Discussion in 'Energy' started by JBeukema, Sep 19, 2009.
What you are talking about is a distributed grid. One designed to pick up all power, whether from a homeowners 2 kw installation, or a 10 gw nuclear plant.
We now have the means to create very cheap, high efficiency solar cells, 40% to start, and going up from there. We have the means to create batteries that can power cars and light trucks for distances equaling that of gas powered vehicles. And be recharged in a matter of minutes.
Both of these advances have been created by American companies.
I propose that in order to get these technologies off of the ground as quickly as possible that we use an incentive program. Starting a year from this January, put a lead time on it so companies can get the products to market, if you buy an all electric, or a plug in hybrid with a minimum range of 100 mi. on electricity alone, at highway speeds, you get a government refund of $3,500 toward that purchase. If you put 5 kw of renewable, wind, solar, or hydro, on your property, you also get $3,500. If you do both, simultaneously, the amount is doubled. That is, $14,000 for the whole system and vehicle. Limit, one vehicle and one system. Make it for two years.
That would create a huge increase in available energy on the net, force the installation of a distributed grid, and, very quickly, reduce the importation of foreign oil. It would also be a boon to the home owner, as he would now supply most of the power for his home and fuel for his vehicle.
ZENN claims they will launch EEStor-powered EV in fall 2009 — Autoblog Green
ZENN: Trust us, the EESTOR thing is totally cool, like $700,000 cool — Autoblog Green
EEStor Backer Zenn Motor Seeks DOE Funds to Build in Michigan
Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots | Oregon Business News - - OregonLive.com
Nanotechnology Now - News Story: "Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots"
So you support JB's SEEP proposal?
I'm recommending this thread for insomniacs.
Without delving too deep into all of your other proposals, I would like to discuss the first one...
A. What would be the advantage for the owner of a given building to spend money on equipment to capture and create energy? And also to spend money on the maintenance and repair of said equipment?
B. Would there be a mandated requirement that energy capturing equipment be installed on buildings? Or could I just say "I'm not going to hassle with that...I'll just tap into the local grid"?
I personally think that decentralizing something as complex as energy might lead to significant problems. Essentially, the overall cost of maintaining the entire system would increase exponentially.
How much do you think it would cost for small sets of solar panels to be installed on 100 different buildings and then maintained and repaired over time at each of these 100 different locations vs. installing all the solar panels in one location and maintained and repaired all at this location?
Same as using energy-efficient appliances. You reduce the need to purchase energy (paying itself off in the long run) and can sell any excess energy you create to the power company. Some people already to this with their homes.
I would not make it mandatory, as that would put out of businesses anyone who could not afford the upfront investment and would be totalitarian and an unjustified infringement upon the liberties of the People.
Decentralizing the gird itself, however, would be mandatory and performed, if needed, with assistance from the Army Core of Engineers and/or American Society of Civil Engineers. We cannot afford the rolling blackouts we've seen in the past- be it technical malfunction or deliberate attack upon our (already weakened)infrastructure. This is critical to the stability of our power grid and our security and stability as a nation.
Not necessarily. I believe that managing multiple smaller grids would be mopre cost effective, easier to manage (just as we have multiple levels of government), and cheaper to maintain or repair if a failure were to occur in any given area.
I do not have that information. There would need to be a significant study performed tro ensure maximum efficiency, although many people have already learned the benefits- financial and otherwise- of such systems installed in their own homes. of course, nhot all buildings will get equal resultrs, which is one reason it should not be mandatory- those who can afford the investment and who benefit will participate if given enough information and incentive. For those whose structures would not see a long-term benefit, it would make sense to continue purchasing their power.
Separate names with a comma.