Brewster McCracken and the Amazing Pecan Street Project sounds like a great name for a movie, – with a marvelous electric flying vehicle, maybe.
Brewster McCracken is CEO of the Pecan Street Project – an Austin, Texas based research outfit that has been following the experiences of early adopter households who have upgraded to solar panels, electric cars, and smart meters.
The longitudinal study is revealing a number of surprising insights into how real people use new energy technology – which I’ll be covering in future posts. I had a wide ranging Skype conversation with Brewster not long ago, much of which will make its way into new video projects – but I wanted to share a sample now. This is one whipsmart guy and one cool, informative initiative.
Dan McAtee and Laura Spoor’s utility bill last year came to $631. That’s not bad considering the average annual electric bill in Austin, the Texas capital, is more than $1,000, largely because air-conditioning may be the only thing locals love more than barbecue. But it’s even more impressive once you realize the bill actually came to negative $631. The solar panels on their roof mean McAtee and Spoor produce more electricity than they consume. “We got the biggest system we could get,” says McAtee, pointing to the array of panels laid atop their one-story home like domino tiles. “Now we’ve got what you might call overgeneration.”
But while the solar panels stand out–such arrays are rare in Texas–what really sets McAtee and Spoor’s home apart can’t be seen at all. Smart circuits are tracking their electricity use on a minute-by-minute and appliance-by-appliance basis, providing a running record of how power flows through their home. On his computer, McAtee opens a website that shows in near real time the rise and fall of their electricity use over the months. When Spoor opens the refrigerator to get a pitcher of lemonade, the readings spike for a moment, reflecting the extra watts consumed as the appliance compensates for the rush of warmer air. “You can literally see when a lightbulb is turned on,” says McAtee, 73, who spent years as an engineer at IBM before his retirement.
These insights come courtesy of Pecan Street Inc., a research group running the most extensive energy-tracking study in U.S. history (backed in part by the Department of Energy). Its ground zero is Mueller, a planned green community in Austin where hundreds of households have signed up to have their electricity use monitored on a granular level. Researchers track when and why Mueller’s residents consume power and how fast-growing new technologies–like solar panels, connected appliances and electric cars–are affecting the grid. (Thanks in part to an incentive program, Mueller has more electric vehicles per capita than any other U.S. neighborhood.)
That kind of data is unprecedented in the electricity industry, whose essentials have remained largely unchanged since 1882, when Thomas Edison opened America’s first commercial power plant. The Pecan Street team is already using it to upend long-held theories about electricity use and test provocative new distribution methods, which could make our power cleaner and cheaper. With U.S. demand for electricity projected to rise at least 30% over the next 30 years, the methods it pioneers may be our best shot at avoiding a future full of brownouts, blackouts and sky-high energy bills. “Mueller is the community of the near future,” says Suzanne Russo, chief operating officer at Pecan Street. “But everything we’re learning is going to be applicable to every community in America.”
Even 3 years ago, before the most recent Solar City and Sungevity explosion in installs, many observers were wondering what a solar explosion might look like.
Ramez Naam in Scientific American:
Yet solar power is still a miniscule fraction of all power generation capacity on the planet. There is at most 30 gigawatts of solar generating capacity deployed today, or about 0.2 percent of all energy production. Up until now, while solar energy has been abundant, the systems to capture it have been expensive and inefficient.
That is changing. Over the last 30 years, researchers have watched as the price of capturing solar energy has dropped exponentially. There’s now frequent talk of a “Moore’s law” in solar energy. In computing, Moore’s law dictates that the number of components that can be placed on a chip doubles every 18 months. More practically speaking, the amount of computing power you can buy for a dollar has roughly doubled every 18 months, for decades. That’s the reason that the phone in your pocket has thousands of times as much memory and ten times as much processing power as a famed Cray 1 supercomputer, while weighing ounces compared to the Cray’s 10,000 lb bulk, fitting in your pocket rather than a large room, and costing tens or hundreds of dollars rather than tens of millions.
If similar dynamics worked in solar power technology, then we would eventually have the solar equivalent of an iPhone – incredibly cheap, mass distributed energy technology that was many times more effective than the giant and centralized technologies it was born from.
So is there such a phenomenon? The National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy has watched solar photovoltaic price trends since 1980. They’ve seen the price per Watt of solar modules (not counting installation) drop from $22 dollars in 1980 down to under $3 today.
Regular readers may remember Ray Kurzweil’s simple observation of what the mathematical implications of solar development seem to be.
