A Marketing Study on RE

[MountainMan]

I'm a relative newcomer here, and I've never built any RE  yet except in my head.  Flavor what's next with that realization and don't shoot the messenger, I'm only reporting what I see here...

I've noticed an interesting sentiment here and I'm wondering if it is endemic to the people who get interested in RE, or if it is actually born from the practice of RE.

Conserve, conserve, conserve.  Seems to be a mantra around here.  I find it quite unexpected.  I find it quite naive.  I find it quite useless on this insane planet.

Here we have a bunch of guys saving millions of kW hours of over energetic photons and caffeinated restless air from a life of anonymity...to misquote shakespeare...Like an agitated electron in an outer shell, it struts and frets its hour upon the stage and is heard no more...

...and instead of bragging about how much energy they have made and used without so much as cow flatulence or a dead dinosaur between them...all I hear is conserve, conserve, conserve.

Just my opinion, but you're selling ice cubes to eskimos.  If any of you dream of making RE a big part of America's (or to a slightly less degree, any developed country's) future you should be hyping up quite the opposite.  "Use more energy more often for free!" is the mantra that will gather the opulent "me generation" baby boomers.  The real beauty of RE is not that it nestles in quite nicely with the age-old and to date completely ineffective green slogan of reduce-reuse-recycle.  That was a pipe dream from the 70's that just doesn't go anywhere on this insane planet.  During the reign of reduce-reuse-recycle America has gone from the easy to believe disposable diaper, to disposable cellphones and bottled water packaged in disposable plastic containers and four times as much packaging on everything we buy.  Our televisions have tripled in size and every house has two or three computers that run 24/7.

If you want to get the ear of somebody who is driving around in a 3 ton SUV and sweating each time he passes a gas station, you won't get it with reduce-reuse-recycle.  You will get it with "Hey dude, buy this 4 ton SUV that you can plug into your wind-mill!  Look, it has a DVD player and a trash compactor!"

Sure, on a sane planet, reduce-reuse-recycle would work.  On this one, it just goes right down the toilet along with Jimmy Carter's fireside chats and the metric system.  It simply doesn't matter that it is the sane alternative, what matters is what will get the desired result - energy independence and a cleaner environment.  Trying to get us there with reduce-reuse-recycle is as nonsensical as saying "Dear politicians, we have noticed a certain lack of ethics within your noble profession of late.  Please be honest from now on."  

On this planet you will get there a lot quicker making use of the really key component of RE...there is no shortage of it today and each day that we make more windmills and solar panels there is more of it to be had for less money.

Let's sell those eskimos a 4 ton (wind and solar powered) electric SUV with heated seats instead of a re-cycled icecube.  Conservation is so ten minutes ago.  It might work on planet Vulcan, but not here.  Go 100% RE, and use as much of it as you can make.  He who dies with the most RE wins.

jp

[finnsawyer]

You're undercutting your argument by calling this an insane planet.  After all this is, "the best of all possible worlds".  On a more serious note, in a sane world one must weigh the total cost of RE against the total cost of the alternatives.  As has been pointed out many times, it currently is more expensive.  The windmill idea may be a great idea for the guy with the SUV, but when the day is done it costs him less to stop at the gas station.  You can add other arguments, such as CO2 emissions and other environmental concerns, but after a while these begin to sound like religious dogma.

[Gary D]

This should be a good thread! There are so many things that can be done by the "average person" that takes a no pain approach. Replacing most lights with compact florescents doesn't hurt a bit. Replacing showerheads with low flow units doesn't hurt. Putting in the proper insullation on an older home can make you smile all the way to the bank each year on your savings....caulk and new windows, newer fridge and such do hurt a bit, but as you say the "average person" doesn't frequent this board... Since I've been on this site, my electric usage has been cut in about half with little "pain" (shame on me)  Gary D.

[david anderson]

Really? Nothing has come of that 70s sentiment as far as energy is concerned?

While the gas milage has not gone up as much as we would have wished, I can buy a full sized pickup truck that gets better mileage than my dad's 68 volkswagen beetle. Homes are built with significantly more insulation. Flourescent lighting is now common in homes. Head down to the local home center tan try and buy some single pane aluminum framed windows. Compare the efficiency ratings of of the furnaces and water heaters and compare them to the models of 35 years ago. Compare refrigerators and freezers as well.

On the non-energy front, why don't you drive down a suburban street on garbage day and figure out the number of recycling bins that people have put out. I live near the most affluent neighborhood in town, and it is near 100%.

You are partly right, but partly wrong. People do not want to give up a lot to conserve, but they are more than willing to conserve if they see a point to it.

And complaining about people concentrating on conservation on a site that is pretty much devoted to the DIY crowd just doesn't cut it. I never got the impression that this site was set up for evangelism. Heck, it isn't even preaching to the choir, it is a lot closer to an after choir practice BBQ.

[wdyasq]

'I'm a relative newcomer here, and I've never built any RE  yet except in my head.'

Well, then you really don't conceive what the problem may be.  Here, many of us are into reality.  Facts are it takes a lot of money to 'Go RE'.  Those who have at times will be wasteful..... When the batteries are full, the sun is shining and the windmill is producing more power than is needed. It is expensive to store electricity too.

