What's your electricity consumption ?

[PeterSibley]

I just paid our 3 monthly bill ...we averaged 5.8 kilowatt hours per day .Is this normal ,low or high ? How does yours compare ?

[hansp77]

2.2 killowat hours a day at our old house (bill is sitting in front of me right now). This is for two people, my girlfreind and I.

At this new one it will probably be a bit more as the hot water is on electric (not much I can do about it as it is a rental).

[PeterSibley]

We have 2 children and 4 adults currently , but the hotwater is wood and solar .

[stevebaby]

2 adults 2 kids,4.2 KwH per day...in summer. Elec . hot water off peak.

[The Bigfella]

26.7kwH per day for 5 - 6 adults (6 about 3 days / week) - all electric incl heat pump hot water (which is apparently about 40% of a normal solar type), elec oven. No gas or oil.

When you say you average ..., kw per day - do you mean per person?

[hansp77]

Damn, I'd hate to get your bill in the mail Ian:eek:
are you sure that is right?
As far as I know we are talking household consumption here, not individual- at least that's the amount I stated .

other question I guess is, who is on green energy?

I hate electric hot water, but considering I buy green energy, the move from my last house (gas hot water) to this one (electric hot water) probably counts as a reduction in emissions.

[PeterSibley]

Ian ,question is per household , ie the bill .
Hans , yes we do the Green Energy thing ..100% , not expensive and you get the full inner glow .

[Milo Christensen]

Marilyn and I used 14 KWH per day last month at home with gas hot water, heat, and clothes dryer. I'm not sure how we manage to use an average of 600 watts an hour, 24/7.

I really don't even want to think how many KWH the company I work for uses just for me to do my work. The lighting alone (36 fixtures x 160 watts per fixture) is 5.8 KWH per hour. There's an old, inefficient 20 ton HVAC unit just for the computer room, it runs 24/7 primarily for humidity control, there's also a dedicated 5 ton HVAC unit to keep the router/server room cool. Never really thought about how much juice all the other gear in the room uses.

[PeterSibley]

Milo , a mate and I just did an office fitout for a geophys outfit ...we worked out their lights and computers at 20 kw per hr...7 blokes ! The server runs 24/7 , the rest of it rests .

[Ron Williamson]

Our last bill was 14.7 kwh with electric dryer,natural gas water heater,wood/ natural gas space heat.
4 people
$42.22 all in, but it was only for 21 days.
R

[Milo Christensen]

Ours was $33.63 for 29 days. Not much financial incentive to save money by stumbling around in the dark, is there?

[Tylerdurden]

Between Hot water heat, Shop tools and welders and some computer use its to friggn' high. Small scale hydro looks better everyday even if its only 8 months a year.

If you want to see a drop in your bill though get rid of the wall warts for the laptop and phone and accessories. They are killers.

[The Bigfella]

Damn, I'd hate to get your bill in the mail Ian:eek:
are you sure that is right?



$4.02 per day for electricity - about 75cents per day per person. It must be all the damn computers - there's normally at least two on here, and more often than not, three. A neighbour uses heaps more, IIRC, and has a smaller family. Don't forget, no gas or oil to go on top of this.

[PeterSibley]

[quote=Tylerdurden;1571189
If you want to see a drop in your bill though get rid of the wall warts for the laptop and phone and accessories. They are killers.[/quote]

OK ..what is a wall wart? :D

[ishmael]

Last month, 283 KWH. 9.76/day. The bill's due, and was handy.

[Tylerdurden]

A wall wart is those cube shaped power supplies powering printers phones etc. They consume energy just sitting there and in total they add up to a lot. I did a solar/ wind install in upstate NY and we had sized everything correctly but within a month they were in deficit.
Did a walk through and pulled 13 wall warts. A little work on the bench later and we had modified them to be switched on/off so as only to be running as needed. The phone was 12v so that ran on a small gel cell with a pulse charger. Problem solved. I have gotten rid of most of mine except for the phone which is on my short list.
The damn things should be outlawed before incandescent bulbs.

[Bruce Hooke]

Over the past year, my average has been 8.34 kilowatt hours per day for my apartment and shop. I live alone, but I also work from home, so that 8.34 covers both my work and home electricity usage.

[Gary E]

Avg KWHr used each day is one thing but what is the price you pay?
I know some areas of the country are rather low and others very high..

For the month of March...
Avg 10 KWh
Total 318 KWh
Total $45.62 or 14.4 cents per KWh
32 Days in that billing cycle

Remember 40 or so years ago when they said that it would be to cheap to meter if we used Nuclear power?
riiiiiiiiight.......

[George Roberts]

We must use about 100KWh/month. About $100.

House, office & shop.

[Gary E]

We must use about 100KWh/month. About $100.

House, office & shop.


:D :D WHO pays $1.00 per KWh ????

READ YOUR BILL....

[Paul Girouard]

We used 54.7 KWH , elec. dryer, hot water , hot tub, gas furnace which we don't use , we heat mostly with wood.

The what we pay part is confusing as we have 9 sub catagorys listed on the bill , but it appears we pay .084497 per KWH if you average the 9 cats together.

Seems we my be high on use :eek: I could convert the stuff to gas but that would cost $$ and still energy would be used . At least the elec. is mainly hydro power so the " carbon foot print" would (I assume) be smaller than the natural gas choice.

That may be wrong , and I'm sure if it is some one will chime in and correct/ admonish/ beat me with a wet noodle / correct me on that:D

[ishmael]

I'll bet half of mine is keeping a big tank of hot water hot. That and occasional use of an electric dryer. The fan to run the furnace undoubtedly inflated that last month's reading.

I've often thought an inline on demand hot water heater would be a good idea. Brother has had bad experiences, but maybe equally bad installation. He's switched back to an electric tank.

The way this place is set up has always struck me as inefficient, at least for a single man. The water heater is WAY over there, and it takes minutes to get hot water to most taps.

My boat building teacher was married to a Swede and had a small Cape in Mystic, Connecticut. I visited once. They, undoubtedly because of her influence, had a small electric hot water heater. When you wanted hot water you had to flip a switch and then wait an hour. A pretty reasonable arrangement. In my last place the hot water line to the kitchen froze and broke, one markedly cold winter night. Rather than try to splice in a new piece of copper - it was in a very awkward place - I put a plug in and opted for cold water in the kitchen. It worked fine. Just had to boil some water on the stove when dishes were due. I can't say my girlfriend of the time was terribly impressed, but she had her hot water in the bathroom.


We're so spoiled! Don't get me wrong, I like my hot water. Someone threatening my hot shower! Them's fightin' words! LOL. But it's a luxury.

[Paul Girouard]

The way this place is set up has always struck me as inefficient, at least for a single man. The water heater is WAY over there, and it takes minutes to get hot water to most taps.



Most on demand heats need a re-circulation ( re-circ) pump / system . They have this pretty amazing lil mech valve that opens when the water cools and forces the cooler water back into the cold side letting hot water back up to the tap.


Instant Hot Water Systemhttp://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/rewilliams/bg.gifhttp://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/rewilliams_1945_14384181 (http://javascript<b></b>:makeWin('http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/rewilliams_1945_14377858',150,150))Instant Hot Water System
WHHWC
Availability:Usually ships the next business day.
Sale Price: $225.00 Shipping: Free Shipping $00.00 Quantity:

Instant Hot Water System For Your Whole House!

Save Up To 16,000 Gallons Of Water Per Year, Per Household (Based on average modern household usage) And Uses Less Energy Than A 25-Watt Light Bulb! A Breakthough In Home comfort!



Link: http://rewci.com/whhohotwaci.html?gclid=CKSy_tGriYwCFSmkhgod1H1S4A
I should put one in as well. Pretty simple really.

