A Big Drop In Emissions Is Possible With Today's Technology

... along with the potential to save lots of $$$ in energy costs

from JoeUser Forums

Very interesting story in today's Washington Post (hey, every now and then they actually do a story worth reading ;-) )

A Big Drop In Emissions Is Possible With Today's Technology

 

Sorry readers, I'm not gonna make this that easy for you, you'll have to head over to the Post and read the original article for the whole story.  What I will point out though, is the point I make in my sub title above: this could all also help save lots of $$$ in energy costs -- something that hits the bottom line for just about every one of us.

Fact of the matter is that anything we can do that will save electricity is a good thing both for us, and for the environment.  Now, don't get me wrong and think I've gone enviro-loco and am ready to go off and hug trees and start preaching on about global warming.  I'm still not convinced that we really have a problem in that area, or at least that the problem is (a) completely man made; and (b) even if it, that it's something that the citizens of the western world are entirely responsible for (given the development going on in places like China, India and the like...)  Understand here that my point about saving electricity is that we should be doing what we can to save electricity as we just aren't producing enough of it to handle our needs, and anything we can do to save on the amount we need is a good thing.  If we can make computers more efficient, along with making appliances more efficient, along with making our homes more efficient in general, then we are saving ourselves potentially billions (if not trillions) in costs of building new power plants.

Ah, building new power plants.  Yeah, that's a topic that gets a ton of attention doesn't it?  Considering that one news paper I was reading (I believe it was in the Washington Times for that particular article...) had a nice article about how the anti-coal crowd is out trying to get the coal burning plants shutdown or at least prevent the building of more of same.  Yeah, coal is not the cleanest fuel we could be using, but unless these same tree-huggin' hippies (with apologies to the good folks out there among the tree-huggin' hippies) get off their duffs and start demanding that we build some nukular powah plants, or at least find some other options for our power consumption, then we need to leave all options on the table -- including building more efficient power providing devices for our toys, and including building more power plants as needed to provide for the increasing power demands we continue to have in this country.

Not to be alarmist, or even to respond to the alarmist headlines in news in my area, but in reality there was a small news article the other day in the news about the fact that the Washington/Baltimore region is facing a severe deficiency in power generation in just a few years.  We are consuming the stuff quicker than we can make it and with no new plants on the drawing boards or otherwise in the process of development and building, we are simply not going to have enough power to live the lifestyles we've grown accustomed to.

So, again, anything we can do that saves power is a good thing.  Anything we can do that not just saves power, but generates more is also a good thing.

All of which tempts me to say that you know what I almost think we should be doing as the great get out of the recession that may or not be going on currently?  Perhaps we should be having the federal government provide about $20,000 per family in free money to deploy solar arrays in as many places as we can.  Yeah, I know that's a lot more than the $300 - $800 per person that the government is currently talking about giving away, but man would it have a much longer term positive impact.  $20,000 worth of solar arrays would provide a fair amount of power for most homes.  In a lot of cases, it would be nearly enough power to 'get off the grid', or to actually produce more energy than is used over the course of a day.  Enough to be cutting our coal needs, and our oil needs drastically, enough to cut back on carbon emissions over the long term, and enough to free most of us from needing to pay an electric bill in our futures.  Oooops, that won't ever happen here, will it?

It would be nice to think that perhaps some of that reported $300 - $800 per person would go into buying more efficient toys, and I guess it just might.  For some people there's been thoughts (as I have had) about spending the money to buy an LCD HDTV.  Typically those are much more power efficient when compared to older tube based televisions (bonus!), so it could save some coin in the long term as well as providing a nice TV picture to watch at the same time.

Anyway, again, read the originally linked article above.  It is quite interesting and worth the read.

889 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps we should be having the federal government provide about $20,000 per family in free money to deploy solar arrays in as many places as we can.
End of quote


In the not too distant future it won't cost $20,000 for solar panels to provide enough power for a home to have zero net electricity needs: WWW Link

At a price less than coal, you would be better off spending on these to put on your roof and not having electricity bills. And there would be no need for the government to pay for it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks for the link on the cool tech Darth Silliness.  I'll have to check that out.

I do know I'd love to go solar for my home and do whatever I could to raise the big middle finger to the former BGE.

I should expand on the thoughts in my original article above just a bit to make it clear that I don't believe the big energy companies should be getting any free passes here.  They are every bit as guilty as the customers in that they've done everything possible to avoid re-investment in technology, new power plants, and increased power generation.  If they generate more, they wind up competing against themselves and lessening the demand for their products.  They can't possibly do that as it would mean lower profits in the end.

I wish there was a magic wand that could be waved to get these big corporations to do the right thing, along with getting the government to do the right thing, along with getting the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) property owners and tree-huggers that don't want these power plants near them (or to ever be built) to do the right thing, but it just isn't going to happen that way.

Still, anything that can be done that cuts the amount of dependence upon coal and oil would be a good thing.

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Saving power is always good - except if you have money to burn (hey Al gore!).  But the problem with saving power off of the power grid - and the current energy crises is they come from different sources.  yes, saving power is good for polution reduction and the pocketbook, but it does nothing for our dependance on foreign oil. Indeed, while electric cars (the plug in variety) do not actually save you money as the savings in gas is eaten up by the cost of the power from the plug, it does transfer the type of energy used from a mostly imported one to a mostly domestic one.

Solar power will come into its own when the technology makes it cost efficient to replace coal, not oil.  As coal is the primary non-renewable source of the power grid today.