I'll take the area of Texas I am in for an example. And, since I live a 400sf, well-insulated,  minimalist place I will use it as an example.  In the summer, the temperatures go to well over 100F and only drop to 85F or so at night.  It is all my small 8,000BTU window AC can do to keep it to 80F - and that takes 24kWh a day.  Add in a refrigferator and freezer, a computer and a few CF lights and 1000kWh a month is easy to attain.  To do this with solar, not including batteries is near the $10,000 range.  

As I live in a town, the ~6-8m Mill on a 120' tower is out of the question.  I wonder what the liability insurance on a 20 - 25 foot diameter mill in a town would be.... But, the tower would probably cost $6-10,000.

Now, if I built a new, solar tempered home I'd bet it would use about half the energy - or less and acheive a better enviornment.  I could move West about 100 miles and pickup maybe 5mph average windspeed and a negligable amount more sun time. This small move would make it more practical to invest in more wind than solar.  However, a larger battery bank would be needed as Solar is considerably more consistant than wind even in the tropics.

While it would be nice to be able to just throw out a "PV tarp" and charge up your SUV..... OR, just have a Solar SUV and park it outside and power your entire energy wasting old house. - - - -  It ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.  There is only a certain amount of energy falling on the earth at any one point from the sun.  The winds that are generated are a collection of the heating and cooling of the sun and the rotation of the earth.  This too is a limited and finate amount one can grab due to limitations of the plot one owns and legal issues.

Just the view from here.  Where I have lived off-grid. And long to get back off it.

Ron

[windstuffnow]

  When you say "conserve" it does sound like you have to "give up" something.   In reality, if you replace your 60watt bulbs with some 13w CF's or change to some appliances that are much more efficient then your conserving with out loosing anything.  Being conservative doesn't mean you have to give up anything, you simply change the way you use it.  Then when you get your RE system together its much less expensive to power your normal needs.   Why spend more than you have to on a system to power devices that are inefficient.   Making your normal uses as efficient as possible is the most practical first step to an RE system.

.

 

[Bruce S]

Mountain Man;

   Don't take too much offense, but after reading this post; I'm not too sure you "get it" or you must not have been watching TV for the past year.

"RE" IS the new "in thing". That's why the Solar Tower is looking like a reality in Aussie land.

That's why FORD and every other car maker are now producing Hybrids and pure electric cars.

That's why those nice 750 watt Mopeds can't be found for sale in St. Louis anymore for any less than $800.00 they're too popular.

That's way The Netherlands are building off-shore windmills that dwarfs a 747s power.

Conserve is the new mantra, take a look at the lighting section and look closely at all the new shapes and sizes the CFLs come in.

I for one couldn't stand Prez Carter, but do like what he's done with Habitat For Humanity.

No long time viewer, or builder on this forum even thinks for a minute that this "RE" stuff is easy or cheap.

Think of it more as a "challenge" to see just how much can be gotten out of a new VAWT design, or how close to the bare minimum we can get the electric bill down to, or different carving/building methods for blades.

And we're certainly not diluted enough to think that RE is anything close to politics, we're actually too smart for that.

This also helps keep the mind busy, which has proven in a great number of studies to help a person stay mentally/physically healthy.

Keep reading , but read from a different angle.

There is no such thing as FREE.

Cheers

Bruce S

[TomW]

Mtn Man;

Sorry, sir, but I digress.

May I inquire what planet you live on? Oh Kulliforneeya where they didn't want power plants but screamed when they had to pay a premium for outsourced power. Explains a lot to this conservation minded daily RE user. A LOT easier to conserve a KWH of power than produce it. Join the reality based world and become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Well, perhaps, after you attain some minor experience in RE you can revisit this thread and relate your reality then.

'Nuff Said.

Just my Rant and personal opinions.

T

[MountainMan]

Well, I must say, you guys have been much nicer about this whole thing than I expected.

It's true, I need to actually build an RE system to see if I'm still in the mood to build some more rather than be careful about how I use it.

Thanks for sharing your opinions with me.  I understand your points of view much better than before.

To the "conserve without giving up anything just because it's cheaper than building more RE" contenders, I have to say that I would like to see some proof of that.  Aren't the more energy efficient appliances more expensive?  Contrasting extra money on each of several more expensive appliances vs. extra money once on one more wind machine...I dunno.  Maybe it's cheaper maybe it isn't.

best,

jp

[Bruce S]

MTMN;

To the "conserve without giving up anything just because it's cheaper than building more RE" contenders, I have to say that I would like to see some proof of that."

That's almost too easy.

You can even do this so there's no fudging of the numbers.

Take just one bulb in your house doesn't matter which one, let's say a 60watt 'cause it's the most common bought and most common used/replaced.

Go to the nearest store and compare how much it costs to how much a new CFL the it the replacement equivalent rate 17 watts ( I think, could be 23 watts).

then got out the last electric bill and figure out how much it costs per watt.

Now remembering that a 60 watts bulb doesn't just use 60 watts, as it gets hotter, it needs more wattage to stay the same brightness, and that once, the lets say the 23 wattage CFL for arguments sake, is on that's is what it uses.

Okay, now one the side of the regular bulb there is the average light's life span, in hours. Same for the CFL but normally in years(5 is the average) so you'll need to convert.