[S.V. Airlie]

Well, looking at my bill for the past two months..
552 kWh for two months. (62 days )b for about 0.8999999..../day

Not sure whether I can do better than that
I grill a lot.. only have the hot water heater to deal with, a radio.. and umm the puter!

[Bruce Hooke]

My parents have an on-demand hot water heater in their house and I'll pass on one thing...it works well enough in some ways but to trigger the mechanism to kick in you have to run the water pretty near full blast. No running a thin stream of hot water as you do the dishes. This may in part have to do with the fact that since they have their own well and pump the water pressure has never been as high as it is on most city water systems I've encountered.

[PeterSibley]

I'll bet half of mine is keeping a big tank of hot water hot. That and occasional use of an electric dryer. The fan to run the furnace undoubtedly inflated that last month's reading.

I've often thought an inline on demand hot water heater would be a good idea. Brother has had bad experiences, but maybe equally bad installation. He's switched back to an electric tank.

The way this place is set up has always struck me as inefficient, at least for a single man. The water heater is WAY over there, and it takes minutes to get hot water to most taps.

My boat building teacher was married to a Swede and had a small Cape in Mystic, Connecticut. I visited once. They, undoubtedly because of her influence, had a small electric hot water heater. When you wanted hot water you had to flip a switch and then wait an hour. A pretty reasonable arrangement. In my last place the hot water line to the kitchen froze and broke, one markedly cold winter night. Rather than try to splice in a new piece of copper - it was in a very awkward place - I put a plug in and opted for cold water in the kitchen. It worked fine. Just had to boil some water on the stove when dishes were due. I can't say my girlfriend of the time was terribly impressed, but she had her hot water in the bathroom.


We're so spoiled! Don't get me wrong, I like my hot water. Someone threatening my hot shower! Them's fightin' words! LOL. But it's a luxury.

Here in Oz ,electric hot water is probably half of domestic consumption . I'm an old fashioned bushy kind of a bloke ,we heat our water with a solar panel and a wood stove ,no electric backup.It takes 40 minutes to heat water from old ,not enough for a shower or two...it's not cold often though .

The figure I quoted above , 5.8 kwhr is for house ,shop and 2 kids and 4 adults .

[S.V. Airlie]

All I can say is I hope when I move on Airlie, my electric bill will be ZERO! One bill I won't have to worry about...:D

[ahp]

Ours can go as high as 60 kwh per day in the summer. We have electric everything. The biggest drain is the heat pump, especially in the summer. This is for a one floor 3000 square ft house, with very good insulation I might add, R22 in the walls and R30 in the ceiling. Here in Georgia electricity costs 10 cents per kwh.

[Tristan]

In South Florida, used for AC, cooking, hot water, and refrigeration (and heating in winter when necessary), family of four, three bedrooms, two baths, 905 kWh for April, 31 per day, bill was $104

[Gary E]

Boy am I getttin screwed at 14.4 cents per KWh

[S.V. Airlie]

Well, lets see.. 560 ( rough ) kWts for 63 days.. Bill was 107.00 and change...
Do the math.
Of course the town owns the electric company.

[George Roberts]

Gary E ---

A simple typo - 1000KWh/month.

[Gary E]

Jeff

I thought I was the only one doing that.

And in Houston I cant reemember the last time I turned on the A/C to dehumidify the place, it's been years.

[elf]

8.1 kwh per day, just me –*$75/mth.

[ishmael]

I think a good thing for all able young is to spend an extended period, at least a month, away from modernity. When I was young enough for it to sink in I spent a couple months in the back country of Texas and New Mexico. No electrics, no shower, no nothing but what we carried on our backs.

Were we glad to get back to the modern world? You bet. The hot shower was especially interesting, a taco or a slice of pizza were exotic. Having a surfeit of water again topped my list. Except for one stop at a lovely spring, we had to carry every drop. We never seemed to have enough or the right things to eat, either. We, of course, had plenty to eat and drink, but we dreamed! When the world is a desert the gallon and a half of water on your back becomes the most valuable thing in the world. It taught just how spoiled we are. By the end we'd come to see how tough we really were. Salty, ready for a lot more than we had been going in. Very good. That's the intent of Outward Bound, and similar experiences.

It was a bit contrived. A middle class dream of wilderness. We had resupply from the outside world maybe every week, but a worthwhile experience. No cell phones. Not much oversight by the rangers. If we got into trouble it would depend on our leadership and our character to pull us out of it. Both trips were very safe, a testament to our leaders. The worst thing that happened was a spine from an agave that festered.

Sorry to rant on, but I can't tell you how sweet those times were. I doubt they are any longer possible

[PeterSibley]

They are Ish , you just have to stop talking about it and do it .

Also ...no aircon ,heat and half our cooking from a wood burning Rayburn combustion stove , same one that heats our water .Aircon is for geratrics , I fully expect to get it when I'm 80 .

[leaotis]

20kw/day last quarter, $323.77 Gas hot water

[PeterSibley]

Jees mate ! That's exciting ! Anthing you could do to reduce it to say, 8 kwday ?

[The Bigfella]

Jees mate ! That's exciting ! Anthing you could do to reduce it to say, 8 kwday ?


Peter - given that you have:


heat and half our cooking from a wood burning Rayburn combustion stove , same one that heats our water .


I'd reckon your carbon footprint (transport issues excluded) could be bigger than Leaotis'.

[PeterSibley]

Think again old son ...ever hear of the difference between fossil fuels and carbon in "current cycle ".A bit of research required Ian .

[The Bigfella]

Think again old son ...ever hear of the difference between fossil fuels and carbon in "current cycle ".A bit of research required Ian .


I'd have thought that producing significant carbon dioxide and other gross pollutants via inefficient production means would get counted in your carbon footprint, rather than be considered a renewable energy resource - but if that is what you want to call it, so be it.

I looked into a water jacket / combustion heater combo some years back - and IIRC, the water jacket drops the combustion temperature significantly and has major pollution implications.

[The Bigfella]

Peter

Thanks for the tip - five minutes research after writing the above - and:



Unfortunately, the one 'nasty', unsustainable, greenhouse unfriendly and intensively polluting use is burning firewood in domestic heaters. Today, even the newest and best domestic wood heater creates more particulate pollution in a single day than driving a new family car 15,000 km - roughly a year's worth of driving - and that's if the heater is operated as perfectly as in the lab tests! Carelessly operating a brand new AS4013 wood heater for just a single day creates more particulate pollution than in the entire lifetime of a new car.
Even worse, the chemicals in woodsmoke are very poisonous. A recent NSW Health study in Sydney found that fine particle (PM2.5) pollution was the worst air pollutant affecting our health and significantly related to premature mortality.
Wood heaters not only create considerable air pollution, they significantly increase global warming. Burning two tonnes of wood (44% carbon) in a slow combustion heater results in approximately three tonnes of CO2 and 3.4 tonnes of CO2-equivalent, mainly methane (21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2) and CO (five times more powerful).
These figures tend to surprise most people - they think wood is renewable and therefore domestic wood heating doesn't affect the climate. This is only true for efficient burning, for which the main combustion products are carbon dioxide and water and only as much carbon dioxide as was absorbed by growing the trees. However, the potential to generate power renewably doesn't mean we should waste it, nor use more than we need. All energy should be used wisely if we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example, insulating houses, using passive solar designs to reduce heating in winter and cooling in summer and making use of solar water and room heaters.
The problem with domestic wood heaters is that the energy is often used in an extremely wasteful manner. Moreover, even with the best possible operation, domestic heaters cannot reach the same levels of combustion efficiency as a power station. A correctly operated new wood heater should not produce any smoke (apart from a short interval when first lit and perhaps a minute of so after re-loading.) The smoke from a correctly operated older model should be so faint it would be difficult to see.
An education campaign in Armidale, attempting to persuade heater owners to operate their heaters more carefully, hasn't worked.
Furthermore, even with moderately good operation, brand new domestic wood heaters are not particularly efficient. According to the Victorian EPA (Port Phillip Region Air Emissions Inventory, December 1998), wood heaters with emissions reduction technology emit approximately 5.5 g of PM10 particles per kg of wood and 60 g of carbon monoxide. Thus burning wood in domestic heaters is not greenhouse neutral and if we care about global warming, we will make better use of our wood. For example as a replacement for coal in power stations, so that it can be burned cleanly and efficiently and decrease, rather than increase, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
In summary, wood heating does not achieve the same level of environmental sustainability that could be achieved by using the wood we grow in other ways, such as to replace coal in power stations, or in wood gasification systems, or to produce ethanol as a replacement for petrol. The inefficient nature of combustion from domestic wood heating produces substantial quantities of non-CO2 greenhouse gases which will have a far worse effect on the global climate that the much smaller quantity of CO2 produced by gas heating.


http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/firewood-conferences/bendigo/lets-grow.html

[PeterSibley]

I'd have thought that producing significant carbon dioxide and other gross pollutants via inefficient production means would get counted in your carbon footprint, rather than be considered a renewable energy resource - but if that is what you want to call it, so be it.

You're right , it is a renewable resource , especially if you compare it to the fuel you 're using .The CO2 I'm releasing was laid down 20 years ago ...you're saying something laid down 20 million years ago is more sustainable ?? :D Either I burn it or it rots on the ground outside ...very little difference .As for the particulate polution ,agreed .BUT I live a long way out of town , I would be finding another way if I lived in town .I've seen the mess it makes in towns like Glen Innes , not good for the townsfolk ...but out of town it disperses with no ill effect .Horses for courses.

For me it sure beats coal .:(

[The Bigfella]

The CO2 I'm releasing was laid down 20 years ago ...you're saying something laid down 20 million years ago is more sustainable ?


Not me - the scientists. The gases produced by burning wood are 21 times more destructive than the main ones produced by burning coal - and it is less efficient as well. It is in the quote above. At a guess, your wood burning water heater produces 40 times the destructive greenhouse effect as a coal-fired power plant fed electric water heater - but I will see if I can come up with an exact number based on gas production. Ditto for the cooking and heating. Do the maths and thats equivalent to over 200kwH of electricity - more than Al Gore! Incidently, I watched his movie for the first time last night. Quite good - in a funny sort of way.

[The Bigfella]

OK - lets use a btu value as an indicator

for wood - about 7,000 btu per pound:

http://mb-soft.com/juca/print/311.html

for coal - about 11,000 btu per pound:

http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r01109/600R01109chap2.pdf

So - only 2/3 the energy by unit of consumption, but the main issue is the outputs of gases and their impact on the environment - primarily greenhouse gases - although, we can see from the earlier study that the particulate issue is massive.


The point about carbon neutrality that you were making is cited in this US EPA report:




The amount of C emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels is dependent upon the C content of the fuel and the fraction of that C that is oxidized. Fossil fuels vary in their average C content, ranging from about 53 Tg CO2 Eq./QBtu for natural gas to upwards of 95 Tg CO2 Eq./QBtu for coal and petroleum coke.

In general, the C content per unit of energy of fossil fuels is the highest for coal products, followed by petroleum, and then natural gas. Other sources of energy, however, may be directly or indirectly C neutral (i.e., 0 Tg CO2 Eq./Btu). Energy generated from nuclear and many renewable sources do not result in direct emissions of CO2.
Biofuels such as wood and ethanol are also considered to be C neutral; although these fuels do emit CO2, in the long run the CO2 emitted from biomass consumption does not increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations if the biogenic C emitted is offset by the growth of new biomass


However, this ignores the issue of the 1.7 tonnes of methane production per tonne of wood burned - which my earlier Aust. Govt. quote notes is the major gas produced by burning wood - and it is 21 times more damaging to our atmosphere than CO2.

Given all that, I'll stick with my 40 times worse (gu)estimate.

[PeterSibley]

Think again old son ...ever hear of the difference between fossil fuels and carbon in "current cycle ".A bit of research required Ian .
I think you missed the bit about current cycle v fossil ,lovely research though .:) .Gases already in the biosphere being reused versus digging up something laid down 20 million yeas ago , sorry mate it won't wash .

[Ron Williamson]

Efficiency is a funny thing.
Peter needs heat.
If you make heat from wood or coal then,turn it into electricity,then turn it back into heat after it's travelled from the power plant,it's hard to imagine that it could be more efficient.

Regarding that methane,does it go up the chimney without burning?
Just curious.
R

[PeterSibley]

Seeing we are doing a bit of research ...
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17915933

Titre du document / Document title

Net carbon dioxide emissions from alternative firewood-production systems in AustraliaAuteur(s) / Author(s)

PAUL K. I. (1) ; BOOTH T. H. (1) ; ELLIOTT A. (2) ; KIRSCHBAUM M. U. F. (3) ; JOVANOVIC T. (1) ; POLGLASE P. J. (1) ; Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)

(1) Ensis, CSIRO, P.O. Box E4008, Kingston ACT 2604, AUSTRALIE
(2) CSIRO Minerals, P.O. Box 312, Clayton South VIC 3169, AUSTRALIE
(3) CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, P.O. Box 475, Canberra ACT 2601, AUSTRALIE
Résumé / Abstract

The use of firewood for domestic heating has the potential to reduce fossil-fuel use and associated CO[2] emissions. The level of possible reductions depends upon the extent to which firewood off-sets the use of fossil fuels, the efficiency with which wood is burnt, and use of fossil fuels for collection and transport of firewood. Plantations grown for firewood also have a cost of emissions associated with their establishment. Applying the FullCAM model and additional calculations, these factors were examined for various management scenarios under three contrasting firewood production systems (native woodland, sustainably managed native forest, and newly established plantations) in low-medium rainfall (600-800 mm) regions of south-eastern Australia. Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of heat energy produced for all scenarios were lower than for non-renewable energy sources (which generally emit about 0.3-1.0 kg CO[2] k Wh[-1]). Amongst the scenarios, emissions were greatest when wood was periodically collected from dead wood in woodlands (0.11 kg CO[2] k Wh[-1]), and was much lower when obtained from harvest residues and dead wood in native forests (< 0.03 kg CO[2] k Wh[-1]). When wood was obtained from plantations established on previously cleared agricultural land, use of firewood led to carbon sequestration equivalent to -0.06 kg CO[2] k Wh[-1] for firewood obtained from a coppiced plantation, and -0.17 kg CO[2] k Wh[-1] for firewood collected from thinnings, slash and other residue in a plantation grown for sawlog production. An uncertainty analysis, where inputs and assumptions were varied in relation to a plausible range of management practices, identified the most important influencing factors and an expected range in predicted net amount of CO[2] emitted per unit of heat energy produced from burning firewood.Revue / Journal Title

Biomass & bioenergy (Biomass bioenergy) ISSN 0961-9534 Biomass and bioenergy
Source / Source

2006, vol. 30, no7, pp. 638-647 [10 page(s) (article)] (39 ref.)Langue / Language

Anglais
Editeur / Publisher

Elsevier, Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI (1991) (Revue)

In my case the transport phase is typically under 1 k , often 100 m...not terribly signicant .

[The Bigfella]

Ron

I'm not trying to have a dig at Peter - I just think that there are a lot of wrong assumptions out there about what is best.

I used to be strongly opposed to nuclear power - but looking at the greenhouse issue - it may be the way to go until they get solar and other carbon neutral technologies sorted.

I currently burn wood for heat by the way - but the wife and I have decided to change over to gas.

