To save, or not to save, that is the question
To save, or not to save, that is the question;
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Dampness
And to take arms against the low lake levels,
And by going without, end them.
A war of words has erupted between the Major Energy Users Group, or MEUG, and the Federation of Family Budgeting Services. MEUG’s press release Friday called on the government to lead the way in electricity conservation in order to stabilise spot prices and keep the lakes from running dry. However, the opening comment in the release:
While it’s not time to panic, everybody needs to start making simple low cost electricity conservation savings to help the worsening South Island lake storage situation and to take pressure off spot prices
has been taken by the Federation to mean that even the poor need to start conserving in order to make sure that big companies can get cheap power. I assume MEUG has made other comments in the press too. In her statements to Radio New Zealand,
Federation of Family Budgeting Services head Raewyn Fox says it is insulting to tell families who are already keeping power use to an absolute minimum to cut back. - and - calls for householders to save power will just add more stress to families already struggling with higher food and fuel prices.
It is indeed getting late in the month with the significant watching brief - April, and the South Island lakes at least are still very low. Having bashed Gerry Brownlee for scaremongering all summer, it is indeed now time to look hard at these things. But is it time to panic? I still don’t think so. The Winter Task Force still doesn’t think so.
Is it time to call for conservation? It would be un-Green of me to say that any time is not a time for conservation. But should we be asking those who have the least, to sacrifice the most, as winter sets in? I don’t think so. Those who will hear MEUG’s call are those who should keep the lights and the heaters burning. They would be the poor, those with children and those seniors and others whose health would be put at risk. Should we fill our emergency rooms with more asthma attacks, pneumonia and flu in order to keep big industry flush with cheap energy? That’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. A false economy.
By all means, everyone should look at where they can save and conserve energy, but not at the expense of their health and well being. We can do with a few less ingots of aluminium this winter, so we can spend another Christmas with Nana next summer.
In summary, I think both sides of this story are possibly guilty of hyperbole. However, given a choice of people or a few units of production, there is no question where my loyalty lies. If the MEUG folks think some conservation now will pay big dividends later, they should commence some load shedding forthwith. They have the means to make the biggest impact in the shortest time and they should act on their concerns. Just don’t ask Nana!
April 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I don’t get it; electricity is b/ expensive anyway and that will control poorer peoples use.
April 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I too don’t understand how “calls for householders to save power will just add more stress to families already struggling with higher food and fuel prices.”?
If families cannot manage to cut back on their electricity consumption, they will be no worse or better off. If on the other hand, they manage to save some electricity, they will be better off, and have more money to spend on food and fuel.
Maybe electricity should be rationed on a per capita basis, with some adjustments for locality (colder regions getting a higher ration), and people with extraordinary needs. Once a household has exhausted its ration booklet, it is forced to buy the remainder of its electricity on some sort of spot market. Conversely, households which don’t use all their quota can sell the unused ration tickets back on the same market????
April 27th, 2008 at 1:13 am
This is probably the worst post I have ever seen on frogblog. Conservation = deprivation
For dog’s sake, if frog hasn’t got the message that the opposite is true what hope is there of educating the average punter.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Kevyn Says:
April 27th, 2008 at 1:13 am
> This is probably the worst post I have ever seen on frogblog. Conservation = deprivation
I think it depends on the circumstances. Many elderly New Zealanders who are already pretty frugal take the duty to save energy to extreme lengths, wrongly thinking that’s what everybody else is doing. Then it really does become deprivation.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Of course our houses are cr*p and that’s part of the problem and I think you have to look there to see the root of a lot of our problems. I’m just reading SST and there going on about the economy and how we are being “left behind” etc… we need to increase our skills blah, blah.. I’m sure that’s true but unless we bring in a genetic selection program we will stay about average….so (IMHO) we will have to do with our own unique level re standard of living. I think though that we should work towards a sustainble base …. Imagine if our houses didn’t need heating, didn’t fall down, we could walk, ride bikes and enjoy a lot of lifes good things.. good nieghbours, walking, going to the beach… in otherwords a relatively cheap but good lifestyle. Perhaps we would need market gardens nearby etc, etc.. I must be missing some basic economics but I don’t understand why humans fail to live sustainably.. One basic problem could be (the obvious) that we are not one big family or one big tribe and so while there will always be pockets of wealth (run holders, dairy farmers) not everyone will have something to trade so we get around that by growing the economy…?
