How many SPSes for $87 billion ?

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
> >> 2. Economically speaking, energy efficiency is a much better
> >> economic investment than energy production.
>
> > Here is my anecdotal rebuttal. Back in the late 70s, early 80s, I
was
> > a partner in a home insulation business. When we started, things
> > were going gangbusters, but after a few years, our telephone
> > solicters increasingly ran into more and more people who had
already
> > had their homes insulated. IOW, our retrofit market was finite and
> > the more successul we were the faster we eroded the marketplace. I
> > learned a very important lesson from that venture and it did help
> > finance grad school.
> >
> > The claim of insulation leading to energy independence is clearly
> > overstated.
>
> First off, laws and tax credits have gone backwards in many cases
since
> that time (with the start of the Reagan years). Also, many such
> insulation jobs (not saying anything personal) were poorly done by
fly
> by night outfits. So were many attempts at passive solar
architecture
> (too many windows, not enough vapor barriers, etc.) -- according to
the
> Passive Solar Architect who designed much of the house we live in.
> Technology has also improved over the last twenty years. So, Passive
> Solar is maybe a new business opportunity again someday?
> http://jl-company.com/Research/PassiveSolar.html
>
> I don't feel the issue is overstated (although numbers may shift
over
> time). For a well insulated (R60+) home, with proper passive solar
> design the air conditioning and heating needs are much lower, and
in the
> case of heating can be typically supplied almost entirely by body
heat
> and electricity used in the home for appliance, computers, etc.
Pretty
> much eight months of the year our home needs no supplemental
heating and
> cooling. In the last winter (-20F typically, we live in the
Adirondack
> Park) we did use supplemental heating for about four months -- but
our
> home is a retrofit in a very cold area, and has some large north
side
> glass windows for a view (which are not especially well insulated),
and
> has some other energy leak issues that need updating. In any case,
we
> use elctric heat and our eletric bills are still about the same as
our
> neighbors who needs to keep a wood stove going. The addition of
> exterior automatic thermal shutters for night time use would
probably
> reduce much of that bill. I would like to install an air-to-air heat
> exchanger to reduce our window opening for occasional ventilation
and
> running indoor air filters (we have dogs producing hair and
dander). So,
> still things to do -- but note that with government incentives to do
> these things, in the interests of security, they might get done
faster.
> Also note that air-to-air heat exchanges are simpler than air
> conditioners yet cost 4X or more as much, don't come in convenient
> window mount types typically, and thermal shutter prices seem way
more
> expensive than they need be. So, these are consequence of the
rarity of
> such efficiency improvements in the US.
>
> For cities, simple things like painting roofs white can reduce
energy
> consumption. So can laws promoting more work from home to avoid
> commuting costs etc.
>
> > You leave out economic considerations, convenience and the market
> > preferences of the consumers.
>
> I'll agree with this -- however, it's interesting that people are
> willing to support invading other countries rather than considering
> saving money long term by energy efficiency. Yes, this is a cultural
> problem -- the product of essentially a cult of imperialism
stretching
> back centuries. Making others suffer in a big way to avoid making
> relatively minor policy changes related to energy efficiency is
> uncivilized. Se below comments on bicycling. The US populaton seems
far
> more ready to contemplate armegeddon than either voluntary
simplicity or
> efficiency.
>
> > For that matter, we could all use wood burning stoves and forget
> > about oil heating our houses. It's only an environmental-air
> > pollution problem, not a technical one. Think of all those
forests
> > that we can harvest - they're renewable - if only we could see
> > through the smog to be able to cut down the trees.
>
> No, because there probably is not enough available timber on a
> sustainable basis given that most of the heat value in inefficient
wood
> stoves will be going up the chimney or out leaky doors and windows
etc.
> If you are talking efficient conversion of biomass to hydrogen
coupled
> with well built energy efficient homes, then maybe there is the
> beginning of something there.

R-60 House??? Let me ... guess ... Its Pink, right?

Forgive me if it sounds like I 'v taken this personally, but I also
have a country house in the Mohawk Valley. I have put allot of work
into making it as energy efficient as I can. It still takes more
than the dogs breath, refrigerator radiator and cpu fan to heat the
house. It has r36 in the rafters r19 in the walls storm windows and
doors and insulation in the basement. If I were to do anything else
the energy used during a retrofit would exceed my savings. Nearly
all houses in the USA today are insulated to the point that we now
have to worry about radon gas and mold spores as side effects of our
energy efficiency.

I looked at the Backwoods Solar site. They recommended using propane
for the stove, refrigerator, water heater and dryer. Because, the
solar panels on the roof wont produce enough energy.

Furthermore, who is going to shovel my solar panels in the winter
time.

The environmental benefits of SPS is greater than the environmental
damage that would be done if we were to all replace every building
that did not exceed the energy efficiency of my country house. Not
to mention an r60 house that does not exist.

Most of our electricity comes from burning coal. Environmentalists
act as if SPS is competing with windmills or "efficiency". SPS would
compete with Coal and Oil.