Take your 60w and multiply that by the cost/watt. Then do the same for the 23w.

Of course you'll need to also take into account how long the two bulbs last how much each one will cost to purchase.

With that in mind multiply that by the number of 60w bulbs in your home and you'll quickly see why the first think most everyone here says is to conserve.

It is indeed easier to run the SAMS or Wally World buy a pack of 23w CFL packs for oh $15.00/8? and save than it is to plan , build, test an RE and hope it fulfills your needs.

Knowledge is power.

Bruce S

   

[maker of toys]

IMHO, there's a lot of 'not getting it' going on here.

RE enthusiasts 'get' conservation.  We often don't 'get' why people go into debt to buy a shiny gas-guzzler to pick up the kids when a 15-year-old, third-hand Corolla, the bus, or the kid's own legs will do the same thing much cheaper and more efficiently. but, in order to convert someone to your way of thinking, first you have to get them to LISTEN to you.  and "More, Cheaper" is as good a headline as any. (look how many people posted questions here about grid tie at the hieght of the recent petroleum panic. . .)

I think what Mountain Man is trying to say is that, if we wish to be missionary about RE, we need to start with a different tack than "change your lifestyle."  SUV drivers don't get 'change your lifestyle,' they 'get' 'more, cheaper.'  

We (the RE community) aren't immune to "more, cheaper--"  look how many times we refer to getting golf-cart batteries at walmart or CostCo or the boneyard.  

THIS IS THE WAY I 'GET' IT:

We can't help it if 'more, cheaper' colors our way of thinking.  It is quite literally in our genes! 'More, Cheaper' motivates a preditor to take down prey that can't run as fast as the herd. . . food more convienient and simpler than the herd patriarch.  'More, cheaper' appeals to the part of our brain that still lives on the savannah, armed only with our wits and maybe a stone knife; come to that, 'More, Cheaper'

motivated the first guy (gal?) who took up flaking flint. . . cutting meat with a knife allows you to process more, with less effort than tearing into it with hands and teeth. Lazyness is a survival trait that has served us well by keeping our ancestors from expending more energy than they could afford. The American Indian 'got' 'more, cheaper'- look how fast they dropped bows and arrows for firearms. . . Guns make hunting 'cheaper' in personal effort, giving 'more' time to do other things (like make war on the paleface). Agriculture is easier and more consistant than hunting and gathering. . . .People who don't operate on 'more, cheaper' don't need RE; they don't exist.

'More, Cheaper' brought us distributed electrical power, standards, interchangeable parts, (indeed, the very industrial revolution) telephones, personal computers, railroads, cars, and farm tractors. 'More, Cheaper' has enabled this forum and the projects we undertake;  Forcefield was formed on 'more, cheaper' because the founders  (paraphrasing) couldn't find a good, cheap source for magnets and wire. We use PMAs in place of auto alternators, because we get more power for less maintenence. More, Cheaper.

Pick a human activity (with the possible exception of reproduction) and 'More, Cheaper' is somewhere in the mix of motivations.  (sex comes from a different set of hardwired imperitives. . .)

granted, when it comes to adopting RE after living on the grid, lifestyle changes are often cheaper and easier than the 'more, cheaper' approach; and further, lifestyle changes are inevitable when you start looking at generating your own power. . . but still, 'more, cheaper' is operating. Windmills and solar are (long term) cheaper, easier and more dependable than fossil fuel gensets or pedalling an exercise bike. but conservation is still "more, cheaper"-- if I use less power in each activity, I can do more activities with less need for expensive generating capacity. 'More, cheaper,' indeed.

And for people who have lived without electricity and who are now putting in a RE system, 'more, cheaper' operates in a slightly different form;  flipping a switch to get light is more convienient and cheaper than fumbling for a match and lantern. . .

and for people who want to go off-grid as a political statement or a less intense way of life, doing so is still a form of 'more, cheaper' but in terms of personal values and personal angst over what we are costing our [planet, society, self, pick one or many]. . .   MORE, CHEAPER.

Until those that wish to explain RE to the thundering herd 'get' "more, cheaper" as a motivation, there will not be   more   demand, making the equipment   cheaper.

So, Sing it, Mountain Man!  Some of us 'Get it' the same way you do.

i'll get off my soap box. . .

-Dan

[David HK]

Thank God you posted your article under Rants and Opinions.

Life on this planet is but a short time for all of us and we have to make the best of it while we can. It seems perfectly right that some people should spend their time as forerunners in renewable energy technology that is mainly focussed at domestic level.

David Weaver

[ghurd]

I 'formerly' (before the PV shortage) made a 1/4 of a half of a 1/4 of a living, selling and installing PV systems.

I did the math... running a standard 7W, but solar powered, NIGHTLIGHT, here, would cost about $400 in parts. Wholesale!

Before labor!!!

Now figure in my gas, mileage, bills, stray parts, food...

Who would pay OVER $400 to run a single stupid nighlight?

People who it works out cheaper for.

I turn down people every single day. I can't sell what I can't get.

It is only cheaper for those forced to go off-grid.  

I just can not get the PVs to sell.

ie: It is cheaper to buy a PV system than run X feet of wire to a outbuilding.

