2001-10-23 03:53:00
I left out an important comment on hydro power. One more very important drawback is that a large dam could be a prime target for a terrorist. If a suicide
plane were to crash into one it could cause more loss of life than happened at the Twin Towers.
Margaret Leach writes:
"It seems to me that in your characterization of solar power you are missing one of the most important points that it offers: non-reliance on large energy distribution centers, a.k.a. power plants. In my mind, this is the main reason that it has not gained more acceptance: big money/big corporations lose big profits when the consumer becomes his own energy supplier.
"I wonder too at your characterization of the size of solar collector needed to generate kilowatt hours. I have no hard and fast facts to put forth, only experience. When I lived in northern New Mexico (Taos) for 6 years, we had 3 solar panels on our roof which supplied approximately 60% of the electricity for our home which included an electric water heater, water pump (for our well), separate freezer, and the usual refrigerator, TV, stereo, computer, printer, keyboard, etc. paraphernalia in addition to the electric lights. The savings were significant and the biggest loser was the power company."
JJ:
I think my information was accurate and it doesn't seem to contradict what you say in any way if you do the math.
I am all for being independent and if one can afford solar, is willing to pay for it, and happens to live in a feasible area with enough sunshine, a person
can indeed gain a little independence as well as have clean energy.
I would guess that Taos, New Mexico (one of the sunniest spots in the country) is much more productive for solar energy than New York where you are currently
living. I notice that you did not include heat or air conditioning in your list, which are the big items where I live.
Shortly after the oil crisis in the seventies, there seemed to be quite a lot of promotion of solar equipment in my home area. In fact my mother bought a
unit at considerable cost for the time.
I was disappointed when she told me that she did not seem to have any noticeable savings in her bill.
Perhaps such experience is a reason why the market seemed to dry up in this area.
Since then, I'm sure efficiency has increased so I checked out the current costs. Providing that I live in a sunny enough area and I wanted to invest
$15,000 I could save $300 a year on my power bill. I would have to invest over $30,000 to completely replace the electricity I am using. This is based
on Idaho rates where I live, which is lower than most states, but I think you and see here why I am not eager to convert.
Some states give a rebate of 20-50% to those who convert to solar, but even here this is not free money, but is paid by the taxpayer and still few are
willing to make the necessary investment.
I have a nephew who has invented an extra efficient generator using propane or natural gas that sounds like it may be a good alternative. It will only cost a
couple thousand and will supply all the power you need at a lower cost than most power companies. The good part is that it will make a person completely
self-sufficient power-wise.
I haven't seen him for a while, but the last time I talked to him he said he was lining up some big investors. I'll be checking on his progress at the next
family reunion.
Another alternative is to develop electrical engines powerful enough and that will carry a charge long enough to replace the internal combustion engine.
Every so often I hear of some innovative engine and then never hear of it again. For instance, I remember reading a series of articles way back in the
70's about a guy who claimed to have invented a battery that yielded more electricity than went into it and claimed it could run an electrical motor without
ever running down.
Who knows if there was anything to it? The last I heard of the guy was that he was labeled a fraud by government agencies who refused to run tests the
inventor desired. It seems like he was also being sued by some car manufacturer.
Now I find it interesting that some Australian inventors are promoting something similar. There is an interesting article on it
at: http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/australianinventors.html
The fact to consider is that, even if there has been a cover-up of technology the tide today is turning and progress is being made. It is only a matter
of time before we have 100% non polluting electrical vehicles.
This will be a terrific breakthrough if the electricity can be supplied from a non-polluting source. As it is at the present, an all-electric car using
today's technology would do little to do to reduce pollutants, for the chances are the power for it would be generated by a coal burning plant. The
purchase of an electric car may create the illusion we are helping the environment but all we are doing is cutting down the pollution in the immediate
area we are driving while contributing to it in the area where the electrical power is generated.
Unless...
Unless we have a clean source of electrical power.
Is there such a thing as a source of economical energy with little pollution using current technology that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gasses
and other pollutants as well, as supply clean power for future electrical engines that in turn could drastically reduce our need for oil, perhaps making
us completely free of dependency on foreign oil?
Perhaps.
We will discuss this possibility next:
The Underdog Power Source
-- End Of Part Four --
Go To:
Ten Deceptions of Nuclear & Alternative Energy (Article Index)
Global Warming Enlightenment (Article Index)
Copyright 2001 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved