Previous Dimes can be found here.
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
Showing posts with label alternative energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alternative energy. Show all posts
Monday, April 07, 2008
Occassional Dimes
Previous Dimes can be found here.
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Leadership, Home Sizes, and Buy Nothing Day
We live in an age of excess, and nothing better captures this point than the average size of new homes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average new home went from 1,100 square feet in the 1950's to 2,340 square feet in 2002. In the 1950's new homes averaged 290 square feet per family member, by 2003, new homes constructed averaged 893 square feet per family member! I'm proud to report that at about 450 square feet per family member, my 2-person household is way below the national average.
A large house, no matter how green and energy efficient, is hard to justify in a world plagued with homelessness and crushing poverty. I tend to see this less as an environmental and more as a social justice issue. In the SF Bay Area, one frequently encounters well-meaning Liberals with strong environmental credentials, who are ensconced in large homes in trendy hillsides and neighborhoods. While the green movement is slowly going mainstream, social justice and simplicity have yet to be embraced by most Liberals.
Home contractor friends have told me that 2500 square foot homes are way too big for most families. I suspect that a family of 4 can live comfortably in a 1500 square foot residence. So why do environmentally-conscious and well-meaning Liberals continue to live in large residences, located in affluent neighborhoods?
One clue is to look at the primary residences of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Edwards, Gore, Clinton and Obama, frequently champion anti-poverty and environmental issues, certainly more than their Republican counterparts. I'm not claiming that anyone who passionately fights for anti-poverty programs should take the vow of poverty, but these home sizes are incredible:
(To enlarge an image, click on it.) To put the home sizes in perspective, I included the square footage of a regulation-size basketball court. Anyone who has walked around a basketball court knows that even a "half court" takes quite a bit of space. These home sizes are for their primary residences: Clinton, Gore, and Edwards own multiple homes. The Clintons have another 5000+ square foot residence in Georgetown, and the Gores have a luxury apartment in SF, and at least one other house in Tennessee. Obama's home sits on a 7500 square foot lot, and since I was unable to track down the size of his home, I used aerial photos to give a conservative estimate. The Clintons applied to have their home expanded, the above estimate takes into account the proposed thousand square foot expansion.
People claim they need larger homes for when they have parties or events. My response is that they should rent out a ballroom on the rare occasions that they need to accommodate a large number of guests.
Friends in the SF Bay Area constantly talk of the "strong field" of candidates, and I definitely sense a lot of excitement among Liberal professionals. I too will end up voting for the Democratic nominee, but based on the lifestyles they maintain, I am not hopeful that they can truly push through meaningful anti-poverty agendas. John Edwards' talk of the "two Americas" rings hollow -- does he really need such a mega house!
Ironically President Bush, regarded as being pro Big Oil and pro rich, has a smaller residence than most of the leading Democrats. Clearly, home size is not a strong indicator for enlightened leadership! But shouldn't Democrats expects more (in this case less, is desirable) out of their leaders? Seriously, I look forward to the day when we elect leaders who not only promote social justice and simplicity, but have lives consistent with those values. (And no, I'm not voting for Kucinich.)
As we celebrate Buy Nothing Day this Friday, my hope is that we take its message and try to practice it as best we can, throughout the year. With an economy heavily dependent on consumption and consumer spending, no politician will advocate and, based on the chart above, maintain a simple lifestyle. Change will have to come from American consumers.
I remember being in a Clean Energy meeting at Google a few months back, and Googlers were emphasizing that by embracing renewable and efficient energy sources, "sacrifice" or the lowering of lifestyles, was not only unnecessary it was undesirable. I suppose if your main source of revenue is advertising, consumer spending/consumption is a natural consequence.
Buy. Less. Stuff.
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
A large house, no matter how green and energy efficient, is hard to justify in a world plagued with homelessness and crushing poverty. I tend to see this less as an environmental and more as a social justice issue. In the SF Bay Area, one frequently encounters well-meaning Liberals with strong environmental credentials, who are ensconced in large homes in trendy hillsides and neighborhoods. While the green movement is slowly going mainstream, social justice and simplicity have yet to be embraced by most Liberals.