My parents-in-law would save enough money to pay for 120V CFLs in 60 days.

They will NOT do it because it is too expensive.  The first layout of cash for 6 CFLs is too great each.  

WTF!!!

It's only a $1.50 each!!!

They are looking at only $12 total!  That is too much for them, and they are 'old hippies'.

Conservation is the best way to save 'money'.

That's what most people really want.

When it comes to their wallet...

They really don't want to 'Save the Planet'...

Just money.

It's all money.

G-

[wpowokal]

For me Re is a life style choice, I know it probally costs more, although if one takes continuity of supply into the equasion I wonder.

It is more about living a life style that enhances one's life, and this is not always dollar driven.

I for one do not go without any of the mod cons I need, I have 240V AC power 24/7, cost, well can I pay the morgage, is there food on the table.

Am I different than most locals yes(hopefully seen as excentric so they will leave me alone), but my priorities are in different areas, same dollar pool different allocation.  

Re should not be promoted as "FREE" energy but as renewable energy, there in lies the crux of the matter, IMHO.

allan down under

[dinges]

Hi,

The magic word here is 'conserve'. Not energy (in the first place), but MONEY!

Try calculating the Return on Investment (ROI), NPV (Net Present Value), etc. of these simple things. And you'll see that it makes sense, not because of touchy-feely 'good for the environment', but plain economic sense.

The explanation that Bruce just gave you says it all; economists call it TCO: Total COst of Ownership. When you buy a lamp, you not only look at the initial outlay (the price of that lamp), but the total costs of owning that lamp during its lifetime. This includes e.g. buying it, using it, maintaining it (not relevant here) and disposing of it. It's a standard term, even for non-economists. When I still worked for a fortune-500 company, nobody cared about purchase-price; it was TCO management (and thus, everybody else in the company) was interested in.

FYI: I'm bus. economist and mechanical engineer (last only recently). I've never had much good words for the environmentalists; IMHO, they do the cause (conservation) more harm than good, with their CO2 reduction babble, etc. Explain in terms people know & care about (money) whether something makes sense. Money talks.

And I must admit: I make investments (like solar panels, building windgennies) that will never have a positive NPV; just because I like doing it (self-sufficiency). Consider it a hobby, but unlike other hobbies that only cost money, this one can even give you some return; build a solar batch hot water heater, and you will definately have positive NPV and quick returns (1/2 year?). How about that for a business opportunity? Try calculating its Internal Revenue Rate (IRR), and I'll bet you it's much more than you'll ever be offered by an investment company or your bank. I'm talking about interest rates > 100%... Plus, it's riskfree.

Like I said: it's plain common sense, you don't have to be an economist to see the merits of it.

Peter,

The Netherlands.

[BoneHead]

>>>don't shoot the messenger, I'm only reporting what I see here...

I've noticed an interesting sentiment here and I'm wondering if it is endemic to the people who get interested in RE, or if it is actually born from the practice of RE.

Conserve, conserve, conserve.  Seems to be a mantra around here.  I find it quite unexpected.  I find it quite naive.  I find it quite useless on this insane planet.<<<

Consider yourself shot, messenger.

Here's an idea:

Contract a terminal illness but don't die from it. Then go on social security for four years, but since you didn't die, you still have to pay all your bills off of the SS check. Since you're disabled from the disease you had, you'll be unable to boost your income no matter how hard you try short of robbing a bank and getting away with it. That will be unlikely though.

Then sit and watch as your electric bill and fuel cost climbs until you're paying it with grocery money which was kind of skimpy to begin with.

When you get to that point, then start recording for us how naive you are becoming by screaming conserve, conserve, conserve. Please report back at that time.

Please understand, this is not me "flaming" you for your opinion. It's just explaining that there are a lot of different "versions" of reality found on this board and this is one of those versions. In light of all that, I for one can appreciate this board, the guys who run it and those who frequent it right along with their views on conserving power. Even the rude ones. You wont find help like that anywhere else.

[dinges]

Oops, Ghurd... I read your post after posting mine; you by any chance economist too ? :-) Like I said, money talks.

Think we pretty much agree on the subject; and price of CFLs is ridiculously low (1E/pce; recently bought 3 for 3E (=2.5US$)). What's the price of an incandescent lamp? .5US$? How can cheap CFLs be too expensive?! Even considering they may not last 8000 hrs for which they're guaranteed; let it be only 1000hrs, like incandescents. You will still save money.

Old hippies eh? Actions speak louder than words. Perhaps if they cared more for money, they'd use CFLs ;-)

Peter,

The Netherlands.

[BoneHead]

Wait! I forgot to list why I posted in the first place...lol.

I CAN'T go total RE. I have been saving pennies for over a year for a wind turbine and am just not there yet. I was however, able to knock $50 of the electric bill this month by turning the hot water heater off for 21 hours a day, hooking the television to a kill switch and relacing all the lights with screw in florescents.

I'm pretty proud of my conservation.

[MelTx]

 

  I have slashed my energy bill by 2/3 since getting involved in website.

 Thank You to everyone who contributed to this.Conservation is right now--it was right 500 years ago--- it will be right in the future.....

           Most people have to be made to do the right thing,others do it because they want to.Websites like this set a good example,it cant hurt.

