Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:





"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The
fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.





My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon.
The 2 liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall
but I have 4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the
roof of the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if
we *do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use
theirs before we use ours".




Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to
fight most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.



The countries which produce oil are interested in selling it. We're
interested in buying it. I don't see any danger in that at all.


There is another market these days which would be more than happy to
buy the oil we purchase. We aren't the only game in town any more.

We've never been the only game in town. Demand sets the price.

I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single
digit fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under
insulated McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is
an unpatriotic act.



Naaaah. Those who drive the SUVs are being bitten in the wallet.


Sure. But they are also using up a critical strategic resource,
contributing to the imbalance of trade, and other things like that. Some
patriots.

They're paying for the critical strategic resource. Before you write
about others contributing to the imbalance of trade sell off all of your
electronic gadgets which are made abroad. Will you have trouble posting
with no computer? You do use only American-made ham gear, right?

I know a number of pickup truck owners hereabouts, who are buying
small cars. Nobody is building underinsulated anything these days.


Hmm, I suggest you come up to my area after a snowstorm. On most of
the McMansions, the snow is gone a few hours after the storm. The same
snow on my roof would be there for a week or so.

America is all about having the freedom to choose. Wisdom isn't
necessaary for those choices, economics is. If I can afford to buy and
heat a large, energy hog of a home, that choice is open to me.

There is a wierd thing going on in my area, and I guess others as
well. Conserving activities are seen as a liberal thing, and seems to be
a litmus test. I knew a woman on campus that refused to recycle because
"it just encourages the liberals". So we get the same thing with
automobiles and house insulation. But we definitely have a lot of big
houses that appear to have no insulation (or very little) in the house.

I've never thought of conservation as being just a liberal thing, though
you do appear to be of a liberal bent. Conservation and recycling won't
appeal to a lot of people until economics necessitates it. It doesn't
bother me that some folks have houses which are under-insulated any more
than it bothers me that some folks drive bigger, more expensive cars.

My pal W8RHM built his dream home three years ago. It is large and it
has geothermal heating. The heating system was supposed to pay for
itself within ten years or so. With the energy hikes of the past few
years, it'll be paid off much sooner. 'RHM is now paying winter
heating bills of 45-65 bucks. Those who have big, old homes will sell
'em to someone who can afford to heat them.


As long as there are people who can afford to heat 'em. My
prediction is that they will become white elephants.

They may and they may not. Someone with a lot of cash may love 'em.
I'd like to be able to afford one myself. Then again, if I had that
much loot, I'd likely have enough to better insulate them.

The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds me of the
legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo' face
consumption...



You may feel free to paint me with that brush.


Fiesty, Dave? I apologize if you think I was painting you as
anything. I doubt most Neon drivers are profligate energy wasters.

Feisty? No, I think you may have misinterpreted my words. I meant that
I could easily be painted with that brush. I accept the label. I'm one
of those. I'm guilty of "in your face" consumption of natural gas.

My lease agreement with Columbia Gas provides me with 300,000 cubic
feet of gas yearly. I'm barely using more than half.

I'm heating a glassed-in side porch and a workshop in the barn. As
soon as I get around to it, I'm adding a greenhouse lean to on the
back of the barn. I've a gas conversion kit for a gasoline
generator. In short, I'm going to very conspicuously use right up to
that 300,000 cubic feet and I'm not going to feel any guilt over it at
all.

I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from
these two hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable
in a few important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that
much oil and gas production could be a near fatal blow.



That's right. We need to drill in more places. ANWAR should be
hurricane proof.

Nobody wants to discuss one of the real solutions to sufficient
energy: more nuke reactors.


The way I see it, in the not too distant future, we will make a choice:

1. Rely on Nuclear power and build a lot more plants.

2. Go back to the middle ages.

Precisely.

It's just about that simple. While people can conserve energy, I doubt
that they can conserve enough.

If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not using, it is wasted.

The US has around 300 million people
right now. We will be at 400 million around 35 years from now. Can all
of us cut back 25 percent in energy usage?

I think I've already done that with electrical energy. I have efficient
appliances and almost all of the light in my home is by fluorescent
bulbs. I've installed a programmable thermostat for the a/c.

