Nekota said:
AndyH said:
There is plenty of proof that wind and solar can and currently is providing baseload power so I can no longer make the jump that nukes are required - they were but no longer. I see the push for nukes the same as the sales pitch that natural gas is cleaner to burn. Sure - but when we bring the externalities on-line it's got a similar CO2 footprint to coal yet carries additional risk. But - I certainly could be wrong.
I've read Mackay's book a couple of times and use it as a reference. While I like the work he's done, I don't agree with his conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong here too.
I truly believe at this point that the Rocky Mountain Institute's Reinventing Fire lays out the best plan currently on the table - because they don't pen themselves in with assumptions - they start with our current situation and the destination on a clean sheet of paper, and then draw a line between the two. And they make it clear that efficiency is a critical component - and show that when we rework efficiency it completely changes the nature of the power supply problem.
And because we can do this today:
http://www.absoluteefficiency.com/LEAF/NetZero.pdf
RMI has been playing the conservation and now "re-branded conservation" as efficiency for 30 or 40 years. Conservation or efficiency does not make energy, it is the wise use of energy. An example of wise energy use is getting cars to slow down from an average of 70 to 55 (60% energy savings) but good luck on getting drivers to slow down! A. Lovins is pretty amazing - look what he did to S. Brand with his boring 4 facts deluge.
Thanks to A. Lovins and his ilk we have a very warm planet arriving sooner than later.
Right...Shoot any solution that doesn't call for a massive expansion of nuclear power. Bzzzt - thanks for playing.
Did you look at the article I linked, by the way? Efficiency works - RMI recently participated in an energy retrofit for the Empire State building - and it resulted in a payback in 'negative years' - it was less expensive to do an energy saving retrofit compared with the traditional required refurb that would not provide future energy savings.
Here's a look at conservation and redesign in the real world. I'm intimately familiar with the data because they are for my house.
1600 sq ft all electric house. Three bedroom, 2 1/2 bath, two story, built in 2000 or 2001. San Antonio, TX.
Average monthly electricity bill over four year period from July 2008 through July 2012: $157.94
Average monthly water bill over same period as above: $29.00
In the event of a power outage, the house is habitable in the spring and fall. Temperature drops to freezing on winter nights and over 100 on summer days. House is not habitable without water and sewer connection.
1600 sq ft passive solar house. Three bedroom, 2 bath, one story, also in San Antonio (estimated from exact building located in Nrn New Mexico and a 2nd in East Texas).
Average monthly electricity bill: 0
Average monthly water bill: 0
Average monthly propane bill: $8.33
All electricity is provided by PV panels. >90% of hot water supplied by solar thermal collector; remaining propane-fired on-demand water heater. Cook stove is propane. Water is harvested rain. All systems are included in price of building, and build costs are the same for the conventional and passive solar building.
Temperature in this building does not depend on electricity or water. Water is still available without electricity. Greywater is cleaned in manufactured wetland in attached tropical greenhouse and provides some % of annual food requirement.
This comparison suggests to me that designing from an efficient standpoint first will provide a superior product for the same amount of money, and a product that does not require any ongoing connection to any energy supply system.
If you don't mind, I'll agree to disagree with your assessment.