV lamps.

Look over....
"3.5.6 Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts"

Notice that if you do not have T8 lamps, (except for limited situations) you
will not meet code.
If you have and older ballast, you will have to change it before it's end of
life.

There is a lot more where that came from, but I don't have all year to quote
all them to you.
In a free market you might be correct. In a market that is partially or
fully regulated, that is not necessarily the case.

That is the problem.

That doesn't have any effect on the statement I made.
Oil and coal companies are big, but considering that the amount of money
spent on energy in the U.S. in 2000 was just 7.2% of GDP -- down from a
high of 13.7% in 1981 -- I don't think you can reasonably argue that *all*
money flows through our energy sources.

The GDP is measuring money flowing through all links of the economy.
If you have an economy that have five links in the chain, and all money
flows through one point. Then the total GDP will be five times the money
flowing through the primary point. But all money still goes through the
primary point sooner or later.
That might be the case in a perfectly competitive environment, but here in
the real world there is no such thing. For one thing, elasticity of supply
and demand must be taken into account: Despite the increase in crude
prices, demand for it has *increased*, not decreased. And it isn't just
because of industrializing nations like China -- gasoline consumption in
the U.S. is expected to rise this year at its highest rate since 1999.

Either supply must go up, or price must go up until demand stops climbing.
Holy inefficiency! You are certainly in the minority with that idea.

I am use to being in the minority.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Correction.....
In a free market you might be correct. In a market that is partially or
fully regulated, that is not necessarily the case.

That doesn't have any effect on the statement I made.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not necessarily. How much energy is consumed when capital equipment is
depreciated for tax purposes? By an investment tax credit? By an interest
deduction?

Let me expand on that just a bit.
How much energy is consumed when capital equipment is depreciated for tax
purposes?

In terms of a government taxation on a company in energy terms.

The company earns the right to consume energy, or products containing
energy, by selling products, or services. They charge the customers "energy
credits" for the energy required to provide the product to them.
(ie) They earn money.

The government doesn't put any penalties on energy that the company uses to
self to stay alive.
(ie) operating cost.

The government puts penalties on (they want a part of) unused "energy
credits" that have been collected, and energy containing products that was
purchased with those "energy credits" that is not needed to keep the company
running.
(ie) Free money, and products that won't be used by the company to stay
alive.

Depreciation is a scam the government pulled off on the industry, but that
is besides the point.
In this application, it can put in energy terms.

Go back to that $10,000 refrigeration unit I referred to earlier. Remember that I stated that the life was 10 years, and the money wasted to have one was$1000 a year. One tenth of it's life is wasted a year. In 10
years, it's life is gone, and it's worth no energy. It's value has been
consumed, and it will carry no value to anyone.

The government, in their shallow wisdom, has put an arbitrary life span of 7
years on equipment. To them, when you buy a piece of equipment, then you
haven't actually spent the money on the business yet. You can still trade
the machine for it's original value in money. So the taxes for free, unused
money, will still apply. And as it's value is consumed by each passing year,
then they classify that energy value as being irrevocably lost into, used by
that company to operate. And money that is used to stay alive, is not taxed
in the same way, so they give money (energy credits) back because it is no
longer part of the energy that they can claim a right to.
By an investment tax credit?

Basically, it's just the government saying that they won't take away part of
the energy you earned a right to use, if you give that "energy credit" to
someone else to use to earn more energy credits. Because, in the end, the
other person that is now earning a lot of "energy credits" (money) from
using the "energy credits" that he got off you to by energy, so he will have
paid you back, and given the government far more in in "energy credits" than
the government lost when it said it wouldn't take your "energy rights"

Basically along the same lines as, you got to have energy to get energy, or
the right to use energy.
By an interest deduction?

Basically they don't want to take a chunk out of your "money" that you use
to pay for energy credits that you borrowed. They think that if you can use
that extra energy to earn more energy, to pay back your "energy debt"
faster, then you will en up giving them more energy credits to put into
something else, in the long run. Like energy to build fighter jets. Or fuel
to power those jets.

In the end, money is just an energy credit.

