Tag: energy generation/consumption/efficiency side

My electricity bill is again going to go up due to stupidity

On the last day of June, the SCOTUS struck down the ludicrous mercury regulations the EPA put together and did so because the whole think stunk and provided no information about the cost. Obama, to show them he is the emperor, issued more ridiculously stupid and horribly costly renewable energy fantasy promises. This fucking guy lives in his own stupid reality. At a time where technical people like
Bill Gates explain why everything points to current renewable energy not being viable, Obama doubles down on the stupid. And Gates is not alone to make that argument: Google, a lefty company if ever anything, agreed with him that current renewable energy technology doesn’t cut it. I have made this point myself. Solar, which was too costly and simply too unreliable and inefficient when Jimmy Carter promised to make us use only that in the late 70s has not come much further in the 4 decades since. Wind is an even bigger joke. The cost vs. return for these technologies not only make them prohibitive, but they are ludicrous and stand in the way of viable technologies (like nuclear).

My electrical bill has all but doubled since Obama took office. My consumption has almost been halved. I am almost paying four times as much as I used to per kWh since Obama put his idiotic ideas into motion, and the only people to make like bandits are those connected to the Obama administration that not only receive massive tax payer subsidized funding and breaks, but benefit from stupid shit like this promise by Obama that forces people being squeezed dry but without the knowledge to know they are being hoodwinked, into giving them even more of their money.

Heck, I now even have some new tax that cock gobbler Maloy socked on those of us not sucking at the government’s teat that takes more of my money to help those unable to pay their bill do so. I bet you none of these people I am now “helping” are trying to either reduce their consumption or dependency on this abusive industry that has so enriched collectivists that pretend they are fighting a noble fight against world destroying evil brown energy. Worse yet, unless I do what one of the government approved scams that line the pocket of supporters of these ludicrous and inefficient technologies peddle, I must not only remain on their grid, but accept the ass fucking they send my way every month, and thank them for it too. At this point I am sure I can come up with alternatives that don’t enrich these evil fucks and cost me less. But they will throw my ass in jail for daring to fight their monopoly.

Why are we letting these people run the show, huh? Greece is showing us where this always ends. And China is going to one up them and really fuck up things. There is not enough “Other people’s money” to let the leftists do what they want. No, not make things better, but fleece the productive while throwing scraps to the unproductive for their envious support. The left loves to pretend that the robber barons are in the party they oppose, but reality doesn’t bear that out. I can’t wait for Iran to get the bomb and start WWIII already. Nothing will end the stupidity of liberalism short of a global cataclysm that finally forces mankind to abandon socialism and the other beliefs the left holds dear. We need a mega dose of harsh reality to cure humanity of this mental disorder.

When even the science fs up your agenda…

I just recently had several discussions in the last week or so, with different people at different times, about energy and economic impacts of that energy’s availability and cost. I pointed out that people have spent the last 5 decades telling us we would be running out of fossil fuels in the next 3 or 4 decades, only to end up with scientific advances and human ingenuity raising the time we have at a curved use of the stuff from decades to centuries. Of course they all turned up their noses to what they consider to be Satan’s shit and wanted it replaced, but when asked by what, it was all pie-in-the-sky answers. For me, based purely and simply on the numbers and the science, the one viable technology that can produce energy in the amount we would need to replace fossil fuels, is nuclear. Nothing else can, but the people that want to get us green all seem to have bought into Hollywood’s depiction of how dangerous and nasty nuclear energy is. So instead they seem to propose we use the equivalent of unicorn farts as the alternative to oil, gas, and coal.

When we discussed these various alternatives the greens have a boner for and went through the list, one after the other fell off. Solar and wind have been terribly disappointing. We are not about to build giant space based solar arrays and beaming down the energy as microwaves any time soon, because the same green people would have heart attack at the potential use as a weapon. And we could cover the planet with windmills and it would still not produce enough power. So they always go to the renewables, of which far less is known, but far less is pretended can come, to justify the campaign to stop us from using fossil fuels. Of course, renewables have not really shown much other than promise at this time, but the greens have no doubt that this stuff will save their faltering agenda. And then there are the facts:

Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C project, which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal.

