Alternative Power sources - Finding home architects that specialize in energy efficient homes?

Author

Finding home architects that specialize in energy efficient homes?

gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com

2005-08-09, 6:21 pm

Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
*I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
edge either) than they do (not encouraging).

Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
architects) that specialize in this field?

Any help here would be *really* appreciated!

Cheers

-Gaiko

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-08-09, 7:21 pm

<gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
>as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
>overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
>*I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
>edge either) than they do (not encouraging).

I'm not surprised. I met an architect in a 2nd year grad program who
was designing a solar house, but she didn't know how much solar energy
fell on the site on an average day. She didn't even know what a Btu was.

>Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
>architects) that specialize in this field?

Rich Komp and Drew Gillett and I are doing a "Solar heating and natural
cooling" workshop at the first PA Renewable Energy Festival on 9/24/05
near Allentown, PA. Last year's ASES version in Portland, OR had about
40 participants, mostly engineers and architects.

http://www.paenergyfest.com

Nick

Kris Krieger

2005-08-09, 7:21 pm

gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote in
news:1123621504.587834.241830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).
>
> Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
> architects) that specialize in this field?
>
> Any help here would be *really* appreciated!
>
> Cheers
>
> -Gaiko

Interesting, I'm lookin at this now, might be of some use to you:

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/sus...rchitecture.htm

A few from my Favorites list:

http://energy.sourceguides.com/busi...rv/engineer/byN
/byName.shtml

http://photos.itsa.info/

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/sus...rchitecture.htm
Also, the link at the top called "+140 categories" has additional links

http://www.lakeflato.com/

Google: sustainable architecture, green architecture, and the like.

HTH!

- Kris

2005-08-09, 7:21 pm

You've got to shop around.
But you have an advantage over the usual consumer: information.
Make a list of questions that can only be answered by architects that are
energy savvy. Phone interview them until you find 2 or 3 that are interested
in energy efficiency (they're the ones that are savvy, otherwise they
wouldn't care and wouldn't know).
You find an architect just like you find a contractor: interview until you
find a good fit (reputation, price, and personality). The best way is by
referral. See if there have been any awards given for energy efficient homes
and see who designed them. Call the companies who make the products and ask
who specs their stuff and who buys it. Ask your local building inspector if
any EE homes have been built in the area and get the name of the owners.
Research and legwork. Can't beat it.

<gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123621504.587834.241830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).
>
> Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
> architects) that specialize in this field?
>
> Any help here would be *really* appreciated!
>
> Cheers
>
> -Gaiko
>

PipeDown

2005-08-09, 9:21 pm

<gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123621504.587834.241830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).
>
> Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
> architects) that specialize in this field?
>
> Any help here would be *really* appreciated!
>
> Cheers
>
> -Gaiko
>

If you manage to choose a technology or product line first, that
manufacturer may be able to give local installer references but if you are
unsure what you want and need help evaluating choices, you are on the right
track. Try some of those "find a contractor" websites and see if they come
up with someone.

steve

2005-08-10, 1:21 am

i read a book years ago called "solar heating & cooling". it was a
compilation of patents published to show ideas. i browsed it to
generally get ideas. ~ 25 years ago.

so downstream a few years i see a home that happens to have very good
passive solar elements. so i bought it & added solar electric to help
the house a little bit.

passive elements - in southern califfornia - work very well so solar
electric can be used for the basics.

if the house doesn't really GET hot, you don't need AC so much.

the house runs east-west with oversize roof eves. in the summer we
have about 3 to 4 foot of shade all around the house. in the winter,
with the lower sun angle, we get solar heat.

plaster walls & ceiling help keep the home at a semi-steady state
temperature. generally cool, toward ground temperature.

open the windows at night, cool down the house. close them in the
morning, use good insulation. oposite in the winter.

to help your question, try searching for this solar heating & cooling
book, online or in a library. or key words like passive & active
solar.

you'll just need to do a long search in your area for architects that
know anything about solar - passive ideas as well as active ideas.

see ya

steve

Nick Hull

2005-08-10, 8:21 am

In article <1123621504.587834.241830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).

Design your house yourself, I did. I was also the prime contractor,
never did it before or since but it worked OK.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

jojo

2005-08-10, 10:21 am

http://www.wncgbc.org/membership.php

Try the green building council in your area. They typically have great
references
for Architects that participate and can help you with technologies, builder
selections
and cost.

<gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123621504.587834.241830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).
>
> Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
> architects) that specialize in this field?
>
> Any help here would be *really* appreciated!
>
> Cheers
>
> -Gaiko
>

steve

2005-08-10, 12:21 pm

here's some links for review:

http://www.txses.org/epsea/design.html

home design plan links:
http://www.nesea.org/buildings/passive.html

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org...olardesign.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...G=Google+Search

see ya

steve

gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com

2005-08-10, 2:21 pm

Wow! I wanted to thank y'all for all your help!

All this information will take a while to digest but really helped me
get on the right track.

Cheers

-Gaiko

gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).
>
> Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
> architects) that specialize in this field?
>
> Any help here would be *really* appreciated!
>
> Cheers
>
> -Gaiko

3D Peruna

2005-08-11, 11:21 am

gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, I am looking into energy efficient homes, trying to absorb as much
> as possible about the various technologies out there but am a bit
> overwhelmed. I have "interviewed" a few local (NC) architects and
> *I* seem to know more about the technologies (not necessarily cutting
> edge either) than they do (not encouraging).
>
> Is there a way to find architects (like maybe an association of home
> architects) that specialize in this field?
>
> Any help here would be *really* appreciated!

I've discovered that most products don't really work quite as advertised.

I've discovered that many of the ideas work in a very narrow climate
band. Some things just don't work at all in central Minnesota.

I've discovered that the cost is often greater than people want to pay.

I've discovered that the most people aren't willing to live with the
design implications.

I've discovered that Realtors look down on the stuff and that they claim
its terrible for "resale."

I have tried to get clients to go that direction and have all but
abandoned my efforts.

I'd love to have a client that was truly interested in it...and
understood the implications.

P. Fritz

2005-08-11, 11:21 am

"3D Peruna" <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote in message
news:xeIKe.19567$_41.9270@fe02.lga...
> gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> I've discovered that most products don't really work quite as advertised.
>
> I've discovered that many of the ideas work in a very narrow climate
> band. Some things just don't work at all in central Minnesota.
>
> I've discovered that the cost is often greater than people want to pay.
>
> I've discovered that the most people aren't willing to live with the
> design implications.
>
> I've discovered that Realtors look down on the stuff and that they claim
> its terrible for "resale."
>
> I have tried to get clients to go that direction and have all but
> abandoned my efforts.
>
> I'd love to have a client that was truly interested in it...and
> understood the implications.

I've found that the pay back is often not there........what is the sense of
spending boat loads of money when the pay back is 50 years?

I've found that passive design is far more practical than all the "gadgets"

>

Don

2005-08-11, 12:21 pm

"P. Fritz"> wrote
> I've found that the pay back is often not there........what is the sense
> of
> spending boat loads of money when the pay back is 50 years?

50 years?
Hell, the product won't even last that long!
You'll never get paid back.

Derek Broughton

2005-08-11, 12:21 pm

3D Peruna wrote:

> gaikokujinkyofusho@gmail.com wrote:
>
....
>
> I've discovered that the most people aren't willing to live with the
> design implications.
....
> I have tried to get clients to go that direction and have all but
> abandoned my efforts.
>
> I'd love to have a client that was truly interested in it...and
> understood the implications.

My architect friend has no trouble getting the clients interested. However,
he's so picky and uncompromising that _you'd_ likely not be willing to live
within his income limitations :-)

> I've discovered that Realtors look down on the stuff and that they claim
> its terrible for "resale."