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
Finally, one of the problems with your accounting scheme is that it
double-counts. Suppose I sell $100,000 worth of solar panels, making a profit of$20,000. I then use the $20,000 to buy a wind turbine. Does my$20,000 represent energy consumed to make the PV panels or the wind
turbine? Clearly it cannot represent both, because that would be like
making energy from nothing.

I will expand the subject.
(A big expansion!!!!!!!)

I will cover the way power flows through society.
I will cover how you are forming a parasitic power loop.
And I will cover how to slow the flow of power.

This is an energy economy
Money is just a token that holds an energy value.
And it has always been an energy economy.
Food is an energy source, and farmers create energy (food from sun light)

In an energy economy, you have the source, from which all things run.
The things that run off the energy source, sell back stuff made with that
energy, to keep the source running.
The stores sell stuff to people to live, and pay the energy source for
energy to run.
The people work to earn money from the factory, to pay the store, and pay
the energy source to keep the house warm.
Factories use products, and sell stuff to the energy source to keep the
energy source running, in tern buying energy to operate.

The energy source takes all that money coming in from each link in the chain
to buy stuff from the factory to keep producing energy.

If the energy source can produce twice as much energy with the equipment and
the price of the equipment stays the same, then he will sell energy at half
the price.
You may say that won't work, because he can just keep charging the same
amount.
Yes he can.
But he will be buying stuff that isn't needed, which is what it will cost to
keep the energy source running (keep him happy), then that mean that he isn't
producing twice the energy with the same equipment. He is still producing as
much energy from the same amount of stuff that is required to keep him
going.
He is still consuming as much of his own energy coming back to him in the
form of products, as he was before.

As long as the energy source can produce the same amount of energy that it
took to produce it, that loop will remain operational. And there will plenty
of energy to produce all the little intricate sub loops that stretch out
from the source.

Like people working at a factory to produce Lego blocks, that they buy with
the money they earned working for the factory that produced Lego blocks. The
energy source can run without the factory building Lego blocks, but the
factory, and the person can not live without the energy source. That sub
loop is being feed by the primary energy loop. Where do you think people are
getting money to pay the power company?
It must come from people that work to keep the power company going.

People may say that the only energy cost in the generating equipment is the
energy it took at the foundry to produce it. But it takes the entire
community to support the foundry and the people that work there. The money
will work it's way out to the community, and into sub loops, until it
finally goes back through the primary loop, which is the power loop that
feeds the system.

The formula for the price of power is simple. If a machine that cost $1 produces 10 watts of energy in it's life time. Then the electricity cost$0.1 a watt. If it takes 1 watt of energy to produce a machine, then 9 watts
of energy will be burnt up in the sub loops, until that final 1 watt of
energy is put back into a machine that will produce 10 more watts. All items
in the sub loops will have an equivalent energy cost of 1 watt for every
$0.1. If something cost$0.3 to buy, then it used 3 watts from the source.
one $0.1 for those materials, and used one watt of energy to refine those materials. Link three paid link two$0.2 for the refined materials and used
one watt of energy to make it into a tool. Link four buys that tool for $0.3 which cost 3 watts of energy. And he paid for that tool with money he got working for the link that produced the power unit that supplies all the energy to the system, the link that produced the power unit uses 1 watt of energy to build the unit, and hires three people, that it pays$0.3 each to
build the unit. Total energy cost to build the unit, $1 It always cost as much energy to keep the energy source running as the energy source produces. If all the sub loops take up to much power too provide the equipment to keep the source running, then the source can't get enough money off of the energy it sells to produce the power to keep the system running. Thus, the cost of power will go up, and that will shed extraneous sub loops, it will keep going up until the money from the power going out will buy the equipment used to produce the electricity All right, now what happen if you throw two energy sources into the mix. Lets use one source to form a primary loop. Lets use energy from one energy source to bread the new secondary energy loop.. In this case, a link that produces the equipment to sell the power company to make power, uses some of the money to buy equipment to make power for himself. The power company buys the solar panels for$100K. The other is you that got
the windmill from the extra $20K that the power company gave you for the solar panels. If the power company is the only one to sell to the community, then the energy that he sells to the community will reflect cost that he put into the system. His apparent energy cost to produce the power to the system, will be greater and it will cost the people that use off of him, more. Because it is taking more of his own power to get his panels to produce the power to sell the community. It will be the power that he produced, that will produce the windmill. The power loop formed by the windmill is parasitic to the primary productive power loop that feeds the community. If you had only charged him$80K, then the community would only
be paying 80% of what they are now. That means that there is only 80% of the
power that can be used throughout the system as there could have been.
To the community, that mean more of the power that's generated, needs to go
back into the power source to keep it running. But to the person that got
the windmill for a little bit of labor installing some solar panels, then
energy used to acquire the windmill was cheep. That is because it wasn't his
energy that was used to make the system. It took $100K of energy to provide power for the community. 20K was parasitic loop that doesn't support it's self at first, 80K was to the primary loop that went to supporting the community. The person that got the windmill, gets$20K worth, imposed a direct energy
load on the system. That windmill took 20K worth of power off of the power
company's system to make.