Home contractor friends have told me that 2500 square foot homes are way too big for most families. I suspect that a family of 4 can live comfortably in a 1500 square foot residence. So why do environmentally-conscious and well-meaning Liberals continue to live in large residences, located in affluent neighborhoods?
One clue is to look at the primary residences of the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Edwards, Gore, Clinton and Obama, frequently champion anti-poverty and environmental issues, certainly more than their Republican counterparts. I'm not claiming that anyone who passionately fights for anti-poverty programs should take the vow of poverty, but these home sizes are incredible:
(To enlarge an image, click on it.) To put the home sizes in perspective, I included the square footage of a regulation-size basketball court. Anyone who has walked around a basketball court knows that even a "half court" takes quite a bit of space. These home sizes are for their primary residences: Clinton, Gore, and Edwards own multiple homes. The Clintons have another 5000+ square foot residence in Georgetown, and the Gores have a luxury apartment in SF, and at least one other house in Tennessee. Obama's home sits on a 7500 square foot lot, and since I was unable to track down the size of his home, I used aerial photos to give a conservative estimate. The Clintons applied to have their home expanded, the above estimate takes into account the proposed thousand square foot expansion.
People claim they need larger homes for when they have parties or events. My response is that they should rent out a ballroom on the rare occasions that they need to accommodate a large number of guests.
Friends in the SF Bay Area constantly talk of the "strong field" of candidates, and I definitely sense a lot of excitement among Liberal professionals. I too will end up voting for the Democratic nominee, but based on the lifestyles they maintain, I am not hopeful that they can truly push through meaningful anti-poverty agendas. John Edwards' talk of the "two Americas" rings hollow -- does he really need such a mega house!
Ironically President Bush, regarded as being pro Big Oil and pro rich, has a smaller residence than most of the leading Democrats. Clearly, home size is not a strong indicator for enlightened leadership! But shouldn't Democrats expects more (in this case less, is desirable) out of their leaders? Seriously, I look forward to the day when we elect leaders who not only promote social justice and simplicity, but have lives consistent with those values. (And no, I'm not voting for Kucinich.)
As we celebrate Buy Nothing Day this Friday, my hope is that we take its message and try to practice it as best we can, throughout the year. With an economy heavily dependent on consumption and consumer spending, no politician will advocate and, based on the chart above, maintain a simple lifestyle. Change will have to come from American consumers.
I remember being in a Clean Energy meeting at Google a few months back, and Googlers were emphasizing that by embracing renewable and efficient energy sources, "sacrifice" or the lowering of lifestyles, was not only unnecessary it was undesirable. I suppose if your main source of revenue is advertising, consumer spending/consumption is a natural consequence.
Buy. Less. Stuff.
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Occasional Dimes: Memorial Day Edition
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
Monday, February 26, 2007
Economics of Alternative Energy
In a previous post, I noted that the U.S. currently gets only about 2% of its electricity from renewables. Is coal, which supplies about 50% of U.S. electricity, significantly cheaper than alternative energy sources? In this post, I will present two different estimates of power generation, both of which show an improving cost picture for alternative energy.
Since coal and natural gas account for about 70% of electricity in the U.S., they probably drive the current price environment in which alternative energy sources must compete in. At the end of 2005, the cost of residential electricity was 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh):
(To enlarge a particular image, click on it.) Rates vary considerably across the country:
I found estimates for the cost of generating electricity from two sources: the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), and Scientific American. In both cases, Solar Photovoltaic technology did not appear to be cost competitive. Photovoltaics use solar cells or photovoltaic arrays to convert sunshine into electricity. Thermal or Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies, collect sunlight to generate heat. Traditionally used to provide hot water, Solar Thermal electric plants are proving to be more cost competitive than Photovolatics.