8 more doublings, and counting.
Reblogged this on Wired Industry and commented:
Solar Panels in homes are great investments. To maximize its use in everyday life is another story, considering the skyrocketing of its initial cost and some hindrances as to their installations because of the non-stop lobbying from power/energy providers in some state/countries. It is clean energy, no questions about that, that it is now the right time for the government to have political will and help communities establish such devices without unreasonable interferences of power/energy providers.
A “bill” of -$631 means the system is grid-tied. It is using the grid as if it was a battery.
The problem is, the grid is not a battery. If all buildings in Austin tried to do the same, they would all be trying to put their noon-time surpluses onto the grid… and who would take them? Perhaps you could put a good fraction into the batteries of EVs, but there would have to be a LOT of EVs and they would need to be plugged in at that hour.
A more serious scheme would be to run the A/C system around noon to convert excess electricity into ice, for use later. Ice is extremely cheap, far cheaper than batteries. Ice can provide A/C or reduce the power requirements of the kitchen refrigerator and basement freezer. Having lived in Austin, I can attest to the need for air conditioning. In summer, the earth heats up so much that tapwater gets warm enough to take showers.
If these houses are acting as generators, they should probably be treated as commercial customers by the utility. I found a commercial rate schedule for a nearby utility. This schedule bills $12.55 per kW for peak demand, plus 4.3¢/kWh for energy consumed. If the Pecan St. house paid $12.55/kW for its peak consumption and only got 4.3¢/kWh for surplus electricity, would it still have a credit at the end of the year? Color me doubtful. But that’s certainly a much more realistic way to value its presence on the grid.
Denmark is doing this with heat storage. When wind blows hard and prices go negative then electric boilers at district heating plants turn on and they store heat (they displace natural gas). See page 13-14:
http://www.store-project.eu/documents/target-country-results/en_GB/energy-needs-in-denmark-executive-summary
Several hundred MW of heat pumps are planned to expand this.
In hot climates like Texas it makes sense to do this with ice storage.
Yes. There are some synergies here. MISO Midwest onshore wind is strongest in winter. That means in can be used for heating and heat storage. Texas could be more complicated. The more wind is located near water, the more it gets diurnal land sea breeze. That changes the picture. Either way, storage can be thermal.
Denmark’s grid emits over 300 gCO2 per kWh generated.
Sweden’s emits 23 grams. Why are you rah-rah about Denmark, and ignoring Sweden?
Because Sweden gets 50% of electricity from hydro power and this cannot be reproduced on global scale. But wind and solar can because they have enough potential.
Denmark is significant because it shows how to integrate high shares of wind power in such way that can be reproduced elsewhere.
Oh, I almost forgot. Denmark was nearly 100% coal powered in the 80s, but in 2013 it was 30% wind and 15% biomass (so 45% renewable). Emissions per kWh have fallen substantially.
From about 900g/kWh (coal) in the 80s to about 450g/kWh in 2012.
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKELEC.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Denmark
This can now be copied elsewhere.
Denmark only got 33.8% of its electricity from wind in 2013, and the only reason Denmark has been able to achieve that much is its extensive grid connections to… Sweden and Norway, and their hydro plants. In other words, Denmark cannot be reproduced on a global scale either.
Denmark imports huge quantities of biomass, such as wood chips. That is another non-reproducible element.
Sweden gets almost all its OTHER 50% from nuclear. That is far more reproducible than wind resources.
Little bitty Denmark can get “renewable” biomass from chipped southern long-leaf pine in South Carolina and Georgia, but if you think the world can copy this you probably think that clearing rainforest to plant oil palms is “green” instead of ecocidal.
“the only reason Denmark has been able to achieve that much is its extensive grid connections to… Sweden and Norway, and their hydro plants.”
Correlation between export and wind is very weak and it also exists for thermal power plants. The truth is that nearly all exports/imports in Nordic power market are determined by price, not technical necessity.
This claim that Denmark achieved high wind penetration only because of exports has been debunked also by Denmark’s own engineers.
http://www.energyplanning.aau.dk/Publications/DanishWindPower.pdf
“Denmark imports huge quantities of biomass”
Most of biomass imports come from Baltic region. Europe is a free trade zone and there is nothing wrong if biomass is traded just as many other things are (but sustainably of course).
