Energy bill - To increase energy bills

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Do we really need to illuminate vast tracks of motorway when every car carries its own lights?

Light pollution is so bad that you can't even see the Milky Way unless you drive out to the middle of a desert or wilderness. The Milky Way is huuuuge and our home galaxy, yet I bet very few on here has ever seen it (I haven't, but it's on my 'list').

posh*spice

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Posh -If you don't want nuclear or fracking how do you suggest we meet the ever growing demand for electricity and energy?

Another good artcicle here:-

America's Untapped Energy Resource: Boosting Efficiency


This may sound too good to be true, but the U.S. has a renewable-energy resource that is perfectly clean, remarkably cheap, surprisingly abundant and immediately available. It has astounding potential to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten our planet, the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our security and the energy costs that threaten our wallets. Unlike coal and petroleum, it doesn't pollute; unlike solar and wind, it doesn't depend on the weather; unlike ethanol, it doesn't accelerate deforestation or inflate food prices; unlike nuclear plants, it doesn't raise uncomfortable questions about meltdowns or terrorist attacks or radioactive-waste storage, and it doesn't take a decade to build. It isn't what-if like hydrogen, clean coal and tidal power; it's already proven to be workable, scalable and cost-effective. And we don't need to import it.
This miracle juice goes by the distinctly boring name of energy efficiency, and it's often ignored in the hubbub over alternative fuels, the nuclear renaissance, T. Boone Pickens and the green-tech economy. Clearly, it needs an agent. But it's a simple concept: wasting less energy. Or more precisely, consuming less energy to get the same amount of heat for your shower, light for your office and power for your factory. It turns out to be much less expensive, destructive and time-intensive to reduce demand through efficiency than to increase supply through new drilling or new power plants. A nationwide push to save "negawatts" instead of building more megawatts could help reverse our unsustainable increases in energy-hogging and carbon-spewing while creating a slew of jobs and saving a load of cash.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224,00.html

posh*spice

The final piece of the energy puzzle should be the least controversial. Energy efficiency--drastically reducing the vast waste of energy in homes, offices, factories and vehicles--is good for greens and CEOs, for America and the world. Scientist turned activist Amory Lovins argues that the U.S. could grow its economy to 2.6 times its size, get completely off oil, coal and nuclear and use one-third less natural gas--all by 2050.

Energy efficiency - it's the only way:)

posh*spice

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Do we really need to illuminate vast tracks of motorway when every car carries its own lights?

Light pollution is so bad that you can't even see the Milky Way unless you drive out to the middle of a desert or wilderness. The Milky Way is huuuuge and our home galaxy, yet I bet very few on here has ever seen it (I haven't, but it's on my 'list').

Oh I so agree - people should focus on what we would gain from less light pollution - I would love to see more off the night sky.

paulmapp8306

I can agree with that at least.

Ive seen the Milky way many mnay times - mostly at 2 in the morning while on guard duty on the edge of a wood somewhere (Im ex forces). My son has a telescope for Christmas - and Im struggling to come up with a place we can go and view nature properly.

My point about "living in caves" was an exadurated one. As with most things if you start down a track - it tends to take you further than you expected at the start.

May many families only have one TV, one DVD, one computer already. Many dont have games consoles (more to do with the cost of the games though than the electricity TBH). Unfoirtunately they still have huge electric bills - because for energy efficiency to effect energy prices, EVERYONE has to do it to bring the useage down - and as always those who can afford to power todays plethera of modern devices will continue to do so. It doesnt help that these same familes cant afford to replace their few items for modern energy efficient ones. A free CRT TV is better than an expensive LED one for those pwople.

IMO there is - as always - a middle gound. We do need, as a society, to become more energy efficient. Thats less to do with fewer gismos than more energy efficent ones, and more efficient useage (ie turn things off when not using them etc). Industry/Commerce needs to do the same. As suggested office lighting outside working hours, moterway lighting, big factories lit up like a supernova etc could all be tackled. At the same time, we need more energy production - which will need some green (even if it is more expensive to produce), new methods like Fracking, clean(ish) production like Nuclear, and cheap to build clean coal/gas stations.

For every green nut saying we cant use certain (or it appears ALL) methods is a factory who needs the power whithout which his buisiness cant function, so the economy fails.

It constantly amazes me, why people cant get their heads around "compromise". We all have beliefs, ideals and ideas BUT none of us have it 100% right. In fact most of us have it less than 50% right.

grizzly1911

posh*spice wrote: »

Another good artcicle here:-



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224,00.html

Totally agree that many areas waste energy (interesting that two articles are from the USA says alot). China likes to hilight it's new trendy cities, too, like Christmas trees.

Our local council is starting to restrict street light usage it ha s6 patterns dependent on location. It will be interesting how noticeable it is and how flexible they are to revision in "light" of feedback on things like safety.

Where my mother live they are switching to LED lighting, which must have a high capital cost. I must say it isn't as easy to see in, for driving, than the old sodium/CFL.(?)

Our consumer society is going to pretty miffed if they can't sell us endless more electronic wizardry.

As Paul says compromise and mix are all part of the solution.

"Interesting" that my wifes smartphone needs charging almost daily whereas my older touch screen early generation phone will happily last a week with normal use, including some MP3.

posh*spice

Announced this afternoon

Chancellor George Osborne has approved the building of over 30 new gas-fired power stations to replace the UK's ageing coal, nuclear and gas stations.

Analysis

The gas strategy was imposed on the energy department (DECC) by the chancellor because he thinks gas will be cheap and he doesn't like the UK's unilateral targets on cutting CO2 emissions.
That's why the strategy contains two scenarios: one for approximately 20 gas-fired power stations and the other for nearly double that.
The lesser option would more or less keep the UK on target for meeting its laws on cutting carbon emissions. The bigger option involves tearing up the targets when they are reviewed at the Conservatives' insistence in 2014.
There's tension within the coalition on this - not just because of its impact on UK emissions, but because the energy department is not convinced that gas will be cheap.
The chancellor is betting that the UK will produce plentiful shale gas. But the CBI and the International Energy Agency and others warn that fracking won't produce the hoped-for bonanza.
Indeed some analysts warn that increasing reliance on gas will put prices up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20608948

grizzly1911

posh*spice wrote: »

Announced this afternoon



Analysis



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20608948

If it safe to get at it and it is extractable, IMO the best it will do is hold prices once it starts to flow at commercial volumes.

It is being sold as "cheap" to get us on the hook.

My view is that the cost of extraction and remediation will be a lot higher than expected and the producers will want their pound of flesh on top.

ILW

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

Perhaps people should just use less energy?

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the average energy consumption of a family in the 1970s and now. Perhaps people should go back to having 1 TV in the house and heating living rooms not the entire house, including bedrooms and hallways.

I believe and old CRT telly used around 10 times the electricity as a similar LCD jobby.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

ILW wrote: »

I believe and old CRT telly used around 10 times the electricity as a similar LCD jobby.

All those 40/60/100 Watt incandescent bulbs must've used a quite a bit and I remember my folks having an electrical bar heater on the wall in the bathroom (not over the bath!! :eek:) that had a pull string to turn it on - that must've set the meter spinning!

We also had gas fires in the lounge and kitchen/dining room - I wonder if they used more or less gas than modern central heating boilers? The gas fire in the dining room was only on during Dinner, but the one in the lounge was on all evening.