[The Bigfella]

Peter - again, that study totally ignores the methane issue - no mention of it, just the carbon issue. Carbon is only 44% of the wood.

[PeterSibley]

You'll have toask someone who actually knows but I would have thought that a flamable gas in a stove ......would burn ....now high school chem is a long way behind me , but don't we just get CO2 and water ?

As for nuclear Ian ....maybe , if it wasn't going to take 20 to 25 years to get going and there was a way of storing waste (something economically and politically feasible )

I had an old mate of the business persuasion ,you 2 would have agreed on most everything .He was hot for nuclear too ....then one day he showed me an article in Time on the economics and the subsidies and the real costs of the thing with comercial costings on waste disposal .He had a VERY negative view after that .

The easiest and fastest way to reduce our green house emmissions is to reduce waste .....reduce consumption mate .Not that easy but a hell of a lot easier than talking Sydneysiders into a full sized Nuc within 100k !

How about a cost comparison of a solar hotwater heater on ever roof in Sydney V a Nuc station ? How about a time line ? And don't ask me , ask Howard or Rudd .

[Tylerdurden]

I know one of the quickest ways to cut down is get rig of the CRT your looking at and go flatscreen. They suck enormous amounts of energy and are a total waste considering the quality of flatscreens now. For emergency back up power I have converted from the generator to battery back up with inverter. I only need the generator for the dryer and stove now but I am getting a portable induction cooktop so that will eventually make the generator moot. The dryer will only run when its to cold to air dry clothes.
On the welder front I have switched to inverter welders, I was leery at first but shelled out three grand for a Miller Dynasty and it kicks arse.
Use it exclusively now, the old ones can rot. On the Plasma cutter front the new models out this year have done the same thing, I will switch real soon.
One of the things I would like to try is swap the 3/4 hp motor on my drill press to an AC frequency drive. Full torque and variable speed
hell ya!

[David Tabor (sailordave)]

Last months bill was 121.85
33.58 for Service
82.97 for Electricity 1492 KWhr at 5.46 cents/KWhr
0.39 Surcharge
2.70 State/local consumption tax
2.70 County tax

In Feb. I used 4704 KWhr...:eek:

I have a two zone heat pump, Propane Hot H2O

[willmarsh3]

This is a good thread.

After shuffling through my paper mountain for 10 minutes ... I pull out my January utility bill. It shows:

459kw over 33 days for $35.52. That's 13kw per day at $.13 per kw. That's bad enough but the natural gas is really expensive.

I live alone. I use gas heat and stove, electric washer and dryer, electric hot water. I switched over to CFL bulbs and use one laptop computer.

In comparison to others, the consumption seems awfully high. I thought I was careful with the lights. One thing to do is run the dryer only as long as the wash cycle as opposed to its normal run time - seems to get the clothes sufficiently dry. I really need to look at the hot water heater and possibly switch to tankless. I may want to get a "kill-a-watt" instrument to see where the energy is really going.

On the boat I've gone after energy wasters. I put an ammeter on the house battery so I can see at a glance how much current is being used. The big villains in this cast are the halogen cabin lights, incandescent running lights, and the spreader lights. The big hand held spotlight that came with the boat uses 15A at 12V DC. I tried to use it only once. I'm replacing these with LED lights which reduce the current consumption to the point that on the ammeter the needle deflection is barely visible.

[paladin]

the inverters that I have been designing are getting better. We were averaging 91-92 % efficiencey and now with some custom magnetics that I designed and had made in China we are getting 96-98% efficiency now. I wanted maximum energy transfer from the solar panels through the charging system to the batteries. With the increased efficeincy there's no heat, no need for cooling, they take a 100% overload for a few minutes and they are stackable.......getting better all the time. With a little more work we can imbed these supplies directly into a computer and it will run from 10 volts to 36 volts no switches etc......I've got a little more design work to get these things where I want them.......maybe wunna these days before I croak....

[The Bigfella]

well you better not croak then eh Chuck?

[shamus]

Our cooking hot water and light is all electric, but when we need extra heat we use firewood. Consumption recent years has been 30 to 40 kwH per day. Just at present we're housing six people. A lot of the excess consumption is down to computers, and the hot water system is a guzzler. I'm hoping to move to solar hot water shortly.

[huisjen]

Frickin electric hot water heater.

Not the last bill but the one I paid a month ago was for the period from 2/12 to 3/13. 658 KWH or 22.69 KWH/day. Paid $114.27, or 17.37 cents per KWH.

Dan

[The Bigfella]

Phew - found some rather "interesting" data taken from a US EPA report.

Did you know that burning 1 kg of wood in your wood stove / heater can produce up to 160 micrograms of Dioxin?

It also produces 14g - 25g of methane gas - and bucketloads of other nasties. Yes - in the smoke - not combusted. Methane is 21 times more environmentally destructive than carbon dioxide.

Here's the link:

http://www.burningissues.org/table2.htm

The parent site has lots more:

http://www.burningissues.org/


I found heaps of sites that wanted to espouse the view that they (wood stoves) can be carbon neutral if the trees are re-planted - but they are NOT greenhouse neutral - they are orders of magnitude more environmentally destructive than the alternatives.

So - if, like me, you have been burning wood and thinking that it is environmentally more friendly than using say coal-fired electricity or gas for heating, etc - then you are badly mistaken. These wood fires produce some of the worst greenhouse gases.

I haven't found any reference yet that prices these greenhouse externalities (a word I learnt when studying Environmental Economics in my final year of my undergrad degree - 31 years ago). There are no greenhouse externalities with nuclear - and the costs of storage etc can be calculated.

Ian

[PeterSibley]

Very impressive Ian :D...the population will be dropping like flies next time there is a bushfire ! Strangely enough that doesn't happen .Ask me how I know .You had to search long and hard to find that ,well done:) .How about posting some of the stuff you rejected as not scary enough ?

I read through the site , but unfortunately not being an industrial chemist ...as you must be , I was unable to meaningfully interprete any of the chemical descriptions ...impressive though.

Sorry Ian ...if the proposal you are putting forward had legs , every bush fire throughout time would have been generating a new cloud of toxic nasties ...the planet would be progressively be degrading , all without the industrial revolution and coal .A very strange theory indeed ..

[The Bigfella]

Sorry Ian ...if the proposal you are putting forward had legs , every bush fire throughout time would have been generating a new cloud of toxic nasties ...the planet would be progressively be degrading , all without the industrial revolution and coal .A very strange theory indeed ..


Um - that's the point Peter - it is.

[ahp]

There is no free lunch. I read a report that traditional fireplaces, with damper are about 10% efficiency. The pollution is real but not too bad because a traditional fireplace always burns with an excess of air. An airtight stove on the other hand is about 60% efficient but generates a real witch's brew. It is called destructive distailation.

[PeterSibley]

Um - that's the point Peter - it is.
Rubbish .

[cs]

I'll read the post later, but 1079 kwh. Is that a lot? BTW that's 37.2 per day

Chad

[Brian Palmer]

I just check our latest bill for April and it was 13 kwh per day. In August it was up to 33 with the AC on, and in December/Jan it was about 18 to 19.

We have oil hot water heat, a pretty efficient AC unit (only 5 years old) and we as mostly CFLs. Washer, dryer, (no diswasher), computer, and seldom watched television. About 1800 sf of living space.

[The Bigfella]

Rubbish .

You have, I trust, heard the analogy about the atmosphere being no more than the equivalent of a layer of varnish on a desktop globe?

Peter - I find it hard to believe that you would deny global warming due to greenhouse gases. As for the industrial revolution and coal, they are just the straw that broke the camel's back - the extra bit on top of the natural greenhouse-causing gases. Yes burning wood is a MAJOR contributor to global warming.

