• You've been granted Beta access to this site, allowing you to explore some of the new features while they're still under construction. More information can be found in the Beta forum.

need more chatter

IVB

Senior Member
dublin00 said:
upstatemike said:
Getting California to build enough power plants to match the demand would go a long way towards helping things in your area too.
They built 47 new power plants in the last 5 years! The problem is that we built millions of new homes over the same period so increasing demand is far out-stripping capacity.

Personally I think that this shows that the current system/model is starting to fail. Many of my friends/co-workers are from over-seas and all of the asian contries are modernizing rapidly. Soon they will want a big slice of the available oil pie too and then no number of new power plants will help us.
Not to nitpick, but technically 36 new plants and 13K Megawatts were added, sure, but 6K megawatts in old and dirty power plants were retired.

net increase wasn't as big as some would think, but yes, lots of new ones were added. And yes, the problem is getting worse, not better.

It's the same as it ever was - we need more power every day, and our current power supplies cannot keep up, and the natural resources are smaller than they have ever been.
 

dublin00

Member
upstatemike said:
So step up power plant construction to match the new home construction pace OR pass population density laws that say an acre of land is not permitted to support more than 1 single family dwelling and outlaw multi-family structures completely. ( I prefer the second option)
Ultimitly it doesn't matter how fast you build new power plants, we won't have the fuel for them in a few years. We need to cut peoples consumption. That means more CFL lighting (at least here in my area code requires recessed CFL lighting in all kitchens which is a start), more efficient appliances/furnaces/A.C., better new building construction, etc...

Honestly, we don't have the land for one acre per home. We've already exhausted all of the available land in the area I live in, now they are converting farm land in the California Central Valley into massive new urban cities. The farm land itself is lost forever.

Personally I hate multi-family structures, but most especially the new uber apartment complex monoliths that they have started to build around here. I can't imagine how many apartments are in each one, but they are 9/10 stories tall and span entire city blocks wide.
 

un-wired

Active Member
The simplest solutions is for the consumer to take advantage of smaller solar solutions (especially in areas like AZ, FL, CA and other southern sunny locations) for things like pool temperature, hot water, a solar cell which powers a window AC perhaps. How can it hurt?
 

dublin00

Member
IVB said:
dublin00 said:
upstatemike said:
Getting California to build enough power plants to match the demand would go a long way towards helping things in your area too.
They built 47 new power plants in the last 5 years! The problem is that we built millions of new homes over the same period so increasing demand is far out-stripping capacity.

Personally I think that this shows that the current system/model is starting to fail. Many of my friends/co-workers are from over-seas and all of the asian contries are modernizing rapidly. Soon they will want a big slice of the available oil pie too and then no number of new power plants will help us.
Not to nitpick, but technically 36 new plants and 13K Megawatts were added, sure, but 6K megawatts in old and dirty power plants were retired.

net increase wasn't as big as some would think, but yes, lots of new ones were added. And yes, the problem is getting worse, not better.

It's the same as it ever was - we need more power every day, and our current power supplies cannot keep up, and the natural resources are smaller than they have ever been.
Sorry, the 47 figure I heard on KPIX evening news one night. They didn't go into details and I don't know them myself. It sounds like you know more about this than I do.
 

dublin00

Member
un-wired said:
The simplest solutions is for the consumer to take advantage of smaller solar solutions (especially in areas like AZ, FL, CA and other southern sunny locations) for things like pool temperature, hot water, a solar cell which powers a window AC perhaps. How can it hurt?
I agree, though a typical AC unit pulls 50amps which would require a large solar array to support (and might not be worth it cost wise).

We have lots of technology available that can help, the problem is that most people just don't want to even change a light bulb. That is the biggest problem.
 

IVB

Senior Member
dublin00 said:
Personally I hate multi-family structures, but most especially the new uber apartment complex monoliths that they have started to build around here. I can't imagine how many apartments are in each one, but they are 9/10 stories tall and span entire city blocks wide.
Do you live in Dublin, CA? [assuming by your handle].

There's 10 story buildings in Dublin? Dang...
 

elcano

Active Member
dublin00 said:
We have lots of technology available that can help, the problem is that most people just don't want to even change a light bulb. That is the biggest problem.
Traditional or printed solar panels will do for technology early adopter like us, to complement the mains energy consumption, but most other people will expect their energy to be served like today. Solar seems to be the way to go for some areas but not necesarrily using solar panels. There are already some projects on using stirling engine farms that argue to get cheaper and more energy than in traditional solar panels.
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp
 

TCassio

Active Member
/Rant
With all the alternative energy sources available today will not come to fruition until the power (money) of the oil companies is taken away. I just read about that they had a fully functioning all electric car in the 90's, that had a range of 100 miles and max speed of 150 mph. The batteries were good for 10 years. The only maintenance with in the first 150000 miles was tires. 80% less polution, 1 20th the cost to refuel. The average american drives less than 50 miles a day. So what happened to them. GM was the big producer of these vehicles. Oil companies and ther big car manufactures just made these go away. GM had 4000 of these vehicles crushed in the last year that they made them. WHY? MONEY!!! Oil companies profits would tumble, car manufactruers would be able to sell you a new car every 3 or 4 years. When you read these stories it just drives me crazy.
/End rant
 

DavidL

Senior Member
TCassio, from having worked in the automotive industry for a LONG time, don't believe everything you read.
I think the time is coming very soon for electric vehicles (via hybrids) to start chipping away Gasoline, but it will still be a while. That dream vehicle you mention does not exist in a way that you would buy it.
 

electron

Administrator
Staff member
If I am not mistaken, the EV1 cost a lot of money, you would never be able to afford it if GM wanted to make a profit. The reason they had them crushed (from my own research, so I might be wrong) is liability issues (another reason why they would only lease them). Electric is nice, but what pisses me off the most is that these same companies can build cars for Europe which get 60mpg, and still drive nice, and look much better than their US counter part.
 

DavidL

Senior Member
electron, the lease was a way to supplement the cost of the vehicle to get someone to buy it. You're right, it was way more money than someone would buy without subsidy. The Lease the residual value can be modified to decrease the monthly lease price. It's not about liability as there have been many cases that say that there is no difference in liability lease or purchase.

The cars that get 60 mpg in Europe are not vehicles that will sell in the US today. That is changing with $3+ gas prices. Europe has been way over that for a long time. Needs shift as cost increases.
I am curious if the Mercedes Smart (being prepared for US sale) will sell here.
 

Digger

Senior Member
As a owner of a Hybrid I can tell you that I get 50% better mileage than a non Hybrid version of the same car (Honda Civic). But not all Hybrids are really significant gas savers. Some manufacturers seem to have used the Hybrid for more power rather than to conserve gas.

If we could get 50% better gas mileage we could cut that portion of the oil imports by about 33%. Then if we could save home heating oil equally as much and the oil used to generate electric we would be somewhere.

Time for the government and big business to partner up and make a difference. Like it will ever really happen.
 

rocco

Active Member
Digger said:
Time for the government and big business to partner up and make a difference.
But they have already partnered up to make sure it doesn't happen !
 
Top