We (Solar Nova Scotia) will, hopefully, be having a realtor talking at a
seminar in a couple of weeks who specializes in solar (passive & active)
homes. Should be interesting.
--
derek

P. Fritz

2005-08-11, 1:21 pm

"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:geJKe.3997$RZ2.911@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "P. Fritz"> wrote
>
> 50 years?
> Hell, the product won't even last that long!
> You'll never get paid back.
>

That is my point ;-)

>

Cato

2005-08-11, 1:21 pm

P. Fritz wrote:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:geJKe.3997$RZ2.911@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> That is my point ;-)

I realize that this approach, as it stands today, can be quite
expensive. Especially when talking about the gadget aspect. Don't you
think its feasible that this will change in the future? I don't think
the current expense alone makes this approach invalid, just out of
reach for most. Maybe we should just be a little patient with it. The
consumer affordability aspect will eventually catch up in the long run.
IMHO.

3D Peruna

2005-08-11, 1:21 pm

Cato wrote:
> P. Fritz wrote:
>
>
>
> I realize that this approach, as it stands today, can be quite
> expensive. Especially when talking about the gadget aspect. Don't you
> think its feasible that this will change in the future? I don't think
> the current expense alone makes this approach invalid, just out of
> reach for most. Maybe we should just be a little patient with it. The
> consumer affordability aspect will eventually catch up in the long run.
> IMHO.

I'm not so sure... Solar has been "just around the corner" for 30+
years with little significant change in net cost to the consumer.
Residential Fuel Cells have been "just around the corner" for at least
10 years (I tried to get on a test program with little success --
"they're not ready yet" I've been told for 7 years). Almost every
technology hyped in the past 2 decades has failed to actually make
meaningful inroads.

When you look at other technologies and their advancement in the same
time period, it's clear that either there is something vastly
conspiratorial going on OR nobody has figured it out because it's not
nearly as simple as we would want to believe it should be. Heck...a guy
from MIT has been working on synthetic photosynthesis for 20+ years with
very little success (the idea being if plants can do it, why can't we?).

In the long term, we're all dead.

Cato

2005-08-11, 2:21 pm

>
> I'm not so sure... Solar has been "just around the corner" for 30+
> years with little significant change in net cost to the consumer.
> Residential Fuel Cells have been "just around the corner" for at least
> 10 years (I tried to get on a test program with little success --
> "they're not ready yet" I've been told for 7 years). Almost every
> technology hyped in the past 2 decades has failed to actually make
> meaningful inroads.
>
> When you look at other technologies and their advancement in the same
> time period, it's clear that either there is something vastly
> conspiratorial going on OR nobody has figured it out because it's not
> nearly as simple as we would want to believe it should be. Heck...a guy
> from MIT has been working on synthetic photosynthesis for 20+ years with
> very little success (the idea being if plants can do it, why can't we?).

I do agree with you about the pace of the development. Maybe its a
case of lack of importance/income generated or maybe some technologies
are just being "held" back by more established, competing industries.
Combination of both? I'm not talking about conspiracy theories, just
good old trying to maintain your market share.
Kind of reminds me of the development of more fuel efficient/alternate
fuel vehicles. sssssssllloooooowwwwwww.

My answer: The Illuminati are behind it.

>
> In the long term, we're all dead.

Well, there you go spoiling my day. Now I need to get out and shoot
some golfballs into the woods to clear my head.(see your other thread
other) ;-)

Cato

2005-08-11, 2:21 pm

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-08-11, 2:21 pm

3D Peruna <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote:

>...Solar has been "just around the corner" for 30+ years with little
>significant change in net cost to the consumer.

"Solar"? It helps to distinguish solar electricity from solar house heating
with sunspaces, which can be 100X cheaper per peak watt...

Nick

News

2005-08-11, 2:21 pm

"3D Peruna" <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote in message
news:mAKKe.3848$vb3.1604@fe07.lga...
> Cato wrote:
sense[color=darkred]
>
> I'm not so sure... Solar has been "just around the corner" for 30+
> years with little significant change in net cost to the consumer.

Energy is too cheap, so solar takes a back burner. Another oil crisis will
focus the mind more. The global warming scare has focused on solar again,
although not enough - Germany has done well here. The emphasis appears to
be not to reduce energy consumption, but to generate it cleaner.

> Residential Fuel Cells have been "just around the corner" for at least
> 10 years (I tried to get on a test program with little success --
> "they're not ready yet" I've been told for 7 years). Almost every
> technology hyped in the past 2 decades has failed to actually make
> meaningful inroads.

I agree, and all have been viable to some degree. Vested interest is the big
killer of any emerging technology. One has taken off, distributed power
generation using Stirling engine boilers in the home. The New Zealand
company Whispergen who developed Stirling engine cogen units has teamed up
with Powergen and Gledhill in the UK to produce a commercial workable
system. http://www.whispergen.co.uk

Gledhill provide a thermal store dedicated to cogen units like the
Whispergen. In the UK cogen is referred to as Combined Heat & Power (CHP
and now micro CHP, mCHP). The Gledhill thermal store, the mCHP, which also
has its own management system that brings in the Whispergen when necessasary
optimising efficient usage, provides instant heating of incoming cold mains
water and hydronic heating, run directly off the thermal store.

The Whispergen just heats the thermal store all in one long efficient burn.
The DHW uses the stored hot water to instantly heat the incoming cold water
and provide heat for the radiators. When the thermal store is near depleted
the Whispergen is called in for a full re-heat. Any surplus electricity
generated by the Whispergen is fed back into the grid. It doesn't provide
continuous electricity generation, so not suitable for full off-the-grid
application yet.

http://www.gledhill.net/water-storage/ws-index.htm
Look at Innovations on the menu. This takes you to the thermal store.

http://www.gledhill.net/water-stora...icle14-mchp.htm A press
release that gives you the total system.

They omit the word "engine" from any marketing. The term mCHP, or boiler, is
used. Getting people to put an "engine" inside their homes will be
difficult.

They predict that 30% of all homes will have cogen units in 15 years time.
This lines up with government papers I have read on the topic..

The peak time for DHW and heating usage lines up with peak electricity
usage. So all these homes feeding the grid, or not extracting from the grid
what they normally would, will reduce the need for extra power
infrastructure. With all the wind farms, onshore and offshore, being erected
and gradual introduction of mCHP, it may mean no new power stations.

The emissions will be less as overall as there are fewer line losses, as
much power is being generated locally by the houses in the area."

Also:
(Cogen) mCHP, An announcement to produce another unit - joint Dutch, US,
Japanese project

http://www.enatec.com/indexUK.htm

Also:
http://www.microgen.com/main2.swf

> When you look at other technologies and their advancement in the same
> time period, it's clear that either there is something vastly
> conspiratorial going on OR nobody has figured it out because it's not
> nearly as simple as we would want to believe it should be.

Look at the computer industry. If those brains and effort went into finding
cheaper energy and clean propulsion units we would be paying a few pennies a
year to fully heat and cool a house.

BUT! The computer industry was expanding like mad, and old players like IBM
were being eclipsed by the new companies and their young brains thinking out
of the box, who met demand.

The auto, oil and energy industries are settled with no rejuvenation like in
the computer industry of 20-25 years ago. They want change like they want a
hole in the head and they will resist will all their might.

General Motors star John DeLorean wrote in an infamous 19-page memo on the
eve of his departure, "In no instance, to my knowledge, has GM ever sold a
car that was substantially more pollution-free than the law demanded - even
when we had the technology" "Our corporation has lost credibility with the
public and the government because each new emissions standard has been
greeted by our management's immediate cries of 'impossible,' 'prohibitively
expensive,' 'not economically responsible' - usually before we even know
what is involved." It is clear they don't want to move unless smacked with
a sledge hammer.