[dinges]

The fortune-500 company I worked for makes lightbulbs ('a big factory in the south of the Netherlands ;-) )

Know what the most expensive component of an incandescent bulb is?

I laughed when I heard it: the box it's packed in (hope I'm not giving away internal business information here :-).

Peter,

The Netherlands.

[MountainMan]

Thanks Dan...I couldn't have said it better myself...and probably didn't.

jp

[MountainMan]

Ok, opinions aside.  I've heard lots of people who are convinced that CFL is a wonderful way to reduce one's power consumption.  Low entry fee, long lasting bulbs, yadda yadda yadda.

I'm going to overlook the fact that nobody who responded to my second post has compared the cost of CFL upgrade, saving maybe 500 watt-hours per day in a typical home...to the cost of an equivalent amount of additional RE (inverter and batteries and some solar or wind already existing at the site), say the addition of one small wind mill that will crank out 500 watt-hours per day.  Maybe 300 bucks for a small homemade wind mill that can more than meet this need in many areas of the world.  Let's say it lasts for 15 years, thats 20 bucks a year for this energy.  Ok, I'm gonna just give you that one, even though I'm not altogether convinced.

Now, what I was wondering with that second post was how the steeper cost of say a more efficient refrigerator or washing machine or the electric part of a more efficient HVAC system would compare to the cost of ADDING some additional solar panels or small wind mills, or for those lucky few with the option, some additional water wheels or whathaveyou.

I don't have the required data to make the calculations, but if anyone has actually looked into it, I would be interested to see if other avenues of electricity conservation in an RE supplied home are financially sound, when compared to adding some RE generation to an existing system.

Anybody?

jp

P.S.  The vast majority of you have been very civil to me w.r.t. my opinions on energy conservation and how best to evangelize RE on this particular planet.  I take that as a sign that you are (in the main) intelligent and misinformed rather than stupid.    Thanks for making the thread interesting.  To those few who went the other direction...have a nice day.

[dinges]

Hmm,

I expected more from someone who regularly visits fieldlines.com

Can you compare the 2 scenarios:

1. purchasing CFLs
   
2. installing a windmill
   
   

to eachother?

Answer=no.

To generate the energy for lighting you need much more than just a windmill or a solarpanel. If you just install the windmill, you'll have light when the wind blows. Just the solarpanel means light when the sun shines.

Apples & oranges.

You need much more equipment to be able to get energy when you need it; not when it's available. This changes the equation much in favour of conservation. So don't overlook the fact that nobody mentioned it; it's obvious.

I don't feel like making the calculations, but ask yourself: which do I see more often:

1. families not changing their energy-use pattern, but installing all the windmills, PV panels, batteries, chargers, inverters, etc. to provide the energy they used when still on grid.
   
2. families first starting conserving (not: living the hard life), then deciding on how much energy they really need, & install the capacity to provide that energy.
   
   

You'll see that choice nr.2 is the usual one; why? Because RE is damn expensive! That, plus the fact that saving energy (turning a light of when not used, e.g.) is much easier than going out & buying & installing lots of expensive goodies.

This is so obvious it hasn't been mentioned yet (in this thread).

BTW, I long for the day when RE is as cheap or cheaper & plentiful as the grid; don't see it happen soon, though. When energy is plentiful & cheap, who cares about conservation? It's the way now, with nuclear/gas/coal powered plants, and will be the case if RE is cheap & plentiful. Since it isn't, and means are limited, conservation makes sense.

Off-topic: in the near future, I see a lot more of it (conservation) happening. When energy prices will rise sharply (more than now), it just makes sense. Like I said, it's all about the money (dum dum dum)...

Peter,

The Netherlands.

[maker of toys]

other methods of conservation, calculated with an assumed value for labor to implement.  (opportunity cost= the highest value alternative to the action you are contemplating: ie dinner-and-a-movie with your sweetie rather than working on the car to save $100/hr at the mechanic)

Turn off the television and talk with loved ones:  2-500 watts, plus uncalculable value of 'quality time.'  labor cost: negative. Payoff:  Immediate.  side benefit: cancelling the cable subscription can net $50 or more per month, plus about 50w 24x7 for the cable box/es;  total savings: varies but close to $70/month after taxes in my case.

kill the parasitic loads (wall warts): net cost:  $1.99 for a cheap power strip, and about 2 seconds a day.  (I cost my employer about $1/ a minute-- 2 seconds works out to about $0.03/day.)  My parasitic loads run to about 75w, x the 14 hours I'm not home x $0.12/kWh = $0.125/day -$0.03/day labor = just under a dime a day.  it takes me about a month (counting credit card interest and the gas to run my bike to go get the power strip) to start making a profit on my investment. overlooked/intangable side benefits: reduced fire hazard, reduced chance of equipment damage from power surges in the unreliable grid where I live (I get about 98% up-time) reduced chance of a pet electrocuting itself munching on wires, and a warm fuzzy feeling from using that much less of our limited resources. Phantom loads are the only place I talk about saving money with straight conservation when i'm evangelizing.

turn off the light/s when leaving the room:  varies by room and lighting type; no significant labor. other factors: wear and tear on the light sources.  savings can be $10 or more per month with no capital outlay;  I have 2 years on my CFLs with this treatment and thus far no replacement cost.  This option really pays off when you're dealing with 'heaters that light up' (incandescent lamps).

