Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Ethanol's Dirty Little Secrets ---

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Ethanol's Dirty Little Secrets ---
  • Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:30:24 -0600


You're talking about energy conservation there. No alternative fuel sources
involved. We need conservation, and desperately. It's equally obvious
utilities can't afford to invest in those conservation measures for the
whole country or any significant part of it, and simply won't. And for
coal to take up the slack in energy production they'd have to stripmine
tens of thousands of square miles and pollute like mad, which isn't going
to happen. Nobody will rebut the unbelievably prohibitive cost of
alternative energy infrastructure, not on this list or any other list.

You can't count on government, industry or utilities to save us from the
destruction that increasingly higher oil and gas prices is bringing. Count
on yourself. I've brought up the ethanol business again just to make the
point, nobody's coming to save us. We have ourselves, our families, our
communities. The sooner some of us learn to live on the land, relearn
what's been lost, and develop our community networks, the better.

paul, tradingpost@riseup.net
---------------
The care of the Earth is our most ancient and most worthy, and after all
our most pleasing responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to
foster its renewal is our only hope.
- Wendell Berry
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 7/14/2006 at 8:52 PM Greg and April wrote:

>You mean like the high up front cost?
>
>There are plenty of work arounds for that.
>
>A year ago last spring, my family received a new furnace free. The
>local
>utility works with a nonprofit organization to do a free heating
>evaluation,
>and air infiltration tests of the house. Because of the age and
>condition
>of the furnace, it eligible to be replaced, at low or no cost depending on

>the income of the family. We fell in the no cost bracket. They also
>provided blow-in insulation to areas of the house that had none and that
>we
>couldn't get to, and brought a crew in to seal the furnace ducts.
>
>Had we fallen into the low cost bracket, our bill would have remained the
>same until the cost of the furnace was paid for by the savings the new
>furnace.
>
>The same program replaced all of the old toilets with low flush toilets,
>and
>added weather stripping around all of the doors, and most of the windows
>than needed it, and replaced our old refrigerator with a brand new one,
>because the old one used more than a given amount of electricity.
>
>What does the utility company get out it? Better efficiency of existing

>electrical lines, with out having to upgrade them, lower cost because if a

>sever cold spell comes they don't have to buy as much NG or electricity at

>current market prices, and lower maintance cost for existing lines.
>According to the people I talked to, they estimate that they save about
>between $15 to $50 a year in maintaince and up grade costs, per house,
>that
>goes through the program.
>
>A program similar to this can help on a bigger scale.
>
>
>Granted it would be allot cheaper with new construction, but, I would bet
>even the old construction could be upgraded, and if push came to shove I
>bet
>it would be.
>
>I don't know what it is like where you live, but, here we have 2 power
>plants, in town. One is a coal fired plant that they have been
>experimenting with adding wood waste to the coal ( more electricity - for
>the same or less pollution ). The other is a NG/propane operation to
>take
>un-expected electrical demands so they don't have to buy more electricity
>at
>current market prices instead of buying a couple of months a head of time,

>when it's cheaper. Even if they only used the excess heat from the coal

>plant, to heat the city and county down town, your only looking at less
>than
>a mile distance for 80% of the city and major county buildings - in most
>cases it's only a few hundred yards from the coal fired power plant
>property.
>
>If even only the city and county property, is heated, that is less tax
>money
>that is spent on fuel, and better efficiency from the entire system.
>
>Greg H.
>







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page