The only thing that will change them is legislation driven by cleaner air
and emissions reductions. There is some public awareness that wants change,
but even in "green" attitude California, Large pickups, SUVs and other such
nonsense is still the norm.

> Heck...a guy from MIT has been working on
> synthetic photosynthesis for 20+ years with
> very little success (the idea being if plants
> can do it, why can't we?).
>
> In the long term, we're all dead.

Could be in the short term with repertory problems.

Derek Broughton

2005-08-11, 2:21 pm

3D Peruna wrote:

> Cato wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure... Solar has been "just around the corner" for 30+
> years with little significant change in net cost to the consumer.

Little???

30 years ago, I could have afforded a solar hot water collector, but my PV
system would have been out of reach.

Solar hot water has got better, but not a lot cheaper. PV, otoh, has come
down by at least 50% in that time. Still not cost competitive with
utility-supplied electricity, if you have a grid connection, but it has
made it cost competitive for those of us who are some small distance from
the grid.
--
derek

P. Fritz

2005-08-11, 3:21 pm

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-08-11, 3:21 pm

Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

>Solar hot water has got better, but not a lot cheaper.

Check out the solar pond at

http://BuildItSolar.com

Nick

Tired of Iraq? Do something about it. Learn to halve your energy use
while having fun with math and science.

Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar House
Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania Renewable
Energy Festival on Saturday Sept 24, 2005 near Allentown. See

http://www.paenergyfest.com/workshop-info.shtml

Don

2005-08-11, 3:21 pm

"Cato"> wrote
> I realize that this approach, as it stands today, can be quite
> expensive. Especially when talking about the gadget aspect. Don't you
> think its feasible that this will change in the future? I don't think
> the current expense alone makes this approach invalid, just out of
> reach for most. Maybe we should just be a little patient with it. The
> consumer affordability aspect will eventually catch up in the long run.
> IMHO.

Read an intersting and somewhat humorous (fictional, I hope) take on all of
this in a trade publication the otherday.
The people had moved into their brand spankin' high tech home and soon the
nightmare started. The fridge light blew and the home automation system had
never encountered that before, so it required a complete defrag to isolate
the problem, which then caused all of the clocks in the house to shut down,
none of the exterior doors would unlock, etc., etc.

For some of us, ahem, if our entire system fails, to where we are unable to
access our CAD, Invoicing, Word Processing components we at least have the
mental where with all to continue the good fight. We won't like it. But we
can do it. My son on the otherhand......

Don

2005-08-11, 3:21 pm

"Cato"> wrote
> My answer: The Illuminati are behind it.

uh oh
Cato's *goin' there*. LOL

Don

2005-08-11, 3:21 pm

"News"> wrote
> One has taken off, distributed power
> generation using Stirling engine boilers in the home.

Them are cool, I'm prolly gonna buy the kit for the, I think, coffee cup
model.

Derek Broughton

2005-08-11, 4:21 pm

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

> Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Check out the solar pond at
>
> http://BuildItSolar.com

Yeah, but I could make a solar hot water collector cheap in the 70s. Now I
can get one with a glycol loop & heat exchanger that will run maintenance
free for years, even in very cold Canadian winters . But they're not
really cheaper than they used to be.

Your solar pond doesn't cost much in materials, but it's also not suitable
for most Canadian winters, so it's not maintenance free and my time is
valueable.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2005-08-11, 4:21 pm

Cato wrote:

> My answer: The Illuminati are behind it.

Ack! I'm in the middle of Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons" - what an awful
book. So was the last book I read about Illuminati conspiracies - there
seems to be a pattern :-)
--
derek

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-08-11, 4:21 pm

Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

http://BuildItSolar.com
[color=darkred]
>Your solar pond doesn't cost much in materials, but it's also not suitable
>for most Canadian winters...

It needs a north reflector and more insulation for good performance
in cold places in January.

Nick

Don't miss this opportunity to have every solar question you ever asked
answered in three different ways...

Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar House
Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania Renewable
Energy Festival on Saturday September 24, 2005 near Allentown. See

http://www.paenergyfest.com/workshop-info.shtml

Cato

2005-08-11, 4:21 pm

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Cato wrote:
>
>
> Ack! I'm in the middle of Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons" - what an awful
> book. So was the last book I read about Illuminati conspiracies - there
> seems to be a pattern :-)
> --
> derek

Yeah, the common pattern is that Dan Brown can't write very well. I
got sucked into a few of his books, primarily as long airplane flight
fodder. At the big ending of all his books I usually end up rolling my
eyes at the outcome. Since your reading "Angels & Demons" I'll just
give you a warning without spoiling anything. Just look out for a
helicopter over the Vatican. The operative word that will come to
mind, as it did mine, is: PaaaLeeaasee. ;-)

gruhn

2005-08-11, 5:21 pm

> there seems to be a pattern :-)

Derek reads stupid books? ;-)

3D Peruna

2005-08-11, 5:21 pm

Derek Broughton wrote:
> 3D Peruna wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Little???
>
> 30 years ago, I could have afforded a solar hot water collector, but my PV
> system would have been out of reach.
>
> Solar hot water has got better, but not a lot cheaper. PV, otoh, has come
> down by at least 50% in that time. Still not cost competitive with
> utility-supplied electricity, if you have a grid connection, but it has
> made it cost competitive for those of us who are some small distance from
> the grid.

Please note the orginal langauge "little significant change in net cost
to the consumer." If there had been significant change, well, we'd have
seen significant change...

daestrom

2005-08-11, 6:21 pm

<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:ddg23k$mt9@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Check out the solar pond at
>
> http://BuildItSolar.com
>
> Nick
>
> Tired of Iraq? Do something about it. Learn to halve your energy use
> while having fun with math and science.

Well I enjoy applied (and even some 'pure') mathematics. Write simulation
code for a living (our motto: "Vos volo fidelitas, vos non tracto
fidelitas").

But in my experience, very *few* people consider solving PDE as 'fun'. Nor
researching fluid mechanics and heat transfer. This is part of the problem
with 'dumbing down' all the issues. People just aren't interested in the
details, they just want 'sound-byte' sized answers.

daestrom

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-08-11, 7:22 pm

daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

[color=darkred]
>...in my experience, very *few* people consider solving PDE as 'fun'.

I don't think we'll be having that much fun :-)

Nick

Solar stalwarts to demythologize sun using solar powered hand calculators
and 20 decades of experience simply using the sun.

Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar House
Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania Renewable
Energy Festival on Saturday September 24, 2005 near Allentown. See

http://www.paenergyfest.com/workshop-info.shtml

Derek Broughton

2005-08-11, 9:21 pm

3D Peruna wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> Please note the orginal langauge "little significant change in net cost
> to the consumer." If there had been significant change, well, we'd have
> seen significant change...

I note the original language - and I'm saying we _have_ seen significant
change. 30 years ago, only complete back-to-earthers had PV systems.
People for whom the cost was irrelevant compared to the chance to get out
from under the thumb of "the man". Now, I know half a dozen people who,
like me, are absolutely middle class Joe Average. We are using PV and wind
systems not because it's right (even though we all believe it is) and not
because we can't stand being beholden to the utility company (even though
we're happy we're not), but because it is the cost-effective way for us to
go. It's still not a cost improvement of the sort that would get everybody
doing PV (nor should they) but it has taken PV out of the realm of the
extraordinary and into the area where it _sometimes_ make economic sense.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2005-08-11, 9:21 pm

gruhn wrote:

>
> Derek reads stupid books? ;-)

Derek reads anything. At least I can read...
--
derek

Don

2005-08-11, 9:21 pm

"Derek Broughton"> wrote
> It's still not a cost improvement of the sort that would get everybody
> doing PV (nor should they) but it has taken PV out of the realm of the
> extraordinary and into the area where it _sometimes_ make economic sense.
^^^^^^^
That should say *rarely* and you know it.

gruhn

2005-08-11, 10:21 pm

> >> there seems to be a pattern :-)

[color=darkred]
> Derek reads anything. At least I can read...

