Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (41639)	11/17/2003 10:19:35 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

KastelCo, Re: I agree that Clint affair was simplistic... but I wonder how much cost could he have recouped had he been compensated ? What I presented was a hypothetical best case scenario. Making the amortization 33.3 years. Since the utility was unwilling to compensate for energy sent back to the grid, Eastwood's amortization was actually much worse than this. In other words, the most he could recoup on investment was $1,440/yr. (in my example). His actual result was worse.

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (41639)	11/18/2003 4:00:17 PM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Kastel,it is not about going over to solar cells and wind power and continuing to consume the same amount of energy as before, but it is about making adjustments to consumption when doing so.Example, most efficient lighting(LEDS) , most efficient appliances,not using the electrical items that are using electricity 24/7(using power bars).Look around and notice the waste.Anyone living in a large city that has suffered blackouts..have they considered taking steps to help themselves in the event of a blackout?Investing a small amount in a couple of deep cycle battery's,which can be stored in garage or basement..kept topped up with a small trickle charger occasionally..a cheaper 1750 watt inverter can be bought at Canadian tire for around $300 (700 watt inverter for about $100.00 and falling) will power AC compact florescent lights.. (LED lights) computers, tv's,etc.(I recently bought a 20 in Flat screen tv with built in DVD player that only uses 120 watts..)solar panels are getting cheaper by the day and an 80 watt panel will charge up a low battery in a good solar day or two..(and buying one will also educate the owner on what it is capable of)a small solar system is fairly straight forward as explained here.. siliconinvestor.com Yes, this is pretty straight forward system and we live quite comfortably on it but, it is not about doing things the same old tired way.<<ggg>> An old file from the archive and it is right on.!! excerpt: ""Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is."" <<<<June 4, 2001 The Mirage of a Growing Fuel Supply By EVAR D. NERING COTTSDALE, Ariz. — When I discussed the exponential function in the first-semester calculus classes that I taught, I invariably used consumption of a nonrenewable natural resource as an example. Since we are now engaged in a national debate about energy policy, it may be useful to talk about the mathematics involved in making a rational decision about resource use. In my classes, I described the following hypothetical situation. We have a 100-year supply of a resource, say oil — that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is about 36 years. Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years. Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet — a bonanza — and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 125 years. Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work. The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most commonly encountered example — it would produce exponential growth if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is never sudden. Rather, it is inexorable. Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half — to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is. This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero — or even begin to consume less. I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate. Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means shifting to renewable energy sources. It is not, perhaps, necessary to cut our use of oil, but it is essential that we cut the rate of increase at which we consume it. To do otherwise is to leave our descendants in an impoverished world. Evar D. Nering is professor emeritus of mathematics at Arizona State University.>>>