How good is alternate energy?

[GreensvilleJay]

re: LED failures
You can easily get 50,000 hrs of life out of most LEDs, IF they're properly powered and protected.
Over 1/2 of the deaths are due to power supply failures(wrong components, poor design, poor construction EMI, etc.).
I've had some T-1 style red LEDs running 24/7 for almost 18 years in TTY controllers and some ULCAA security loops.
Major problem is people want CHEAP products, won't pay a little more for reliablity.

As for energy... Geothermal would be my choice, stable ,reliable, cheap to operate. yes costs a few bucks to drill couple holes in the ground BUT payback is 5-7 years.

 

[Jchonline]

re: LED failures
You can easily get 50,000 hrs of life out of most LEDs, IF they're properly powered and protected.
Over 1/2 of the deaths are due to power supply failures(wrong components, poor design, poor construction EMI, etc.).
I've had some T-1 style red LEDs running 24/7 for almost 18 years in TTY controllers and some ULCAA security loops.
Major problem is people want CHEAP products, won't pay a little more for reliablity.

As for energy... Geothermal would be my choice, stable ,reliable, cheap to operate. yes costs a few bucks to drill couple holes in the ground BUT payback is 5-7 years.

Geothermal requires land...there are millions without it. it is a good option if you can afford it and have land.

 

[Oliver]

My point is its a huge waste….we should just be putting panels on houses/barns/businesses and leaving the agricultural land alone. We really don’t need it. 12KWH of panels on a standard home that would only use maybe 30KW in a day…tons of excess. Just need the storage.

The problem is we don't have energy storage on a large scale at this point. If every structure generates their own energy (during daylight, wind, etc.) and also has the battery backup to store enough to get through night, weeks of cloud cover, times of little wind, etc. it will work. But 100,000,000 structures needing battery backup systems would be very wasteful, polluting, and expensive.

So if we all only generate some of what we use and forgo having to have our own battery back up systems we simply could ask "big electricity" to be able to supply us reliable power only when we need it, when ours doesn't work. Problem is efficient power generation can't do this, well they can but it'll be *very* expensive. Carbon ore and even gas power plants work well just constantly humming along but asking them to run, shut down, start up, slow down, ramp up, shut down again, is very ineffecient to do and very hard on the expensive equipment. No power plant would be built under that scenario, unless they were paid a lot more for generation when needed plus also paid while they were "on call".

Sometime in the future efficient energy storage (not batteries and probably large scale) will solve the problem.

 

[Jchonline]

The problem is we don't have energy storage on a large scale at this point. If every structure generates their own energy (during daylight, wind, etc.) and also has the battery backup to store enough to get through night, weeks of cloud cover, times of little wind, etc. it will work. But 100,000,000 structures needing battery backup systems would be very wasteful, polluting, and expensive.

So if we all only generate some of what we use and forgo having to have our own battery back up systems we simply could ask "big electricity" to be able to supply us reliable power only when we need it, when ours doesn't work. Problem is efficient power generation can't do this, well they can but it'll be *very* expensive. Carbon ore and even gas power plants work well just constantly humming along but asking them to run, shut down, start up, slow down, ramp up, shut down again, is very ineffecient to do and very hard on the expensive equipment. No power plant would be built under that scenario, unless they were paid a lot more for generation when needed plus also paid while they were "on call".

Sometime in the future efficient energy storage (not batteries and probably large scale) will solve the problem.

I agree. We can switch to solar now and drastically cut down on daytime usage..but at night we still need fossil fuels to keep things working. It is not a solution, but it is a step towards it.

 

[GreensvilleJay]

The BIG problem up here isn't generating power ,it's PAYING 'hydro workers' !! EVERY time we've reduced energy consumption, from incandescent to CFL to LEDs, 'they' UP the rates even though we're using less energy. They have HUGE salaries, pensions, perks, benefits that cost billions, so if we use less energy ,the rates HAVE to go up to pay for their 'expenses'. The end user cannot win. If everyone in Ontario went back to ONE LED and a single burner cooktop, the rates would go up even though we'd only need a small nuke.
If 'solar' actually did work, then the lower state would be covered in arrays, but they don't. Simple things like overhead clouds ,dust and bird turds dramatically reduce solar panel output. And again if you reduce your consumption of power, they jack up the rates....

 

[Oliver]

I agree. We can switch to solar now and drastically cut down on daytime usage..but at night we still need fossil fuels to keep things working. It is not a solution, but it is a step towards it.

I agree in some hot areas of the country (southwest) solar panels generate power when it's most needed, in the heat of the day. One problem is (like for batteries) heat is hard on photovoltaic panels shortening their life). Also unless you're in a high elevation you need your AC to run at night as well.
Interestingly Cali code now dictates every new home have solar panels and when they don't need that power it goes back to the grid. Problem is now Cali grid already often has TOO much power during the day, so they offered it to AZ cheap. AZ refused saying they didn't need it. I can't recall what occurred either Cali *gave* the power to AZ or I'm thinking actually *paid* AZ to take it. But in certain conditions, times when solar isn't producing, and in certain areas of Cali they need power. And the cost for a gas plant to inefficiently start up and generate power then shut back down for 10 hours may be as much as just having it operate at a more constant rate for 24 hours.

GreensvilleJay brings up an interesting point.

 

[jimh406]

Seems like conservation makes more sense than alternate energy.