Already traditional biomass is the largest renewable energy source so it makes sense to use it in modern CHP plants instead of traditional cook stoves and firewood.
ppp251 – This is why people in the rest of the country are not aware of solar.
http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2014/07/Top_5_Solar_States.png
Now I know why Arizona Power is fighting tooth and nail to shut down solar
– before its too late and they get run over by it. It has already run over HECO. (Hawaii)
Hawaii’s energy regulator got tough with the state’s largest investor-owned utility this week, putting forth a plan for Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) to reduce energy costs and connect more rooftop solar systems to the electric grid.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/02/3433587/hawaii-utility-more-solar/
You have made this point over and over again. And it is misguided, because it completely misses the point of why the government should subsidize new technologies that are in the public good.
The price of electricity from coal and gas generating systems does not include the gigantic external costs of the AGW they produce. Those external costs are estimated to be $1200 trillion dollars by 2100 alone. Renewables do not have any external costs on a relative basis.
Therefore, government should subsidize the construction of renewables, because they will ultimately save us titanic amounts of money by mitigating AGW. Government could (and, IMHO should) pick up the entire cost of building a 100% renewable energy system, because it will pay for itself many times over at the same time it preserves civilization as we know it.
Your analysis is absurd, because you ignore this most important point. And you also ignore the many billions of dollars of subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel energy sector which has paid for their infrastructure.
But you have seen these criticisms of your analyses before. You just don’t accept them or care to remember them.
Repetition is key to education.
But that’s the point: the technology in the Pecan St. house is not in the public interest. Its creators say it is, but it isn’t.
The net-metered Pecan St. house cannot exist without fossil-fired electric generation. It is joined at the hip to coal and natural gas. All of the cost-shifting and non-scaling aside, the house does not actually eliminate consumption of fossil fuels. Even at noon when the meter is spinning backwards, steam or flame has to be going through a turbine somewhere to generate the VARs, provide the regulation, and maintain reserves ready to pick up the slack in case of a passing cloud (let alone dust storms). Since the house cannot operate without fossil fuels, and we need to get rid of fossil fuels, it is a failure; worse, the failure was designed into it. It is not in the public interest. It is in the interest of the natural gas lobby, though.
Precisely. Any design that depends on fossil-burning generation elsewhere (which means almost anything that requires fast-ramping supply beyond our maxed-out hydro) incurs those massive external costs. That includes the Pecan St. house.
Know what country doesn’t incur those costs? Sweden. Most home heating is electric, and the Swedish electric grid is almost completely de-carbonized. But Sweden didn’t do it with solar panels and wind turbines, which is why Peter doesn’t mention Sweden very much.
The solar and wind must be shadowed by fossil-burning generation to keep the grid running, so they still incur that AGW penalty. That is the real Inconvenient Truth in this debate. If we truly want to mitigate AGW we need carbon-free base load generation, not unreliable generation. With always-on, carbon-free power we can decarbonize most everything else. Without it, we’re trapped in fossil dependency.
Engineer-Poet
Well, I suppose people can decide whether to believe you about the eternal need for fossil-fuel power plants because they are simply irreplaceable, or they could believe Mark Jacobson, PhD and his team at Stanford, who now have several peer-reviewed publications out demonstrating that you are wrong – that tide and geothermal and hydro can fill the gaps.
I have mentioned and linked to these folks repeatedly. Do you think they are mistaken? Did you not read them? Did you forget?
I’m not asking anyone to believe me. I’m asking people to actually LOOK at Denmark and Germany and see what they’re doing and what they expect to need. Denmark burns lots of coal and has electric rates far too high to convert industry from fossil fuels. Germany is condemning historical villages in order to expand lignite mines. Those are “facts on the ground”. Believe them.
Tide? No use to the middle of the continent, varies with the phase of the moon and goes to zero four times a day on a rotating schedule, and what about the effect on e.g. mud flat ecosystems? Hydro? Maxed out, mostly in the PNW, and most of your available energy comes and goes in the spring. Geothermal? Total potential in the USA is a few tens of GW; total planned is well under 10 GW and overwhelmingly in a few Western states.
Contrast this to France and Ontario, both of which have per-kWh CO2 emissions a fraction of even Denmark’s. Who’s OBVIOUSLY on the right track, and who on the wrong one?
(cot’d)
We know that Mark Z. Jacobson considers himself more authoritative than the Health Physics Society (further references at the link). Frankly, I think Mark Z. Jacobson is an ideologue who puts his agenda ahead of the truth. His position is not a mistake, he knows the truth and chooses to disregard it (and he has found agreeable reviewers). He’s as bad as any climate denier.