I'm not saying I have any evidence, but have you considered the idea that
maybe you can't read, but you are insane?

Throckmorton, not the walrus filch.

phlegmatico@yahoo.com

2005-08-12, 4:21 am

> Oil, gas and coal are simply too cheap
> per BTU. As the cost continues to rise, you will see more alternative
> methods come online

The Saudis are much smarter than you. They won't let their mealticket
get priced out of the mass market

The "spending power" cost of a BTU of fossil fuel hasn't changed so
very much since 1974. That's why we still have plenty of SUV's.

If people wanted to stop being couch potatos, they'd be doing the sort
of stuff Nicksan posts about on weekends, instead of grooming lawns.

But they *don't* want to stop being couch potatos. Look at Nick's
sigs, his advertisements. He's learned to stop trying to give religion
to people, Instead he offers "fun", and "end the war". Hope it works
for him.

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

2005-08-12, 10:21 am

<phlegmatico@yahoo.com> wrote:

>...But they *don't* want to stop being couch potatos. Look at Nick's
>sigs, his advertisements. He's learned to stop trying to give religion
>to people, Instead he offers "fun", and "end the war"...

There are alternatives :-) The EPA has just proposed a 15 millirem
per year limit on how much radiation a person should be exposed to
from the proposed Yucca Mountain radioactive waste dump in Nevada and
a 350 millirem per year limit for the next million years. That's more
than three times what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows today
from nuclear facilities. A standard chest X-ray is about 10 millirems.

Asked if there was any way to ensure such a standard would be relevant
or be met that far in the future, EPA's Jeffrey Holmstead replied:

That's a pretty darn good question... We do the best job given
all the science we have.

Why do they figure people can live with 23X more radiation exposure
after the first 10,000 years? Natural selection? We'll evolve to be
more radiation-resistant?

Nick

Tired of Iraq? Do something about it. Learn to halve your energy use
while having fun with math and science.

Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar House
Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania Renewable
Energy Festival on Saturday September 24, 2005 near Allentown. See

http://www.paenergyfest.com/workshop-info.shtml

Derek Broughton

2005-08-12, 4:21 pm

Don wrote:

> "Derek Broughton"> wrote
> ^^^^^^^
> That should say *rarely* and you know it.

No, it shouldn't. I'll grant you uncommon, but not rare. It's not at all
hard to find a place in Canada where it's going to cost at least $10,000 to
bring in grid power. If that's your starting position (as it was mine)
then PV is a no-brainer. However, 30 years ago, it _would_ have been rare
to encounter a situation where PV made economic sense.
--
derek

Derek Broughton

2005-08-12, 4:21 pm

gruhn wrote:

>
>
>
> I'm not saying I have any evidence, but have you considered the idea that
> maybe you can't read, but you are insane?
>
Considered and dismissed :-) I went looking in my library for the previous
bad Illumaniti conspiracy book I'd read (Shea & Wilson, "Illuminatus"), and
discovered that it appears to be one of those few books I've ever
considered bad enough to get rid of... I'm still showing signs of
sanity :-)
--
derek

gruhn

2005-08-12, 4:21 pm

> I'm still showing signs of sanity :-)

Hooray!

3D Peruna

2005-08-12, 4:21 pm

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
>
>
>
> No, it shouldn't. I'll grant you uncommon, but not rare. It's not at all
> hard to find a place in Canada where it's going to cost at least $10,000 to
> bring in grid power. If that's your starting position (as it was mine)
> then PV is a no-brainer. However, 30 years ago, it _would_ have been rare
> to encounter a situation where PV made economic sense.

Your situation is unique and therefore not applicable to the guy who
needs about 50' of wiring from the grid. In fact, it's still
extraordinary. "Sometimes" makes economic sense is too rare and only
applies in situations like yours, which are rare even today.

Kris Krieger

2005-08-12, 5:21 pm

Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
news:584ss2-teh.ln1@othello.pointerstop.ca:

> 3D Peruna wrote:
>
> ...
> ...
>
> My architect friend has no trouble getting the clients interested.
> However, he's so picky and uncompromising that _you'd_ likely not be
> willing to live within his income limitations :-)
>
>
> We (Solar Nova Scotia) will, hopefully, be having a realtor talking at
> a seminar in a couple of weeks who specializes in solar (passive &
> active) homes. Should be interesting.

I thought a Realtor's job was, and always has been, to SELL homes. Selling
implies a lot more than just sticking a sign on the lawn - it involves
pointing out the advantages, not just letting perceived or possible
disadvantages be emphasized.

As an analogy - when we were still looking to buy, one house has this
ghastly polychromic paisley-type Peter-Max-ish wallpaper in the bathroom -
we walked in, and she said, "And they put this bright festive wallpaper in
to cheer up the space!" We had to laugh - but at least she laughed with
us. But the story makes a point - you don't SELL a place by telling the
potential buyers, "Oh and here is this utterly atrocious wallpaper that
makes you go half blind if you look at it for more than three seconds".

It's like a job interview. Sure, the interviewer is eventually goign to
get around to some tricky or difficulat questions ("Why did you leasve oyur
last job?", "What are your faults?", "What did you dislike about your last
supervisor?"), but the thing is to find a way to end on a positive
statement. I left my last job because I wanted to explore opportunities in
this area of my field. My main fault is that I can sometimes get too
wrapped up in details, but I've found that good planning helps me avoid
that and use my eye for detail to advantage, such as in reviewing quality
control documents. It wasn't that I didn't like my last supervisor so much
as I'm a learning oriented-person who enjoys new challenges, and my
supervisor's position didn't allow him to grant employees those
opportunities, so it was stressful for him to deal with employee's
frustrations over that.

Only a dope would say: "I left my last job because it sucked, I don't
think I have any faults, I didn't like my last supervisor because he was a
stupid jerk"!

A job interview is "selling yourself", realty is selling property. But
same principle.

So what could be some possible advantages of a Green house? Here's a
possibility:
"It's custom-built to exacting specifications, using high-quality
materials, so not only will your gas and electric bills be incredibly low,
but also, you won't rack up huge maintenance or repair bills because, at
the most, the place might require just some basic and inexpensive
maintenance, but that'd be a couple years down the road."

Then one can follow through with:
"It's ideal for people who want to express their individuality
through their home. Some poeple are a little fearful of buying something
this unique, but it's almost like living in a work of art - it *is* unique,
it *is* individual, it *does* stand out from the average common home - it
tell others that interesting people live here."

"And the bonus is that it's environmentally friendly!"

And so on.
Of course not every place appeals to every buyer - as I always say, One
size *doesn't* fit all. But so what? That doesn't mean you ignore it, or
tell buyers "well this is kind of weird and ugly but I guess we can at
least drive by, see what you think of that thing." When someone says that
(and I did have a realtor say something like that to me once, a couple
years ago), it's too late to find out what most people think - they already
have a negative preconception and they're primed to say "Eeeew, yuck!" when
they see the place. Selling is, in large part, about giving potential
buyers a *positive* precenception. THat's why it's good to wear a suit and
clean presseed shirt, etc., to job interviews - you're trying to sell
yourself to the potential employer and you want to make a good, positive
first impression, in the hope fo planting a positive preconception in the
interviewer's mind.

It's *of course* true that it all has to be backed by facts, but facts in
and of themselves are not sufficient.

