In the wind (Socorro, Taos: subsidized, disposal, price)

[ziaAirmac]

Just received an insert in this month's PNM bill that included (among other things) a section entitled: Make your own electricity - and get paid for it! (PNM's bullet.). Went online and found this link:

Net Metering and Interconnection | PNM

Incidentally, it does state that what you sell back is a credit toward future service. You'll never get a check cut from PNM for your additional contribution.

[Vinegaroon]

Originally Posted by catman

I agree that Al Gore is something of a hypocrite, but the idea he is promoting is a good one, if unlikely to come to pass in only ten years. Perhaps he's just giving us something to shoot for, and trying to keep us from putting off whatever we can do toward it.

What did you not understand about the "terms of service" warning?

[jazzlover]

I find the idea of every ridgeline covered with wind-driven generators repugnant, as I do the idea of the southwestern deserts being covered with photovoltaic cells--not when some significant steps toward energy conservation and efficiency could obviate the need for a lot of energy production. The reason we Americans are in the energy mess we are in is because we are so wasteful of our (formerly) plentiful resources, and we continue to think of that waste as our God-given right. It seemingly occurs to almost no one that what we are doing is stealing the future from those that will follow us.

Personally, I'm sick of seeing this region continually denigrated--whether by energy development, "alternative" energy production, water diversions, and a whole lot of other nonsense--so a bunch of fat-*** people can continue to live in their 5,000 sq. ft.+ mechanically air-conditioned McMansions. Quality of life is more than just seeing how much we can consume as quickly as possible. And while wind farms and solar collectors are better than many alternatives, we should be asking ourselves why we just have to have to so much energy. We have collectively been living beyond our financial and natural resources for a long time now--any society that does that as a matter of practice for very long is doomed to eventual failure and extinction.

I have quoted this numerous times on City-data, but it bears repeating. Funny, how a guy over a century ago understood the threat clearly, but we can't seem to:

"We of an older generation can get along with what we have, though with growing hardship; but in your full manhood and womanhood you will want what nature once so bountifully supplied and man so thoughtlessly destroyed; and because of that want you will reproach us, not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted...So any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life."
"Arbor Day - A Message to the School-Children of the United States" April 15, 1907 - Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States 1901-1909 (Republican)

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I find the idea of every ridgeline covered with wind-driven generators repugnant, as I do the idea of the southwestern deserts being covered with photovoltaic cells--not when some significant steps toward energy conservation and efficiency could obviate the need for a lot of energy production.

You are just so wrong!

Conservation and efficiency will never obviate the need for increasing energy production, not as long as the population is increasing. Our energy problems would be no worse than they were in 1950 if we had the population of 1950.

The problem is that the US's population is currently increasing without limit, and it is the huge population increases that are causing such a heavy demand on energy production that we have high fuel prices, electrical brownouts, and also other problems such as scarcity of water.

The only way we can solve the problems is to either increase energy production or hold population growth in check. I admit that increased efficiency and conservation would aid this effort.

And also, on your objections to the appearance of wind and solar installations, I disagree although that is of course a personal preference. I live in L.A. and used to work in Palm Springs, commuting each week and staying there in a hotel during the week. One of the highlights of my commute was passing the windmill farm and admiring the idea of all those sweeping fans, all that clean, renewable energy being produced. Just the thought that there was energy without pollution and without supporting the petroleum terrorists was a beautiful sight to me. I felt the same way driving past a solar installation in the Mojave Desert, admiring the pollution free energy plant.

We don't need to cover the entire desert with solar plants and cover every hill with windmills. Just some of them. And if you don't want more we should look to limiting population growth, because if population growth is not checked we will continue to need to build more dams, more solar plants, more windmills, and we'll need to import more oil than the world will give us and we'll still end up without enough energy.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

The problem is that the US's population is currently increasing without limit, and it is the huge population increases that are causing such a heavy demand on energy production that we have high fuel prices, electrical brownouts, and also other problems such as scarcity of water. . . .

The only way we can solve the problems is to either increase energy production or hold population growth in check. I admit that increased efficiency and conservation would aid this effort . . .


And if you don't want more we should look to limiting population growth, because if population growth is not checked we will continue to need to build more dams, more solar plants, more windmills, and we'll need to import more oil than the world will give us and we'll still end up without enough energy.

My point exactly.