Jacobson hand-waves while Letterman speaks from experience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqIu2J3vRJc
Jacobson’s “lower prices” are built on the back of large tax subsidies. Who do YOU want to believe?
Hi Gingerbaker. Subsidizing renewables to save titanic amounts of money by mitigating AGW? Not everyone gets it. Spreading myths in the name of “education”? You decide.
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/07/19/the-myth-of-energy-storage-vs-baseload/
Peter – Thanks. What I really love about your article and videos is that they educate. This is noble. California residences can hardly avoid learning about solar PV. I just did not realize that the rest of the country was unaware of the ITs speed that this is happening. To give some perspective. I probably have had at least a dozen door to door solar sales encounters is the last four months. Every Home Depot has a Solar City table. Ads appear on the internet constantly. There was never anything like this before. It is common to see multiple PV solar installations on a block. Just about anyone can get solar with zero down and lower their monthly bill. I was surprised, because solar was quite a bit more expensive only last year. I did not expect it to fall so fast. Both the installed cost and the amount of solar necessary have improved. So less is needed and its less expensive. It seems to be behaving like semiconductors, which is really not surprising, because it is semiconductors. Right now, although the panel and cell costs have dropped, the balance of system(BOS) costs are still high and are a large fraction of the costs. They are coming down already in California as just passed bills are passed to streamline the process.
I don’t know if you have any Orchard Supply Hardware stores in your area Christopher, but they are also pushing (a competitor) PV installation with smaller, but higher capacity panels (SunPower panels maybe?). They also sell low-solar-load paint installations for buildings and roofs. There’s actually a little department at the front of the store for efficiency upgrades with lots of info pamphlets.
Home Depot has also been pushing thermostats that learn your preferences automatically so if you like to keep the a/c off while you’re at work, the unit figures this out and pushes the trigger temp way higher than the non-conditioned temp during that time. The point is to use less electricity through behavioral ‘enhancement’ – making it easy to make changes in one’s habits.
A few years ago, I was able to cut my yearly electricity use by 30% just by using as little a/c as possible.
Hi Andrew – That new thermostat sound like it has some nice features. I don’t know why I bought my AC. I practically never use it. There were two 95 degree days. Thats it. I just set it by hand and look at the forecast for the next week. You can keep the windows and doors closed during the day to keep the cool in. There are some systems that use the cool night air and dark sky to store cold. In the end, if you just insulate and let the house cool during the day, you can close it up until the temperature rises. My thermostat has time of day settings, which is good for both heating and cooling. Have you ever looked up SolarWorld on youtube. I laugh when people say solar breaks too easily. Sunpower is also a really nice panel.
Interesting to see how it is now valorous to suffer a bit to save money on our electric bill.
“A/C?… I don’t actually use it to maximize my comfort – I use it to minimize my most extreme suffering – I only use it when it is completely unbearable NOT to use it!”
This is the new ethics of life under peak oil: Suffer because you can’t afford not to. Suffer because being comfortable is bad for the environment.
Man, when we move to 100% carbon-free energy we are all going to have to change the way we think! Using energy will no longer be bad for the environment. And, if we do it right, using energy will not be expensive – the “fuel” is free.
The “fuel” may be free, but the systems to capture it and store it will bankrupt you.
I am shocked but not surprised that there is no solar-powered, ice-storage air conditioner on the market. This 15 SEER A/C system should be able to make 83 pounds of ice per hour if it’s doing nothing else. SEER 15 means it should consume 800 watts while cooling at 12,000 BTU/hr. That, plus 1 kW of PV and an insulated bin for water/ice, should be an excellent RE-powered cooling system WITH cheap storage that won’t degrade over time.
If solar is so great and the “fuel” is free, why can’t you just go out and buy one? You can get an “Ice Bear” unit to time-shift your cooling to off-peak. You can get a DC-powered A/C, suitable for off-grid (while the sun is shining). But the obvious combination, to eliminate the variability in the RE input with the cheapest storage medium on earth, doesn’t seem to exist.
I submit to you that this is because PV is a creature of subsidies and preferences, and anything that falls outside the narrow vision of the subsidy system is too expensive to the consumer to be considered. This is why the logical step isn’t made, as if there’s a chasm to be crossed and not a crack.
Ha – that’s pretty good. They need to make some solar roadways out of those things – ha, ha!
