Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what the globalists are planning is to ban natural gas and force everyone to use electric and with the smart grid technology they can control how much or little we get and naturally will charge 10 times the price. It's all part of "sustainable development" a/k/a Agenda 21.
That's why either learning to live without electricity or setting up solar/wind generation is such a good idea. While your comments might seem extreme to some, they are not to me. The local power company around here already charges as much as they can get away with. Same goes for the natural gas company. It doesn't seem so far-fetched, IMO, to see such monopolies charging even more. It's not like it has never happened in the past with various commodities. They are going to charge whatever they think they can get away with.
And with a more authoritarian model being put into place (and accepted with nary a whimper), big business and government will become bolder with their rates/taxes. It’s not a matter of charging a fair price; it’s a matter of maximizing corporate profit for shareholders (or taxes to fund laziness). I wouldn’t count on the government for much of anything, either… the government is simply an overly aggressive, monopolistic corporation with unrestrained power over their “customers.” At least the power company cannot tell me how to run my life--I can give them the finger if I want. Can't do that with government intrusion.
Solar and wind work for small scale limited usage power generation, but don't produce enough for normal energy needs of a country. Solar cells are notoriously inefficent, (usually less than 20%) and the battery storage for the electricity, and the back up generator are still expensive and require replacement.
Plus, batteries are not "green". They require lead, copper, arsinides, cyanides, nickle, and other heavy metals that can't be recycled.
The batteries usually are rated for a 5 year life and must be replaced when they don't store energy anymore.
Boron Germanium photovoltaic cells are the most efficent, but are super toxic.
Most of the current cells are made from silicon, but is still such a dirty process that most are made in China or other places with relaxed environmental standards.
For an individual home or camper, solar or wind are expensive to set up if you want to have full usage as you do in an average home, but can be feasible if the energy usage is seriously controlled for a limited usage single residence.
For those going off grid, it can work by using different heating sources for instance, using more root cellar and dehydrating/canning for food preservation instead of refrigeration, and even heating water.
My cabin has a generator, but that is for the tools. Kerosene lamps provide light, a wood range for cooking and it has a reservoir to heat water for dishes ect., a wood heating stove for warmth, a solar shower takes care of that problem.
I can make fuel to run the generator, but at the location I will be putting in a water wheel because that is the most efficent means of producing the energy if I decide to put in lights.
Natural gas can be produced easily and cheaply, filtered to remove the H2SO4, and you have natural gas.
The big problem with natural gas is keeping it below 3psi when you try to store it.
Currently there are large anaerobic digester projects at hog farms and dairy farms using the gas from the manure lagoons to produce significant amounts of electricity.
Even some Septic Treatment plants in some towns are producing electricity from Methane. U.S. Anaerobic Digester Status: A 2011 Snapshot
Bio-gas, and Bio-diesel in combination with existing coal reserves look to be the best for long term energy needs, and as anybody with a septic tank can make bio-gas, oil companies have no control on it.
As for me, if the power goes out, no big deal. I am already set up so that with the exception of my computer and TV, I would hardly notice if it wasn't there
My point is that here in the United States we have not tried. Cover the country in solar panels and let's see what kind of savings we produce. State of Florida, for example offered a large rebate on any installed solar system (residential, I think) and combined with federal tax credits, it made perfect sense. Every state should do the same and even more. A home of 1600-2000 sqft can be run perfectly fine off a solar system and I think a lot of people would jump on that wagon if it was subsidized. I know in Florida they had a set amount of money set aside for the state subsidy and it ran out pretty fast. Goes on to show you that if you create the right climate - people will conserve and go "green".
We can talk all day about the batteries and how "green" they are - the point is it all goes hand in hand - if there is no investment in solar research - you will be stuck with old technology.
They are targeted to produce about 25% of their electricity from solar by 2050. What are we targeting here? Drilling in Alaska and filling BP's coffers? This whole mantra of how solar is inefficient is getting old and is getting in the way of meaningful research into even better ways to harvest Sun's energy - especially since it is free and abundant.
As for methane usage for electricity - great, these folks have the right mindset.
This is a self-sufficiency thing - people who are not in control of their food or energy supply are not in control of their destiny. I would much rather produce my own electricity from solar than be dependent on destroying someone else's backyard by way of fracking, drilling or what not. Same goes for food... It should be that every small municipality should be able to grow enough food to produce a sizable portion of its citizens' dietary needs. As it is right now, it is kinda like USSR....