April 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
“we will have to do with our own unique level re standard of living.”
Yep, I am sure that will work as an election platform, “vote Green for a third world lifestyle”
April 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
The idea is to avoid a third world lifestyle. They are plagued by massive population growth.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am
As rarely as neonate politics is mentioned as part of the solution, politicians and policy pundits inevitably run for cover. Yet there it is. Too many people, too many problems… Avoidance (even of discussion) is to turn our backs to the enemy.
There is plenty of electricity to meet the baseline needs of everyone. What is broken is the disproportionate subsidy made by the low end consumers in x-funding the peak capacity infrastructure (capitalisation) of large consumers.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Interesting. Kevyn thinks I have equated conservation with deprivation. I have not. I accused both sides of this story of hyperbole. BB thinks the Greens support third world lifestyles as a platform because of what a comment said, not me. While I agree with Blair that there is plenty of baseline electricity for everyone, (that was the point I made in the post), I disagree that low end consumers are subsidising the peak capacity of large consumers to any great extent.
At the risk of sounding like a free market ideologue, the current system of flat rates for consumers hides the true costs of electricity at peak times and so gives no incentives for consumers to conserve at peak times. Thus we all pay for excess peak capacity. Not just the poor. If we had a threshold electricity allowance for everyone, so that poor users (and everyone) got the basics for little or nothing, combined with variable time-of-use tariffs, we would all be incentivised to conserve when prices were high.
It amazes me what people read into anything that gets written here!
April 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
frog, That’s how it read to me, and still does. Kahikatea makes a good point about that. How many of the poor are living in state houses? How many seniors are living in council flats or family homes built cheaply to qualify for low interest state Advance mortgages? Why is this government’s response to power crises always to take advantage of the ANZAC spirit ingrained in our seniors when they know the outcome is going to be exactly the problems you describe? I don’t think the government should regulate insulation in privately owned rental properties but it should have done that for state and council rentals. Then the savings would not have the dire consequences you mentioned. Maybe they are just trying to get as many people off National Super as quickly as possible.
April 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
It shouldn’t really amaze you what people read into anything that gets written here. All that is happening is that you are too certain that what you wrote says what you think it says whereas we are reading what we think you wrote. We can’t put all of what we are thinking into our posts and comments and we often leave important contextual thoughts unsaid. Well, it goes without saying doesn’t. To me yes, to you no…and vice versa as the case may be from time to time. Do you get the general drift of what I am saying? Basic relationship stuff really.
April 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
One of the big problems of the electircity system is the national grid. The fact that it is a national system means the production is removed from consumers. It becomes a magic energy source we can use as much as we like, that never runs out….
Except that, like hydrogen, it is not an energy source, and as we increase our use of it, the sources we have are actually limited.
The grid turns energy shortages into major national emergencies. Spot prices skyrocket, those caught by the spot prices squeal, elderly stay in bed all day because the can’t afford the heater and we risk blackouts. Many households have no other source of energy for heating and cooking, so blackouts are a serious problem.
The spectre of these problems means we continue to look for new energy sources to feed the machine. We will dam new rivers, continue to burn coal, we will start to put wind turbines where the locals don’t want them. 99% of the new generation will be remote from the users, and just another problem on the news. The drumming up of fear about low lake levels is laying the groundwork for this new generation. When the crisis hits, blackouts do happen and perhaps some elderly people die, reactionary politicians and the MEUG will spout moral outrage and the big new projects will be installed without a second thought to the environmental impact.
What is the better alternative? Don’t feed the machine, deconstruct it. The failing of a pole on the Cook Strait line and the limitation of capacity to Auckland should be taken as opportunities. Let Aucklanders and Wellingtonians pay more for their electricity. Let Remuera decide whether to install a Coal station, some wind turbines, or can they do a bit of demand reduction? Let every community produce its own electricity.
We’ll then know much more intimately the limitations of our choosen power sources. We’ll know we can’t use endless amounts when the wind ain’t blowing, or in a dry summer, or if we care about climate change. We’ll know we need to diversify our energy sources in homes and businesses. We’ll actually need to give energy a second thought. And energy problems will no longer be national emergencies, they’ll be a community problem that hopefully can be managed at a community level before they become critical.