You know it’s 85F in my place right now at 10pm, and I’ve just got one fan blowing hot air out of one windows upstairs and another fan sucking in cooler, outside air downstairs, and with the breeze and the low humidity climate, it actually feels comfortable.
We had 100F highs every day last week and most of the time my downstairs never got past 85F.
I’m impressed by the solar roll-outs to world citizens who are currently without power or grid – this micro-grid (complete with battery for 24 hour supply) in this village in India took only 3 months to implement.
http://tcktcktck.org/2014/07/micro-grid-solar-breathes-new-life-indias-rural-communities/63690
Looks like the kids are enjoying a little shade, too. 🙂 I have been noticing a lot of these, too. Does it really seem to be increasing lately?
Yes it really is , here is another bunch of happy kids in Sinda village, Zambia.
http://player
“children can continue to read”
There’s your revolution right there.
absolutely vital to get.
a single bulb the size of a grain of rice, coupled with a solar cell the size of a book =
paradigm shift
Which will give them an appetite for more.
Better hope that they move up to e-bikes and Nissan Leafs instead of gasoline scooters and Tata Nanos.
one thing that McCracken talked about was the the repurposing of used EV batteries as hubs for village or multiple household solar systems in the developing world. another great idea.
Very interesting post. I’m looking forward to the follow up ones.
Power companies need to change their business models pdq! If not, they risk ending up like record companies trying to sell CD’s to people with Mp3 players.
assume you have seen
No, I must have missed that, but it makes interesting viewing. Thanks for pointing it out.
Maybe in some places. But not in South Australia.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/south-australia-leaps-towards-40-wind-and-solar-61283
And this is a place where we have heatwaves that can shock other Australians. 40+ degree heat and less than 15% humidity make you feel that the breath is being sucked out of you when you go outside.
Solar panels have destroyed the mid to late afternoon peak in power consumption – especially on hot days (we also have daylight saving so meals are cooked and people are home while the sun still shines through the early evening). And the wind farms are well spaced throughout the state so that it’s rare for there to be a serious lull in power production.
Well, hello and g’day to you Down Under. I once fielded a bunch of calls from a very nice veterinarian in Victoria. It was one of the best parts of that job.
Note, not “dismantled”. They’ll still be running in the winter. Their balancing functions will be taken up by gas-fired turbines in the summer.
That’s part of the blind spot I keep trying to get folks to actually look at. To stabilize CO2 levels, we need to cut CO2 emissions by at least 80%. Closing 2 (out of how many?) coal-fired stations, for one season of the year, doesn’t sound like even a 50% cut. The article you linked says that RE is now about 40% of total SA electric generation. This is about the capacity factor of the wind farms, meaning that peak RE generation bumps up against total demand. It is extremely difficult to push beyond that (perhaps SA can take advantage of Tasmania’s hydro reservoirs via the interconnect to Victoria).
Then there’s everything other than electricity. What’s SA doing to de-carbonize industry? Transportation? Space heat and DHW?
If you think 40% of electric generation means you can call the battle won, you really have no idea how big the problem is.
Adelaide – that statement bears repeating,
The growth of wind and solar over the last five years has forced the two major coal fired power stations to be mothballed and closed for summer months.
It’s an example of ” the myth of baseload power”
The next time someone is skeptical, remind them. Thanks. 🙂
Sorry. I should say we have some gas generators. But there’s not enough summer demand to need the constant power from the coal plants. They’re not “keeping the grid running” in the way that people think they must. It’s much more important to have flexible generation.
Hi adelady. You get it, because you are living with it. Solar reduces FF usage and lowers electricity costs by reducing the daytime peak demand.
This video is about the inflexibility of base load power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deWtgpheDJM
The inflexibility of traditional base load power plants require peaking power to follow the load variation. In South Australia, solar has acted as a peak generator, just as you say, and reduced the daytime load. Baseload plants require peaking power plants. Those can be wind, solar, hydro, gas. On a hot summer day, the demand can double from 4AM until the daytime peak. In places where gas is used for peaking, solar reduces the need for gas peaker plants. It does that economically. Solar output tracks air conditioning loads well and reduces electricity costs by reducing the amount of peaking capacity which must be reserved for the greatest demand in summer. Thats one reason why Minnesota concluded that the value of solar was greater than the retail rate. Peak generation from FF gas turbines is more expensive than the average rate, because those generators are seldom used.
Yes, isn’t that video interesting? In essence, it’s saying “in order to cut carbon emissions we need to shut off generators that are carbon-free 24/7 and replace half or more of that with things that burn natural gas.”