- Kris

wmbjk

2005-08-12, 6:21 pm

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:11:14 -0500, 3D Peruna
<""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote:

>Derek Broughton wrote:

>
>
>Your situation is unique and therefore not applicable to the guy who
>needs about 50' of wiring from the grid. In fact, it's still
>extraordinary. "Sometimes" makes economic sense is too rare and only
>applies in situations like yours, which are rare even today.

Actually, $10,000 grid hookups are hardly rare. Even a 5 acre parcel
with power to the property line can be expensive to connect. Some
utilities are generous with their existing ratepayers' money and
charge peanuts for new installs. Others expect the new customer to
foot the entire bill, which is a startling concept for the
cradle-to-grave types. Most people don't have a clue about how much
the builder or developer originally paid for their installation. But
even of those needing expensive hookups, most will opt for the grid
regardless. The tipping point might be $5k in some areas, $50k in
others.

Not too far from me is a development of 40 acre parcels that's 150
square miles, and the grid is some miles from the edge. Property
owners there would get a chuckle out of claims that off-grid power is
"extraordinary". Such developments aren't rare either, there are a lot
of them here in AZ. Except when new homes are clustered (which would
be contrary to the concept), average wire requirement for each
building sites might be 1/2 mile *if* they were all developed at the
same time. But they won't be, so the earliest builders will need as
much as 30, and in the best case some of the later ones might average
3. There's seldom an opportunity for more than a couple of owners to
even share costs. So in these areas its the grid that's rare now, and
it probably always will be.

Wayne

Kris Krieger

2005-08-12, 6:21 pm

3D Peruna <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote in
news:mAKKe.3848$vb3.1604@fe07.lga:

> Cato wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure... Solar has been "just around the corner" for 30+
> years with little significant change in net cost to the consumer.
> Residential Fuel Cells have been "just around the corner" for at least
> 10 years (I tried to get on a test program with little success --
> "they're not ready yet" I've been told for 7 years). Almost every
> technology hyped in the past 2 decades has failed to actually make
> meaningful inroads.

One drawback has always been aesthetic. Mounted solar panels look ugly,
which is what first turns poeple off to the idea of solar.

There is a new, thin, flexible solar panel that doesn't require mounting,
it's in a polymer sheet, I think it was under 1/2" thick. You can just put
that puppy right onto a roof, or pretty much any surface; it's also *very*
efficient in low light, where regular solar fails. It's a bit less
efficient in full midday light on cloudless days - but in the final
average, more efficient overall.

I saw it on that show Alan ALda "hosts", I think Scientific American
Frontiers", but I'm sure I also saw it online, it was just a number of
months ago.

If I remember correctly, it's also rahter less expensive than traditional
solar.

Why it isn't being pushed/marketed...? Heh, not while Big Oil is running
the nation. There are very powerful people who *don't want* highly-
efficient solar power easily and relatively inexpensively available.
Product availability, but most especially, *product marketing*, does not
operate in a sociopolitical vacuum.

> When you look at other technologies and their advancement in the same
> time period, it's clear that either there is something vastly
> conspiratorial going on OR nobody has figured it out because it's not
> nearly as simple as we would want to believe it should be.

I dunno about "vastly conspiratorial", but IMO it's extremely naive to not
realize that there is a lot of money (hence a lot of political and economic
decision-making power) behind the oil industry. THere are also a lot of
jobs therein. One could argue that the jobs would simply shift to the new
technology arenas, but the people currently in those older jobs might not
be able to learn how to work in the new technology.

So, there is a lot of inertia there, a lot of people have a stake in
conserving the status quo re: solar - i.e., keeping it limited to "the
weird fringies", and the traditional products for "normal average everyday
folks".

> Heck...a
> guy from MIT has been working on synthetic photosynthesis for 20+
> years with very little success (the idea being if plants can do it,
> why can't we?).

Photoshythesis is a very complex process - the chlorophyll molecule is a
long chain capped by - oy, it's been like 20 years - I *think* a porphyrin
structure - some sort of rign, at any rate. It has a coresspondingly
complex charge profile along its length. That charge profile is what
creates the energy cascade (meaning, the exchange of electrons between
several differnt molecules that results in a net gain of energy which the
plant can then apply to converting C H and O into complex carbohydrates
such as cellulose).

I'd have to crackout my biology and botany texts to offer anything
resembling any detail, but that's the quick'n'dirty version. Living
systems are generally extremely complex - although one process might be
simple, no biological process occurs separately from the system as a whole,
so, the replication of a process can turn out to be much more difficult
than was first anticipated.

> In the long term, we're all dead.

So what?

- Kris

Kris Krieger

2005-08-12, 6:21 pm

"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in
news:UsOKe.7456$rI6.4034@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

>
> <nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
> news:ddg23k$mt9@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
[ ... ]
>
> Well I enjoy applied (and even some 'pure') mathematics. Write
> simulation code for a living (our motto: "Vos volo fidelitas, vos non
> tracto fidelitas").

Heh, I *wish* I could do math. I can struggle though some basic geometry
and otehr such stuff that I use when I'm modeling something, and I hacked
my way through some JavaScript but am mostly just one who adapts available
scripts to do what I wan to have done.

I canlearn, to at least an average level ofproficiency, pretty much
anything I put my mind to, but no matter how many times I've gone back to
Calculus, it simply will not stick in my brain. It's so irritating.

> But in my experience, very *few* people consider solving PDE as 'fun'.
> Nor researching fluid mechanics and heat transfer. This is part of
> the problem with 'dumbing down' all the issues. People just aren't
> interested in the details, they just want 'sound-byte' sized answers.

If "God is in the details", the problem is:
So is the highway madness =8-O

;)

- Kris

Don

2005-08-12, 8:21 pm

"Derek Broughton"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> No, it shouldn't. I'll grant you uncommon, but not rare. It's not at all
> hard to find a place in Canada where it's going to cost at least $10,000
> to
> bring in grid power. If that's your starting position (as it was mine)
> then PV is a no-brainer. However, 30 years ago, it _would_ have been rare
> to encounter a situation where PV made economic sense.

You're quibbling over semantics, why?
Let me give you a more realistic account.
I live in Florida, my wife wants to use the pool in the winter, so I got a
price on a solar heater, $3500.
Not only that, things aren't what they seem.
To raise the temp to 80 and keep it there, we have to install a $1000
blanket and spool.
What a pain.
So, $3500 for the collector + $1000 for the blanket/spool = $4500 for a pool
temp that isn't comfortable.
Or, $3500 for a heater and $300/month power bills.
Now there is a real world scenario that effects the lives of thousands of
people throughout the county here and there is no excuse in the world for
it.

Derek Broughton

2005-08-13, 12:21 pm

Don wrote:

> "Derek Broughton"> wrote
^^^^^^^[color=darkred]
>
> You're quibbling over semantics, why?

It's hardly semantics. You're wrong.

> Let me give you a more realistic account.
> I live in Florida, my wife wants to use the pool in the winter, so I got a
> price on a solar heater, $3500.
> Not only that, things aren't what they seem.
> To raise the temp to 80 and keep it there, we have to install a $1000
> blanket and spool.
> What a pain.
> So, $3500 for the collector + $1000 for the blanket/spool = $4500 for a
> pool temp that isn't comfortable.
> Or, $3500 for a heater and $300/month power bills.

Lousy example. Try $3500 for a collector, $1000 for the blanket (hmmm - I
got one for free), $3500 for a heater (probably much less, because you
won't need such a large heater), and MUCH less than $300/month for fuel.
This is _exactly_ a case where solar pays for itself. It should pay for
itself in two years, at most. Frankly, I think you're wusses if you think
a Florida pool needs heating in the winter, but I swim in June in Nova
Scotia. Nobody needs 80F to swim - my 77 year old mother swims a mile a
day, and prefers the temperature under 75.