Now it's time for a parasitic loop to support it's self.
If the parasitic loop starts to sell power to the community, then he will be
able to buy another wind mill (made with his own power) to produce power
when that the first one quits. And then the loop is no longer a parasitic
loop. It is a self supporting loop, that no longer provide a hidden load on
the community. Anyone that buys equipment to produce power with money the
earned from the existing power supply (economy), is posing a direct load on
the power supply, that doesn't help the power supply. You may as well bought
a bunch of bricks for all they care. The turn around comes when the
parasitic source turns around and feeds to the community to self support it's
self.

There is no difference between a brick and a windmill, before the windmill
produces power. Either way, it increased the total energy impact to the
primary loop, to produce the source to feed the loop.

Now lets look at your case.
What makes it most interesting in your case is the fact that neither of the
powers sources were being bought to produce power for the primary source.
Both loops are secondary parasitic loops. Actually, one loop is a parasitic
of a parasitic loop. Anyone that buys a piece of power generating equipment
is making a parasitic power loop. The money he got, trickled down from the
energy source. He had $100k worth of energy. He spent that to get a power source, but in the process of getting a power source, someone used the money from his loop that was just starting, and made a third loop. To the primary loop, it took 100K to start the secondary loop. To the secondary loop, it took$20K to start the third loop. Power to create both loops came from the
primary loop.

The first parasitic loop took $100K worth of power. The secondary parasitic loop took$20K worth of power.

Some people, like you, said that that would mean that the total impact for
the two systems would be $120k. No, power doesn't flow like that. You each, represent a node in the network. Power flows from one node to another. Power can only flow in series from him to you. He is spending energy, you are receiving it. If there was a third link that both of you was consuming off of, then you two would be in parallel. But the link both you would be feeding off of, is producing$120K
worth.
But in this case, he feeds you $100k you feed the windmill maker$20K, and
the solar panel maker $80k.In a parallel circuit feeding from you. In the end, it cost him$100k in energy to get the panels. The panels only cost
$80K, but getting the panels from you cost$100k. If he left you out of the
circuit, and got the panels directly from the node that you got them, then
it would of only cost him $80K and you would of never had$20K to buy a
windmill. A windmill that would of never been built. And $20K of energy that would of never been used. Getting the panels from you, increased the energy used to get the panels by$20K

And if you say, "Well.. He will just spend it on something else that cost
power to make"
You are correct.
Power will always find it's way through the loop, and come back to the
source.
The question is how fast it travels through the loop.
The longer it takes for it to travel around the loop, the less energy is
consumed. The longer you hold onto the money (energy), before sending it on
down the line, the slower fuel (energy) will be consumed.

The way to reduce total power in the system, is to reduce the speed at which
it travels through each node in the circuit. If a device you own, takes less
money (energy) to operate, then you will end up getting a back log of money
(energy credits). You are forming a resistance to the power flow. You will
start to consume less money off of the circuitry upstream, and thus total
power flow (energy used by society) will be reduced. Anything that increases
the rate at which money is spent by any one node in the energy network of
society, will never reduce the power consumed by society.

Does that make things clearer?

N

N9WOS

Jan 1, 1970
0
(Note that these cost accounting schemes are all legal and ethical, and
versions of all of these are commonly used in the real world.)