April 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
It is a surprise that people being human behave innocent like plants or in plural vegetables.. Later the Prime Minister’s office are to blame and because they are allowing certain capacity of corruption which is often publicised and certain amount of protectionism in name of ‘white’ ‘red’ ‘colonists’ they extend concessions.Signature of George Bush US President allowed gun running [weapon depot?] from Pakistan to balance Africa’s nature with Gaddafi’s Nato Arm consignments to The Revolution Council Chairman ’s account and enough to buy his opil in advance and blow africa off the face of earth. Blance of power. Now! now comes the question of a simple principles that many leaders in the world are victims but hardly attempt to take advcantage of . In the SEA the big fish lives on smaller fish. Traders and Oil men and Energy companies live offshore and in the sea.The Prime Minister has to check the ‘licence’ lazzaiz faire’ to make a decision. The US White House under Clinton ran Billions although Clinton had a heart attack picking up 600 million usd consignment ,so did Tony bBlair enbd up with Cardiovascolar pain and now serves a trader to learn to touch money without a artery squeeze.
Pakistani Dictator runs a 3 billion USD permit and the offshore ones do..Run Guns ,Trade Women and Traffic Drugs but when it comes to Oil men and Energy Companies the Federal Minister of Commerce taxes Pakistanis and raises Oil and Electriciity prices although they can effect vinternational Wheat and Rice Prices but i think the stockist give a damn about Miliotary Rule too,,, instead of Indians[250 Mil] Cambodians[ 5 Mil] sudanese[Maybe few hundred and so on] The rich thieves never never suffer on ordinary thieves account ,do they?
April 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Is that the Al Qaeda newsletter?
April 27th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
The huge irony in MEUG asking consumers to partake in energy conservation is that MEUG vigorously object to funding any electricity efficiency activities saying they get no benefit and they do their bit in their own businesses.
April 27th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
alexking suggests we shouldn’t invest in upgrading the grid, and suggests allowing each community to generate its own power. Then they’ll find out that diversification of energy sources is a good idea. What is one of the simplest ways of diversifying energy sources? Spacial diversity, e.g. using wind turbines around the country and not just one in the local community, so it doesn’t matter so much of one area doesn’t have any wind one evening. And what do you need for this? A strong grid! What else can we do? Use wave instead of wind. Where are the waves? Predominantly on the West and South coasts. Christchurch Dunedin and Gisbourne are on the East coasts so again we need a strong grid!
The answer is not to led the grid run down, since that doesn’t give an optimal solution for the country. It isn’t to encourage more coal fired stations either. Instead the answer will lie in giving sensible price signals so all participants make sensible decisions or pay extra.
Trevor.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 am
Why doesn’t NZ use pumped storage hydro electric along with wind power to generate its electrical needs.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Because we don’t have the surplus power from thermal or nuclear generators that needs to be used up in off peak periods. At least not in places that have suitable topography.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:49 am
also isn’t NZ putting it self in a dangerous position by relying to much on hydro for its power generation. It seems every year the lakes are low and we only just make it through.
Thermal, Nuclear, Coal, Gas are not effected by the enviroment so we know how much power a plant of their type can generate.
Hydro, Solar, Wind - We can’t know this ahead of time which is not good.
A system of power generation based on variable energy sources can’t ever work on a macro level. Either you need to be storing the excess power from the wind and solar so as to re-use it.
Of course the greens seem to complain about how we generate power but i have not read a comprehensive future enegry plan from them. Why don’t the greens produce this by working with the nz energy industry to come up with something that will work long term and avoid this silly hydro lakes to low scenario that we get every year.
Note the greens one-liner use wind or renewables etc is not a plan, its a dream!!!
April 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Well turnip28 nuclear can have an environmental effect: http://tinyurl.com/3mpfno
April 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Where did i say nuclear doesn’t have an impact on the environment?
I was saying that Thermal, Nuclear, Coal, Gas do not depend on the enviroment around them.
I’m also confused on why you just pick on Nuclear since all forms of power generation effect the enviroment.
I’m not a supporter of Nuclear for NZ but I will say this about Nuclear it is the only power source that is forced to concern its self with the pollution it generates and further I would much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal fired one.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Well if certain people would stop blocking every new power generation infinitive that doesn’t involve a windmill, power would be cheaper….