CFL replacement: here's the line I used to sell CFLs when they were $20 each: "you're going to break even on the cost of bulbs; the power savings are a bonus, but the REAL money is in not having to screw with your light fixtures every couple of months. Put the CFLs in fixtures that are hard to get to- what value do you place on not having to balance on a creaky ladder over a staircase every 3 months?"  Senior citizens and buzy executives ate that sales pitch up . . .  And now CFLs are dirt cheap and even more reliable.  this one's a no-brainer. . .  if I avoid 2 10 minute bulb-change evolutions, i've already paid off that $20 CFL, simply on avoided costs, and as a bonus, I haven't killed myself tripping over the cat/dog/toy/kid in a dark stairwell. Now that CFLs are $5 and really DO make 12kHrs+ MTBF, people who don't own at least a couple are nuts. (IMHO)

change from tower PC with CRT screen to a laptop computer with cellular broadband:  50w versus 550+w. Power only payoff time, figuring $1000 differential in acquisition cost:  fuggedaboudit.  Intangible side benefits: I never lose any data to the vagaries of the grid, and I could put my down time between classes (when I was in school) to good use, saving me that much free time. (that is about $1200/month at my  current rate, about 1/3 that at my 'school' rate.) So, counting my 'free' time as valuable, I paid off my laptop pretty fast.  Plus, now I can go slouch under a tree and read about windmills, or check my email from an offramp while I wait (with engine OFF) for the phonebooth crowd (SUVs as seen by a motorcyclist) to finish gawking at the accident and cutting each other off. Plus, of course, that aformentioned warm fuzzy feeling.

ride a motorcycle instead of drive my truck: I save about $100 a month, taking into account the higher cost per mile for motorcycle tires and oil. Which about makes the bike payment. . . . the smiles and thrills are no extra charge. <G> Plus I can split lanes (legal in california only) and save oodles of time in my commute, which is where the real money is. Plus, of course, that warm fuzzy feeling I keep talking about. . .

so, let's examine those 'energy saving' washers from a TCO standpoint:  they use less water, less operating power, less soap, and cause less wear on your clothes. they also tend to hold more, saving labor on laundry day.  Figuring an extra month of use  per pair of blue jeans (at $40/a pair every 4 months)  works out to $10/pair or about $30 a month for jeans alone.  Shirts and other laundry ahve similar savings.   Plus, the new washers do a better job of water extraction, leaving less for the drier to deal with  (save ~10 min a load at 4.5 kW-- that's $0.09 a load right there! (I wash 3 loads a week (my big energy sink!)  Figure the washer will last 15 years, so just on drier savings I'm saving a dollar a month or close to $200 over the life of the washer. . .  and power costs will go UP, so I'm not discounting for the future value of today's cash.)  When you figure the incremental cost of the efficient washer, the power savings, the clothes savings, and the rebate from the power company (here in Cali, at least) you break even.  which leaves you with the intangables of less time spent buying clothes and that warm, fuzzy feeling.

so, in keeping with my previous post, conservation (when looked at from a total cost perspective) is another case of 'more, cheaper'

But don't try to explain that to the proud owner of an H2. . . <G>

-Dan

[Shadow]

As others have stated, it comes down to money.In our case were not out to save the world,but rather invest our money in something thats going to benefit ourselves.We bought an acreage (33 acres) less than 2 miles from a city of about 18,000.To get power from the power company they wanted $14,000 to bring 8 poles along a road allowance to the edge of our land. We would still need to bring it to the house etc ourselves.Now... I am cheap, was raised cheap, (My Dad used to make us take our glasses off if we werent looking at anything!)So I figured if I gave them 14,000 now, then $200.00 a month, or 2400.00 a year for 10 years. That would add up to $38,000 over 10 years to the power company!I think I can have a pretty nice power system for $38,000! And.. If I ever sell or move and the next guy dosent want it, I can take it all with me.In the process the kids will learn to conserve as well as learn about electricity. Everyone talks about how expensive RE is. To me its getting cheaper all the time. A year ago we were looking at xantrex 5000 watt inverters they were almost $5000.00 now they are $1800.00.  We were looking at buying a Whisper wind turbine for $5000.00, instead.. built one for $500.00.Alot of the RE stuff has been coming down in price as the market gets more competitive.I think we'll be smiling in a few years when power rates double or triple and were living quite comfortable on our power supply.I think RE systems can be built fairly inexpensive if you can build some of it yourself and shop around for deals. Just today I read you can look after a kid in Africa for as little as $12.00 a month, I'm looking into sending two over there.

[ghurd]

The box? Thats funny!

Standard price for brand name regular bulbs seems about US$2 for 4.

Often the huge discount lumber type stores have them for free after rebates.

(Like a 12 pack is $5, on sale for $3, then a $3 mail in rebate = $0)

I make quite a bit of LED stuff.

Convert a US$0.50 light to use US$2 worth of good LEDs.

A nice box is $1, printing nice labels is $1, $3 'master pack' box to hold 12 units.

The most expensive part is the packaging at $2.25 / unit for me too.