My point is that here in the United States we have not tried. Cover the country in solar panels and let's see what kind of savings we produce. State of Florida, for example offered a large rebate on any installed solar system (residential, I think) and combined with federal tax credits, it made perfect sense. Every state should do the same and even more. A home of 1600-2000 sqft can be run perfectly fine off a solar system and I think a lot of people would jump on that wagon if it was subsidized. I know in Florida they had a set amount of money set aside for the state subsidy and it ran out pretty fast. Goes on to show you that if you create the right climate - people will conserve and go "green".
This is a self-sufficiency thing - people who are not in control of their food or energy supply are not in control of their destiny. I would much rather produce my own electricity from solar than be dependent on destroying someone else's backyard by way of fracking, drilling or what not. Same goes for food... It should be that every small municipality should be able to grow enough food to produce a sizable portion of its citizens' dietary needs. As it is right now, it is kinda like USSR....
OD
I have no problem with those who wish to use solar, go for it. If they want to shoulder the expense and put in their own system and maintain it or hire it done, fine by me.
My question is, if this IS a self sufficency kind of thing to get away from government and corporate control, why would you demand the government (and by extension the taxpayer) pay for it?
Government subsidies always seem to have some strings attached, and if a person wants to be self sufficent, why rely on the public trough to pay for what you want?
I have worked in alternative energys since 1981. Much of it is pure balderdash set up to satisfy a certain element politically while being paid for through the nose by the taxpayer. (Solindra anyone?). It isn't competative in a large scale, not efficent, takes a lot of resources for those huge windfarms or solar panel farms, and the return in power is minimal for the cost.
As an example, currently it costs roughly 18 cents per KWH from wind for electricity while hydro is about 4 cents/KWH.
The only way windmill companies operate is by huge subsidies from the government as their product is much more expensive and not competative unless there is no choice.
Again, if you want to be self sufficent and produce your own power, great! For a single residence it can work fine.
Just do it for yourself. I don't want to pay for it.
I think we all end up subsidizing things we don't agree with by way of state and federal taxes. The gov't is going to pay for something and they certainly aren't going to extract less taxes, but I'm at least happier if they spend my money on things I agree with (like renewable energy systems) rather than things I don't (like a new fossil fuel power plant or more drilling). In many cases, the gov't isn't actually giving home and business owners any cash for installing renewables, they're just collecting less taxes from them (tax credits) and that's a method that I agree with in principle.
I agree that renewables for large scale (other than hydro) isn't particularly efficient; however, if every residence, business and municipal building were generating some or all of its own power through various RE methods, what and how much else would realistically be necessary for large scale "municipal power"? I.E. Who's going to be drinking from the public trough if they have a well of their own, and why are they drinking more than their well produces? It just requires a paradigm shift.
I agree with you in principal Missing, but my problem isn't that government is subsidizing alternative energy, but the fact they choose the most inefficent methods of power generation.
I guess that follows the usual government operation, but we have moved past the time when we can just throw money away on any idea no matter if it has merit or not.
I see it all the time that "it doesn't matter that solar cells are only 20% efficent or that wind power is only 17% efficent, it's FREE!!"
Problem is, it isn't free, it isn't clean, it isn't a solution for large energy consumption.
Money thrown at political instead of scientific solutions is just money wasted. I agree that if new buildings super insulation, utilizing passive heating/cooling systems, reducing energy needs through using LED lighting, recycling heat or water that everybody would benefit, but someone still has to foot the bill.
Usually government mandated regulation creating increased costs to a start up business have the same effect, the business doesn't open or it opens overseas where the costs are less, or it starts up with a smaller number of employees to pay for the increased costs.
If homes are mandated to have solar cells or wind turbines as part of their plan, you will have a lot of problems because the market will die due to increased costs of owning a home.
If someone WANTS to invest in alternatives, if someone WILLING PAYS OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET, if someone VOLUNTEERS to do the extra work to operate such a system, Good for them!
But the wasted money the government is throwing at politically correct solutions only retards research and growth of energy generation systems that WOULD actually supply power on a large scale and allow everyone to live as they want without brownouts or blackouts or prices so high only a privilaged few can afford it.
