|
You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
 Prev Next
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
mikeinnyc
Registered Users
Posts:38
 |
| 08/21/2008 1:10 PM |
|
FYI:
1,388kwh costs $440.94 total today in NYC. My Actual AUG Bill 2008.
What the hell will it be tomorrow?
I'm looking for discreet wind power at 5mph avg In Staten Island,NY off the coast line.
I'm so there......
any advice on urban (Non Propeller props)wind power from experience?
Mikeinnyc
|
|
MIKE IN NYC |
|
|
|
|
Brock
Registered Users
Posts:209
|
| 08/21/2008 4:59 PM |
|
Wholy hot sauce Batman... Do they have different rate options? Maybe on peak / off peak or anything? Heck even our high rate on peak is 22 cents a kwh. Maybe they burn diesel to generate electricity or heck even natural gas was way up there last month.
There is really nothing wind wise that works in 5 mph winds, at least nothing small, and even if it did turn you wouldn’t get much power out if it. Do you have any room for solar PV?
|
|
Green Bay, WI. - geothermal heated indoor pool with a small solar setup |
|
|
PanelCrafters
Registered Users
Posts:1329
|
| 08/21/2008 7:22 PM |
|
Posted By Brock on 08/21/2008 4:59 PM
Wholy hot sauce Batman... Do they have different rate options? Maybe on peak / off peak or anything? Heck even our high rate on peak is 22 cents a kwh. Maybe they burn diesel to generate electricity or heck even natural gas was way up there last month.
Please remember, that since the 1990 Clean Air Act over 90% of new Power Plants have been powered by Natural Gas. Big mistake!
We need a new energy policy, and new technologies, that favor the resources that we already have.
|
|
....jc
If you're not building with OSB SIPS(or ICF's), why are you building? |
|
|
smartwall
Registered Users
Posts:46
|
| 08/22/2008 9:25 AM |
|
Mike,
Put power strips on all tv, dvr, stereo, computer equipment they use power even when off any thing that uses a remote control or has a power light, switch it off with the power strip |
|
|
|
|
gregj
Registered Users
Posts:168
|
| 08/22/2008 5:57 PM |
|
It doesn't have to be that high. Nuclear energy has been around a long time. Cheap, safe, plentiful and no greenhouse gases. And we could use it to generate hydrogen for clean cars that also emit no greenhouse gases.
Good for the environment, cheaper than solar/wind, more practical than solar/wind, safe and no more being held hostage to Middle East, Russian and Soth American crazies. There's only one reason we're not going nuclear. Fearmongers whose only answer to any issue is to reduce our living standards. The answer is there for all to see. It takes a while to build nuclear power plants. If we had started 30 years ago we wouldn't even be discussing high energy costs, terrorists, global warming, nut jobs in Venezuela, Russia's new petro wealth and it holding Europe hostage to natural gas and oil. If we start now we could walk away from the crazies in 30 years or less. If not we'll be tied to them in one crisis after another for a long time. |
|
|
|
|
PanelCrafters
Registered Users
Posts:1329
|
| 08/22/2008 7:47 PM |
|
Posted By gregj on 08/22/2008 5:57 PM
It doesn't have to be that high. Nuclear energy has been around a long time. Cheap, safe, plentiful and no greenhouse gases. And we could use it to generate hydrogen for clean cars that also emit no greenhouse gases.
Good for the environment, cheaper than solar/wind, more practical than solar/wind, safe and no more being held hostage to Middle East, Russian and Soth American crazies. There's only one reason we're not going nuclear. Fearmongers whose only answer to any issue is to reduce our living standards. The answer is there for all to see. It takes a while to build nuclear power plants. If we had started 30 years ago we wouldn't even be discussing high energy costs, terrorists, global warming, nut jobs in Venezuela, Russia's new petro wealth and it holding Europe hostage to natural gas and oil. If we start now we could walk away from the crazies in 30 years or less. If not we'll be tied to them in one crisis after another for a long time.
