LMAO! Typical politition! Actualy I should say typical enviro activist / big star! He's no different then the Hollywoood types that "care" about the enviroment so much yet drive around in Hummers and other gas guzzlers!
What an ass! Lies about the environment and then even if he was telling the truth he's doing more to hurt it then all of us!
Great find!
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
It's a non story if you ask me. Turns how he pays a 50% premium on electricity because he buys green power, that means power made by renewable resources. It's also known he's already purchased solar panels and is waiting to get them installed.
Solar panels for that size of a home isn't cheap, BTW.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:It's a non story if you ask me. Turns how he pays a 50% premium on electricity because he buys green power, that means power made by renewable resources. It's also known he's already purchased solar panels and is waiting to get them installed.
Solar panels for that size of a home isn't cheap, BTW.
It doesn't say anywhere in that article about the use of solor panels on his home, green power or renewable resources it says he gets his power from the public utility company and it doesn't say what means they use to generate it. It says he talks about reducing energy costs at home but then he goes home and uses more then all of us. Tell me exactly
what article did
you read cause it sure wasn't this one.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Want to try searching for it yourself? Unlike you guys, I spent 3 minutes finding that
A) the link is biased
B) a response and better followups elsewhere.of the facts elsewhere
---
AGuSTiN wrote:Want to try searching for it yourself? Unlike you guys, I spent 3 minutes finding that
A) the link is biased
B) a response and better followups elsewhere.of the facts elsewhere
Ohhhhhh so if the link doesn't say what YOU want it to and when your asked where it says what your claiming or if it shows something different then what you've been touting its biased? LMAO!
Look if you have something to proove this wrong then by all means post it so we can read it and we'll all know the article is biased. I have nothing against conserving energy and being as green as you can but from what this article says Al Gore is a hipocrit plan and simple.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Stop being so @!#$ lazy and learn how to think for yourself.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:It's a non story if you ask me. Turns how he pays a 50% premium on electricity because he buys green power, that means power made by renewable resources. It's also known he's already purchased solar panels and is waiting to get them installed.
Solar panels for that size of a home isn't cheap, BTW.
X10000
Just search and find it out. Don't believe just a media biased article. Gore is paying extremely high because his power is completely renewable, and renewable energy is expensive. Gore also pays more than the national average because his Estate is much larger than the national average household.
Solar Panels, Renewable power.
I'm not saying its 100% proof, but in this day with media biased partisanship, you should check all available sources to get the whole story. It's all how people spin it. I'm not really gonna back Gore, just trying to get out the whole story.
It's not about how much he pays, it's about how much he uses. Green power or not, it doesn't matter, he a power glutten and it's obvious. Even if he uses solar, he's still using 20 times what the average American uses and they only looked at one house. I bet he has others.
Green power is great and all but keep in mind that there is a general pool of power, green and not are delivered together over the same infrastructure. When the load goes up, so does the3 generation. Can green power simply kick it up a notch, no. So, when Al is guzzling back the kWhs the coal fired generation plants are compensating weather he pays for green power or not. Now, that said, his copious funds are going to green power so ideally they'll build more green generating capasity.. Knowing people, they will pocket a tidy profit first.
Solar panels will help reduce the load on the grid there, but some factory just upped its output to supply the panels and in reality that's worse. Solar panel take an enormous amount of energy to produce then slowly give that energy back over about 8 years.. They only save energy after the initial energy to produce them has been generated. In essence, they actually make the problem worse until they have been in operation beyond about 8 years.. Nasty.
PAX
yeah and you guys turbo your cars and use twice as much gas as a normal cavalier...
Hahahaha: It's a 10000sqft house. It's going to use a bit of power regardless. Not everyone can live in a 850sqft flat lit by tallow candles.
Either way:
- The power his house uses is renewable....
- Power used in manufacture of most solar cells for a house is nothing compared to that used to power a house for a year. The issue is moot anyhow: the power will be used either way or wasted.
- Green power is still in its infancy. The early adopters of basically anything are going to be hit with the bill heaviest because it's a smaller pool, and it costs more to feed a small market... and who's going to do something for little or no profit, especially in the energy sector?