> Now there is a real world scenario that effects the lives of thousands of
> people throughout the county here and there is no excuse in the world for
> it.

The "lives"? Your pool is a life-changing experience? You need to get one.
--
derek

Don

2005-08-13, 3:21 pm

"Derek Broughton"> wrote
> The "lives"? Your pool is a life-changing experience? You need to get
> one.

You've been attempting to speak about things you know next to nothing about
and looking foolish all the while.
Take your trolling punkass elsewhere, you're done around these parts, boy.

islandgirl

2005-08-14, 11:21 am

Electricity in the US Virgin Islands is expensive that I'm going
solar/wind when I finally build. To tie into the grid, and it would be
a max of 3 poles, would cost a minimum of $3,000. First pole is free,
and each additional pole is $1,500.

Now to add that my lot in not on the water but I do have a view of the
Caribbean.

With the cost of electricity I estimate that my system will pay for
itself in about 10 years.

Don

2005-08-14, 11:21 am

"islandgirl"> wrote
> With the cost of electricity I estimate that my system will pay for
> itself in about 10 years.

Unless the property tax kills you first.

gruhn

2005-08-14, 1:21 pm

> With the cost of electricity I estimate that my system will pay for
> itself in about 10 years.

And there's no need to listen to the people who tell you that "pay for
itself" is the only criteria.

islandgirl

2005-08-14, 1:21 pm

Actually the property taxes are not too bad here on St. Croix. I have
a 1/2 acre zoned R1 and the taxes are $250 (assessed value of the lot
is just under $26,000). Back in Detroit (1980-86) my property taxes
were $1,100 on a house assessed at $11,000 (50% of house value).

St. Thomas and St. John are much more expensive than here and people on
both of those islands are starting to buy land here.

Last year I visited my sister in New Hampshire and they have "view
taxes" there. I almost fell over when she told me.

phlegmatico@yahoo.com

2005-08-14, 3:21 pm

> Actually the property taxes are not too bad here on St. Croix.

it shows in the schools.

John Beardmore

2005-08-15, 8:21 pm

In message <1123830304.420081.216090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
phlegmatico@yahoo.com writes

>
>The Saudis are much smarter than you. They won't let their mealticket
>get priced out of the mass market

This may be so, but it doesn't mean their reserves are infinite !

Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Derek Broughton

2005-08-16, 10:21 am

John Beardmore wrote:

> In message <1123830304.420081.216090@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> phlegmatico@yahoo.com writes
>
>
> This may be so, but it doesn't mean their reserves are infinite !

In any case, if they were selling a million barrels for $40/bbl and end up
only selling 500,000 barrels for $80, then their profit goes up by the cost
of producing 500,000 barrels. They'll keep making their profit no matter
what the cost goes to - when we have cheaper _energy_ alternatives, we'll
still need to create plastics.
--
derek

islandgirl

2005-08-16, 9:21 pm

The property taxes get divided up or placed in a general fund, but then
the government officials here couldn't effectively manage the money if
their life depended on it.

We get so much money from the federal government for education that per
student we more money than stateside school have. Of course, no one
knows how to manage the money and students are without textbooks, and
the educational system is just awful. The people that can afford it
send their children to private schools on the island.

Don

2005-08-16, 9:21 pm

"islandgirl"> wrote
> The property taxes get divided up or placed in a general fund, but then
> the government officials here couldn't effectively manage the money if
> their life depended on it.
>
> We get so much money from the federal government for education that per
> student we more money than stateside school have. Of course, no one
> knows how to manage the money and students are without textbooks, and
> the educational system is just awful. The people that can afford it
> send their children to private schools on the island.

And the ones that can't afford private should consider this:
http://tinyurl.com/c8q22
In fact everyone should consider that.
The problem with the public schools is not money, there's plenty of money.
It *accountability*, there is none, or at best very, very little.

Our public school system has problems that money can't cure. Despite its
support by a mandatory attendance (required for 13 years) and taxpayer
financial support that is also mandatory (averaging $9,000 per year per
student), our public schools now produce high school graduates with less
than an 8th grade-level education. Nationwide, the costs for this academic
and social failure are $536 billion per year (www.ed.gov). And costs are
going up.

The principal reason for this situation is that educating our children is no
longer the primary purpose of the public schools. Today their purpose is to
employ six million people - not to deliver quality education to our
children, and certainly not to save money. It has been this way for at least
20 years.

Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), had
a penchant for telling it like it is. Back in 1985, he said "When school
children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the
interests of school children." Legislators, the media, and the public may be
confused on this issue, but the teachers' unions are not.

If you gave all the money in the United States to the public schools, they
would not improve - they would simply cost more. The system is tenaciously
committed to expanding its work force, and paying every teacher the same
salary - whether that teacher is world-class and deserves $200,000 per year,
or whether that teacher is incompetent and deserves to be fired.

There is no question that much higher quality education can now be delivered
at a small fraction of current public school costs. But because today's
public school mission is to employ people (not to educate our children),
these schools are never going to have lower cost - and are unlikely ever to
deliver even marginally better education.

Since our public school system has dominated K-12 education for almost 100
years, most Americans can't even conceive of how children could learn to
read and write if it weren't for the government-run schools. They ask,
"Isn't the education of our children too important to be left to the
uncertainties of the free market?"

If we accept this rationale, logically we should put government in charge of
supplying our food. After all, we can go years without education - and still
survive. But food - we need food every day, multiple times every day. How is
it that the market can handle this more essential and more difficult
function - but not handle education? Why is it that the nations that let
government take over the supplying of food have all ended up with widespread
starvation?

In 1989 Albert Shanker again spelled it out clearly, "It's time to admit
that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system
in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few
incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school
system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own
market economy."

Lack of money is not why our schools cost so much and perform so poorly.
Instead of desperately trying to fund the nonfunctional public school
system, our legislators should be working to empower parents and children to
break free - to make the choices that are best for themselves.

In 1990 Shanker told us, "95% of the kids who go to college in the U.S.
would not be admitted to college anywhere else in the world." Maybe our
legislators can also debate the question: why is it a good idea to let our
children be educated by the government?

http://tinyurl.com/9rnpu

yuckybear7@aol.com

2005-08-18, 11:21 pm

Derek Broughton wrote:
> John Beardmore wrote:
>
>
> In any case, if they were selling a million barrels for $40/bbl and end up
> only selling 500,000 barrels for $80, then their profit goes up by the cost
> of producing 500,000 barrels.

That actually isn't entirely true. As the oil becomes depleted, it
becomes costlier to extract it from the ground.

> They'll keep making their profit no matter
> what the cost goes to - when we have cheaper _energy_ alternatives, we'll
> still need to create plastics.
> --
> derek

3D Peruna

2005-08-19, 1:21 am

Derek Broughton wrote:
> John Beardmore wrote:
>
>
>
>
> In any case, if they were selling a million barrels for $40/bbl and end up
> only selling 500,000 barrels for $80, then their profit goes up by the cost
> of producing 500,000 barrels. They'll keep making their profit no matter
> what the cost goes to - when we have cheaper _energy_ alternatives, we'll
> still need to create plastics.

There's a theory...with some evidence to suggest it is true, that oil
isn't the result of rotting dinosaurs and plants, but created in the
earth. If this theory is true, then there is an unlimited supply of the
stuff...

Anthony Matonak

2005-08-19, 1:21 am

3D Peruna > wrote:
....
> There's a theory...with some evidence to suggest it is true, that oil
> isn't the result of rotting dinosaurs and plants, but created in the
> earth. If this theory is true, then there is an unlimited supply of the
> stuff...