Thanks Gregj! However, I think that there's more to it than that. Our government is not really helping make us Energy Independent. The corruption level is so high, that things that should be done, things that make sense, and things that other countries have been doing for years, aren't even considered.
Pathetic. Kudos to 'T-Bone' Pickens for getting involved(no doubt for profit - but who cares - if it helps?). We should have dumped oil decades ago, and here we are...
|
|
....jc
If you're not building with OSB SIPS(or ICF's), why are you building? |
|
|
senecarr
Registered Users
Posts:160
|
| 09/29/2008 12:44 PM |
|
Posted By gregj on 08/22/2008 5:57 PM
It doesn't have to be that high. Nuclear energy has been around a long time. Cheap, safe, plentiful and no greenhouse gases. And we could use it to generate hydrogen for clean cars that also emit no greenhouse gases.
Good for the environment, cheaper than solar/wind, more practical than solar/wind, safe and no more being held hostage to Middle East, Russian and Soth American crazies. There's only one reason we're not going nuclear. Fearmongers whose only answer to any issue is to reduce our living standards. The answer is there for all to see. It takes a while to build nuclear power plants. If we had started 30 years ago we wouldn't even be discussing high energy costs, terrorists, global warming, nut jobs in Venezuela, Russia's new petro wealth and it holding Europe hostage to natural gas and oil. If we start now we could walk away from the crazies in 30 years or less. If not we'll be tied to them in one crisis after another for a long time.
There's also the fact that it takes so much power to make one that it doesn't break even for 10 years, more if you include the gasoline to move Uranium from where its mined to where its used.
Also, 1000 year half lives. I'd be in favor of more reactors if money usually used to subsidive the industry by the gov. paying for storage, was instead applied to building liquid sodium reactors that "recycle" material. If used, waste material coming out of the reactor would have a life more around 100 or 200 years before it reaches background ground radiation levels. |
|
|
|
|
gregj
Registered Users
Posts:168
|
| 09/30/2008 5:48 PM |
|
There's absolutely no way that it takes a nuke power plant 10 years to generate the power it took to build it. 10 minutes maybe.
And the gas it takes to ship the uranium - your joking right? A suitcase full lasts years.
Half lifes are irrelevant, there's just not that much waste so if you have to lock it up for 1000 years or 10,000 doesn't really matter. Eventually there will probably be power generation from a lot of the current waste anyway (if it emits radiation it can be converted to power) .And let's face it - most of the west/midwest sits on uranium and is getting nuked by natural radon emissions that far exceed any exposure from the nuclear power industry. |
|
|
|
|
senecarr
Registered Users
Posts:160
|
| 09/30/2008 6:09 PM |
|
Posted By gregj on 09/30/2008 5:48 PM
There's absolutely no way that it takes a nuke power plant 10 years to generate the power it took to build it. 10 minutes maybe.
And the gas it takes to ship the uranium - your joking right? A suitcase full lasts years.
Half lifes are irrelevant, there's just not that much waste so if you have to lock it up for 1000 years or 10,000 doesn't really matter. Eventually there will probably be power generation from a lot of the current waste anyway (if it emits radiation it can be converted to power) .And let's face it - most of the west/midwest sits on uranium and is getting nuked by natural radon emissions that far exceed any exposure from the nuclear power industry.
It takes more than just the gas to take the brief case to the site. It takes digging up lots of Uranium. Than moving that uranium which is tons, to a site, where you can extract the radioactive isotopes from the stable ones. All of those vehicles run on gasoline burning vehicles.
Also, you first have to build the thing. Have you seen a nuclear site - it's a huge building with a LOT of equipment brought to it. All that takes shipping, digging, and building.
All of it adds up to that it takes 10 years from one study I had seen for Nuclear to break even with coal. At which point it is less, but it still takes time.
If you want to reduce the payback time there are ways. Notably, like China, you can cut costs, and CO2 use in building by simply not building them as safely.
The amount of radon exposure for most people not living in a basement is minimal.