That carbon-neutral crap in relation to wood is just a smokescreen that ignores the significant impact of gases produced by wood combustion. A significant part of the world's 6.5 billion people still use wood as their dominant form of energy (it was a significant majority last time I saw statistics on this, which admitedly was in 1991-92). People, rightly focus on the fact that 5% of the world's population produce 30% of the greenhouse gases - but it still means that the rest are pumping out 70%.

As to how much research it took to find that site - I'd say far too much given the importance of the issue - probably about 30 minutes. Here are the Google strings I used - not necessarily in order:

gases produced wood fires
gases produced by coal fired electricity
pollution from slow combustion water heaters
gases produced burning coal
btu per pound wood burning
gases that cause global warming

I probably clicked through to about 20 sites before I found one that wasn't someone selling wood heaters or telling us about the beauty of using a carbon-neutral fuel - or totally ignoring the issue.

....... and ..... No - I'm no industrial chemist - I'd say I'm more qualified in providing advice on submarine fairing than in industrial chemistry - but I did have an in-depth discussion with one of the leading industrial chemists on the subject of smoke composition from the Toongabbie chemicals warehouse fire some years back. To sum it up, he said "there were compounds in that plume that are probably unknown to man"

Ian

[PeterSibley]

Ian , thank you for the courtesy of a well thought out response .I have considerable difficulty with your proposition ,however .

Peter - I find it hard to believe that you would deny global warming due to greenhouse gases. As for the industrial revolution and coal, they are just the straw that broke the camel's back - the extra bit on top of the natural greenhouse-causing gases. Yes burning wood is a MAJOR contributor to global warming.

Rapid growth in greenhouse gases ,particularly CO2 began around 300 years ago , the burning of wood has been going on indefinitely , it certainly happened in perhuman days .The gases released were taken up by new growth, the balance remained constant .It is the release of CO2 from fossil fuels which is the cause of our current problem .Without the burning of coal and other fossil fuels there would be significantly less of a problem.Less , but still a problem ,especially from the amount of clearing over the last 200 years in Australia and the Americas .The enormous release of soil carbon from now farmed savana is something that is only now being calculated .

I cannot accept what you seem to be saying , correct me if I'm misinterpreting .You appear to be saying that burning wood is the equivalent or even worse than burning coal ...correct ? If this IS what you are saying I'm afraid the conversation will founder at this point .I look forward to a clarification .

[The Bigfella]

Rapid growth in greenhouse gases ,particularly CO2 began around 300 years ago , the burning of wood has been going on indefinitely , it certainly happened in perhuman days .The gases released were taken up by new growth, the balance remained constant .


Peter - yes, burning wood has been going on for a long time - but it is human intervention that has increased it exponentially - particularly in the past 300 years. You know what happens when deforestation occurs - the trees are burnt. Also - when the human population exploded exponentially in the last couple of hundred years, the burning of wood as a primary energy source also exploded exponentially. Vast areas of this planet have been denuded - remember hearing of the Fertile Crescent - guess what happened to it? Know why the sub-Saharan famines are occurring - people burnt all the wood. (Check out Bill Mollison's Permaculture writings)

The final sentence in the excerpt from your last post is one of the things that I am arguing is a misconception. The gases ARE NOT taken up by new growth. The carbon content of the burnt timber (approx 44%) IS taken up by new growth (IF there is new growth). The balance is not. The balance includes the products of combustion - including the dioxins and more significantly, the methane and carbon monoxide which is produced in much larger quantities than the carbon dioxide - following excerpt from the Aus govt. environment website in post 44 above:


Wood heaters not only create considerable air pollution, they significantly increase global warming. Burning two tonnes of wood (44% carbon) in a slow combustion heater results in approximately three tonnes of CO2 and 3.4 tonnes of CO2-equivalent, mainly methane (21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2) and CO (five times more powerful).

Based on this - and the other confirming analysis performed by the US EPA, (see link in post 61) yes - I am saying that burning wood for personal energy needs is significantly worse than burning coal - based on the evidence that I have seen - and I am also saying that I haven't been able to find any significant evidence to the contrary.

Ian

[PeterSibley]

The final sentence in the excerpt from your last post is one of the things that I am arguing is a misconception. The gases ARE NOT taken up by new growth. The carbon content of the burnt timber (approx 44%) IS taken up by new growth (IF there is new growth). The balance is not.
So you are proposing that for all the wild fire , all the firestick farming ,over the millions of years in the first case and millenia in the second ,56% of the CO2 emmitted has been accumulating in the atmosphere ? That is rather like geometric growth Ian ...makes me wonder why the Earth isn't like Mars already !

[The Bigfella]

So you are proposing that for all the wild fire , all the firestick farming ,over the millions of years in the first case and millenia in the second ,56% of the CO2 emmitted has been accumulating in the atmosphere ? That is rather like geometric growth Ian ...makes me wonder why the Earth isn't like Mars already !


I never said that.

I dunno where it all goes mate - sorta like the horse poo in old London town eh - everyone reckoned that the town would be 20' deep in it. That is part of the point I was making - the research is not easy to find. There are clearly processes at work that deal with various compounds - some more effectively than others. Mate - I haven't studied science since 1975, but photosynthesis rings a bell........ As for the dioxins - hell, there's plenty of that stuff under a layer of mud in the Harbour. Doesn't hurt you as long as you don't disturb the mud (but I'd rather it wasn't there)

The issue, as related to this thread was about personal contributions to the greenhouse effect. It is occurring because of the growth in the human population - and the choices we collectively make about energy consumption. My comments were that you and I - as users of wood as an energy source - are contributing significantly more to increased greenhouse gases than appears in just our electricity consumption figures - and that the majority of the nasty gases our burning wood produces are not reabsorbed through the current carbon cycle.

Let me ask you a question (two actually). Do you agree - from looking at the two government sources that I have provided - that burning wood as a source of energy is a significant pollution generator and contributor to global warming? If not - why not?

Ian

[PeterSibley]

Let me ask you a question (two actually). Do you agree - from looking at the two government sources that I have provided - that burning wood as a source of energy is a significant pollution generator and contributor to global warming? If not - why not?

OK , first question .Undoubtedly a producer of airborn polution ,specifically fine particulates ...I have to admit not having ever heard of my trees having dioxin in them ...but you never know .Re the polution ...I do not recommend wood burning stove in town , here where I live 27 k out ,they are fine .

Secondly ..no I do not accept the proposition re wood and greenhouse .It is not logically supportable .Wood has been burnt since time immemorial without any increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere .The gases are in "Current Cycle ",my previous post makes that point quite well .The new addition to the mix is fossil fuels .If the amount of CO2 being produced by fossil fuel burning exceeds the ability of the biosphere to absorb them it is ridulous to blame that inability on the burning of wood , the result of which would absorbable if not for the dragging forward of millions of tons of CO2 from ancient times and releasing it into our atmosphere now .

This is to exclude previously made points about soil carbon and permanently cleared forest .In my case ,where a tree falls another very soon fills that spot .

[The Bigfella]

OK Peter - tell me then - if you burn 5 tonnes of wood this season - where is the close to eight tonnes of mainly methane and carbon monoxide going? I think you are avoiding the very plainly postulated science - postulated by the Australian and American government's top environmental scientists too - not by me.

[WillW]

Our average bill is $100

We're using about 30 kwh /day, which is definitely on the high side, considering 2 people, no a/c, no huge appliances. (except electric hot water.) Winter usage is higher due to block heaters (cars) and bucket warmers (farm animals). Electricity here is $.055 /kwh plus delivery

Last bill (1 month) was

666 kwh @5.5 = $36.63
Delivery $48.31
Regulatory Charges $4.38
Debt Retirement Charge $4.27
Tax $5.62

[WillW]

Re: Wood burning. Not all wood-burning appliances are equal. We installed an new EPA-standard fireplace, and it produces almost no visible smoke once it's running hot. A huge contrast with our wood-burning furnace.

