Fuel Cell Performance

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"
wrote

> and the home insulation functions like a very large sleeping
> bag around the house.

Yes, and my point has always been that insulation is a worthwhile
tactic that is not uniquely part of the Lovins' decentralization
scheme.

Insulating a home can benefit a utility that provides power from a
nuclear plant just as well as a home that has a solar PV array.

That's why utilities around the country offer insulation rebates and
low interest loans, if not grants in some cases.

> I have provided you examples where this is done in Toronto and
> Amsterdam . .

And I've pointed out the folly, from an energy perspective, of the
Toronto home. These types of homes need special siting and other
requirements in order to meet their goals. You need to perform a
system analysis to see whether the energy put into getting the home
built to these specifications is worth the energy savings over the
lifetime of the home. Also, is the capital required within reach of
the target market? It'll do you no good to build a home which is
energy efficient yet no one can afford to buy it.

> Citing current averages for energy use in homes in the US is
> meaningless . .

It's sure better than citing Amory Lovins' imaginary numbers on home
energy use. Better to plan for how people actually live rather than
cramming your model down their throats. Household energy use is
going up, not down. Your analysis should recognize that fact.

> in the context of long term US energy strategy since you are
> talking about *obsolete* construction methods (and they've been
> known by some to be obsolete for thirty years, it's just been a
> hard cultural shift among home builders) . . .

No, vacuum tube TV sets are obsolete. Betamax video players are
obsolete. No one buys these things any more.

There is a whole industry dedicated to trade shows for the building
industry. Lot's of new products for contractors to use. Lot's of new
technologies to build into the home.

The superinsulated homes you speak so fondly of have been tried and
found wanting. The market hasn't accepted them with much acclaim.
The fault shouldn't be laid at the feet of the building industry but
should rest squarely on the fact that the advocates are shoving a
concept onto a market that doesn't see the need to suffer through
the massive lifestyle changes that go hand in hand with
superinsulated homes.

Composting toilets, rainwater collection systems, and gray water
recycling may be great for the Greenpeace crowd but most people find
them too expensive or inconvenient. Same too with the design
sacrifices inherent in superinsulated homes. Peradventure you
haven't noticed but over the last couple of decades home sizes have
been growing, not shrinking. This design philosophy runs counter to
the principle of energy self-reliant homes.

> and the housing stock in the US can more or less turn
> over 80-90% in terms of new construction, demolitions, and
> retrofits over a twenty year timeframe before SSPS becomes
> available.

I'd hate to live in your neighborhood if that's the case. No houses
older than 20 years. People carry 25 and 30 year mortgages in most
of the country and you're saying that the house will be demolished
before the poor saps have even finished paying for it.

I'd say most of the houses I see are over 20 years old. For me to
give any credence to this claim you'll have to provide some
supporting evidence.

> Superinsulation, energy efficiency, etc. is an idea whose time has
> come, yet it is being actively resisted in Congress by those who
> profit from current energy monopolies.

How then do you explain the efforts to get people to insulate and
install more energy efficient appliances?

The availability of low interest loans.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/financing/
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/efficiency/residential/homeseries/insul
ation/insulate.htm
http://www.chelanpud.org/conservation/electric/loan_program.htm
http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/WaterandLight/Services/loans.html

You're railing against a strawman here. People are insulating. That,
however, brings your vision of decentralization no closer to
fruitition. The two concepts are wholly different and unconnected.

> especially IIRC when the amount of money spent on defense over the
> last few decades (twenty to thirty trillion in current dollars?)
> is enough to tear down and rebuild every structure in the US twice.
>
> --Paul Fernhout

Whether you agree with the Defense appropriations or not, I think
you'll run into a major credibility problem if you advocate that the
entire military of the US should have been scrapped 20 years ago.

And why would you think that that funding would go to replace the
housing stock, so that people could live the restricted lifestyle
Greenpeace and RMI advocate. That clearly is not what people want.

If you want to live that way, please by all means do so, yet even
you admit that you're still not there. How can you possibly advocate
invasive government tactics to police how people shall live and in
what types of homes will be permissible if you yourself aren't
willing to sacrifice to live at that low standard.

This sounds like a socialist experiment and we've all seen the
wonders and benefits of socialist central planning and thought
police.

Look, the Lovins' decentralization scheme doesn't work. The energy
storage problem is not neatly solvable. The renewable platform is
actually environmentally destructive compared to SPS. It is becoming
clearer to me that "renewable and decentralized energy" is just a
proxy for you and the real motive is socially engineering society to
live a certain way, even though it is harsher for the environment
than the alternative SPS vision.

If centralization is so bad, then why aren't you railing against
municipal water systems, food at supermarkets, ICAAN internet
registry, food and drug licensing?

I have news for you - we're not going back to the days of villages
and self-reliance. Much wealth has been created from specializtion
of labor and this may mean that power generation will be done by
those organizations who are most efficient at it and who do it every
day.

The bugaboo of centralized authority cutting off your power is
fantasy. First off there is no central authority. All these utilites
have to answer to their shareholders and no one is going to cut off
your power to suppress your freedom (unless your operating a
marijuana grow up out of yur house and then when your power is cut
off it's because you're breaking the law.) You're punching against a
ghost here. This whole argument for decentralization is as solid as
smoke.

TangoMan