When I moved/remodeled my current house, I put in low energy usage QLED tvs changed the fridge, and all LED lights. My power might be cheaper than yours, but my monthly electric bill is almost always less than $75 a month. I also have sunscreens on many of the windows that have prevailing sun this time of year.

I use firewood and propane for heat, and fans and one 12K BTU AC when it is pushing 100.

 

[BruceP]

I have had other LEDs die in a year.

I have taken apart many 120v "Light Emitting Diode" devices to repair them.

It is farrrrr more likely it is the power-supply to the LEDs which fail. Theoretically, an LED can last a very long time. However, the super-cheep circuits which serve as the power-supply contain substandard components or have poorly soldered connections.

Lets not forget that the LEDs themselves are cheep and reliable.... HOWEVER, they require constant-current power supply which can cost 2x what the LED itself costs. (an LED is a current device... NOT voltage)

This means, when you buy a 120v LED bulb, 2/3 of the cost is the power-supply circuit within the device. Obviously, it is the power-supply where the manufactures cut costs.

 

[Freeheeler]

re: LED failures
You can easily get 50,000 hrs of life out of most LEDs, IF they're properly powered and protected.
Over 1/2 of the deaths are due to power supply failures(wrong components, poor design, poor construction EMI, etc.).
I've had some T-1 style red LEDs running 24/7 for almost 18 years in TTY controllers and some ULCAA security loops.
Major problem is people want CHEAP products, won't pay a little more for reliablity.

As for energy... Geothermal would be my choice, stable ,reliable, cheap to operate. yes costs a few bucks to drill couple holes in the ground BUT payback is 5-7 years.

My payback was 2 years. Of course that includes the initial tax break covering a large portion, and the fact that mine is lake based so no drilling needed. Even cavemen knew the benefits of geothermal temp regulation

 

[Old_Paint]

And as for global warming, the same people lie about everything, ie. race -sex- etc. So who in their right mind would believe them on GW.

Someone got some 'splainin' to do about this year. We haven't had a single day over 85 degrees through 2/3 of July this year, and not a single day over 92. The trend is usually banging up against the end-stops by end of May and 90+ temperatures all summer.

 

[lynnmor]

Someone got some 'splainin' to do about this year. We haven't had a single day over 85 degrees through 2/3 of July this year, and not a single day over 92. The trend is usually banging up against the end-stops by end of May and 90+ temperatures all summer.

In PA it has been too hot to leave the house most days this summer. Come and take your heat back, we don't want it.

 

[jimh406]

In my part of MT, we set a record for most days in a row over 90. It’s also extremely dry here while some parts of the country have record rainfall.

 

[Jchonline]

I agree in some hot areas of the country (southwest) solar panels generate power when it's most needed, in the heat of the day. One problem is (like for batteries) heat is hard on photovoltaic panels shortening their life). Also unless you're in a high elevation you need your AC to run at night as well.
Interestingly Cali code now dictates every new home have solar panels and when they don't need that power it goes back to the grid. Problem is now Cali grid already often has TOO much power during the day, so they offered it to AZ cheap. AZ refused saying they didn't need it. I can't recall what occurred either Cali *gave* the power to AZ or I'm thinking actually *paid* AZ to take it. But in certain conditions, times when solar isn't producing, and in certain areas of Cali they need power. And the cost for a gas plant to inefficiently start up and generate power then shut back down for 10 hours may be as much as just having it operate at a more constant rate for 24 hours.

GreensvilleJay brings up an interesting point.

Many homes are just junk when it comes to energy efficient design. It will be 50 years before we have enough newly designed houses to really have an impact on AC/Heat use at night. Here in CO the new building codes require an extremely tight home build (less than 8 exchanges per hour I believe) and the insulation requirements keep ticking up every year. It is so much better to build an efficient home up front than it is to use AC/Heat to fix a leaky home. However it is more expensive....so the builder wants to pass the buck.

 

[random]

Not so sure it's the builder. Yes it's more expensive, and the builder isn't going to build for a loss, so its reflected in the price. TOO expensive and it doesn't sell.

Would you pay $20,000 more for a house that was going to save you $100/month on heating & cooling? That's almost 17 years for the payoff.

 

[lynnmor]

Not so sure it's the builder. Yes it's more expensive, and the builder isn't going to build for a loss, so its reflected in the price. TOO expensive and it doesn't sell.

Would you pay $20,000 more for a house that was going to save you $100/month on heating & cooling? That's almost 17 years for the payoff.

If you are going to mortgage the money or account for lost opportunity for gains, it is much, much worse than that.

 

[Jchonline]

If you are going to mortgage the money or account for lost opportunity for gains, it is much, much worse than that.

Not so sure it's the builder. Yes it's more expensive, and the builder isn't going to build for a loss, so its reflected in the price. TOO expensive and it doesn't sell.

Would you pay $20,000 more for a house that was going to save you $100/month on heating & cooling? That's almost 17 years for the payoff.

I would pay $50k more for a 500k house that is air tight and extremely energy efficient. It pays off in so many ways. Depending on where you live it is much more than $100 a month. What about replacement cost for Heating/AC units because they give out sooner (running much more often)? Service calls? It adds up and isn’t as simple as upfront vs electricity bill.

 

[Old_Paint]

In my part of MT, we set a record for most days in a row over 90. It’s also extremely dry here while some parts of the country have record rainfall.

Like this?

If it doesn’t rain tomorrow, this ditch will be dry tomorrow night. This was about 20 minutes of rain. Talk about LOUD under a metal roof!