[willmarsh3]

One thing about burning wood - dry logs burn a lot cleaner. I went outside while burning wet logs in my wood stove and I could definitely smell the smoke. With dry logs I couldn't tell if it was burning while standing outside.

[Gary E]

ALL the firewood that ALL OF YOU so called conservators of the enviroment burn
dont amout to a FART in a windstorm when you look at what is naturally burning in FLORIDA NOW....
http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/fireplots/sfl2007135_0700.jpg

[Gary E]

THIS is what it LOOKS like NOW
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_fl_fire_070509_ms.jpg

[PeterSibley]

OK Peter - tell me then - if you burn 5 tonnes of wood this season - where is the close to eight tonnes of mainly methane and carbon monoxide going? I think you are avoiding the very plainly postulated science - postulated by the Australian and American government's top environmental scientists too - not by me.

Ian , I'll post my previous answer again as you have apparently overlooked reading it ....

Secondly ..no I do not accept the proposition re wood and greenhouse .It is not logically supportable .Wood has been burnt since time immemorial without any increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere .The gases are in "Current Cycle ",my previous post makes that point quite well .The new addition to the mix is fossil fuels .If the amount of CO2 being produced by fossil fuel burning exceeds the ability of the biosphere to absorb them it is ridulous to blame that inability on the burning of wood , the result of which would absorbable if not for the dragging forward of millions of tons of CO2 from ancient times and releasing it into our atmosphere now .

This is to exclude previously made points about soil carbon and permanently cleared forest .In my case ,where a tree falls another very soon fills that spot .

[The Bigfella]

It seems that individual responsibility is a concept that shouldn't apply then eh?

No - that seven tons of methane that you produce out your chimney this year does not metamorphose into another tree. It is equivalent to more than 150 tons of coal-produced carbon monoxide in its destructive impacts on the atmosphere.

Here's what Wiki says:



Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas) with a global warming potential (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential). When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2, however there is approximately 220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere) as methane.


Oh - and because a lightning strike might cause a fire, its OK for me to do it? I'm willing to bet that most forest fires are human-caused too incidentally.

[PeterSibley]

It seems that individual responsibility is a concept that shouldn't apply then eh?

Well ,that's something to consider .If we're being personal ,as you are .Your household produces 9.5 tons of CO2 per year from coal fired electricity .You could if you like research the methane output that accompanies that .There is considerable methane in coal seams ...the old coal damp ...
I use 1 ton of firewood per year ,it runs the stove for 4 hours a night through winter (none in summer ,spring or autumn ),in conjuction with my solar panel. The rest of my power is Green Power....the bill says NO O2 emmissions at all.I wonder if the wood would produce methane as a result of fungal decomposition if I left it outside unburnt ...more methane or less .Do you know ?

The reference to lightning strikes and firestick farming was to TRY to get you thinking about your previous proposition ...ie the steadily increasing methane load in our atmosphere from wood burning ....which you did say !:D

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

OK Peter - tell me then - if you burn 5 tonnes of wood this season - where is the close to eight tonnes of mainly methane and carbon monoxide going? I think you are avoiding the very plainly postulated science - postulated by the Australian and American government's top environmental scientists too - not by me.

Methinks you have mislaid the decimal point.

Just checked - the missing element is the equivalence factor.


Burning two tonnes of wood (44% carbon) in a slow combustion heater esults in approximately three tonnes of CO2 and 3.4 tonnes of CO2-equivalent, mainly methane (21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2) and CO five times more powerful).

Scale to 1 tonne (GOK why they chose two)
1 tonne Wood
1.5 tonnes CO2
1.7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent - a mix of (mainly) Methane and Carbon monoxide

the weasel is "Equivalent" -
They claim Methane at 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas
and the Monoxide at five times more powerful.

Back of an envelope - treat the mix as 20 times CO2 giving the actual amount as not 1.7 Tonnes but about 85 Kilos.


And the quick answer to the "where is the ~ going?" is;
To atmosphere where it will, relatively quickly, be oxidised - neither Carbon monoxide, nor Methane hang around long in our air.

[MarkC]

Paladin wrote:



the inverters that I have been designing are getting better. We were averaging 91-92 % efficiencey and now with some custom magnetics that I designed and had made in China we are getting 96-98% efficiency now. I wanted maximum energy transfer from the solar panels through the charging system to the batteries. With the increased efficeincy there's no heat, no need for cooling, they take a 100% overload for a few minutes and they are stackable.......getting better all the time. With a little more work we can imbed these supplies directly into a computer and it will run from 10 volts to 36 volts no switches etc......I've got a little more design work to get these things where I want them.......maybe wunna these days before I croak....


I wonder what the pay-back time would be for the equipment and installation (on a average home) - batteries, panells, inverter electronics, cabling? And how long the batteries would survive before needing replacement. Add all that up and compare to the average kw per hour charge. Over the period of ten years - I think that is how most people do it.

And to use batteries for storage or be connected to the grid for 'pay back' (is that what its called - to be paid by the electricity company?).

[The Bigfella]

If we're being personal ,as you are


Peter - you posted this as a personal consumption thread - and I have been at pains to point out that I also consume wood in the same manner as you.



I use 1 ton of firewood per year ,it runs the stove for 4 hours a night through winter (none in summer ,spring or autumn ),in conjuction with my solar panel. The rest of my power is Green Power....the bill says NO O2 emmissions at all.


You said earlier:



no aircon ,heat and half our cooking from a wood burning Rayburn combustion stove , same one that heats our water


One ton a year to do that is pretty frugal consumption, particularly if you are cooking on the stove. One of the sites I linked worked its figures on 40 pounds of timber per night - call that 7 tons a year. Obviously in temperat climates like yours and mine - the season is fairly short. We've only lit it for a couple of hours one night so far in 2007. At a guess, I'd say we go with heating 80 nights a year - less than two tons.


The reference to lightning strikes and firestick farming was to TRY to get you thinking about your previous proposition ...ie the steadily increasing methane load in our atmosphere from wood burning ....which you did say !:D

In the last few hundred years, we - the human race - have significantly increased the load of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If we (you, me or him) choose firewood as a major energy source (as you and I have done) we are having a greater greenhouse gas impact than if we used say natural gas instead.


Methinks you have mislaid the decimal point.

I'll check into it and get back with an update. It seems hard to find detail on this.



And the quick answer to the "where is the ~ going?" is;
To atmosphere where it will, relatively quickly, be oxidised - neither Carbon monoxide, nor Methane hang around long in our air.


Thanks mate - I assume that the oxidisation is what does the global warming damage?

MarkC - re the pay-back. I did some work on this for a research funding application a while back - subject to secrecy agreement, but the basic issue that the energy companies had then was the harmonics that can be introduced to the grid. I'm no expert on the technical aspects - I was commenting on the business aspects and whether it was deserving of funding (I gave it the highest possible rating). It certainly paid off for one of the students there at the time - he is now China's richest man. As for payback at the domestic level - we got our first heat pump hot water heater in 1993 - at a cost of $3,500 - say 8 times dearer than normal - it lasted about 11 years and our next one was only about $1800 IIRC - subsidised by the Govt. Reduces our elec consumption considerably - but probably never pays back economically if you were to factor in the cost of money, etc.

[The Bigfella]

Quote:
Methinks you have mislaid the decimal point.
I'll check into it and get back with an update. It seems hard to find detail on this.



Strewth mate - it was an alcohol-free day, so I can't say I was P.I.Stazza, can I? Yes, it seems they have factored it - one of the other sites shows it as a lower figure - yet another gives it an even higher impact. So - what's the answer?