I have used solar power. It works, but on small scale. I have used wind power. It works, on small scale. Other forms of electrical generation work far better and at a lower cost without some of the hazerdous waste problems of the only 2 methods approved by the government for alternative energy. I have even designed new systems to increase the efficency of those power sources, but they are inherantly limited by a number of factors.
For instance, air density changes with elevation. A wind turbine is designed to work at sea level with an average windspeed of 16 MPH. Fine.
Take that same turbine and install it on the praries of Eastern Montana where the elevation is 4000 feet. The density of the air is diminished to less than 1/2 of sea level, so now you will need an average windspeed of 32 MPH to operate at the same efficency, or you have to have 2 wind turbines to produce the same amount of power.
Solar has similar problems, plus both of these methods are not "On Demand" power so if the need goes up, the supply stays the same = Brownout or in the case of Montana or Alaska in the winter, somebody freezes to death when there isn't enough power for their heating system.
Personally I don't have a problem with oil or natural gas or coal. They work, they supply the energy needs of a whole nation.
Not everybody lives in a place where having your own solar array or wind turbine are feasible and the vast majority of people today live in cities or apartments where they do not have that option so do we just leave them out in the cold or do we charge them 6x the price for the electricity they need for heat and lighting and cooking?
I would prefer if some of the money wasted on subsidies to solar and wind could be devoted to research that would replace fossil fuels, but instead we have what we have, a token amount of energy produced at a huge price from "green" sources, while we still rely on coal and oil and hydro and nuclear for our real power needs.
The thing I think about with this issue is not so much efficiency or cost (within reason). I think more about dependence vs independence. I don't really see all that much of a difference between the dependence we have on power companies and grids, and the dependence we have on grocery stores, JIT modeling, and corporate farms. Why is the latter unacceptable to most "preppers" and the former is either acceptable or largely ignored/overlooked?
Personally, if I were striving for having no change in lifestyle whilst having an independent lifestyle, I'd opt to pay more for an independent power supply, rather than the no doubt cheaper power from the power company--because the cheap power from the power company is a layer of dependency and collectivism. And that is not even considering "fracking," mining, milling, generating, drilling, etc. I don't care about any of that. I'm concerned more with eliminating a layer of dependency... even if it means a higher cost or more work on my part. It's not really so illogical to see it this way if you think of it more like you think when you are considering gardens, food preservation, etc. You may well be spending less money directly on those things, but you are certainly making up for it if you consider your time (as a wage potential). If you think of it that way, it's probably cheaper for you to clip coupons and rely on the grocery store, just as it's certainly cheaper for you to buy power from the electric company as opposed to generating your own. But is that really the point when we are discussing sufficient living? I'd doubt any of you garden, preserve food, etc, simply to save money. I'd have to think it's more about sufficiency. Then why is that mindset not applied to electricity (assuming you feel you require it)?
It's rather a moot point for me personally, because my goal is to largely not even have electricity other than for some small electronics that can be self-contained-solar-powered. And those items would be only non-essentials. So I'm just writing the above from more of a "thinking it through" angle. I'm having a bit of trouble resolving the double standard.
I have no problem with those who wish to use solar, go for it. If they want to shoulder the expense and put in their own system and maintain it or hire it done, fine by me.
My question is, if this IS a self sufficency kind of thing to get away from government and corporate control, why would you demand the government (and by extension the taxpayer) pay for it?
Government subsidies always seem to have some strings attached, and if a person wants to be self sufficent, why rely on the public trough to pay for what you want?
I have worked in alternative energys since 1981. Much of it is pure balderdash set up to satisfy a certain element politically while being paid for through the nose by the taxpayer. (Solindra anyone?). It isn't competative in a large scale, not efficent, takes a lot of resources for those huge windfarms or solar panel farms, and the return in power is minimal for the cost.
As an example, currently it costs roughly 18 cents per KWH from wind for electricity while hydro is about 4 cents/KWH.
The only way windmill companies operate is by huge subsidies from the government as their product is much more expensive and not competative unless there is no choice.
Again, if you want to be self sufficent and produce your own power, great! For a single residence it can work fine.
Just do it for yourself. I don't want to pay for it.