April 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Sorry turnip I should rephrase that…’they can be affected by the environment’. Though really just water.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I take it BluePeter the only forms of power generation allowed now in NZ are geo-thermal and wind.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Geo-thermal is also the spawn of satan, apparently…..
April 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
BP, eh? Since when? I know it has some effects on water and possible subsidence as a result of taking too much water, but who has been objecting to it?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Note I’d love someone to explain to me how a Wind turbine is renewable?
I agree that the wind itself is renewable, but isn’t the turbine constructed from materials which aren’t renewable and also wasn’t it constructed using non-renewable energy source’s, it was also transported to the site using a non-renewable energy source, oh and doesn’t it contain oil to grease the bearings another non renewable product.
So how is the turbine renewable?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
# turnip28 Says:
April 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
>Note I’d love someone to explain to me how a Wind turbine is renewable?
> I agree that the wind itself is renewable, but isn’t the turbine constructed from materials which aren’t renewable and also wasn’t it constructed using non-renewable energy source’s,
When a wind turbine wears out, it can be melted down and recycled into a new wind turbine. This recycling can be powered by electricity from other wind turbines, or another renewable source. A very small amount of metal will have been lost through wear on the components.
> it was also transported to the site using a non-renewable energy source,
yes, it probably was. That could be avoided if you were insistent about it, but it’s probably not worth it as there are far cheaper ways to save fuel than by refusing to use it for the transport of wind turbines.
> oh and doesn’t it contain oil to grease the bearings another non renewable product.
Oil, yes - but probably not petroleum. Most high-quality lubricating oils nowadays are synthesised from non-fossil sources. Cheap lubricating oils are still made from petroleum, but you would want only the best for something as expensive as a wind turbine.
So how is the turbine renewable?
The turbine itself is not entirely renewable, but it’s closer than you suggested it was.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
My my…I don’t know how you know all that, but thanks kahikatea!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Thanks Kahikatea i didn’t know about the oil.
Note I simple stated that the turbine wasn’t renewable which you seem to agree with me in your final statement.
the turbine being closer to renewable doesn’t make it renewable. A process is either renewable or it is not, their is no in between.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
__Oil, yes - but probably not petroleum. Most high-quality lubricating oils nowadays are synthesised from non-fossil sources. Cheap lubricating oils are still made from petroleum, but you would want only the best for something as expensive as a wind turbine.__
Bollocks it does. ‘Synthetic’ oils are made from hydrocarbon chemical bases. Shell is building the world’s biggest synthetic oil plant and making it from natural gas. As is Exxon at another plant in the Persian gulf.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
So now wind turbines are unsustainable and oil is renewable - true, but so highly highly contextual as to be almost useless as points of reference…
April 28th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
100 points to the person who comes up with a reference!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Turnip
One of the benefits of lifecycle analysis is that you can calculate all those costs and then compare to the alternatives. I’m sure NZWEA has info on that and wind performs well. THe steel and polymers are not that great in volume compared to a gas turbine or concrete hydro dam. FUel will be the biggest influence and that is renewable.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Late to this,sorry, I’ve been away.
I’m getting certified to be an energy rating assessor and I’d have to agree with JH that the Government needs to lead the way to reduce base loads by improving the thermal performance of the publicly owned building stock. State houses, govt department buildings, schools etc etc add up to a major part of all the buildings in NZ and their energy efficiency is abysmal. I’m on a school board and our funding of building maintenance, let alone improvement, must be carefully budgeted, whereas our heat/light/power is not budgeted at all. It’s a simple matter of use twice as much and we’ll pay you twice as much! The thing is the taxpayer is funding it either way.
So Greens lets get a policy in place to really attack the thermal performance of public buildings.
Further I’m a landlord of a number of houses. I’d like to upgrade their performance but currently there is absolutely no way to justify it. If I Spend the money to insulate, the tenant saves, I don’t. My expenses aren’t deductible but must be capitalised. It’s a sure looser for me and for the country which must dam more wind powered geothermal nuclear powerstations. The country needs to find a way to reward me for upgrading. Subsidise less consumption rather than more production. Then the oldies won’t have to stay in bed all day because their house will be snug anyway.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Guys… if we reserve the petroleum and natural gas products we have for making lubricants we can quite likely keep lubricating our turbines until the sun goes out. THAT usage isn’t a problem. Same applies to building the damned things. Burning hydrocarbons IS a problem… not lube oil. Hell, in many applications you can arrange the oil and bearings as to recycle the oil in place, just by running it through a filter. Check out the engineroom of a large ship sometime. Big centrifugal filter units.
