The Cost of Being Green

Posted this over at NWKA and it started a nice discussion, so I thought I'd open it up here.

-Allen


How much are you willing to pay to be Green?

Green Electronics Buyers on the Rise, Research Shows

By: GreenerComputing.com

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Dec. 6, 2007 -- About 25 million Americans, or 12 percent of the population, are "bright greens:" buyers absolutely willing to spend more for environmentally friendly electronics, or for products that come from a green company.

More here ... http://www.greenbiz.com/news/news_third.cfm?NewsID=36365

IBM Study Finds Consumers Willing to Pay Extra for Clean Energy

By GreenBiz.com

ARMONK, N.Y., Dec. 17, 2007 -- According to a new survey conducted by IBM earlier this year, the majority of energy consumers in six industrialized nations expressed willingness to pay extra for environmentally friendly energy, despite the fact that energy costs are already high costs for conventional energy.

In a survey of individuals from Australia, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, 67 percent said they'd pay as much as 20 percent more for energy from sources with a lesser effect on the environment. At the same time, only a quarter of respondents are purchasing renewable energy options available to them, which the report's authors attribute to poor outreach and education about options.

More here ... http://www.climatebiz.com/sections/news_detail.cfm?NewsID=36423

It's great to want to be an all-four-corners "GOOD PERSON..!!!...".....

But it's a mistake not to be, at the same time you ARE a "Good Person," a hard-nosed bean-counter when it comes to details that "don't fit the model."

"Green" people are too often wishful non pragmatic thinkers with no hard basis in the nuts & bolts.   They are like gamblers who count their winnings, never their losses, and claim that they "make money" from casinos whose receipts are calculated by math-weanies like me, to be 9% of the handle.

Wind Farms aren't green; they function at a tiny fraction of efficiency; they don't make money.    The mills generate at a frequency that varies with RPM, and has to be rectified to DC & then re-modulated to 60 Hz to even be "transform-able" and these steps are "lossy."   The mills, operating, as they do, in 100% condensing fog-filled atmosphere---and BEING, as they are, electrical windings---are so hi-maintenance they've defeated profitibility.   The mills generate at lo-voltage which means that all current-on-the-line is High-Amps (lossy) until it reaches a substation where it can be rectified to DC, re-modulated to 60 Hz, and transformed to at 25KV (all cabling is underground) for relay to the final step-up substation.   And talk about a noisy, ugly, bird-killing neighbor...!!!....

Sea-Wave generation stations---GREEN???----the vast probability is that they are not, and will not be.   They suffer from the defects cited above for wind generation.....lo-voltage, off-frequency output....environmental and maintenance costs everywhere an engineer looks.

Fuel Cell generation-----GREEN????-----emphatically NOT...!!!....Fuel Cell Generators are all "free-hydrogen" devices.   Once you have the "free hydrogen" they look "fair" for stationary generation----they have NEVER looked even remotely feasible for mobil generation.    And looking at stationary applications, the amount of energy required to extract the free hydrogen, when deducted from their gross energy output-----leaves a NET that is 1/6th the volume to be obtained from submission of any petro-chem source to conventional electrical generation process.     

Bio-Fuel augmented generation and direct-drive Bio-Fuel-----are not GREEN----in that within the entire collected process (all-four-corners-consideration of energy used, subtracted from energy-gross to achieve an Energy NET figure) there are inefficiencies and new toxic/bio-problematic emissions that bring all of the uber-euphoric bio-fuel hype, pretty much to its knees, when placed upon any hard-eyed engineers scale-of-evaluation.

There are only two "GREEN" alternative-energy production methods that have any real viability in the engineering world.   Viability:   That means, even a remote shot at producing enough net transmittable energy-----of having the slightest hope of meeting point one percent----of any 24-hour Power Demand.

Nuclear
Photo Voltaic

Nuclear is available NOW and it has the broad-band POWER to meet real needs.
Nuclear has for years generated 40% of all French power---without problems.
Hystrionics, about the dangers of nuclear generation, are hystrionics.
The Sierra Club and "Environmental Activist Movement" has worked, through its knee-jerk opposition to nuclear generation, to retard EVERY GREEN CONSIDERATION over the last 35 years.    By opposing nuclear generation through histronic dis-information "Environmental Activists" are responsible for an incalcuably major part of the mechanism producing Environmental Warming.