I was thinking about using a wind-turbine/solar array, but I found that harnessing dynamos in sequence powered by cheap Honduran slave children to be the most effective and cheap way to get "green" power. I suspect that once China adopts this strategy, they will power the earth many times over.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Actually I would say whatever sources you found saying he uses green power are seriously biased and wrong. Using most Green power gives you tax credits, like solar energy and a few others and do not cost more per month that is a total fabrication. Also he gets his power off the same power grid as everyone else(except solar power of course), which means then everyone is using green power and we don't need to conserve I guess???
Rationalize all you want, it doesn't discount the fact that he doesn't practice what he preaches.
Hey, if you're rich and want a huge house that sucks back the power, good for you. If you are all that and you go around telling people to conserve, well screw you.
Nobody has to live in a 850ft^2 flat lit by (horribly poluting and hard on your eyes and lungs) candles. Nobody with a household the size of Al Gore's needs a 100 000 ft^2 house either. There is a concept called moderation.. I'll let you in on it's secret. There is a middle ground between the extremes. If his rather average family size needs a house of that size, there's a different word. Gluttony. In a way, I can't blame him, if you have the means, why not? I'd likely have a huge house too. The difference is I wouldn't spend a year or so being an attention whore espousing the virtues of conservation but continue to consume 20 times that of the average (and aparently wasteful) American home. On top of that, actually using fear tactics to drive it home and incite change (that's called terrorism).
The power his house uses comes off the grid. The total load on the grid is higher because of his consumption. Green power generation is still young as you point out and therefore has limited generating capasity. Coal plants however have big capasity and can increase output to compensate for the load. Until non-renewable energy is off the grid then everyone contributes to their (coal plants etc) output in some way. By paying for green power, all that means is your funds go to a company that generates and researches green power. It a good thing, but don't think that by paying for green power generation you have somehow isolated yourself from non-green sources. That is not the case.
PAX
Oh ya, I think you missed the point that solar cells take about 8 years to pay back the energy it takes to produce them. It doesn't matter if they are powering a stadium or an out-house. By purchasing huge amounts of them he has caused a surge in energy use that will take 8 years to pay back.
PAX
Hahahaha wrote:Rationalize all you want, it doesn't discount the fact that he doesn't practice what he preaches.
Hey, if you're rich and want a huge house that sucks back the power, good for you. If you are all that and you go around telling people to conserve, well screw you.
Nobody has to live in a 850ft^2 flat lit by (horribly poluting and hard on your eyes and lungs) candles. Nobody with a household the size of Al Gore's needs a 100 000 ft^2 house either. There is a concept called moderation.. I'll let you in on it's secret. There is a middle ground between the extremes. If his rather average family size needs a house of that size, there's a different word. Gluttony. In a way, I can't blame him, if you have the means, why not? I'd likely have a huge house too. The difference is I wouldn't spend a year or so being an attention whore espousing the virtues of conservation but continue to consume 20 times that of the average (and aparently wasteful) American home. On top of that, actually using fear tactics to drive it home and incite change (that's called terrorism).
The power his house uses comes off the grid. The total load on the grid is higher because of his consumption. Green power generation is still young as you point out and therefore has limited generating capasity. Coal plants however have big capasity and can increase output to compensate for the load. Until non-renewable energy is off the grid then everyone contributes to their (coal plants etc) output in some way. By paying for green power, all that means is your funds go to a company that generates and researches green power. It a good thing, but don't think that by paying for green power generation you have somehow isolated yourself from non-green sources. That is not the case.
PAX
dude, your freakin awesome.
<img src="http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/jiggaman/personal_pic.jpg">
Hahahaha wrote:Rationalize all you want, it doesn't discount the fact that he doesn't practice what he preaches.PAX
Oh thank God someone else sees what I'm talking about! And AGuSTiN, GAM you guys are fond of posting links please post some that prooves this article wrong. If Gore does in fact have solor panels and use renewable energy I sure didn't see it in this article.
fact is hes telling you and I to conserve and cut back on our use of energy when he's at home sucking it down like a crack whore giving head for her next rock.