This is what “sustainability” people are saying, in all apparent seriousness.
“Those who claim that nuclear ramps well and would be a good complement to wind + solar in a low-carbon power supply will not like the news, but Jacobs documents how French officials paid attention to protecting its nuclear fleet when designing policies for renewables. “France is the leading country with respect to demand-oriented tariff payment,” which Jacobs says is a clear reaction to the inability of nuclear to follow loads: “As nuclear plants have a limited technical ability to follow the electricity demand pattern, the French legislator offers additional incentives for renewable electricity producers to fulfill this task.”
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/french-renewables-policy-to-protect-nuclear/150/537/79979/
Have we not learned the myth of base load power?
I forgot to say it clearly,
Baseload power
“must be shadowed by fossil-burning generation to keep the grid running, so they still incur that AGW penalty.”
Increasing renewables for starters. Why? We’re expanding public transport and electrifying railways. Only the southern line is done so far. The poor old northern suburbs keep getting their promised electrification deferred. We’re also extending and replacing to a limited extent the tramlines that we got rid of in the 50s and 60s. So we can use all the power we can generate to substitute for over-long commuter journeys in cars.
We’re also doing a lot of “infilling” and compressing with housing. Adelaide has always had largish house blocks, and all but a few houses until the last 10-15 years were individual single story buildings. Consequently, there’s a lot of angst about “ugly” new developments. They’re not so much ugly as completely inappropriate for the climate as well as being, in too many cases, put up in a rush by not very wonderful builders. And most of the ugliness would be eliminated if people would accept more row and semi-detached construction. For the time being we’re still going for “individual” houses – packed in so tightly that if your gutter overflowed it would often go into your neighbour’s gutter rather than into your own yard. Well designed row houses – allowing more outside space for each dwelling within the same footprint of a group – would work and look a lot better in my view.
Space heating? Yeah well. Grrrrhh. We’ve got natural gas all over the place and it’s promoted as “clean” and “eliminating the middle man” by using it directly for heating rather for electricity generation which can then be used for heating. It’s the only household expense that I can think of which still has decreasing tariffs for higher use. Water and power both penalise additional use over certain amounts at varying times of the year. Gas is still at the-more-you-use-the-cheaper-the-next-BTU-becomes stage we were in with power 20 odd years ago. So a lot of people instal gas hot water systems if they already have gas for heating or cooking because the more they use the cheaper it gets. I had solar storage water heating for 20+ years before we moved house. Free hot water for 20 years. I’m distinctly unimpressed with paying for gas hot water in the house we now live in – I used to use hot water for laundry and we ran out of hot water once in all that time. When this system needs replacing, solar it will be.
We’re a bit new to the de-carbonising idea here. Our environmental consciousness was all about water until fairly recently. The state and local governments boasted about how “environmentally successful” a large new development was because of its water arrangements, then the whole city sneered when it turned out that this much vaunted environmentally “aware” suburb had unbelievable power consumption in the summer. You simply cannot live in one of those houses or flats without air conditioning All The Time in entirely ordinary Adelaide summer heat conditions. In a heatwave, they must be unbearable.
One thing I overlooked about the government’s involvement in all this.
Demand reduction.
We’ve had a few “waves” of healthy young people turning up in suburban streets, knocking on doors, and going into people’s houses. Anyone and everyone, regardless of which power retailer you use, could have Every Single One of their incandescent light bulbs replaced for free with low power use devices.
The latest arrangements also involve little items like eliminating standby power. They’re the sort of inexpensive electrical gadgets that most people wouldn’t bother to buy for themselves. Though the master/slave ones that turn off everything attached to your computer are over $100, they’ll supply and instal two of them for nothing. We get vouchers every few months from the retailer offering up to $300 worth of a range of these things to be installed for free. The government subsidises the retailers to do this.
I recall reading that 10% of the USA’s domestic power consumption is swallowed up in standby power. I don’t know how much of our power was wasted in this way, but we’re steadily eliminating as much of this totally unnecessary power use as we can.
Hi adelady – I found a nice little website about standby power from Lawrence Berkeley Labs. Good on you for trying to reduce your energy consumption. Thanks for pointing out the value of electrified rail. This is a great way to lower GHG and provide economical transportation.
http://standby.lbl.gov/faq.html
http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/RR/rail_revitalisation/new_trains_and_trams
Here is US high speed rail.
http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/sustainability.html