🚀 go-pugleaf

Greig Ebeling wrote:
> 
> On 06 Jun 2000 10:20:06 EDT, "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote:
> 
> >[New thread since References line becoming too long for my news mailer]
> >
> >Murray Love wrote in message I0%_4.7705$F9.266005@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Thoughtful post, ant.  Thank you for being civil.  As an aside, I don't see
> >> the attraction of decentralized power.  I like my huge utility; it never
> >> goes out on me, it's cheap, and if there's a problem I know who's
> >> responsible.  This is a genuine question:  what is the attraction of
> >> decentralization?
> >
> >Possibly it's too cheap, in that people can use unnecessary electricity
> >without realizing the hidden consequences. Particularly in the workplace when
> >they don't see the electric bill. I've known people using electric heaters
> >under their desk because the air conditioning was set too cold! You'd probably
> >reduce consumption if you had to do your own maintenance, or if your local
> >plant made less noise and smelly emissions whenever you switched off a load.
> >In my experience most of this reduction is effortless - turning off lights,
> >replacing most-used lights with fluorescents, using battery-powered or wind-up
> >clocks, plugging wall warts and always-on appliances into switchable outlets, > >etc.
> 
> These actions may be effortless, but they do almost nothing to reduce
> electricity load.

I average 12KWH a day, down from about 30 KWH pre-PV system. Computer monitor
and lights are now turned off when not in use. Replacing 3 100 watt bulbs with
15 watt fluorescents saved 1 KWH/day (and gives better light). Switchable
outlets on the TV, computer, microwave, and coffemaker another 0.5 KWH/day. As
you say, not noticeable on the power meters at the nuke plant [I like to think
of it as around 70 gallons a day less water vaporized up the cooling tower,
others might wish to think in pounds of CO2]. But from what I observe,
everyone using these same techniques in the workplace would save considerably more.

> >
> >A substantial tax on grid power might also lead to usage reductions. Here in
> >the US half the pump price of gasoline goes to tax monies which typically by
> >law can only be used for transportation. If something similar were done with
> >an electricity tax the revenue could stimulate all forms of energy research.
> 
> An energy research tax, to be used in pollution remediation for
> instance, is an excellent idea, but cannot be uni-laterally
> implemented - it has an instant negative effect on the local economy.

Yes, but the same could have been said for gasoline taxes, and nonetheless
they have been successfully implemented.

> 
> >There is also the self-sufficiency factor; where I live a major hurricane or
> >ice storm will will pass through every few years and typically cut grid power
> >for 1-2 weeks. For me, having power during those times more than makes up for
> >several years of PV system maintenance.
> 
> This is a good reason to have a backup diesel or petrol generator, but
> why would you spend all that money trickle charge systems and
> batteries?

Just one KWH marine battery, allows adequate lights plus running the TV or
computer up to five hours overnight. Most loads (computer, water pumping,
washing machine) can be shifted to run directly off the PV panels when the sun
is shining. The portable generator is noisy and hard on the back, and now no
longer needed since the battery-inverter system could be charged from the car
or tractor as a last resort. Interesting to consider that electric vehicles
might supply much of the home's power, with appropriate docking. Rather than
charge them at home, charge them in the parking lot at work (using
cogeneration or PV) and bring the power back home every night. A future
employment perk?