It's not a widely accepted theory and there isn't much credible
evidence to suggest it's true. I wouldn't place any heavy bets
on the unlimited supply idea.

Anthony

3D Peruna

2005-08-19, 1:21 am

Anthony Matonak wrote:
> 3D Peruna > wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> It's not a widely accepted theory and there isn't much credible
> evidence to suggest it's true. I wouldn't place any heavy bets
> on the unlimited supply idea.
>
> Anthony
>

Spoilsport...

yuckybear7@aol.com

2005-08-19, 11:21 am

The United States has already seen first hand that our oil reserves
aren't unlimited. Production in our country peaked in the early 1970's
and has been declining ever since.

3D Peruna

2005-08-19, 12:21 pm

yuckybear7@aol.com wrote:
> The United States has already seen first hand that our oil reserves
> aren't unlimited. Production in our country peaked in the early 1970's
> and has been declining ever since.

Is it production or availability?

It seems to me, from my limited study of the industry is that our
production capacity has been hampered and limited by endless regulation.
As a result, we can't make any more and the refineries that are
working are at full capacity. Our production is the result of the
industry not building additional refineries, not because they don't have
the oil to refine.

As for the state of our reserves...why spend the money to get it when
you could have it for almost free (when oil was $10/barrel)? Of course
todays economics might give reason to start getting the oil we have.

Don

2005-08-19, 12:21 pm

"3D Peruna""> wrote
> Is it production or availability?

When the bobbing head announces that oil is selling for $60 a barrel today,
what does that mean?
Who is spending that $60, and who is receiving it?
Does it mean that Exxon paid the gov't of Saudi Arabia $60 for each of many
barrels of oil it purchased recently?
If so, doesn't the US gov't get in the middle of that transaction and cause
huge grief?
I mean, everyone's heard about the huge taxes levied on the gas that you
pump at the station, right?

Where am I going with this?
The same place I always go.
If the citizen is paying $2.60 per gallon of gas, how much of that is ending
up in the fat XXX's pockets in DC?
We keep hearing about *greedy* oil barons, but I have a strong suspicion
that that is just more blown out of proportion media/gov't propaganda.
I'm talkin about greedy politicians, stealing and lying their asses off as
usual.

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 12:21 pm

Don wrote:
>
> "3D Peruna""> wrote
>
> When the bobbing head announces that oil is selling for $60 a barrel today,
> what does that mean?
> Who is spending that $60, and who is receiving it?
> Does it mean that Exxon paid the gov't of Saudi Arabia $60 for each of many
> barrels of oil it purchased recently?

The purchaser is the payee, the seller the recipient. Those are
long-term contracts for future delivery that are traded and the

> If so, doesn't the US gov't get in the middle of that transaction and cause
> huge grief?

Have nothing whatsoever to do w/ it...it's an open market and again,
those are futures contracts being traded, not (directly) oil purchases.
No different than pork bellies on the Chicago Mercantile exchange.

> I mean, everyone's heard about the huge taxes levied on the gas that you
> pump at the station, right?
....
> If the citizen is paying $2.60 per gallon of gas, how much of that is ending
> up in the fat XXX's pockets in DC?

Same as when retail was $1/gal -- the federal excise taxes haven't
changed and they're on a per gal basis, not on the retail price.

....

P. Fritz

2005-08-19, 12:21 pm

"Duane Bozarth" <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:4305F2FB.6BEFAC33@swko.dot.net...
> Don wrote:
today,[color=darkred]
many[color=darkred]
>
> The purchaser is the payee, the seller the recipient. Those are
> long-term contracts for future delivery that are traded and the
>
cause[color=darkred]
>
> Have nothing whatsoever to do w/ it...it's an open market and again,
> those are futures contracts being traded, not (directly) oil purchases.
> No different than pork bellies on the Chicago Mercantile exchange.
>
> ...
ending[color=darkred]
>
> Same as when retail was $1/gal -- the federal excise taxes haven't
> changed and they're on a per gal basis, not on the retail price.

True.....but the &$%*$(#% states that charge a sales tax on gasoline (like
here in Michigan) are taking in a winfall from the cost increase.

>
> ...

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 1:21 pm

3D, Peruna, > wrote:
>
> yuckybear7@aol.com wrote:
>
> Is it production or availability?

Both, w/ minor fluctuations. There is some very recent upsurge in
exploration and production owing to the higher prices over the last year
or two, but they're both just now beginning to reach market and very
small increases in terms of overall consumption levels...

> It seems to me, from my limited study of the industry is that our
> production capacity has been hampered and limited by endless regulation.

Certain amount of truth on both sides of the production issue here
although actual exploration and production has been hampered by low
prices for a long period until the recent run-up so that there have been
only 10's of wildcat rigs in actual use as opposed to 1000's in the
heyday of US exploration. As noted above, that is <beginning> to
change, but there aren't any huge new fields in the continental US
waiting to be tapped--they're going in an reworking old wells and
drilling in areas that were marginal previously or in areas that were
much more expensive to bring into production and thus weren't
economically feasible at low crude prices.

> As a result, we can't make any more and the refineries that are
> working are at full capacity. Our production is the result of the
> industry not building additional refineries, not because they don't have
> the oil to refine.

That's on the refined side and there's some truth there as well. The
fastest way to lower consumer prices in the short term would be to add
refinery capacity but there's a reason that crude oil futures are at a
high price and that has to do w/ increased <world-wide> consumption as
well as shortage of refinery capacity.

The effect political events and simple speculation on the futures
markets should not be underestimated, either.

> As for the state of our reserves...why spend the money to get it when
> you could have it for almost free (when oil was $10/barrel)? Of course
> todays economics might give reason to start getting the oil we have.

See above...it's occurring although despite what some would try to have
you believe, there simply isn't enough available in the continental US
at even current prices to supply the current demand.

As an example, however, there were a number of wells drilled on our land
and around us back in the 50s and 60s. Very few of these were brought
into production then as they were not high enough producers of oil to
make it worthwhile. Starting about two or three years ago, however,
small independents have renewed the mineral leases and two of these old
capped wells so far have been opened and brought into production as well
as one new well. They're mostly natural gas, however, w/ only a very
small amount of oil being brought up in conjunction w/ the gas (which,
of course, is why they were considered "dry holes" originally).

The Hugoton gas field, the largest natural gas field yet to be
discovered was initially opened in the 20s. While it is still
producing, production rates are now failing every year even with
extensive rework even to the extent of pulling negative pressures on the
wellheads. Nothing that can be done will ever again generate the
amounts of gas that were produced from that field for the last 60 years
and in another 30 or so the production will essentially fall to nothing.

The "new" wells on our place are nothing in terms of daily production as
compared to most wells in the heart of the field but in today's terms
they're pretty darn good...we have about 1500 psi at the well head
whereas as noted above in large areas of the main field they're now to
the point of having to pull vacuum to get any significnt extraction (and
that, of course, is only a tiny fraction of the former production
rates).

One more example...our midwest farmers' coop organization had a nice
little refinery at which me made a significant fraction of the refined
products for our members and sold a little outside. This refinery is
now closed owing to the inability to obtain sufficient local crude to
supply its needs. It would be required to buy crude on the open market
and transport it which is simply not economically viable.

Don

2005-08-19, 1:21 pm

"Duane Bozarth"> wrote
>
> The purchaser is the payee, the seller the recipient. Those are
> long-term contracts for future delivery that are traded and the

Who is the payee and the recipient, I want names.

>
> Have nothing whatsoever to do w/ it...it's an open market and again,
> those are futures contracts being traded, not (directly) oil purchases.
> No different than pork bellies on the Chicago Mercantile exchange.

OK. Then at what point does this intangible thing become tangible, and what
causes the untangibles price to rise or fall?

