User login
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I have yet to see a proof for that assertion. You may well remember that Europeans are paying twice the price for their gas when compared to the US. We do not see riots in the streets of Europe but a lot of small cars.
If I look at my own utilities bill, the larger portion of it is for natural gas use in winter, not for electricity. My bill will not go up much overall if you doubled the electricity part. I would assert that is true for most people except those who commit the crime against nature of heating with an electric space heater. Those are the folks we are asking to change their ways.
I see Honda generators as a minor problem. Your average survival nut might take up with the nuissance of operating one but the typical 3rd floor apartment dweller will not. It is kind of noisy, smelly and the CO gives you these awful headaches... not to mention the weekly oil change, the repair downtime (so now you need two or large batteries...), the hate crimes of the neighbours... This one definitely falls into the "Some people are crazy some of the time but all people are never crazy all of the time" category.
"The electricity system is hugely inefficient because California has a peak demand at 5pm on weekday, which is about 2.5 times its demand at 4am (it might even be 3 times)."
How is that going to change if I raise the electricity prices? At best I will get people to switch from AC to ceiling fan, thus lowering peak demand. In order to decrease peaks due to AC use, CA is doing the one right thing: invest in PV.
I think we agree about a lot, otherwise.
It is the very inefficiency of electricity demand (peak 3X bottom) which necessitates the system that is required to produce it. Effectively capacity planning has to accomodate peaks, and idle expensive capacity for long periods*.
If you equate marginal cost of consumption to marginal cost of system to provide it, then the consumer will optimise consumption relative to cost of provision. That's basic economics.
*it's really all a bit more pernicious than that-- wind power in particular is disfavoured because it is intermittent. To the extent that you can match load to available supply (and avoid starting and running expensive gas and coal-fired reserve capacity) you could have more renewables in the mix, and less CO2 in the emissions.
Electricity is fundamentally less discretionary than driving as a consumer item. Here in the UK, those who use electricity to heat do so because they do not have gas as an option (either because they cannot afford to switch, they rent, or there is no gas mains connection)-- gas is about half as expensive as a heating/water heating fuel as electricity.
Doubling the domestic electricity bill of the average American (living in California or New York-- those living in places like Georgia pay much less, AFAIK) is going to hit those on small or fixed incomes the hardest.
It's worth remembering that when the Chicago heat wave hit, it killed those who didn't have air conditioning, or didn't feel they could afford to run it.
On the perverse incentives, most Americans don't live in apartments, I don't think. At that level, it would pay Mr. or Mrs. middle class householder to buy a Honda generator and run it, at that level of electricity prices.
Forgive this physicist for his criticism of this statement. What necessitates production facilities for electricity is the law of energy conservation. If you want to do work somewhere, you need energy from somewhere else. The ratio between minimum and maximum load of the power generation facility has nothing to do with it.
"If you equate marginal cost of consumption to marginal cost of system to provide it, then the consumer will optimise consumption relative to cost of provision. That's basic economics."
If you try to force people to take a cold shower they will simply kick your butt. That is a simple matter of human psychology.
"wind power in particular is disfavoured because it is intermittent."
Only if all you have is nuclear power plants which don't like to run on anything else than "full steam ahead". For the ultimate goal, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the loss of cost efficiency in gas and coal fired plants does not matter, unless ALL you are interested in is money. From your line of argument I can only conclude that you are still caught up on decade old "cost/profit" thinking. In which case none of my technical arguments will impress you. Egotism is not impressible by technically sane decisions if they violate its only self interest.
"Here in the UK, those who use electricity to heat do so because they do not have gas as an option"
The first problem in the UK is poor building insulation. Basically every home can be fitted with oil heating, which is at least 2.5 times more energy efficient than electrical heating. It is up to the government to make sure these measures are being implemented.
"Doubling the domestic electricity bill of the average American (living in California or New York-- those living in places like Georgia pay much less, AFAIK) is going to hit those on small or fixed incomes the hardest."
People on small fixed incomes are victims of partisan politics in Congress which has not raised the minimum wage in a decade and a half. You are mistaking a symptom of failed domestic social politics in the US with an energy problem. As such, you are at best, naive, at worst, I would have to accuse you of abusing one problem to delay the solution of another. That would be tactics worthy of Chimp's party.
"It's worth remembering that when the Chicago heat wave hit, it killed those who didn't have air conditioning, or didn't feel they could afford to run it."
One might add that a lot of people could have been saved if US emergency rooms were properly funded and people without health insurance would not be afraid of calling an ambulance at the first sign of trouble. I have been waiting for six hours in an emergency room without seeing any progress at all. Have you? Frequently people with heart attacks are made to wait 12 hours. Needless to say... a lot of them die or suffer irreperable harm.
It looks like you don't have the slightest clue of what is going on in the US.