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

In the first instance - efficiency - I hate the idea of throwing methane or carbon monoxide out with the flue gasses - this only happens when the fire is run oxygen poor.

I've seen designs with a secondary air feed and combustion zone - allowing the "wood gas" to be burned and more heat extracted - while retaining the simple throttle for the main fire....

[PeterSibley]

Peter - you posted this as a personal consumption thread - and I have been at pains to point out that I also consume wood in the same manner as you.
But a very much greater amount of coal .None in my case .

One ton a year to do that is pretty frugal consumption, particularly if you are cooking on the stove. One of the sites I linked worked its figures on 40 pounds of timber per night - call that 7 tons a year. Obviously in temperat climates like yours and mine - the season is fairly short. We've only lit it for a couple of hours one night so far in 2007. At a guess, I'd say we go with heating 80 nights a year - less than two tons.
You're right , it is pretty frugal ,but then so am I ..I'd say 10 kg per night is about right ...a bit less than a ton.
In the last few hundred years, we - the human race - have significantly increased the load of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If we (you, me or him) choose firewood as a major energy source (as you and I have done) we are having a greater greenhouse gas impact than if we used say natural gas instead.
I'm still having great difficulty with this one old son , especially if said wood is rapidly regrown in the same spot :D.You still haven't responded to the "fossil fuel " idea , bringing forth carbon from dim antiquity and squirting it into our current atmosphere .Natural gas is a fossil fuel and remarkably similar to the dreaded methane .

Thanks mate - I assume that the oxidisation is what does the global warming damage?
I don't think so .


Seems the best way to respond .

[The Bigfella]

I'm still having great difficulty with this one old son , especially if said wood is rapidly regrown in the same spot :D.You still haven't responded to the "fossil fuel " idea , bringing forth carbon from dim antiquity and squirting it into our current atmosphere .Natural gas is a fossil fuel and remarkably similar to the dreaded methane .



You appear to be captured by the concept of a closed loop (sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth). What you seem to be implying is that you burn wood - which produces carbon products which then become another tree. Not quite. The issue that I have is the by-products and the damage that they cause to the environment. If these by products are "dirtier" than the aged carbon in coal or natural gas (which may leak back into the atmosphere if not captured first) - then despite the fact that another tree may replace the one that is burnt - the damage caused is still greater.

[PeterSibley]

You appear to be captured by the concept of a closed loop (sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth). What you seem to be implying is that you burn wood - which produces carbon products which then become another tree. Not quite. The issue that I have is the by-products and the damage that they cause to the environment. If these by products are "dirtier" than the aged carbon in coal or natural gas (which may leak back into the atmosphere if not captured first) - then despite the fact that another tree may replace the one that is burnt - the damage caused is still greater.

I am indeed "captured " by the concept , in that it has been operating for millenia in perfect harmony ....until coal began to be used .To therefore blame the former for the sins of the later is very questionable , from any stance .

[The Bigfella]

I am indeed "captured " by the concept , in that it has been operating for millenia in perfect harmony ....until coal began to be used .To therefore blame the former for the sins of the later is very questionable , from any stance .

I think you will find a few other factors in the equation that are also causing the problem Peter. Coal, oil, gas, more wood being burnt - even, dare I say it - using green electricity to create heat can add to it. If one thing causes a large amount of greenhouse damage, but isn't the dominant factor in global warming - it still doesn't make it right to say that it doesn't matter. The more appropriate causal factor is the explosion in the human population. It has more than doubled in the time that you and I have been alive - and I'm willing to bet that a majority of the extra 3 billion people around since you and I were born burn wood. The extra three billion people is why it isn't in perfect harmony any more.

[PeterSibley]

I think you will find a few other factors in the equation that are also causing the problem Peter. Coal, oil, gas, more wood being burnt - even, dare I say it - using green electricity to create heat can add to it. If one thing causes a large amount of greenhouse damage, but isn't the dominant factor in global warming - it still doesn't make it right to say that it doesn't matter. The more appropriate causal factor is the explosion in the human population. It has more than doubled in the time that you and I have been alive - and I'm willing to bet that a majority of the extra 3 billion people around since you and I were born burn wood. The extra three billion people is why it isn't in perfect harmony any more.

Following your line of thought ,it would follow that reducing our consumption , both personally and overall ,would be the best course of action ...would you agree ? If so , how would you expect that to come about ,personally and nationally ?

In my case , I choose Green Power. It is government certified and should give a "market signal " to industry if it were to get broad support .As I make my living from woodwork in various forms , I produce a lot of scrap ,this I burn .I also collect trees that have fallen in storms and roadside clearing .The last score has been about 4 tons from a building site .Felled for the building to proceed .

I've decided that this is the best choice in my particular sitation , all in the interest of reducing my carbon footprint .

I'm willing to bet that a majority of the extra 3 billion people around since you and I were born burn wood
You're probably right ,but rather than suggesting the world would be better off if they burned coal or gas it would better I'd suggest getting something like affordable solar technology developed and available would be the go ?

[The Bigfella]

Following your line of thought ,it would follow that reducing our consumption , both personally and overall ,would be the best course of action ...would you agree ? If so , how would you expect that to come about ,personally and nationally ?


Well, as a former member of the Zero Popuation Growth club - I suppose I should declare that I fell off the wagon - I had 3 kids. There must be some hidden guilt there?

Personally - I've already declared the heat pump water heater - which apparently only uses 40% of the electricity that a solar system (with booster) uses in Sydney (but I'm a bit sceptical of that claim). I've installed solar with inverter on the boat - but its only good for small hand tools - can't run the kettle or vacuum for example. I moved the boat closer to home - saving at least 30 litres of fuel a week.

I've gone from 8 cylinder cars (well, there's still 3 here - but they are not driven) to 4 and 6 cylinder cars in the family fleet - and that alone probably took two tonnes of oil off our energy use each year. Everyone in the family has bicycles - and some of us even use them. The family uses mass transit for most commuting now.

........ and so on.

Oh - professionally, I've jumped at as many opportunities that have allowed me to make a difference here as possible - a couple being - a study of environmental consulting for a "Big 4" advisory firm - an examination of the energy selection process by an industry sector for an energy utility - an economic appraisal of ... oops - can't mention that one, they wouldn't fund it despite the overwhelming economic and environmental benefits ..... and a bucketload more I can't mention. Strewth mate - I've even sat in an oil company board room and said my piece - same in the cotton industry - marine tourism - even got a few gigs at conferences - here's a couple:

“The Financial Implications of Environmental Management” (IIR), “World Trends in Tourism” (Reef Tourism 2005), “Funding Land Management Reform” (written for the Champlain Foundation conference), and “The Industry / Policy Interface” (National Ecotourism Conference)

Next time you are in Sydney, I'll buy you a beer and I'm sure we'd get a laugh out of how some of these things end up.




You're probably right ,but rather than suggesting the world would be better off if they burned coal or gas it would better I'd suggest getting something like affordable solar technology developed and available would be the go ?


Couldn't agree more. You have noticed that the Feds are now subsidising this far more effectively? I think you will see some big measures introduced in the very near future - but I wouldn't want to steal Johnny's thunder on that one.

[Mrleft8]

According to the bill that came in today....25 KWH per day this past month.... Compared with 35 KWH per month this time last year.....And yet the bill went up $70.00 And I think they lie through their teeth because now the meter reader just drives down the road and clicks a button.....6 years ago when the meter reader actually got out of his car and read the meter it was 10 KWHper day per month. I think it's a scam and I'm calling the attorney general's office tomorrow....Thank you for bringing this up.

[PeterSibley]

Methinks you have mislaid the decimal point.

Just checked - the missing element is the equivalence factor.


