We have a few clients who come to us looking for consultation on their energy management for their particular situation. The specifics of demand scheduling to minimize cost are specific to the particular industry and can save large amounts of money when a flexible shift schedule is adopted commensurate with the client’s workforce structure and contracts.
We’re often asked ‘what kind of energy is best for my situation’ ? This doesn’t have an easy answer and demands tailoring to a specific application. Fr’ instance, solar panels on a house in an urban grid-supported setting have been completely a bust (and harm the generation infrastructure as well as disproportionately punish lower income families), but solar panels properly sized in an off-the-grid application (where stringing a power line might exceed the cost of the solar installation to begin with and/or a person wants autonomy from the grid–which is often an overriding concern given uncertainty in grid stability in some places; mostly induced by feckless regulatory agencies) from a reputable source can be a boon (provided of course that you live in a sunny place). One has to realize with solar that during a sunny day you get around 1300 watts of power per square meter (which when atmospheric losses are accounted for comes down to a conservative 1000 watts per square meter, full sun) and that photovoltaic cells are around 21 percent efficient (you multiply efficiencies to gain overall system efficiency)–and be sure to be buying these from a reputable dealer (figuring payback in terms of energy cost over the life of the array and actually running the numbers). Same as for wind power; windmills have been used for centuries as an energy source but they demand a reliable source of wind and climatological conditions which support their use (i.e. that environmentals don’t damage or freeze the blades). Generally, wind power to live off grid can be OK; wind power CAN supplement the grid–which can be a good thing–but when wind power is used in LIEU of generation capacity by reliable sources (hydro, coal, oil, gas, nuclear, etc.) it’s a complete and utter failure. Expensive and unreliable. AND large wind turbines can cause environmental damage (as well as being ugly).
In fact, some of our team that’s in Texas right now is discovering that fact. The deep freeze and snow/ice has crippled the wind turbines causing the grid to be under extreme stress and prone to failure due to shortsightedness and feckless policy.
This field is not static; there may be a potential to develop photovoltaic cells which are rugged and incorporated in roofing material (in esthetically pleasing shingles and colors). Would such technology be developed it could be a boon in a residential setting. The key being that the technology can stand on its own without government subsidy and corruption.
It’s important to realize that there IS NO SUCH THING AS ‘GREEN’ ENERGY. Period. EVERY form of energy has externalities. The best test of energy suitability is cost (after externalities are accounted for and actual capital and opportunity costs are figured). Modern-day coal plants which utilize scrubbers to remove real pollutants (NOx, SO2, particulates) are wonderful achievements as are gas turbines. Nuclear is the future. Hydro provides flood control with power as a bonus (and is generally responsive and reliable).
The true ‘test’ of whether an energy source is good is does the consumer WANT to use it. Can it stand on its own without coercion or subsidy ? Does it have the potential to stand on its own without coercion or subsidy ? Fossils (nuclear fission is a sort of fossil except through the magic of nuclear physics can generate its own fuel from fertile material) are finite and WILL run out (and we consume at a much greater rate than they were generated). So it’s a supply issue which does demand a degree of foresight; not in regulation by externality BUT in how long the energy source will last. One can derive solace in that the human race has never run out of energy when it’s actually tried to develop it; the only thing we can do is screw ourselves through regulation.
It’s ALSO important to realize CO2 is NOT a pollutant in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it’s essential to life on earth (and we’d HAVE no energy OR human life were it not for CO2). But more on the carbon scam in the next section.
Diatomaceous-Johnson 