MT - let's not argue just for the sake of arguing. I think you and I actually agree on a bunch of stuff although it may seem like we do not.
However, I do think that a government FOR THE PEOPLE should enable the people to be as self-sufficient as possible. As paradoxical as it may sound, it should be the case if the government only had the interests of the people in mind.
Sadly our government is run only by interests with money. In that battle it is not about what is right for the people but what makes money for the interests (or what satisfies their religious or social agendas).
I think that I would rather my government subsidize you to get solar and lessen the burden on the planet than my government subsidize Shell and BP to drill in Alaska or the Gulf.
Same with food - I would rather see local, state and federal governments subsidize small farmers and small communities to be food self-sufficient that letting Tyson and Conagra and Monsanto own the food supply chain...
By the way, I am not voting democrat nor republican this election (not voting at all). So you know, my agenda is driven by self-sufficiency, saving what is left of the planet and the animal and plant life. As a corollary it would be nice to save the dignity of individual citizens by not having them be a part of any scheme designed to benefit either the liberals nor the wealthy corporations.
MT - let's not argue just for the sake of arguing. I think you and I actually agree on a bunch of stuff although it may seem like we do not.
However, I do think that a government FOR THE PEOPLE should enable the people to be as self-sufficient as possible. As paradoxical as it may sound, it should be the case if the government only had the interests of the people in mind.
Sadly our government is run only by interests with money. In that battle it is not about what is right for the people but what makes money for the interests (or what satisfies their religious or social agendas).
I think that I would rather my government subsidize you to get solar and lessen the burden on the planet than my government subsidize Shell and BP to drill in Alaska or the Gulf.
Same with food - I would rather see local, state and federal governments subsidize small farmers and small communities to be food self-sufficient that letting Tyson and Conagra and Monsanto own the food supply chain...
By the way, I am not voting democrat nor republican this election (not voting at all). So you know, my agenda is driven by self-sufficiency, saving what is left of the planet and the animal and plant life. As a corollary it would be nice to save the dignity of individual citizens by not having them be a part of any scheme designed to benefit either the liberals nor the wealthy corporations.
OD
We probably do agree on several things, but there are fundimental differences between us as I see the best thing the government can do is what it is constitutionally mandated for them such as defense, and leave the individual alone. The best thing government can do is get out of the way.
I find this very amusing that I am apparently arguing in favor of fossil fuel energy production in this discussion, while in fact I own a corporation that produces Bio-Diesel and electricity from waste.
As I said before, I have 30 years in this industry, and seen the effects of removing reliable on demand power from the people all over the world. Making life harder to fit an agenda does no-one but certain interests any good.
For myself, I have several alternative systems that I have designed that are far more efficent than current technologies. I developed what I call a photon capacitor that traps and intensifies light without heat so that a solar cell workes at nearly 80% efficency. I even demonstrated it before the state legislature.
I have designed wind systems that are in the neighborhood of 75% efficent and work on as little as a 7 mph wind at full rated capacity, engines that will go over 200 miles per gallon of bio Diesel, but still do the work of a full sized engine pulling trailers or hauling cargo.
My best idea is my "gravity" generator that produces electricity from the gravitational forces of the earth. It isn't effected by wind or sun or dark or cold, it just produces power.
I have some prototypes out working for friends of mine, but whether I sell them or not is MY decision, not the governments, and I will do what I want because I am the only one that knows how they work. I keep the designs off of my computer, and the prototypes are all in places where unless you know where to look you would never find them.
I am not worried about the greater good of "saving the world", I work to benefit my family and friends first and if I see that selling or producing some of my designs would add to their quality of life, I will do that. Otherwise, I keep my plans and machines and research to myself.
All of these ideas and designs are mine. No government subsidies to produce or research, I don't depend on the government to market or to finance me, I do it myself, and this is the primary reason my position is that government should get out of the road and let people create for themselves.
If I accepted any taxpayer money for my research, the government would own my ideas and I would have no control over production or design or even to make a living selling it.
Government does nothing but make it harder to live and research. I have no faith in government period.
I am perfectly fine with anyone who wishes to to be able to install any alternative system they wish. They should have the right to make their own decisions, live as they wish on their own merits and to the best of their abilities.
I don't see where the government should subsidise anything as it is not a specific power listed in the constitution.