And that would be to just
tread water. Not to mention finding fossil fuels that will allow us to
continue our present "burn rate". Pun intended.

Your state and mine have quite a supply of coal and natural gas, along
with pretty good supplies of petroleum.

I support the alternative energy production modes. But we have to be
realistic. They are a localized phenomenon, and won't likely be a major
solution

If a guy with a wind turbine or solar panels makes the effort, I'm for
him. We can't all do it.


Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that
NOLA won't be rebuilt?




Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for
good.



Yep and people are free to build where they choose. Without the
freedom to make choices, America wouldn't be America. I won't be
rushing to buy a home in New Orleans but most of those folks wouldn't
live on a hilltop in rural West Virginia. That suits their
needs...and mine.



I have no problem in principle with a person building their house on
the lava dome of Mt St Helens if they are so inclined.

I agree.

However, I do
have a problem if he wants me to buy his insurance or build him a new
house when the present one burns up because of it's location.

Again, I agree.

Same goes
for building that wonderful vacation retreat on a barrier island or 50
feet from the ocean. That land is transient, and IMO so is any human
structure built on it

All human life and all human structures are transient, no matter where
they are built.

Do you support paying for these peoples stupidity? (The stupidity is
in my opinion - but a pretty good case can be made for it being stupid)

No, I don't support my paying for it or your paying for it or government
paying for it. I support the freedom to choose. That freedom comes
with responsibility.


Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not using, it is wasted.

Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-efficient
plants.


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not using, it is wasted.


Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-efficient
plants.

I accept your statements as fact, as far as they go. However, if
electricity is generated and not consumed, it is wasted. If I have a 25
KVA generator running and only use 12 KVA, the available balance is gone
forever. Admittedly, the generator will use less fuel under the smaller
load.


Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not
using, it is wasted.

Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load
decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In
fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-
efficient
plants.

I accept your statements as fact, as far as they go.

They go pretty far.

However, if
electricity is generated and not consumed, it is wasted.

Where does it go? The utility doesn't put huge dummy loads on
line.

If I have a 25
KVA generator running and only use 12 KVA, the available
balance is gone forever.

But it's not wasted.

Admittedly, the generator will use less fuel under the smaller
load.

Because it's not making 25 kVa.

If you're Neon has a 100 HP engine, but you're cruising down the
highway at a steady speed and only using, say, 10 HP, is the other 90
HP "wasted"?


73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not
using, it is wasted.

Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load
decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In
fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-
efficient
plants.

I accept your statements as fact, as far as they go.

They go pretty far.

N2EY is the public utilities commission?

However, if
electricity is generated and not consumed, it is wasted.

Where does it go? The utility doesn't put huge dummy loads on
line.

This is getting inneresting.

Smug Dave goes against Rev. Jim.

If I have a 25
KVA generator running and only use 12 KVA, the available
balance is gone forever.

But it's not wasted.

The 25KVA generator will deliver 12KVA. At a reduced fuel consumption
rate. It will produce 25KVA with advertised fuel consumption. You
will have trouble getting it to produce 30KVA at any consumption rate.

I guess you'se guys have never really dealt with real tactical
communications before. One a self-admitted Vietnam veteran, another
who somehow managed to serve in "other" ways. The Second Infantry
Division would be proud of both of you. Hi!

Admittedly, the generator will use less fuel under the smaller
load.

Because it's not making 25 kVa.

Ooh, Ahh! Congrats to the admirer of amateur radio comms during WWII.

Hi!

If you're Neon has a 100 HP engine, but you're cruising down the
highway at a steady speed and only using, say, 10 HP, is the other 90
HP "wasted"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Yes. If you intend to be going as fast as the "Neon" is able to go.

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not
using, it is wasted.


Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load
decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In
fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-
efficient
plants.

I accept your statements as fact, as far as they go.


They go pretty far.


However, if
electricity is generated and not consumed, it is wasted.


Where does it go? The utility doesn't put huge dummy loads on
line.

Actually, it does. They are in the form of transformers and wiring.
From what I've read, a little over 8% of generated power is wasted
regardless of the load. That allows no leeway for leakage. That's just
the waste built into the system. The conversion from mechanical to
electrical power is just a little over 41% efficient.