You just don't grasp it.
No mater WHAT accounting and labor figuring the company uses to arrive at a
cost, is irrelevant.
When company A sells the small widget for a $1 it means they have a dollar to spend on stuff to keep the company running. If people only buy big widgets for$2 then the company will get a surplus that will be spend
somewhere.

If you buy small widgets from company A for a $1, and big widgets from company B for$1.80, then you will end up with the lest energy impact to
produce those products.

If everyone did that, then company A would have to find a way to produces
only small widgets for a $1, which means they will waste less on other unneeded stuff (reducing the impact producing it), or they will end up increasing the cost to$1,20
All I'm saying is that in order to have a viable economic theory you need
to have a self-consistent accounting scheme. If you don't have that, your
theory is worthless.

All the errors I have seen you try to impose on it, are totally irrelevant
to the accounting system.

It's like complaining that you can't have fluid in the tires of a farm
tractor, because it will make it impossible to properly balance the tires
for high speed operation.

Correct.

But that is irrelevant to the operations of the tractor. It can't achieve
high speeds.
You would have a point if you were talking about money, and only money.
But when I spend money, the money can be passed on to somebody else, then
to another, then to another. In other words, money cycles through the
economy and is not rendered useless when I spend it.

You just don't grasp it.
That does not affect the equation.
Energy, on the other hand, is. It does not cycle through the economy, it
goes from point A, where it is generated, to point B, where it is
consumed.

Which is used to produce products, and then handle those products, or
perform services which use energy.
When I convert natural gas into low-grade heat, it keeps me warm for a
little while, then dissipates.

But someone had to pay you enough to get the heat to keep yourself warm.
I cannot pass it on to another person.

That is irrelevant.
The product you made will carry the cost for the gas that you used. The cost
in energy to produce that product is the amount of gas to keep you warm.
The energy has been lost, but the money from the energy supplier has to make
it's way back to you, for you to buy another cubic foot of gas to burn. The
line of people from the person that bought the product off you, to the
energy supplier, will all have to foot the cost for that cubic foot of gas
you burned. A small amount of money that can't be spent by someone else to
buy a cubic foot of gas.
It is rendered useless. For all practical purposes, it is destroyed.

When it is going back to the energy supplier, it is being lost from the
system. Destroyed as far as you and me are concerned.

If I pay someone $10 to cut my hair, and they spend$5 of it on electricity,
then half of it is permanently gone from the economy. He spends $5 on hair supply products. The hair supply products cost$2.5 in electricity to make,
so there is only $2.5 left in the economy from the money I put in. the employee that makes the hair care products needs$2.5 in electricity to stay
alive, so nothing is left in the economy.
That money is permanently lost until it is re spent by the energy maker. In
the exact opposite sum as the energy they make.

If the energy maker doesn't buy anything with that money, then there will
never be any money reenter the economy to by energy. And the energy maker
will cease to exist because his equipment will finally stop running, so
there will be no economy.
Entropy does not apply to money (though there those who try to make a very
similar argument to yours on thermodynamic principles). When you spend a
dollar, it is still a dollar -- just not your dollar. When you spend a
kilowatt-hour, it is spent -- you don't have it, but neither does anybody
else.

The heat is still there, you just can't use it, Energy is never lost. It is
just not in the system.
The power source is there to put energy in the system to replace what is
lost out of the system.

And by putting energy into the system, they consume money out of the system.
Which they put back into the system on the opposed side of the system. So,
in reality, they are the source of money and energy.
That is the policy of Maine's Department of Administrative and Financial
Services and applies only to space leased by the department. It is not
law, and nobody else need follow it. (When I said "policy initiatives" I
meant *public* policy initiatives.)

There is plenty of codes on the book that affect normal people.
I will dig through and find a good list of them for you.
I know New Mexico has a ton of them

BTW, just because that doesn't directly apply to everyone, doesn't mean that
it don't have an affect on everyone.

Replies
4
Views
1K
M
Replies
8
Views
1K
K
Replies
3
Views
1K
A
Replies
11
Views
1K
A
Replies
4
Views
196