"It is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption and harmful human practices."
--U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society of London, joint statement

"Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth."
--World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, signed by 1600 senior scientists from 70 countries, including 102 Nobel Prize laureates

"Which is the greater danger - nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to DO something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values-there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally - and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing."
--Dr. Isaac Asimov, biochemist and science writer (in this 1966 interview he predicted that world population would reach 6 billion around 2000. Most leaders dismissed his prediction as outrageous. Population passed 6 billion in 1999.)

[Idunn]

I did read somewhere recently (although can't recall where) of a new technology that theoretically would increase the efficiency of solar cells by a factor of 10.

This, however, may be of some interest:
Solar cells | Guiding light | Economist.com

There seem to be a variety of new technologies in solar panels close to fruition. The limitation in cost and availability of high grade silicone may be superseded by other materials. For those considering the purchase of solar panels in the near future, some careful research might be in order as something significantly cheaper and more efficient may make that bought today in comparison antiquated.

[Idunn]

I don't mind the idea of giant windmill farms in west Texas, but that's because I don't live there. Maybe there are such places that can in a sense be sacrificed to insure sustainable and clean energy. But I sure don't want one of those things in my backyard . . . or on the horizon.

A small windmill on my house, although surely less efficient than a giant commercial unit, to my eyes beautiful in capturing what wind there might be and helping just that bit. Of course if part of that equation a 5,000 foot plus indifferently constructed McMansion, then my green footprint probably pretty small. I've noticed that some very comfortable and beautiful houses are also very energy efficient, with modest construction costs. In some of these scenarios the land was one of the most significant costs.

Then again all of this academic if the human population does not stabilize at a sustainable level. Currently it is well beyond it and headed towards catastrophe. For the present global population and certain relevant facts, see:
Optimum Population Trust

Note that at current levels, where the majority of the world's population is poor, the world is already over populated. By their reckoning, if everyone relatively well off, then a sustainable human population about 2.7 billion.

Those interested in such statistics might also find the 'World Clock' interesting:
World Clock

Not to put too fine a line on it, but it could be that for all mankind's achievements and grandiose plans that in the end nature will have her way, and we will either adjust gracefully . . . or be adjusted.

[GregW]

For what it is worth - nature always gets her way. If the population dynamics that apply to any "natural" population (that is - breed until the numbers exceed the carrying capacity of the environment then experience a die off sever enough to lower the population to around one half or less of the capacity) apply to humans at any given technology then we can expect a major readjustment of the world’s population.
One of the questions that will need to be answered is which populations will survive the Grim Reaper. Will it be the high tech populations with abundant energy resources or the populations’ one harvest from famine, pestilence and plague? How many will survive is another question and where and how will they be living? Just assuming that a high tech civilization populated with Homo Walmartus will come out of the apocalypse intact is not a good idea. Many people that are used to living on nearly nothing are likely to survive a world that can produce nearly nothing.
As a society and a civilization we are going to have a lot of things to do and a lot of things to get right if we expect to have a functioning society at the end of the 21st century. We should start now.
We could have an abundant energy future if we invest in nuclear electricity with complete fuel recycle and all the alternates. We could “save” the oil used to power railroad shipping by spending the money to electrify the railroads and run them off nuclear power. There are lots of alternates to be considered and we should stop wasting our time, money, material and men trying to secure distant oil and use those resources to provide our own energy in our own land.
Enough of this in the New Mexico forum. I have written much more in the Politics forum.

[Idunn]

I considered a different forum, but wished to specifically ask what is being done within New Mexico, as it is in some respects so innovative and farsighted.

As far as nuclear goes, yes it appears a good alternative until one considers the possible dire consequences. To begin with, every day of its use creates an extremely toxic byproduct for which there remains no good disposal alternatives. For all the dire harm the use of something like coal causes (witness global warming), Beijing, China will be example that its immediate effects dissipate relatively quickly when the plug is pulled. Los Angeles, CA is another example of how air pollution can successfully be moderated; if not perfect now, better than in the 70's. But aside from storing toxic fuel byproducts from nuclear energy, if and when there are accidents the consequences last for ages. It might surprise some to know that if not carefully monitored and maintained that nuclear power plants that generate electricity would melt down like Chernobyl, Russia within a matter of days due lack of electricity to maintain systems.

But my interest is what the creative people of New Mexico are doing.

[katcvg]

Glad to hear some citizens are taking positive action, we are developing a hybrid Wind, Solar domestic electrical system that can also tie to the grid.
We are developing a lease program which should make it affordable for most people.