For each source of electric power, we give a range (low/high and average) of estimates for the cost per kwh. The first set of cost estimates from the WSJ are given below:
The graph with Solar Photovoltaics (Solar PV's) included, can be found here. This set of estimates indicate that while coal is cheaper, the "alternative" sources (except for Photovoltaics) are becoming competitive. Although Solar Thermal is a lot cheaper than Solar PV's, it is still currently the most expensive source of "alternative energy".
Here are the estimates I culled from the Scientific American article:
The corresponding graph with Solar Photovoltaics (Solar PV's) included, can be found here. The estimates from Scientific American position wind as an increasingly viable alternative to coal and natural gas. The estimate for nuclear had a large variance "... because experts disagree on which expenses to include in the analysis".
Finally, the WSJ article also contained estimates from the DOE's Energy Information Administration, for plants entering service in 2015:
Unlike the previous graphs which presented a range (low/high) of likely costs, these are "point" estimates for the likely future cost per kwh.
CONCLUSION: Estimates for cost per kwh vary by site and the type of technologies deployed. While coal and natural gas appear to still hold a price advantage over alternative sources of electricity, at least one set of estimates indicated that wind (and to a lesser extent, biomass) energy technologies are shrinking the price differential. Solar Thermal while still more expensive than coal and natural gas, is dropping in price. As alternative energy technology improves, and economies of scale take hold, price per kwh will continue to fall. Triple Bottom Line accounting would clearly make nuclear, coal, and natural gas way more expensive than the alternative sources. The fact that alternatives are starting to eat away the cost advantages of fossil fuels, makes the argument in their favor even stronger.
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
Since coal and natural gas account for about 70% of electricity in the U.S., they probably drive the current price environment in which alternative energy sources must compete in. At the end of 2005, the cost of residential electricity was 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh):
(To enlarge a particular image, click on it.) Rates vary considerably across the country:
I found estimates for the cost of generating electricity from two sources: the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), and Scientific American. In both cases, Solar Photovoltaic technology did not appear to be cost competitive. Photovoltaics use solar cells or photovoltaic arrays to convert sunshine into electricity. Thermal or Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies, collect sunlight to generate heat. Traditionally used to provide hot water, Solar Thermal electric plants are proving to be more cost competitive than Photovolatics.
For each source of electric power, we give a range (low/high and average) of estimates for the cost per kwh. The first set of cost estimates from the WSJ are given below:
The graph with Solar Photovoltaics (Solar PV's) included, can be found here. This set of estimates indicate that while coal is cheaper, the "alternative" sources (except for Photovoltaics) are becoming competitive. Although Solar Thermal is a lot cheaper than Solar PV's, it is still currently the most expensive source of "alternative energy".
Here are the estimates I culled from the Scientific American article:
The corresponding graph with Solar Photovoltaics (Solar PV's) included, can be found here. The estimates from Scientific American position wind as an increasingly viable alternative to coal and natural gas. The estimate for nuclear had a large variance "... because experts disagree on which expenses to include in the analysis".
Finally, the WSJ article also contained estimates from the DOE's Energy Information Administration, for plants entering service in 2015:
Unlike the previous graphs which presented a range (low/high) of likely costs, these are "point" estimates for the likely future cost per kwh.
CONCLUSION: Estimates for cost per kwh vary by site and the type of technologies deployed. While coal and natural gas appear to still hold a price advantage over alternative sources of electricity, at least one set of estimates indicated that wind (and to a lesser extent, biomass) energy technologies are shrinking the price differential. Solar Thermal while still more expensive than coal and natural gas, is dropping in price. As alternative energy technology improves, and economies of scale take hold, price per kwh will continue to fall. Triple Bottom Line accounting would clearly make nuclear, coal, and natural gas way more expensive than the alternative sources. The fact that alternatives are starting to eat away the cost advantages of fossil fuels, makes the argument in their favor even stronger.
Digg It! , Bookmark to del.icio.us , My Yahoo! , ATOM Feed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