Photo-Voltaic.......is immensely GREEN and......is going to come on-line in a direct and important broad-band way.    Greatest shortcoming of Photo-Voltaic is that right now "the technology" uses only a 13% band of available light wave-length and the manufacturing process makes it expensive.   But consider, that 5-years ago the "bandwidth of light" that was convertable to power was just 7%.

Don't be GREEN just for appearances.   

Judd

How much are you willing to pay to be Green?

Nothing, and I sleep very well at night, thank you.

Wind Farms aren't green; they function at a tiny fraction of efficiency; they don't make money.   

Being green doesn't require making money, does it?  For the most part being green costs more right now.  Hence this thread to discuss how much you might pay to be green.

The mills generate at a frequency that varies with RPM, and has to be rectified to DC & then re-modulated to 60 Hz to even be "transform-able" and these steps are "lossy." The mills, operating, as they do, in 100% condensing fog-filled atmosphere---and BEING, as they are, electrical windings---are so hi-maintenance they've defeated profitibility.   The mills generate at lo-voltage which means that all current-on-the-line is High-Amps (lossy) until it reaches a substation where it can be rectified to DC, re-modulated to 60 Hz, and transformed to at 25KV (all cabling is underground) for relay to the final step-up substation.   And talk about a noisy, ugly, bird-killing neighbor...!!!....

Most electrical generating technologies have some sort of modulation/transformation steps in the process.   You state so matter-of-factly below that photo-voltaic is green.  But many instances of it don't make money.  Any all instances of it need a DC to AC transformation.

I'm not sure why you think solar is any more green than wind.

And I'm not sure why you think wind mills operate "100% condensing fog-filled atmosphere".  Do they all?

Sea-Wave generation stations---GREEN???----the vast probability is that they are not, and will not be.   They suffer from the defects cited above for wind generation.....lo-voltage, off-frequency output....environmental and maintenance costs everywhere an engineer looks.

Yawn ...

Fuel Cell generation-----GREEN????-----emphatically NOT...!!!....Fuel Cell Generators are all "free-hydrogen" devices.   Once you have the "free hydrogen" they look "fair" for stationary generation----they have NEVER looked even remotely feasible for mobil generation.    And looking at stationary applications, the amount of energy required to extract the free hydrogen, when deducted from their gross energy output-----leaves a NET that is 1/6th the volume to be obtained from submission of any petro-chem source to conventional electrical generation process.     

No comment as I know nothing about fuel cells.

Bio-Fuel augmented generation and direct-drive Bio-Fuel-----are not GREEN----in that within the entire collected process (all-four-corners-consideration of energy used, subtracted from energy-gross to achieve an Energy NET figure) there are inefficiencies and new toxic/bio-problematic emissions that bring all of the uber-euphoric bio-fuel hype, pretty much to its knees, when placed upon any hard-eyed engineers scale-of-evaluation.

Question ... compared to regular diesel, is it more or less green?

There are only two "GREEN" alternative-energy production methods that have any real viability in the engineering world.   Viability:   That means, even a remote shot at producing enough net transmittable energy-----of having the slightest hope of meeting point one percent----of any 24-hour Power Demand.

Nuclear
Photo Voltaic

"Only"?  I think not.  jwsmith, I have to ask, what's your definition of the word green?

We live in an imperfect world.  We have no absolutes and nothing is the ideal solution.  But are the options being presented to us better than the current mainstream solutions (for suitable definition of "better").

I buy "green" energy in Seattle.  It costs more and it comes from wind farms.  The alternative is to buy hydro energy.  Picking the lesser of 2 evils?  Seems green to me.

-Allen

IMHO,,,

Unfortunately much of what Judd says is true, green alternatives are most often presented without showing the true energy production/consumption picture.

On the other hand every little bit helps.

One of the most "green" practices out there, is to use less. Simple isn't it.

Efficiency and conseravtion technologies are what will contribute the most ammuntion to the battle.

Again IMHO:

With most of us it really about the money isn't it?  Seems no matter what I say, I have an inherent bais against paying "more" for anything than I have to. 

Don't get me wrong I do allot of "green" stuff and do pay more for what I feel are more socially responsible products, but there's a battle in my head every time I do it.

dale

Allen--

Yeah, you are right.
Green Vs "make money"---

"Make money" isn't the Gold Standard for GREEN.

GREEN-------defined-------is power with zero emissions.

But you can meet that definition and be GREEN and still be effite nonsense because all power-generation-schemes have to meet another test:  that of the potential for sufficient volume to meet broad-band power needs.

So a GREEN "method" is still never a competitor unless energy output is large.

OK:  Take a wind farm.  Wind energy is zero-emissions and therefore: GREEN.....but wind-farm output is not good.  Wind-farm technology is "electrically lossy."  Wind-farms seldom produce at night and often there is insufficient wind through entire seasons. Here in California wind-generation produces little power through the winter.  Overall, wind has zero productivity across 68% of any year's 8760 power-demand-hours.  There is a high mortality for birds in wind farm zones.   They are noisy.

The 100% condensing environment is just a fact that wind-farm engineers have had to cope with (AND cure) by improving seals and adding heating units (to every single mill) to keep interior casing-environments above dewpoint. 

So Wind Power is zero-emissions and therefore GREEN.   But how good is a power-generation scheme that slaughters all the birds in the zone, is a terrible (noisy) neighbor, and whose performance record shows that the scheme has no hope of meeting power demand at any acceptable percentage of need?

Which is greener....BIO FUEL Vs. Diesel....???....

Neither evan approaches GREEN status.   
Both are notorious CO and CO-2 emitters.

Why would any sensible group of people adopt a scheme that drives up food prices in order, only to only replicate an already existant non-green power source?   

Analyzed in this light the bio-fuel concept seems nearly...effite.

There is nothing GREENER than Hydro-electric power.   Sure, you point to the resulting reservoir and I agree, yes, there it is and there's no denying it.   But Hydro-electric power results in zero emissions.  Zero emissions define the GREEN objective.  Hydro-power delivers energy in quantity.

Photo-voltaic......again, results in zero emissions and is an extremely good neighbor.   This makes it GREEN-squared...even if at this point it's not competitive with conventional heat-engine power.    Photo-voltaic HAS the broad-band capability of meeting huge power requirements.

Nuclear power produces no emissions and if you view the hystrionics of the NRDC and Sierra Club through a screen of good competent engineering and the 40-years of successful/safe European Power Generation....the radioactive waste management issues are orderly and manageable.

I AM EMPHATICALLY NOT-----ANTI-GREEN.
I do want my solutions to be orderly.

Judd

Right on Judd.  Understand what you are saying ...

I'd still like to understand what you think of biofuel vs. diesel.  Which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Regarding wind farm bird mortality, check this out ... http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

Regarding hydro ... to me it's bad not because of the resulting reservoir.  Rather the effect it's had on salmon is what is bad to me.

-Allen

Bio-fuel Vs Diesel.....man, no clue.
I went to the i-NET to look for numbers.
Found none, just advocacy.

I've never watched a bird hit a windmill..
I'm not any kind of bird-watcher...
I'm repeating what newspapers report that Audubon people have said of the number of bird-bodies they've found in wind-gen areas.

It's true that transmission lines kill birds.  Take a 270KV 3-phase setup.  The potential from any wire to ground is 270...but the potential between offset phases will be 378KV.   A duck with 20-inch wingspan (rotating in flight just the wrong way) represents 9% of a 17-foot wire-to-wire gap.   The duck, wingtip-to-wingtip, short-circuits 9% of the current flowing through that gap...on a damp day it's enough to stop that duck's heart.

Guys in this forum have reported that they frequently find duck-bodies floating on the water under powerlines at that reservoir that's down near Hwy 152 & I-5.   

Judd

I spend very little to "be green", its just small habitual changes in my lifestyle.  I ride my bicycle to work whenever I can, about 800 miles since May, use cloth grocery sacks, trip-link when driving and obey the law of Craigslist "its out there and cheap".  We are buying a house on the American, but it didn't come with a fridge, so off to CL and voilla, a side-by-side Whirlpool $300.  later, at the store, I saw the same fridge for $2,250, and mine didn't require and additional manufacturing cost
We'll be using the whole-house fan this summer to save on electric...but do plan on using the pool...

so in the end, I dont know how "green" I really am, but every little bit helps.

as far as major energy, there is new coal technology that is cleaning that up, nuclear is excellent but sissys are scared of it and no-one wants to pony up for waste storage (again, sissys everywhere) and my fav is solar.  the new house has a solar pre-heater on the water heater and a solar heater on the pool and we hope to tile the rest of the roof in the next few years in photo-voltaic.

note: all from the drug-addled brain of a deprived kayak fisherman on meds....