Scale to 1 tonne (GOK why they chose two)
1 tonne Wood
1.5 tonnes CO2
1.7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent - a mix of (mainly) Methane and Carbon monoxide

the weasel is "Equivalent" -
They claim Methane at 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas
and the Monoxide at five times more powerful.

Back of an envelope - treat the mix as 20 times CO2 giving the actual amount as not 1.7 Tonnes but about 85 Kilos.


And the quick answer to the "where is the ~ going?" is;
To atmosphere where it will, relatively quickly, be oxidised - neither Carbon monoxide, nor Methane hang around long in our air.
PI , thanks for the input ,sorry to have ignored it while chatting with Ian.Your notes on operating a combustion stove where spot on .A good oxidizing fire produces very little in the way of particles , emissions I'll take your word for .The opposite is very true , this is where most of the complaints come from , it seems impossible to stop our older residents from choking the fire down to a smudge through the night ....with the normal stream of cold smoke .

[PeterSibley]

26.7kwH per day for 5 - 6 adults (6 about 3 days / week) - all electric incl heat pump hot water (which is apparently about 40% of a normal solar type), elec oven. No gas or oil.

As I said originally , mine is 5.8 per day for 4 adults and 2 kids .Nearly x5 times difference and I live in a tolerably modern fashion .Interesting .There might be some room for movement there Ian .

[The Bigfella]

There might be some room for movement there Ian .

Yep - just as there is room for improving the emissions from a wood heater which incorporates a water jacket. The jacket prevents the proper combustion referred to in earlier threads.

I suppose that if a couple of us didn't work from home, our usage would be lower.

[PeterSibley]

I agree , if I didn't run an income earning workshop ,consumption would be lower :D.I really don't think you're serious Ian ...much easier to talk about it .

[hansp77]

Just a quick Question Ian,
you obviously seem aware of the problem,
determined enough to implement some changes in your life,
and I somehow doubt that money is of the greatest concern (Imean we would all like more, but;) ...)

so no offence intented, but, I would like to ask you:
what is your reasoninging for not switching over to Green power?

Cheers.
Hans.

[The Bigfella]

what is your reasoninging for not switching over to Green power?



It is a total con - the Government should be doing everything in their power (did I just type that?) to produce as much green power as possible in the public interest - not just raiding it for the dollars, as they are now.

They have a massive conflict of interest (as usual with governments that get involved in the provision of commercial services) and are too close to the unions to be interested in efficiency gains.

Peter:
if I didn't run an income earning workshop ,consumption would be lower

So would mine if I didn't run two fridges and only shop once a week. We could drive to the supermarket every day like some folks I know - but our electricity consumption would be lower eh?

[PeterSibley]

It is a total con - the Government should be doing everything in their power (did I just type that?) to produce as much green power as possible in the public interest - not just raiding it for the dollars, as they are now.
A total con ? You mean its not what it appears to be ,ie brown not green or that the government should be making all power green rather than the status quo ? I'd like to hear your opinion .

They have a massive conflict of interest (as usual with governments that get involved in the provision of commercial services) and are too close to the unions to be interested in efficiency gains.
4 Corners did a program a few weeks ago on alternatives .The program laid a fair bit of emphasis on the Californian power system and the way they had managed to divource the amount of power sold from profit .

Peter:

So would mine if I didn't run two fridges and only shop once a week. We could drive to the supermarket every day like some folks I know - but our electricity consumption would be lower eh?
We have two fridges too ,well a larger one and a bar fridge for vegs ...28 k to town so it's a good idea .

[The Bigfella]

No - not substituting. The green power that they are now selling at a higher price is probably largely sourced from the Snowy Hydro scheme - which was finished in the early 70's.

There are heaps of these bandwagon efforts going on now - on the news today - eg some concert prattling on about carbon neutrality - buying green power. What about the transport energy of the crowd to and from?

I think a bit of life-cycle costing with all known externalities factored in would be nice. Any benevolents wanna fund a study?

[hansp77]

Interesting.
Though I'm not too sure I get your reasoning...

as an aside
Ian,
are you saying that my green energy is provided by the Snowy Hydro Scheme?
If so (which frankly seems pretty damn unlikely), I wasn't aware of this.

If it is new and old sources you are worried about, then you can choose to pay even more for electricity sourced from only 'new' generators (sourced from generators built after 1st Jan 1997)- or different packages somewhere in the middle (of price and ratio of 'new' to 'old').
By buying more 'new' green energy theoretically you would be directly forcing the development, investment into, and construciton of NEW green energy plants and technologies.
I believe the 100% 'new' green power (at least in my area) is currently source soley from wind power.

Personally I try to keep the politics out of this situation.
You seem to imply that the green energy that we are buying is sourced from generators that were already inputting into the grid.
To a certain extent, I believe this to be true.

Nonetheless, I like to believe, that if enough of us (of the more financially limited variety) choose to buy 'old' green energy (as our legislation provides us the right to do so) then that itself will force the development of new generation of green energy as the amount provided by existing generators runs short of demand.

Interestingly, going to university, studying what I am studying (with a pretty heavy focus on environmental and sustainability issues) and talking with the variety of people that I am in contact with (students and lecturers) I have met with a few different attitudes towards green energy. Most notably I have met with a few very proud environmentalists (students) who have their own reasons (usually not apparantly very clearly thought through) why green power is a bad thing (one guy tried to tell me that they were burning old growth forest to provide electricity:confused: :D )
The current setup of green energy is far from perfect IMO.
However, in my somewhat limited understanding of it (even after doing a research project on the issue last year) the toss up between sourcing my electricity from old 'Hazelwood (http://wwf.org.au/news/n234/)' ("the most polluting station of its scale in the industrialised world") and the various aggretate of renewable sources is quite simply a no brainer.

and now its late and I am tired...

another question.

How do you believe it is better to buy conventional power than it is to buy green power? Environmentally? Politically? Economically? etc...

btw. bummer about the fungus. I have (new) oregon beams under my new deck, un-epoxied, so I will see how they go.

[The Bigfella]

I don't buy off-peak hot water because its more efficient to run the heat pump during the day.

As for forcing them to build more green generating capacity - isn't that their job?

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

I don't buy off-peak hot water because its more efficient to run the heat pump during the day.

What's the outside end of the heat-pump drawing from?

[PeterSibley]

Nice warm , day and night ,Sydney :D

[George Roberts]

"Green power" can not be purchased. It is a marketing ploy. The power companies will produce just as much "green power" regardless of how many people "buy."

Those who "buy" "green power" get what comes down the wires. There is no wire for "green power." Electric power is fungible.

Perhaps it is more important to reduce peak power plant loads. Perhaps not.

---

I lived for a year without electric power, with a hand pump for water, wood heat - in Michigan, in a 20'x20' building, 10 dairy goats in a small barn. I lived 5 years in a nicer house in Michigan with wood heat. I lived for 10+ years in Oklahoma with no AC, with no heat in the bedrooms (winters got cold).

I value electric power. I value convenient fuels. No one should need to change their usage because of "global warming."

Know what - the rich will not have to bear any of the "global warming" burdens.

[blacksmith]

Here in eastern Mass, for the month of April,we used 30 kwh/day.Electric everything except oil FHW heat.Wood stove to take off the chill.Paid our municipal electric dept $87.12 with a prompt payment discount.

[WX]

I use buggar all power and what I do use I generate myself...with a bit of help from the Sun :D Though I did fork out $78 on a new high amp battery for my setup today...unfortunately it's only a truck battery and not a deep cycle.

[The Bigfella]

Mate - if you were a bit closer ........ I've got two deep cycles that I thought were knackered that I now use in my Markham Whaler - one in the boat doing starting and bilge pump duties and one at home on standby