Locking it up does matter a great deal. It's a health hazzard and a security hazzard that whole time. Currently, locking it up is paid for not by the people making money off the plants, but the US government or the US taxpayer if you will. That means they are all subsidized for quite an expensive part of the process.
If we must subsidize it, why not front load the subsidy and build sodium / liquid metal plants that recycle the waste byproducts now, not in the future? Feasibility studies have been done, but the first plant that was to be built using it was shut down because of pressure during disarmament talks (which is really stupid because sodium reactors end up creating less product use-able for weapons, not more). I'd rather pay to subsidize making plants that produce waste that becomes background radioactive (equivalent to the normal radon you talk about) in 100 to 200 years, instead of material that we have to spend the money on after the fact holding it for 1000's of years. |
|
|
|
|
gregj
Registered Users
Posts:168
|
| 10/01/2008 11:46 AM |
|
| I'm with you on the more advanced nuke plants - so how do we get them moving? The current non-reprocessing plants are suppose to cost $2 a watt to build but always end up costing around $5 to $6 a watt with delays. Soar costs about the same except that it doesn't generate power 24 hours a day. Solar has it's place but for nuclear can give us the big power 24 hours a day that we need - especially if we are to make the leap off petroleum for transportation and go to hydrogen. |
|
|
|
|
Brock
Registered Users
Posts:209
|
| 10/01/2008 12:55 PM |
|
| How can you possible compare coal to nuke? Have you seem coal mines? The trains leaving them and going to ships or directly to power plants? A rail car full of coal a minute consumed in a coal plant, it is truly amazing. There is never a break even for coal but there is for Nuke, and that isn't taking in to consideration the pollution either has produced over. In the US how many have died from complications from coal burning pollution compared to complications from a nuke plant? Heck more people died in Ted Kennedy's car then have died from a nuke plant in the US. In our cola fired plant they have to wear radiation badges and you know what, they get more radiation then the guys working at the Nuke plant. |
|
Green Bay, WI. - geothermal heated indoor pool with a small solar setup |
|
|
senecarr
Registered Users
Posts:160
|
| 10/01/2008 1:10 PM |
|
I compare coal to nuclear in terms of CO2 produced. It takes a long time for nuclear to become carbon neutral. While the people going into the coal mine may be more subjected to radiation than people working at the plant, the accurate comparison is what is the radiation for the people mining the uranium? They too have to go into mines.
Would I rather the US was powered by nuclear than coal? Yes. Would I rather we spend money building fast breeders that recycle their nuclear waste to material with a 100-200 (10 to 50 year half life, going through several half lifes) year life instead of spending money holding the waste that has a half life of 9,000 to 100,000 years? YES! I'd definitely face upfront costs instead of passing them on to the future.
Finally, would I also prefer to see use broaden solar and wind over either one? Yes. Both solar and wind have a very short span to become carbon neutral (3 months to 3 years, even less if they are built using carbon neutral power). |
|
|
|
|
Brock
Registered Users
Posts:209
|
| 10/01/2008 3:23 PM |
|
I guess my point is, sure we could figure out how long a nuclear plant takes until it is carbon neutral, but a coal fired plant can never be carbon neutral
I agree with you on updating or building new breeder reactors that consume their own waste (for the most part). I should have been clearer about the workers. I am talking at the power plants, not mining it. Working in the plants you get more radiation at a coal fired plant then a nuclear plant. Most people don’t know that. They had some protestors out near one of our nuclear plant with Geiger counters saying how much radiation they were receiving and my father (who worked for the company that owned both plants) told me he was glad they didn’t go to the coal plant and do the same thing, he said it was about triple what the nuke plant has. It’s funny the nuke plant has to be so low, but they don’t regulate it as tightly at the coal plant… |
|
Green Bay, WI. - geothermal heated indoor pool with a small solar setup |
|
|
senecarr
Registered Users
Posts:160
|
| 10/01/2008 3:56 PM |
|
Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to being in a mine. I guess generally speaking anything that comes out of the ground is going to have a higher radioactivity than baseline above ground.