And that's when using high quality LEDs!

(I have LEDs made to my specs, and import them myself, so maybe thats not a fair comparison)

I'm 100% self employed, I have to be an economist!

G-

[windstuffnow]

   I think everyone tends to see RE in different ways, personally I see it as freedom, a way to save hard earned money that could be put to use elsewhere.  I was forking out 140.00 per month in electric use here on the farm... I started by monitoring my use, doing small things that would reduce that bill... without doing without !  I have just over 4000. into my system including solar panels.   I still do the same stuff I've always done yet I only pay out 33.00 month in utilities.   Over the years ( saving 1200+ per year) my system has paid for itself.   I can say the money I'm saving now is profit.   Usually that extra money goes back into fun projects that will benifit myself and/or others so the money I save benifits everyone !

.

[thunderhead]

I have to correct a problem of perspective you appear to be suffering.

Sure, on a sane planet, reduce-reuse-recycle would work.  On this one, it just goes right down the toilet along with Jimmy Carter's fireside chats and the metric system.

Most of the planet uses the metric system.  There is one of the developed countries daft enough to still use feet and inches, furlongs and bushels - but people from that country sometimes forget that they are a small country on a large planet.

You might look beyond your borders and see what the rest of the world is doing.  For a few decades a dozen countries have had their outrageous energy requirements met with petrochemicals - but the petrochemicals are running out, and when the Oil Age is over, those countries will have to go back to a life like everyone else.

At that point, one of the people here is likely to be your local expert - the person who can turn your lights back on.  I hope, by then, you'll have learned to be polite.

[jmk]

 If you live in California, Than how is Hoover Dam treating you? I live in Michigan and wind farms and huge mills are poping up acrossed the state! They just put up a couple years ago three wind turbines at the tip of the lower peninsula. They stand 280' to the center of a 160' rotor. Thats a total of 360' of hieght! It,s an owsom sight.

 I also want to ad, I live in a state where we have a bottle return. 10 cents on every carbinated drink. Great for recycling glass and aluminum. We realy don't notice the money being saved, but what I have realy noticed is the state is alot cleaner! Just one final note for you. Allmost everyone where you live sucking up all that power with the big tv's and what not are useing it from Hydro. Dam! lol!

[Bruce S]

MTman;

   I have a different proposal. Instead of US proving to you that conserving is the easiest/cheapest way to go.

How about proving to US it isn't.

There are many posts on here where people have given the amounts of tangible cash , not including what our labor would cost, but REAL m.o.n.e.y. So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how much a windmill cost, plus all the other stuff that is needed such as a way to control the incoming charge and then store it for later use.

Then figure out how much it would cost the save that same amount of let's say 300 watts/hour and get back to us.

Balls in your court now--- prove US wrong.

Dan--

With great respect I have to disagree with the more cheaper route.

Your dissertation is very well put and makes for several very thought provoking points.

However, I wouldn't really want to put RE in the more cheaper area of life/living.

My reasons:

1. )People on this forum, you included, seem to have a built in gene for wanting to build quality equipment. Something that will withstand years of use with as little maintenance as possible.
   
2. )If the RE field gets too cheap, we'll be right back to the problem of "global warming." Everyone will be making their own power, and the extra heat for all those high-power microwaves, swimming pool heaters, and such will cause a whole new set of problems.
   
   

So while your theory is sound, I'm for one hoping, it doesn't follow through.

I'm for clearing out the dumps by making use of all those old washing machines and making nice little windmills out of them, then sticking a pipe into the ground and using the methane for powering some steam turbines.

Thoughts?

Proof?

Bruce S

[MountainMan]

A few parting thoughts:

1. I've learned that some people consider it rude to have and state an opposing viewpoint.  I can't quite fathom how anyone could take anything in my original post as "rude", but some have stated as much and others merely suggested it with their tone.  I don't think I need any proof beyond that that this is indeed an insane planet.
   
2. I seem to come off as a troll when I'm trying to incite some reasoned debate.  I seem to be much better at bringing out people's guns and ammunition than their reasoned responses.  I'm going to go back to technical issues and leave the RE evangelism to others who may enjoy it more than me.
   
3. I've learned that some people will go on and on arguing with something they think you said rather than take the time to read what  you wrote and argue with that.
   
4. I noticed that nobody took the time to comment on the cost of expensive low energy appliances vs. an additional windmill added to an existing RE setup.
   
5. Some of you guys are alright.  I'd like to buy you a beer sometime.  Even some of you who disagree with me.
   
   

later,

jp

P.S. congratulations to the rest of the world for using the metric system.  I mentioned it only as another example of a good idea for a sane planet that quite horribly failed (for marketing reasons) in one small part of this planet.

[maker of toys]

ok, I'll take that "quality gene" and run with it. <g> (thanks for the complement, by the way.)

we may be using different connotations of 'cheaper' . . .

I think quality is still a question of 'more, cheaper', but in a reasoned sense-  you alluded to it yourself:  If I build something that will last a long time with little maintenence, I get more (life, reliability, power) for less (worry, maintenence, materials, pick as many as you like) Maybe building things right is expensive in the short term, but I can see that the TCO (to use someone else's pet phrase) is lower over, say 10 years.  

So I guess i don't see a conflict.  Explaining that to the gal in the suburban waiting in the gas line at costco might be difficult, though.

The question of global warming due to RE strikes me as a red herring issue-  all the energy we seek to harvest with RE, be it ground-based-solar, wind, or landfill gas, is already here, courtesy of the sun.  RE just detours the energy a bit and puts it to work replaceing energy that is either sequestered from long ago (petroleum, geothermal) or the remainants of old cataclysms (nuclear fission depends on elements formed in supernove)  

Fusion, when we finally do harness it, will also be a contributor to global warming, but (as I think several people touched on in another discussion) the actual energy use of mankind is pretty small compared to the total solar influx.  What's warming things up (if you accept human activity as the primary driver of climate change)  is the release of fossil carbon, methane and gasses that are definitely anthropogenic  (refrigerants, solvents, etc) which act to trap more of the incident solar radiation in the biosphere.   RE emits very little of those sorts of gasses, and when it does use carbon, it's only detouring carbon that's part of the biosphere already, not adding any.

That said, thereby disposing of the 'more' objection, and moving on to your 'cheaper' plaint: (which has considerable validity!)

I'm definitely in the 'reuse' camp myself . . . (more, cheaper!) If I can get something that will save me time for practically nothing. . . QED.  Plus, something that already exists in near-net-shape or even mostly-refined condition nets you more raw materials for less energy and effort. (and therefore $mon.ey)

And I concur with your observation that there is the danger of 'more cheaper' leading to the bad connotation of cheaper.  In fact, we already have some of that-  look at some of the web-vendors that are commonly held to be dodgy by members of this forum.  

The really bad ones will die out as their reputation spreads-  you'll note that the Yugo line of cars had a short run here in the home of 'cheaper!' Besides:  if someone builds a REALLY cheap line of windmills that tend to shed blades, well, the tort lawyers will have a feeding frenzy and the problem will be self-limiting.  (Huh, never thought I'd find a good use for live tort lawyers . . .)  

Even so, I think you're right to be wary of 'cheaper' in regard to manufactuered goods;  but I feel 'cheaper' will exert downward pressure on the price of 'quality' and benefit us all. . . . look what has happened to the price and performance of computers, appliances and cars since Asia got into manufacturing after the second world war. . . . a 2005 toyota is every bit as good as a 1985 mercedes was.

So, Be wary, I agree. But don't worry overmuch.  Instead, luxuriate in your pioneer status. I know I do.

-dan

(BTW: burning landfill gas in a gas turbine nets higher output (kWh(elec)/MJ(chem)) for less installed cost and maintenence than steam. . . . in case you care.  I happen to LIKE steam, myself, but 'More, cheaper' is killing steam plants.)

(Also BTW: water vapor is a greenhouse gas. . . . <g>)

[Bruce S]

MtMan;

   Hope your not leaving this as is.

This is quite the very debate you are talking about.

I firmly believe that no one here would get out a gun just because you put out a different view.

My previous post was just that, a debate from another point.

Here is the US and most EU countries I've visited/lived in are that the burden of proof is on the inciter.

Which is way I merely suggested to try proving your side of the view.

I hardly ever take thinks personally, why too many others happy things to be doing.

So please do keep the debate going, what other way can any of us learn if not by seeing/reading another's point of view.

If others are rude well.....I've been that way too; but we go on and get over it.

on your point number 4 instead of waiting for some one to answer that part, as there are those on here who are on timed dial-up and may chime in soon, but do the research and inform us.

However to help on this one point.

I have a large freezer. One big enough to store a 1/2 side of beef, which I took off grid 2 years ago.

It runs very nicely cost me $200.00. The 200VA UPS MinuteMan 200pro (MSW) cost me nothing, but new they used to be $95.00. The reason for picking this unit is that if the battery were to die and the grid power is still off, I can replace the battery with another and turn it on and it'll work. The more expensive APC wouldn't due this so I went this one. The other added plus is that I was able to drill 2 small holes in the side and using standard off the Radio-Shack shelf DC connections cost $.50 for one set of red & black, this allows me to add/remove batteries without shutting the unit off for battery maintenance. I recharge the batteries two ways, solar and car driving via the 12vDc plug. The freezer runs 24/7

So 2 years ago you could say I invested $295.50.

For that investment I have frozen food and also use it to separate water from my Alky when the first runs is finished 2 1/2 gals per container.

Pay back time don't know, I can look at the ratings ( did 2 years ago when calculating for the UPS haven't looked since) and divide that by $/KwH and let you know.

Could be interesting to find out. That versus the windmill I can't put up due to City rules show's me way ahead by not letting the batteries go to a land fill or the UPS to the trash because of the bad internal battery.

My points in my previous post was to see if you were up to the challenge of proving us wrong.

An insane planet? ooh probably but getting better with forums like this one.

Metric, no big deal to me I go back and forth daily, makes life less dull.

There's good and bad for both sides of that coin.

Point 5, if you're ever in St.Louis, stop on by and we can go to the nearest Microbrewery and toss a few back. Or enjoy the 200P and it's wonderful warming effect even when coming out of a 0 degree freezer.

Debates are good,

Knowledge is Power.

Bruce S