Generally, power is shifted to other parts of the grid if unneeded in
one area, so that it is used where there is demand. If locally
generated power was not connected to a grid, what would happen to
electricity generated, but not used? If my home generator is run at
full load, I might get eight hours of run time. If it is run at 50%
load, I might get only ten hours of run time from the same tank of fuel.
Doesn't this indicate that there is additional waste?

I don't know enough about controlling the total reactive component to
address it.


Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not
using, it is wasted.


Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load
decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In
fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-
efficient
plants.

I accept your statements as fact, as far as they go.


They go pretty far.


However, if
electricity is generated and not consumed, it is wasted.


Where does it go? The utility doesn't put huge dummy loads on
line.

Actually, it does.

No, they don't.

They are in the form of transformers and wiring.

Those losses are not dummy loads, they're inefficiencies. They are not
connected to use up power others don't use.

From what I've read, a little over 8% of generated power is
wasted regardless of the load.

8% of 100 kVA is 8 kVa. 8% of 50 kVA is 4 kVA. As the load goes down,
so does the waste.

Of course the situation is somewhat more complex, because even with no
load there is some loss, the loss is temperature dependent, etc.

That allows no leeway for leakage.

It includes "leakage". Copper loss, dielectric loss, skin effect,
corona, etc.

That's just
the waste built into the system. The conversion from
mechanical to
electrical power is just a little over 41% efficient.

That number is actually from the heat in the fuel to the final
customer. It includes boiler losses, turbine losses, alternator losses,
transmission and distribution losses, and all the electricity used to
run the plant and auxiliary loads.

It's actually very good compared to, say, a car.

Generally, power is shifted to other parts of the grid if
unneeded in
one area, so that it is used where there is demand.

Not really. If the load goes down, less is generated.

If locally
generated power was not connected to a grid, what would happen to
electricity generated, but not used?

It's not generated in the first place.

If my home generator is run at
full load, I might get eight hours of run time. If it is run at 50%
load, I might get only ten hours of run time from the same tank of fuel.
Doesn't this indicate that there is additional waste?

What you're seeing is the inefficiency of the *engine* at light load.

A perfect genset that burns X gallons per hour at full load would
burn 0.5X gallons at half load, 0.25X gallons at quarter load and
nothing at all at no load. But real engines aren't that good, so you
might find that a real genset that burns X gallons per hour at full
load burns 0.65X gallons at half load, 0.4X gallons at quarter load and
0.2X gallons at no load. The extra gas goes to run the engine itself -
unbolt the alternator and the engine will still burn about 0.2X gallons
per hour just to spin the shaft. Just like your car uses gas at idle.

It's the engine, not the electrical system.

This is where hybrids get their efficiency improvements. The engine in
a hybrid is almost never idling. It's either driving the car, charging
the battery or shut down.


I don't know enough about controlling the total reactive
component to address it.

I do. Utilities always aim for unity power factor. They have auxiliary
capacitors that are switched in to compensate. Some big customers can
control their power factor and compensate the system as well. Ever hear
of a synchronous condenser?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


If you're talking about electrical energy, any of it which is
produced
but not consumed, is wasted energy. I can turn off my
appliances and
lights, but if no one else uses the electricity I'm not using, it
is wasted.



Dave,

Electricity supply doesn't work like that.

The production adjusts itself to the load. If the load decreases, so
does production. There is no waste from reduced loading. In fact, if
the load goes down enough, utilities shut down their least-efficient
plants.


I accept your statements as fact, as far as they go. However, if
electricity is generated and not consumed, it is wasted. If I have a 25
KVA generator running and only use 12 KVA, the available balance is gone
forever. Admittedly, the generator will use less fuel under the smaller
load.

Jim is correct, especially because of the scale of the power
generation. The emergency gas generator is pretty much uncontrolled,
save for gas savings/expenditures due to load. The Power grid has a lot
of controls on it regarding generation. That is one of the reasons that
utilities are not all that wild about people who "co-generate". It makes
their job a bit more complex keeping track of it all.

- Mike KB3EIA -