In the sense that a nuclear plant has to make use of a mined material, it would be hard for it to ever be truly carbon neutral, but eventually it does get to the level that it's not worth counting, and the changes that could be made with such a power infrastructure (running on hydrogen, or even using natural gas for vehicles if we converted enough people to geothermal heating, and stopped using natural gas for power) would be effectively zero.
Still, I'd be most hopeful that we can first tap as much of solar and wind and have nuclear for consistent generation / filling gaps.
I found the reference to the type of reactor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor .
One has never been up and running, but it seems like if we were to power the whole country on Nuclear, that would be the way to go. |
|
|
|
|
mikeinnyc
Registered Users
Posts:38
|
| 11/29/2008 8:40 PM |
|
Got my account online from Con Ed.
They charged that max rate this summer. Back down to normal NYC levels now. Here's my two years of electric .
Mikeinnyc
|
From Date |
To Date |
Elec Use |
Elec Demand |
Electric Bill Amt |
Gas Use |
Gas Bill Amt |
Total Bill Amt |
| 10/15/2008 |
11/14/2008 |
1,016 |
0.00 |
$192.26 |
-- |
-- |
$192.26 |
| 09/16/2008 |
10/15/2008 |
867 |
0.00 |
$176.63 |
-- |
-- |
$176.63 |
| 08/15/2008 |
09/16/2008 |
1,322 |
0.00 |
$309.44 |
-- |
-- |
$309.44 |
| 07/17/2008 |
08/15/2008 |
1,388 |
0.00 |
$440.94 |
-- |
-- |
$440.94 |
| 06/17/2008 |
07/17/2008 |
1,323 |
0.00 |
$356.22 |
-- |
-- |
$356.22 |
| 05/16/2008 |
06/17/2008 |
1,142 |
0.00 |
$282.15 |
-- |
-- |
$282.15 |
| 04/17/2008 |
05/16/2008 |
709 |
0.00 |
$163.56 |
-- |
-- |
$163.56 |
| 03/19/2008 |
04/17/2008 |
907 |
0.00 |
$199.10 |
-- |
-- |
$199.10 |
| 02/19/2008 |
03/19/2008 |
1,029 |
0.00 |
$216.22 |
-- |
-- |
$216.22 |
| 01/17/2008 |
02/19/2008 |
1,187 |
0.00 |
$263.06 |
-- |
-- |
$263.06 |
| 12/17/2007 |
01/17/2008 |
1,226 |
0.00 |
$275.81 |
-- |
-- |
$275.81 |
| 11/15/2007 |
12/17/2007 |
1,296 |
0.00 |
$255.86 |
-- |
-- |
$255.86 |
| 10/16/2007 |
11/15/2007 |
1,120 |
0.00 |
$233.69 |
-- |
-- |
$233.69 |
| 09/17/2007 |
10/16/2007 |
1,131 |
0.00 |
$240.96 |
-- |
-- |
$240.96 |
| 08/16/2007 |
09/17/2007 |
1,335 |
0.00 |
$278.19 |
-- |
-- |
$278.19 |
| 07/18/2007 |
08/16/2007 |
1,451 |
0.00 |
$300.61 |
-- |
-- |
$300.61 |
| 06/18/2007 |
07/18/2007 |
1,437 |
0.00 |
$339.14 |
-- |
-- |
$339.14 |
| 05/17/2007 |
06/18/2007 |
1,238 |
0.00 |
$296.05 |
-- |
-- |
$296.05 |
| 04/18/2007 |
05/17/2007 |
816 |
0.00 |
$183.62 |
-- |
-- |
$183.62 |
| 03/20/2007 |
04/18/2007 |
996 |
0.00 |
$195.94 |
-- |
-- |
$195.94 |
| 02/16/2007 |
03/20/2007 |
1,120 |
0.00 |
$232.28 |
-- |
-- |
$232.28 |
| 01/18/2007 |
02/16/2007 |
983 |
0.00 |
$181.28 |
-- |
-- |
$181.28 |
| 12/15/2006 |
01/18/2007 |
1,166 |
0.00 |
$230.86 |
-- |
-- |
$230.86 |
| 11/15/2006 |
12/15/2006 |
891 |
0.00 |
$169.43 |
-- |
-- |
$169.43 | |
|
MIKE IN NYC |
|
|
mikeinnyc
Registered Users
Posts:38
|
| 11/29/2008 8:46 PM |
|
I have 70 hi hats only 1/3 are CFL . My kids leave the lights on always. I'm looking at non mercury options like led for hi hats. very expensive for me. 7,000 bucks to replace them all. I know this would help.