REclosed it down after four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.

The two men write:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

One should note that RE<C didn’t restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, “self-assembling” wind towers and so on and so forth. There’s no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren’t alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn’t even vaguely plausible.

Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

The funny thing is that you don’t need a PhD to figure this stuff out. And note they point out this stuff won’t work as marginal energy just to reduce emissions. The logical conclusion is that it hence will also never be a replacement. But the greens seem to be immune to the simple facts and science and far more interested in science fiction and fantasy because they are driven by something other than either. The watermelons pretend to be scientific, but the fact is there is very little of that and a lot of feelings and the overarching collectivist agenda, and very little of the former. So for now we are stuck with oil, gas, and coal. Maybe someone will find a way to make fusion work and that can fill in the gap, but the other stuff the greens pine for simply is not gonna happen. That won’t stop them from taking advantage of the plethora of fools that will allow a few of them to get stinking rich at tax payer’s expense.

I am going back to incandescent bulbs, man

So let me set this up for you so you can see who startling stupid these green laws really are, and I am gonna use someone else’s work to do this. Let’s set the stage:

Starting Jan. 1, the United States will no longer manufacture or import incandescent bulbs – although stores can still sell what they have in stock. The phaseout is a result of federal rules to switch to more energy-efficient bulbs. Energy-efficient bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs but last much longer and save on energy costs in the long-term. So why are people still buying incandescent bulbs and what will the phaseout mean for you?

Get it? The greens passed a law banning incandescent bulbs because they were considered inefficient, energy wise, had a short life span compared to what they wanted to replace it with, at least so they claimed, and they created too much pollution, both on the energy generation/consumption/efficiency side of the calculation spectrum, and then they created lots of waste once they where spent and had to be done away with. But why take it from me? From the article:

Incandescent bulbs cost much less than their energy-efficient alternatives – mainly CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs (light emitting diodes). An incandescent bulb can cost as little as 70 cents. Meanwhile, a CFL bulb sells for at least a few dollars and an LED starts at $10 but usually runs around $20. The problem with incandescents is you end up paying more in electricity costs. Incandescents are inefficient – 90% of the energy goes toward heat and only 10% toward light.

Incandescent light bulbs also don’t last as long as CFLs and LEDs. The typical incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours, while a 15-watt CFL bulb lasts 10,000 hours and a 12-watt LED bulb lasts 25,000 hours. In other words, incandescent light bulbs last about a year while CFLs can last 10 years and LEDs up to 25. All told, your energy costs can be 25%-80% less by switching to energy-efficient bulbs, according to Energy.gov.

The alternatives sure do look awesome compared to these incandescent bulbs if you were to take this information they peddle as gospel. Also notice what’s missing? The fact that LED and CFL bulbs cost tens of dollars, each unit, compared to the cheap incandescent light bulbs, making it a shitty buy for the consumer unless they really do last at least 10, or more, times as long. Remember that important detail. And for now lets ignore the fact that neither the CFL nor the LED bulbs that are replacing incandescent light bulbs, produce the same amount of light.

That’s not me making up shit. I have replaced some lights in my home with the ultra expensive CFL and LED bulbs, and in every case I had to drastically bump up the wattage to produce the same light. What used to take a 75W bulb to illuminate requires a 100W LED or a 120W CFL. And the higher the wattage on these replacement bulbs, the more pricey they are. Going from a $1.00 per unit (I am being generous since I used to pay less than $3 for a pack of 4 incandescent bulbs) price to anywhere from $6.99 to $25.00 for the alternative bulb (there is a wide distribution/swing in pricing, and the pricing also seems immune to competition since it’s another government mandated pile of shit that completely squashes the need for competition), one can see the conundrum.

These things better work – at least when it comes to life span, since they already failed the light producing test and required higher wattage bulbs to produce the same light – as advertised on their longevity. Bet you already see where this is going, don’t you? Be patient: there is a lot more. Back to the article and why so many are not bothering with these miraculous devices.

