Energy After Y2K...Reality comes to roost

You know, Americans are amazing stupid in general when it comes to energy useage compared to much of the rest of the world. The technology exists to drastically reduce our energy consumption in the home but due to ignorance or apathy we keep burning copius amounts of energy and paying through the nose for it. In the senarios Ed has layed out there would be an increasing awareness of energy and it's availability.

First of all before I get into my comments let me tell you where I'm coming from. First of all I live off the grid and make all my power from photovoltaics and the occasional use of a DC generator to charge my batts during the winter months. I'm not living in a dark hole or doing without either. My satellite TV system, computer, water pump, microwave oven, tools, VCR, lighting and evaporative cooling system all enjoy very clean sine-wave AC power from my inverters. The system wasn't cheap but my power quality and reliability is far better than that of my neighbors out here in the boonies north of San Francisco where I live. I haven't the slightest interest in hooking up to the grid even though the power lines are 100 feet from my residence. I work part time for a "Home Power" magazine (http://www.homepower.com) which has been publishing info about off-grid living now for the past 12 years and produce CD-ROMs on this topic. While self production of power isn't for everyone (yet) the relatively high cost of this power makes it's users extremely aware of energy use and conservation.

I'm constantly amazed when I visit friends how little they think about their energy use. I see one of more TVs on at all times even though no one is watching them, numerous incandescent lights burning small loads run through their electric washer/dryers, etc. Then I have to listen to them whine about their $150-200 a month power bills. In a post Y2K environment where power might be much more expensive and/or less reliable they'll be forced into reconsidering their energy use and making adjustments.

For example lets take something simple like the light bulb. The average incandescent light bulb gives off 3/4 of the energy it consumes as heat instead of light. In additon to wasting energy this waste heat can also burden the air conditioning system if such is in use (an HVAC expert tells me it cost $3 to get rid of each $1 worth of heat dumped into a home or office). I tell people to use good quality compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandesents for most use. Unfortunatly they go to the hardware store and see that the 75 watt incandescent bulbs are on sale for 88 cents a pack of 4 and compare this to the $15 that the Phillips 20 watt screw in compact fluorescent bulb costs. The look at the prices and think it's a no brainer...a 22 cent bulb versus a $15 bulb. What they don't consider is this...that the bulb cost is almost inconsequential compared to the cost of the energy it consumes.

The economics are relatively simple. The $15 CF bulb will last about 10,000 hours (unless it's the crap "Lights of America" or "Feit Electric" sell) which equals about 10 of those 22 cent bulbs. In my comparison for an equivalent amount of light the CF bulb saves 55 watts of energy each hour...550 kilowatt hours during it's lifespan. If your power cost 10 cents per kWh (the national average) this one bulb saves $55 in energy over it's lifespan, less the $15 cost means you save $40...around here power is 13 cents per kWh so the overall savings is more like $55 after paying for the bulb. This doesn't factor in the fact that you didn't have to buy 10 of those 1000 hour incandescent bulbs, didn't have to change out 10 bulbs and didn't have to run your air conditioner more to get rid of the waste heat (a potential savings even greater that that of generating the light). These lights have been around a long time but yet few folks have adopted them in the U.S....truely astounding.

I use passive solar water heating which supplies all the hot water I need for 3/4 of the year. The rest of the time a tankless water heater provides as much hot water as I like. Do we need to have a tank with 50 or more gallons of hot water available 24 hours a day? Most of the world thinks not. Granted, my rudimentry solar heating system forces me to make adjustments (like showering or washing clothes in the afternoon or evening after the sun has heated the tank) but heck, the energy is free. At some point I'll be investing in a Thermomax solar water heating system which will give he hot water even when the temps outside approach freezing.

In a couple minutes after I finish writing this I'm going to fix lunch and cook up a couple sausages. I won't use one watt of electricity, wiff or propane (my only outside energy dependence), or piece of wood to do this. How? In a solar oven. I can cook, bake or even pasturize water in it. Granted I can't do this year round but it works most of the year (even on a clear day with snow on the ground). It requires a bit of forethought and planning sometimes but I enjoy the challenge more than the convienience. If it turns out I can't use the solar oven no biggee....I'll use the microwave fed by my solar power or burn a little propane. Solar Cookers International in Sacramento CA has plans at their website for building your own oven or you can buy one of the commercial models. It's about 100 degrees outside and as an added benefit I don't need to heat my travel trailer just to do a little cooking.

So, the technology exists to save a tremendous amount of energy and reduce our dependance on utility power. Come Y2K, utility power outages or a tree across the lines down at the bottom of this canyon I won't even notice a difference in my power. Come next year I look forward to watching the 49'ers kick butt in the superbowl (I hope...) regrdless of what the utilities may be struggling with.

DCK Don Kulha, Home Power Magazine http://www.homepower.com

P.S.- Feel free to visit our website...there are about a zillion links pertaining to independent power, energy conservation, solar cooking and a lot more stuff. Caio.

-- Don Kulha (dkulha@vom.com), August 16, 1999

Answers

i am a fan of your magazine. i was raised on a farm in the boonies, with a woodstove. i am not off-grid at this point, but i am working on it.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), August 16, 1999.

One of the great rays of hope in keeping the electric grid up through all of this is that there is and immense number of things that can be unplugged, turned down, turned off, used sparingly, etc.

I bet Don would agree that the average home could save 30% on electric without any new investments. Then just start shopping over time for energy efficient appliances and pretty soon your ready to buy into a home power system.