Sorry hes a hipocrit.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
If Gore has solar panels that means he's actually using even more energy which would be worse. The article is talking about his actuall electric bill. Everyone I know with solar panels and who has looked into getting them says you use that energy first, it lowers your electric bill by using saved energy from the panels first.
In slight defense of solar panels, it takes 8 years to pay off buying them(on average), not pay off the energy it takes to run them(if that is what you meant?)
Here's just one link
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/03/01/2003350515
I don't know how you can discount his paying into green energy, Haha. By paying the premium he does, he's investing in the generation and creation of more green power. You can't (at least I can't) just ignore that. Because of his big house, more green power will be available for everyone else. Further, even though I'm sure he uses energy generated by coal plants at times, he buys green, so that also means
someone is using energy generated by those green plants!
The link also stats that buys "green credits", which from my understanding of that link and other links is that his money goes to buying chunks of forests, ensuring their preservation. Who else does that?
ALSO, so what if it takes 8 years for solar panels to recoup their energy cost in manufacturing? All worthwhile investments take time. There is no magic fix to energy consumption, but eight years doesn't sound that bad to me. I'm 30 years old, if I live 50 more years and only spent 8 more contributing to pollution, that'd be pretty darn good! Not to mention the new owner of my house one day gets those panels with the house.
That's how I see it.
---
There is more to solar panels than just paying them off in 8 years. In the best enviroment for them(sunny all the time, no hail or strong winds) they will never produce enough energy to completely support a house. Also they are prone to breaking and are, at this time at least, very expensive to repair or replace.
That being said, I think they are a great choice for anyone who can afford them and will be better in the future as they become more wide spread and better technolgy makes them more productive and resiliant. I would put them on my house and hope someday they will be feesable for our business.
Also you article clearly states Gore is not paying any premium for green energy, his bills are regular power and gas like every other american(x20), he also pays money into an investment firm(those things that are meant to make money) that deals in green energy though. And as I said before, if he has solar power at his house now and is still using up even more energy, the solar power would be even more energy on top of his current amount.
Quote:
The Tennessean noted that Gore has been purchasing "blocks of 'green power,' " which, over the last three months, were "equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' [Nashville Electric Service] Web site."
Eric: care to revise your last statement?
Also, the only time that a solar cell is not creating power is when there is no light at all. Durability? Photo Voltaic cells are made of silicon, and are manufactured with aluminium backs and casings... You'd basically need a hurricane to damage them enough to require repairs. As long as there is regular roof maintenance (or the PV cells are cleared of debris regularly) the PV cells will last upwards of 30 years. If you don't believe me, 20 years ago, there were Efficiency warranties on PV arrays of 25 years.
Will you be able to have enough power to cook a turkey in an electric oven? No. Will you be able to run a refrigerator, television (standard CRT) and other appliances wastefully? No.
You'll have to be a lot more aware of how you use the power, and you'll have to become more conscious of how you use electricity, but you can most certainly power a house off of a rooftop PV array (meaning a few of them linked together) and a residential wind turbine. The key is that you have a collection Battery that is capable of storing and then providing your required wattage.
LINK There are kits that not only allow for you to run one house, but 5-10 houses off of one array, and allows for multiple collection and metering modules.
So to review:
- PV cells will collect light and convert it into energy as long as there is light (granted, if there is less than ideal light, there will be less voltage produced, which means not a lot if you have a collection system paired up with a wind generator)
- PV cells are durable.
- PV cells will help not only reduce but also possibly eliminate the need for being connected to "the Grid", given an alteration of consumption habits.
Hahahaha, Eric: I pose you a question, and I want you to back up your assertions; If your decision that finding alternative methods to power generation is futile or useless, then what exactly is the alternative?
Is doing nothing the answer?
Before you answer: look at the rolling blackouts in California and tell me that's a viable answer.