Despite the savings, many still stick with incandescents because they typically don’t spend that much in the first place on lighting in their homes. “There hasn’t been a lot of incentive to go more efficient because it’s not going to make a big deal on their electric bill,” said Joe Rey-Barreau, a lighting design professor at the University of Kentucky and a consultant with the American Lighting Association, about why some people haven’t switch to more energy-efficient bulbs.

While an office building may use 21% of its electricity for lighting, a house uses as little as 13%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Home improvement store Lowe’s did a study comparing electricity costs of an LED vs. an incandescent bulb. Energy costs for the LED added up to $30 over the bulb’s 22-year lifespan. Energy costs for using an incandescent bulb over that same period added up to $165 – savings, certainly, but perhaps not significant enough for many homeowners over two decades to alter their buying habits.

Wait a minute? If you were saving between 25-80% on energy, that should make a huge ding on your electric bill, right? So why are we not seeing that efficiency savings in our bills? I bet that’s because you have to use a higher wattage bulb, and that means you are actually not doing a good comparison of efficiency. Maybe someone should have done the efficiency test while factoring the candle power output of these bulbs? Then they would have realized they couldn’t just compare a 75W incandescent bulb to a similar CFL or LED bulb? Go figure! Bad information produced by people with an agenda!

And $165 (nice round number, huh?) spread over 22 years is not that big of a deal, I am sorry to say. I replaced my windows with energy efficient ones and my oil consumption to heat my home dropped to ½ of what it was. That saved me a shit load of money and made it worth it. Similarly, putting in a new central air unit and getting rid of 5 window units saved me about 48% on my annual electric bill.

I am also thinking of replacing my generator with a liquid propane one, since I spend $25 a day to keep my gasoline one running. I have done research and a liquid propane genny will run for $4 a day. Granted, I will not run that too often, but when we had no power in my state, 2 years in a row, for more than 10 days, it added up. The day I get a new generator, at least 4 years from now, since my unit is still in great condition even after 4 years (I do maintenance!), I will get a propane one.

But I ordered me a shit load of incandescent bulbs online, and plan to replace the LED and CFL bulbs I have now out, because they suck, and I got ripped off. The LED and CFL bulbs burn out in months, not decades as advertised, because a lot of my lighting is on dimmers and recessed, which neither unit handles well. Between the variable power and the heating, these super expensive bulbs flame out faster than the supposedly short lived incandescent bulbs. It’s not just my own experience, as the article covers this issue somewhat:

Some consumers complain that CFLs don’t last as long as advertised. One characteristic of CFL bulbs is they are “fairly fragile” and can succumb to overheating, said Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association. “Those life ratings are established in a test lab and not established in somebody’s living room fixture,” McGowan said. “When you put them in a fixture and bottle them up in a glass shade, they get too hot and the life will be shortened.”

LED lights can also overheat. McGowan recommends using these bulbs in light fixtures that have good ventilation. CFL bulbs are also susceptible to shorter life spans when they are frequently turned on and off. A bathroom might not be a good place for a CFL, for example. A table lamp, floor lamp or hallway light would be more likely to extend a CFL bulb’s life span, McGowan said.

It’s not as if this fact was not brought up when the green scumbags pushed this into law! I know several people, including some on IEEE, that pointed this heating issue, as well as the candle power output inefficiency of CFLs and LEDs out, and they did this a long time ago. Long before our green government warlocks straddled us with this idiotic mandate. Those pointing out the problems with the tests and assumptions were basically told to shut up. A lot of people stood to make a shitload of money selling consumers super expensive crappy green shit, mandated by government threat of force, and thus, never subject to the usual pricing mechanism that would lower the cost, which wouldn’t really make that big of a difference in the long run. Don’t buy the nonsense that prices will come down. If they do it will be decades from now, after they lose their government enforced monopoly.

The lesson here is to verify the real life implications of these dumb studies that fool people. Thanks greenies!