Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Not a bad idea, except most home heating is with fossil fuels not
electricity so there would be little impact on the need for power
plants.
It is a very tough but important issue, and the solution is economic
and political not technical so we should be able to negotiate some
way to do it.
joe
Joseph J. Bellina, Jr. Ph.D.
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
On Apr 15, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Rick Tarara wrote:
Another ploy though is to have the power companies subsidize the
upgrades.
The idea is that reduced demand will keep the power company from
having to
build a new, expensive power plant. So, even though they sell less
energy
(they can always jack up the price, especially BECAUSE of their
philanthropic insulation program) it is to their advantage in the end.
That might work in some areas and would have worked a few years
ago, but it
would seem that the Power companies have discovered WIND. The
advantage of
wind is that they can add capacity in small increments at small
capital
costs. The total load covered by wind is still small enough that the
companies can handle 'calm days' by maxing out their coal/nuclear
or by
drawing from the grid. This is ultimately a way to higher profits
(I think)
than giving away insulation. Down the road, when the U.S. reaches its
stated (semi-short term) goal of 20% of electricity from wind, the
calm day
may well produce some local brownouts. If and when wind might take
over a
larger percentage and of the whole energy demand, that grid better
be damn
smart! Well at least IBM is working on that. ;-)
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l