If I lived close enough to work, I'd ride my bike. But soon enough, I will be spending some money and hope to fit the "green" category 

My future commuter vehicle:

BV500

Highlights:
- Environmentally friendly four-stroke, four-valve Piaggio MASTER engine (460cc)
- Ergonomic driving position suitable for "touring"
- High wheels (front 16") for stability and safety
- Exclusive Piaggio integral braking system
- Halogen headlamp that provides excellent visibility
- Large underseat storage for helmet
- Compact waterproof seat cover
- Glove and cell phone compartment
- Anti-theft steering column lock
- Immobilizer system
- Anti-theft ring on chassis
- Side stand with starter enabling device

Mooch......that's a pretty spiffy machine.....what's it set you back?

Judd

If I lived close enough to work, I'd ride my bike. But soon enough, I will be spending some money and hope to fit the "green" category 

My future commuter vehicle:

BV500

Highlights:
- Environmentally friendly four-stroke, four-valve Piaggio MASTER engine (460cc)
- Ergonomic driving position suitable for "touring"
- High wheels (front 16") for stability and safety
- Exclusive Piaggio integral braking system
- Halogen headlamp that provides excellent visibility
- Large underseat storage for helmet
- Compact waterproof seat cover
- Glove and cell phone compartment
- Anti-theft steering column lock
- Immobilizer system
- Anti-theft ring on chassis
- Side stand with starter enabling device

Does it come in yum-yum yellow?

-Allen

I spend *LESS* to be green by using CFL bulbs and only heating 2 rooms of my large house in the winter.

I disagree about the above assessment of wind power.  Currently large scale wind turbines produce energy for about 8c/kwh while solar voltaic is more like 28c/kwh and coal is 5c/kwh.  What makes solar viable despite it's heavy price tag is that it's usable by consumers directly, cutting PG&E out of the loop - so that 28c is compared against the retail cost of power, whereas the wind turbines have to compete with the wholesale cost of power - which is much less.  Here solar works out pretty well because it's heavily subsidized and our power is relatively expensive.  Solar still has quite a ways to go before it's competitive as a source of wholesale power, and I don't see it out competing wind for quite a while if ever.  Notably solar thermal is cheaper than solar voltaic, at about 16c/kwh, but solar thermal doesn't scale down to household size, so has to compete against wholesale rates, not retail.  However, the price of solar panels does put an upper ceiling on the cost of electricity, PG&E and government taxes can't charge more than 28c/kwh or people will start going solar en masse.  Until they start taxing solar panels rather than subsidizing them... 

When I was out pheasant hunting in south dakota I saw wind turbines that made altamont pass' array look like a bunch of tinkertoys.  213 feet tall with blades 110ft long.  These towered over farmsteads and trees.  The beauty of these big boys is that they spin at 1/5hz, which is very slow (though the tips rip along pretty good) this means that the bearings and rotors don't see a lot of abuse compared to smaller, faster turbines and last longer - while producing 1.5Mw.  They're built on agricultural land, and other than the couple hundred square foot footprint of the thing, the rest of the land still produces crops.  This allows them to be placed cheaply, particularly in areas with expensive real-estate.  Huge solar farms are out of the question anywhere near the bay area.

Joel:  Piaggio Rules! 460cc?  Awsome.   
Are you going to be a "Mod" or a "Rocker"? 
"Me?  I'm a Mocker."   (Ringo Star, A Hard Days' Night) 
I might get another Honda 50, like I had when I was twelve.   Screams along at 35 mph.
Sorry, I digress, but it did get about 100 mpg and very low maintenance

Right on Mooch, that's a nice ride!

Me? Green=responsibility. Totally agree w/ Pspark, it doesn't have to be expensive to be responsible. You don't have to buy everything new over again, just make lots of small changes. Compact flourescents, low flow shower heads, manual mowers, biking to work 50% of the time or more, buying local foods, cloth shopping bags, supporting local businesses... all in all just giving a sh*t about your fellow man. I don't think it's much more than that.

Z