LED HI HATS
http://www.creells.com/LR6.htm |
|
MIKE IN NYC |
|
|
Dana1
Registered Users
Posts:36
|
| 12/01/2008 2:27 PM |
|
Posted By mikeinnyc on 11/29/2008 8:46 PM I have 70 hi hats only 1/3 are CFL . My kids leave the lights on always. I'm looking at non mercury options like led for hi hats. very expensive for me. 7,000 bucks to replace them all. I know this would help.
LED HI HATS
http://www.creells.com/LR6.htm
70 recessed cans? That's a lot o' lamps!
Kids leave 'em on? Occupancy sensors (or occupancy sensor switches) are pretty cheap! Cheaper still, if they're old enough to know the value of cash, contract with them to pay THEM the difference between this year's and last year's bill for the month (based on the current rate), as a reward for remembering to turn off the lights. (Cost neutral the first year, but cheaper ever after.)
Buying CFLs by the case is pretty cheap. You'll save more environmental mercury in avoided coal burning than exists in the (sealed) CFL. It's only an environmental risk to YOU if you break one and don't clean it up right away, and even then it's pretty slight. (About a weeks-worth of tuna sandwiches). Disposing of them in a proper recycling center is when they're dead is a good idea though.
LEDS? The Cree LR6 is one of the better ones, but only delivers 54 lumens/watt, whereas CFL technology in R30 floods will deliver slightly better efficiency than that. Furthermore, that's the spec for luminosity at 25C- they self-dim as they heat up (check out the heat-sinking in that retrofit bulb!) If you can't guarantee a minimum air flow it won't stay cool enough to stay that bright, and there will be some color drift with temperature as well. They also work better as spotlights than floods, with about a 120-degree angle of dispersion before the intensity falls of dramatically. If your high-hats are mostly for ambient lighting the LED retrofit will be a bit glarey and spotty. (More optics and diffusers to broaden the beam kill efficiency even further.) LEDs have a way to go yet- buy high-quality CFLs, and if we're lucky, by the time they're all burning out LED retrofits will have finally arrived on both price and performance.
Better efficiency ambient lighting: Linear fluorescents with electronic ballasts in high-efficiency, either T8 or high-output T5 tubes puts you in the 80-100lumens/watt territory. There is a range of dimmable ballast & dimmer options too. Cabinet-top or cove-mounted for wall-wash & ceiling dispersion imparts a very even, very NON-glare shadow-free light that works far better than recessed-cans for ambient lighting. In places where you LIKE the "beam of light" effect, replacing the high-hat with a dedicated pin-base CFL (not a self-ballasted edison-base screw-in retrofit) specular alumuminum fixuture (some come with dimmable ballasts as well), will also put you reliably in the 80lumens+ per watt range. Where LEDs work the best (and can sometimes beat out CFL efficiency) is the small narrow spotlights where sharp-edged shadows are desirable.
But for your place, at YOUR electric rates it will clearly pay to buy a Kill-a-Watt meter (eg. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009MDBU ), go around and figure out what wall-chargers and appliances are using power even when off, then put them on switchable power strips. (A 3 watt "phantom load" is using 2kwh/month every month. If you have 10-15 of these in the house your annual bill for running them is many times the price of the meter!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
Professionals Serving
Your Location:
GBT Project Albums:
|