The only reason I even consider the nationwide grid is because not everyone can produce their own power, or food or heat. The country is no longer largely agrarian, we have moved to the city and because of that there is a market for enterprising people to provide a service by providing that power or food or heat for a fee and make money doing business.
I saw how the people of Tusla, Bosnia lived after the breakup, I saw the people trying to grow their food in the barrow pit by the road, or claiming part of a hillside to try and feed their family and walking miles from their apartment in town to work their little garden, and sleeping in little shanties to protect their vegetables so someone wouldn't steal it when it was ready for harvest.
I don't see the charm in that happening in the U.S. so I am a proponent of using every resource available to maintain our standard of living, and yes that includes fossil fuels until something else comes along.
Efficency and thrift should be encouraged, insulating your homes, reducing the amount of power required, reducing the amount of energy necessary to provide food, all are laudible and should be practiced, but because the individual decides to, not because the government demands it.
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 09-10-2012 at 07:25 PM..
All-in-all how you get the power is secondary to reducing how much power you use. I think everyone living on the modern grid would benefit from living a month completely off-grid to truly appreciate where electricity is truly beneficial and where it's not really necessary; and get a tangible idea of how difficult/expensive it can be to generate your own. When you have to buy panels, batteries, turbines, fuel etc and keep your system components in proper working order, you tend not to waste your electricity on things that don't really matter.
From our own experiences, there isn't a good replacement for electric light when you need BRIGHT white lighting, but you rarely need that amount of light and other lighting methods work well. Electric tools and machines are a wonderful help and save a lot of time and effort for LARGE chores, but hand tools and manual devices work just fine for the majority of things. Electricity provides the best cooling and refrigeration, but is horribly inefficient for heating and cooking (with the exception of small microwaves).And, of course, electricity is necessary for electronics, which aren't entirely non-essentials for us because the internet is our only form of immediate communications out here (as well as bank, library, and entertainment). But we use a relatively small amount of power (3kw max) in relation to the average household and don't feel that we're suffering horribly.
I don't depend on the government to market or to finance me, I do it myself, and this is the primary reason my position is that government should get out of the road and let people create for themselves.
If I accepted any taxpayer money for my research, the government would own my ideas and I would have no control over production or design or even to make a living selling it.
Government does nothing but make it harder to live and research. I have no faith in government period.
Good for you, however, when competing with billions of dollars gas and oil companies have to spend on advertising, research and lobbying, you are nobody and will only make a dent for yourself, not for the country. At this point only the govt and the corporations have the resources to make a difference, UNFORTUNATELY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
I am perfectly fine with anyone who wishes to to be able to install any alternative system they wish. They should have the right to make their own decisions, live as they wish on their own merits and to the best of their abilities.
I don't see where the government should subsidise anything as it is not a specific power listed in the constitution.
In a perfect world - I agree
In today's world - the federal government and state governments subsidize a lot of things including even the gas and oil companies that make billions of dollars of profits every quarter. They also subsidize farmers, food corporations, the poor, the rich etc...
If the government is in the business of subsidizing - then I think they should subsidize the proper stuff, something that will give more independence to the ordinary person. After all, it is a government for the people, by the people, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
I saw how the people of Tusla, Bosnia lived after the breakup, I saw the people trying to grow their food in the barrow pit by the road, or claiming part of a hillside to try and feed their family and walking miles from their apartment in town to work their little garden, and sleeping in little shanties to protect their vegetables so someone wouldn't steal it when it was ready for harvest.
I don't see the charm in that happening in the U.S. so I am a proponent of using every resource available to maintain our standard of living, and yes that includes fossil fuels until something else comes along.
People of Tuzla did that because of civil war. Not because they wanted to. The standard of living in Jugoslavija before the civil war was pretty high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Efficency and thrift should be encouraged, insulating your homes, reducing the amount of power required, reducing the amount of energy necessary to provide food, all are laudible and should be practiced, but because the individual decides to, not because the government demands it.
Encouragement is not enough at this point. We need to stop pretending that the Earth is infinite and unlimited and we need to stop kicking the can down the road hoping that someone or something will come along and invent something that will produce energy out of thin air . Population growth, prosperity growth (what happens when every Chinese wants a Hummer?), they are all taxing the environment beyond limits.
OD
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