Have to redesign a wind turbine to do that THAT way… but likely not required unless you want to take “purity” to a ridiculous extreme in order to prove that it can’t be done. A typical wing-nut ploy.
BJ
April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
In short, samiam, Incentives Always Matter.
Or, another way round, you get more of what you pays for.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
We have a culture of b/s around our houses thanks to the Real industry. We need to be able to talk about thermal retension capability, vegetable growing space etc,etc.
I’m thinking of maximizing the garden around my house as food prices rise. I think that is a good way to add value (assuming where getting into peak oil)
April 28th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Good post, Samiam.
Incentives matter. Why do the left fail to understand this basic principle, but think that lecturing on high will somehow work?
PS: Still awaiting the roi data on the “Buy Kiwi Made” campaign….
April 29th, 2008 at 12:19 am
turnip28 asked:
“Why doesn’t NZ use pumped storage hydro electric along with wind power to generate its electrical needs.”
To add to the previous answer…
Because we already derive much of our electricity production from hydro. Wind, wave, solar, tidal and flow-of-river generation can be used when they are available. When they are insufficient to meet our demands, hydro fills the gap, boosted by coal, gas and oil if required.
New Zealand’s electricity generation scene is very different to that of most other countries. We are relatively small, and are not tied to other countries, unlike USA/Canada and most of Europe. We are divided into several isolated grids, two of which are connected together by a DC cable. And more importantly for this discussion, we are not plant-limited but fuel-limited - at least most of the time. (A few months ago, we had one plant unexpectedly shut down, one plant shut down for overdue maintenance and a third plant severely curtailed due to high temperatures and an unexpected transmission constraint, all affecting the North island and this was close to being plant-limited.) Most countries are plant-limited, so pumped hydro storage makes more sense for them.
Trevor.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:39 am
There is the potential to use wind to overcome energy storage issues at times of wind surplus, but it is probably a fine line eocnomically
April 29th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Well thats my point why aren’t we thinking about how to store the excess energy from wind.
Note a country doesn’t loose much energy when you generate a few percent of power via wind but how much lof a loss is their going to be when wind makes up 20-30%. I mean if the wind is blowing strong at 1am in the morning who is using that excess power. A similar argument can be made for every single renewable energy source. If the sun is shining or the wind is blowing then you need to be creating the maximum amount of power.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:38 am
turnip, IMHO we have put ourselves in a box marked “electricity” and now we can’t think outside of it. One way out of that box is to start thinking abut direct use instead of indirect use.
Coal used to be used directly to heat houses. That was incredibly innefficient and smoggy so we switched to indirect use via coalfired power stations. Likwise farmers used windmills to pump water from wells into storage tanks. Then governments insisted on rural electrification so now they use electricity to pump water from wells “on-demand”.
For a change to renewable to work smoothly we need to change back to thinking about direct use. When we do this we discover new storage options. For instance heat from solar HVAC can be stored in concrete floors and wall for use when the sun isn’t shining.
To the limited extent that we do have to think electricity then farmers can use windmills for pumped storage micro-hydro. Possibly large industrial compexes, tall office buildings, hotels and apartment buildings could too. Houses are too sheltered.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Samiam, BluePeter and Waymad:
Here is a proposal: the government offers everyone (home owners and landlords) an interest free loan (up to a reasonable limit) to install energy conservation measures in their house (insulation, double glazing etc). This loan would not need to be repaid until the house is sold.
What do you think of the idea? When the house is sold, you would presumably be able to increase the selling price a bit because insulation etc would be viewed as a postive thing to have, so you probably wouldn’t be out of pocket once you repaid the loan. On the other hand, if you don’t sell the house for a long time, the loan will be so minimal (because of inflation), that you will have essentially got very cheap insulation.