The sad thing is that these things take money. In the days when the money was available people didn't see the value.

But in the ten to twenty year plan, there could be a lot more home systmems. And by the way, the day that FORD and GM convert half of their car factories (and suppliers) over to the production of home power equipment, the costs will fall. The first step would be to take a fuel cell powered car and let it work as an efficient home generator when it was parked in your driveway at night.

-- Thom Gilligan (thomgill@eznet.net), August 17, 1999.

Thom: "In the days when the money was available people didn't see the value."

More accurately, govcorp didn't and doesn't see the value. You know the money is still available. It is just being spent on fossil fuel exploration, research, subsidies, low interest loans, depletion allowances, taxbreaks, cleanup, etc as well as nuclear R&D, tax breaks, cleanup, etc. It will take me a couple days and some email requests to get the documention for how many BILLIONS of dollars is being wasted this way.

Imagine that amount of money being spent to encourage alternate energy. The money is there; the will is not. The will is not because people who benefit from the current system out-dollar the people who care.

As Mr. Kulha will concur, the technology is feasible; only the engineering needs be improved to make non-fossil energy sources competitive---that and equitable subsidy (zero is a good number).

But, you're right, Mr. Gilligan, we could be doing these things right now without any investment. It's a mindset thing. Always has been; always will be.

Hallyx

"The Corporation is an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."---Ambrose Pierce

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 17, 1999.

I'd heartily agree with Thom that the average U.S. home could reduce their energy consumption by 30% and hardly notice it with no equipment changes at all. Much greater changes are easily possible with minimal equipment changes.

One gal I know who now lives in Texas went from using 24kWh per day to 6. Most of this change was the result of attitude change.She did put a timer on the electric water heater, changed out some light bulbs and replaced her old refriderator with a new more efficient one from Maytag. She also ceased using the old window mount AC units and took to using box fans, insulated her attic and installed a fan there as well. Yes, the house isn't as cool as it was before but it's liveable, she puts her wash out to dry on the line instead of using the electric dryer, the TV is only on when there's something she wants to watch and she's adopted the "one light per person" approach. When she leaves for work she often puts her dinner in the solar oven on the porch, aims it where the sun will be at 2pm and arrives home to a ready cooked meal instead of letting it simmer in the crock pot all day. She's certainly not doing without and saves 75% of the energy she originally consumed.

This is the model for energy use in the future, regardless of the effects of Y2k. Energy will be more expensive here much like it is in the rest of the world right now. A friend stayed in a hotel in Germany while attending an energy exposition there last year. This 22 room hotel used about the same amount of energy as used in the average all- electric american home. Granted, this hotel isn't the norm, it was new and had been designed and built as an example of what could be done with intelligent engineering.

I feel that if Y2K impacts power availability and price in the U.S. it could be a real blessing in disguise. Just look at the impact of the 1974 oil "shortage" on american attitudes and the auto industry. We really need a paradigm shift when it comes to energy use here in the U.S. Unfortunatly I don't think that this will come about solely from an enlightened public, they'll have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into it by changes in the energy picture of the future.

DCK Home Power Magazine http://www.homepower.com

-- Don Kulha (dkulha@vom.com), August 17, 1999.

The only effective way to get people to voluntarily go to energy conservation seems to be by having the energy costs high...either through scarcity or through taxation. Higher fuel costs yield more efficient cars (or at least substantial government revinue!). But even high prices for our electric doesn't seem to get many people off the grid...ad Kaua'i has some of the highest electric prices in the US.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), August 17, 1999.

Solar power is now becoming more economical. I am going off-grid y2k or no. I was able to set my house up with 1500 watts of panels for about what it cost to wire it originally.

The trick is to get the solar ball rolling to the point that the economics of scale come into play, and the price of manufacture per watt comes down. Everywhere I look, I see houses and buildings that could use solar roof panels for all if not most of their usage.

Unfortunately the power companies have made it difficult through control of the electrical code. The only way I can do my thing within code is to install a system that is %100 seperate from the standard house wiring.

True, you can set up to sell power back to the power company, but they don't like it and you have to fight them to get it done. Y2k will change some attitudes over this, I hope.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 17, 1999.

I too have been looking into solar. The big problem for us average folks is the cost. Maybe with Y2K, the demand will increase and with that hopefully the supply will increase and bring down prices.

Seems to me that somehow the technology with solar will increase to the point that you could sufficiently and efficiently supply enough energy for the whole home (including A/C and ovens.) and afford the cost verses paying a monthly utility bill. And not only homes but businesses as well.

I have alot more to learn about the potential but solar power is something I wouldn't even have looked at had it not been for Y2K.

-- Norm (Prez22@aol.com), September 03, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

The only effective way to get people to voluntarily go to energy conservation seems to be by having the energy costs high...either through scarcity or through taxation

If the federal and state governments have to suffer decreased tax revenue due to, say, increased levels of unemployment, maybe they would be looking around for other things to tax. If people are experiencing brown-outs and blackouts, they may be very happy to see the power companies "punished" by imposition of a 100% tax on the power that they sell. Of course, everybody knows that such taxes are passed through to the consumer, but it may be perceived to be a fair way to ration the limited availability of electricity, if the nukes are shut down.

How high will the price of oil have to soar before car manufacturers start to offer cars with new fangled sun roofs, and auxiliary stay-home panels to charge up intermediary batteries for our cars' nighttime plug-in and for other household needs? Could these economically be made invulnerable to EMP?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 07, 1999.