> ...
>
> Same as when retail was $1/gal -- the federal excise taxes haven't
> changed and they're on a per gal basis, not on the retail price.

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 1:21 pm

Don wrote:
>
....
>
> Who is the payee and the recipient, I want names.

All the major and minor oil companies as well as a myriad of individual
speculators on both sides...

All the major and minor players in the oil industry as well as a
>
> OK. Then at what point does this intangible thing become tangible, and what
> causes the untangibles price to rise or fall?

A) When the options expire or are excercised
B) Ever watch the news?

Are you at all familiar w/ the mechanics of commodities trading?

Don

2005-08-19, 1:21 pm

"Duane Bozarth"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> All the major and minor oil companies as well as a myriad of individual
> speculators on both sides...
>
> All the major and minor players in the oil industry as well as a
>
> A) When the options expire or are excercised
> B) Ever watch the news?

Network news? Hardly ever.

> Are you at all familiar w/ the mechanics of commodities trading?

No.

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 2:21 pm

Don wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth"> wrote
>
> Network news? Hardly ever.

Doesn't matter which source you use, notice the correlation of market
moves and world events (or don't you pay any attention to them,
either?) A great deal of the current run up is, as noted previously,
simply speculation against the potential for future events making world
supplies even more tenuous than they currently are. That this
speculation holds up is indicative of the fact that there is a)
worldwide increased demand and b) at least perceived serious potential
for loss of supply either by political instability in the major
producing areas of the world or loss of refining capacity in the US.

>
>
> No.

Well, to understand anything of oil futures you need at least a minimal
basis in the underlying market mechanics.

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 2:21 pm

Don wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth"> wrote
....
>
> No.

OK, here's a <very> short summary and a couple of links that should be
informative...

COMMODITY FUTURES

Futures, which are traded on the futures market, are contracts to buy or
sell a fixed quantity and quality of a particular commodity for delivery
at a fixed date in the future at a fixed price. Unlike options, futures
are binding contracts and may therefore entail a potentially unlimited
loss.

Futures, which on most exchanges represent the major part of total
transactions, are above all used for speculative and for hedging
purposes. By fixing the price of the underlying commodity in advance,
futures enable users and producers to hedge against spot price
fluctuations, which on commodity exchanges tend to be very high. And for
hedging to be possible there must be speculators willing to offer these
contracts, thus helping to make an active market.

Futures are negotiable instruments. The goods are represented by
documents. Although the documents give a right to physical possession of
the goods, futures
contracts are usually closed out by offsetting a purchase against a sale
(maturing at the same time), and vice versa. This is called an
offsetting transaction.
The settlement of money differences, i.e. the difference between the
price of the original and the price of the offsetting futures contract,
is usually made through a clearing house.

http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/usr/h92/h9208766/seit1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_contract

Don

2005-08-19, 2:21 pm

"Duane Bozarth"> wrote
>
> Doesn't matter which source you use, notice the correlation of market
> moves and world events (or don't you pay any attention to them,
> either?)

Look, you asked if I watched the <network> news to which I replied in the
negative and now you're assuming I don't pay attention to world events.
OK.
Tell me, which Simpson strap is used to counter uplift on a common truss on
your house?
Whats the matter, don't you pay attention to that stuff?
You know it can kill you in your sleep don't you?

Don

2005-08-19, 2:21 pm

Thanks.

"Duane Bozarth" <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
news:43060AA3.D7322D2D@swko.dot.net...
> Don wrote:
> ...
>
> OK, here's a <very> short summary and a couple of links that should be
> informative...
>
> COMMODITY FUTURES
>
> Futures, which are traded on the futures market, are contracts to buy or
> sell a fixed quantity and quality of a particular commodity for delivery
> at a fixed date in the future at a fixed price. Unlike options, futures
> are binding contracts and may therefore entail a potentially unlimited
> loss.
>
> Futures, which on most exchanges represent the major part of total
> transactions, are above all used for speculative and for hedging
> purposes. By fixing the price of the underlying commodity in advance,
> futures enable users and producers to hedge against spot price
> fluctuations, which on commodity exchanges tend to be very high. And for
> hedging to be possible there must be speculators willing to offer these
> contracts, thus helping to make an active market.
>
> Futures are negotiable instruments. The goods are represented by
> documents. Although the documents give a right to physical possession of
> the goods, futures
> contracts are usually closed out by offsetting a purchase against a sale
> (maturing at the same time), and vice versa. This is called an
> offsetting transaction.
> The settlement of money differences, i.e. the difference between the
> price of the original and the price of the offsetting futures contract,
> is usually made through a clearing house.
>
> http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/usr/h92/h9208766/seit1.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_contract

gruhn

2005-08-19, 2:21 pm

> negative and now you're assuming I don't pay attention to world events.

People are absolute crap at following the conversations they are having. I
ain't that old so I don't know if it's a new thing or not. This root
inability to differentiate between plain simple language that's going on in
real life and the fantasy worlds they are occupying inside their heads has
made dealing with the fuckers pretty much worthless.

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 4:21 pm

Don wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth"> wrote
>
> Look, you asked if I watched the <network> news

No, I said absolutely <nothing> about <network> news...

Duane Bozarth

2005-08-19, 4:21 pm

Don wrote:[color=darkred]
>
> Thanks.
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <dpbozarth@swko.dot.net> wrote in message
> news:43060AA3.D7322D2D@swko.dot.net...
....snip longer info...

You're welcome and given that I hadn't seen this at the time I saw your
other retort I'll retract mine (even though I didn't say nor even
necessarily mean major network news in my previous question--that was an
inference you drew).

I really was only trying to illustrate that the futures prices being
reported are currently more directly related to world events (and yet
even more strongly perceptions/fears of future events) than they are
with respect to actual current supply and demand. I won't say we're
currently in a "panic" mode, but certainly one of heightened concern
combined w/ rising demand coupled to nearly inelastic supply (certainly
in the short term) and this is the fuel for speculation in any economic
arena.

That I may have overstepped slightly and added a perhaps unjustified
barb, sorry.

Don

2005-08-19, 6:21 pm

"gruhn"> wrote
>
> People are absolute crap at following the conversations they are having. I
> ain't that old so I don't know if it's a new thing or not. This root
> inability to differentiate between plain simple language that's going on
> in
> real life and the fantasy worlds they are occupying inside their heads has
> made dealing with the fuckers pretty much worthless.

Hey, it ain't real news unless Matt Lauer is stuffing it in your ears by the
handful while you're stuffing your maw with Coco Puffs.

Don

2005-08-19, 6:21 pm

"Duane Bozarth"> wrote
> Don wrote:
>
> No, I said absolutely <nothing> about <network> news...

Pay attention.
Everyone here saw exactly what you did so don't even think about back
peddling.
I asked you a simple question and you took that opportunity to make yourself
successfully look like an XXX.
Good job, Duane.

Don

2005-08-19, 6:21 pm

"Duane Bozarth"> wrote
> Don wrote:
> ...snip longer info...
>
> You're welcome and given that I hadn't seen this at the time I saw your
> other retort I'll retract mine (even though I didn't say nor even
> necessarily mean major network news in my previous question--that was an
> inference you drew).
>
> I really was only trying to illustrate that the futures prices being
> reported are currently more directly related to world events (and yet
> even more strongly perceptions/fears of future events) than they are
> with respect to actual current supply and demand. I won't say we're
> currently in a "panic" mode, but certainly one of heightened concern
> combined w/ rising demand coupled to nearly inelastic supply (certainly
> in the short term) and this is the fuel for speculation in any economic
> arena.
>
> That I may have overstepped slightly and added a perhaps unjustified
> barb, sorry.

Accepted.
Now lets put away the petty bickering, we're both paying more at the pumps.