The country as a whole will benefit from the saved energy (and the need to build less infrastructure etc), which will probably more than offset the interest costs if the government needed to borrow the money for the conservation measures. Furthermore, warmer houses will probably have a beneficial effect on peoples health. Finally, but not least, the enviornment will benefit.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
The most efficient way of storing electricity is not to. Where possible, the energy should be stored either at source or at the point of use, thus avoiding conversion losses. For example, commercial freezers can be run when electricity is more plentiful, avoiding peak demand periods. Hot water can be preheated. Ice can be made during off peak times and used for cooling as required - particularly in the dairy milking industry. Geothermal plants currently run at very high capacity factors, but if more plant is added, the same amount of geothermal heat could be used to provide more power at peak times and less power at off-peak times.
Its only when demand-side management isn’t enough that we should revert to pumped storage or similar electricity storage systems. (One that I have mentioned previously is the vanadium flow battery.)
Of course if we have enough renewable energy, we don’t need to store the excess at low demand periods. We can use it instead, to generate hydrogen by electrolysis for example. (NZ already manufactures hydrogen from natural gas for ammonia/urea production and for use in the oil refinery.)
Another option is to use the seasonal excess for aluminium production, and to cut back such production when the lakes get a bit low, thus using the aluminium as a storage system. Of course the MEUG would prefer us to avoid the low lakes so they don’t have to cut back production and can thus be more profitable. However they are profitable enough during the wet years.
I’m not sure it makes economic sense for NZ to import low-grade coal to burn in our North Island power stations to send power most of the length of the country to a smelter which takes imported bauxite and smelts it to become aluminium which we then export, along with the CO2 which we will have to pay for.
Trevor.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Trevor, The co2 on exports should be payed for by the end user. In fact GST could have been used as model for a carbon tax with the single difference that because global warming is a global problem the accumulated carbon tax wouldn’t be rebated on exports.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:42 am
CO2 along with all forms of pollution produced during the production of an item should be paid for by the producer if they choose to pass those costs onto the consumer fine. Under our current model the pollution cost is passed on to the future generation or the current generation.
Who ever produces the pollution pays for it (thats true free market economics).
Also Hydrogen from electrolysis and as a medium for energy storage is a pipe dream right up their with flying cars and fusion reactors.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:57 am
turnip28:
I wasn’t suggesting hydrogen as a means of storing electricity or for fueling cars. NZ already produces hydrogen for both the oil refinery and ammonia manufacture, in both cases from natural gas. I’m merely suggesting that it can be produced by electrolysis during times of low electricity demand, thus saving our natural gas.
Electrolysis is around 75-80% efficient. It is the conversion back from hydrogen to electricity that is the real problem for using hydrogen in cars and for storing electricity. Vehicle use also has the problem of low energy density, i.e. stored hydrogen is bulky. BJ has pointed out in a previous thread that hydrogen is tricky to work with, leading to metal embrittlement.
Trevor.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:11 am
ok now i understand of course
we wouldn’t need the ammonia if we moved to more sustainable farming.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Samiuela
I’d go a different way, I’d subsidise the insulation itself. A calculation needs to be done to ascertain the price to build the generation/reticulation of the power that a square meter of wall would waste by not being insulated. Then subsidise the insulation by that amount. Maybe it might end up paying me instead of costing me to buy a bale of batts, imagine that. You see the ‘loan’ is built into the product.
Impose a capital gains tax at the same rate as any other form of income. But. If you improve a buildings thermal performance to a specified level (5 star or whatever) then you get to keep your capital gain tax. Gee, watch those greedies run! Gee watch those greedies turn greenies!
April 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Agent 29, I’m with you. There is a huge amount of potential to optimise energy usage. Just look at any pub, the chiller has a heat pump blowing heat out the back wall, there is an air conditioner on the other side of the building sucking heat back in to make the patrons cozy.
I’ve posted before to speculate on Hydrogen electrolysis to store spare generation, to be reused later to power industry and/or regenerate electrickery at peak times.
The (pipe dream of the) use of hydrogen in cars appears to have blinded us to the much easier option of using it elsewhere.
It could have the by-catch bonus of allowing hydro dams to go back to a state nearly that of “run-of-river” as they can spin the turbines 24/7 either producing grid power or cracking hydrogen.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:38 am
Actually you can already lease a hydrogen powered BMW limousine. If you’re rich and famous and live close to one of the five refueling stations Total has built in Europe.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/28/bmws-hydrogen-v12-engine-only- a-fraction-of-sulev-emissions-le/
http://www.bmwheaven.com/content/view/101/3/