Also, I'd like to see where you're getting the 8 years idea as the rule. It's typically 5 years (at most 20 for ancient, 1960's era) to get the payback, and the cells are usable for 40 years.... I think that's enough of a payback. (
LINK,
LINK and
LINK). 3rd generation Modules are expected to require little if any external power outside of the chemical refinement for the manufacture of the cells themselves.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I was not saying that green power is futile or useless at all. I was just saying that buy purchasing huge amounts of solar array all at once he has cause a further spike in energy consumption that will take some years to recover. Solar cells take a large amount of energy to manufacture. I don't know about the latest generation, but the recent ones take about 8 years to produce the energy equivalent to what was consumed in their manufacture. I would be happier if people would purchase them in a way that does not cause a factory to step up production. In the long run they are a good thing, but if you look only at the year of their purchase they are a disaster.
Wind power if it'll work for you is better because even though the turbines have a shorter life span (about 10 to 15 years between major overhauls) but the energy used in manufacture is far far less.. For one it does not involve cystalisation of silicon which requires a 1400degC furnace.
Water power is ideal provided you don't acuall buld a dam. Better said, create a lake. The dam itself isn't the big problem (unless you're a fish), it's the creation of a new lake. Newly flooded areas kick out huge amounts of methane as the plantlife now under water decays.
While we're on the topic, how about some common sence in recycling programs as well. Glass recycling when done the way the brewries do it is good. Wash and re-use the bottles. The way the rest is done is insanity. It takes way more energy to truck, sort, smash and re-melt used glass than it does to make new glass. Net effect is that recycled glass is bad for the environment (good for the recycling economy though). Many would argue that keeping it out of the landfill is a good thing.. Is it? In the old days land fills got it all, organics, glass, whatever. they were mixed. Now we divert much of the inert garbage to recycling meaning that while less is going into the landfills the concentrations of polutants and toxins is much higher. many recyled objects like glass, cardboard and newsprints served a filler, a buffer if you like. They helped diffuse the toxins. Not any more. Some things should be recycled (glass bottles, whole and intact, plastics, some metals) some should not, like broken glass. Remember, it's made out of sand.
The overall point is that someone going around touting conservation could start by looking at themselves. As the man says the solutions start at home. My home I guess, but not Al Gore's.
Nope, I'm not perfect. I waste, I'm sure of it. There's more I could do I bet, given the time, money, motivation etc.. But I am not the one going around (on a high dollar tour) preaching conservation and talking about how waste is destroying the planet, am I?
The solution GAM? Well, there is new solar technology coming that will be better, and the current stuff is pretty good. If everyone went and bought them alll at once we'd have a hug problem, that's all I have negative to say about PV celss. I am actually a fan of the technology. Deployment is the issue there.
Wind, water, tide pools (water I guess)... ZPE???
REDUCTION of consumption, employment of low power lighting, more efficient furnaces and refridgerators.. It all adds up. Mr. Gore is compensating for his wastefulness by purchasing great generating capasity (in his solar cells) and to me, that's not really in line with his conservation method. Conservation means to save, preserve, not to augment with other sources. 221000 kWh/year is simply way more than any one family should use, regardless of how they get it.
PAX
PAX
I don't know the sum total of his daily or yearly consumption, maybe he uses electric heat or high-volume AC... You're talking about a house that has 20 rooms or about triple the number than most houses. It would stand to reason that it's going to cost a good bit to heat and light, and if you are committing to buying green power, it's going to cost that much more because the technology is in its infancy. *shrug* I'm just saying that making a start is better than sitting on your arse and doing nought.
The current crop of First Gen. Solar units do have time before they have a payback, but the 8 years is actually 5 years... such is the nature of the beast. The subsequent generations use new tech to create more efficient processes... and part of that is reduced manufacture cost and input energy... but realistically, the 1st generation units last at least 40 years, that's an 8 times return on the power use in the manufacture. Seems to be worthwhile...
In the case of Al Gore, who's to say what the culprit is for his Electrical bill, and who's to say what it is this month?
It sounds to me like a bunch of anti-green lobbyists that would like to make hypocrite a guy that wants to try and help, while likely being no better than the one they point the finger at.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
