Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 10:00 PM
Original message
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/

RELEASE DATE: July 30, 2007

P R E S S R E L E A S E
Landmark Energy Policy Study Points the Way to U.S. Energy Future without Fossil Fuels or Nuclear Power

Protecting Climate Will Require Essentially Complete Elimination of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 2050
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Takoma Park, MD - At the G-8 summit in Germany in June 2007, President Bush promised to "consider seriously" the European Union goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to limit global temperature rise to about 4 degrees Fahrenheit. A new study concludes that the United States could eliminate almost all of its carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2050. It also concludes that it is possible to do so without the use of nuclear power. The landmark study, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy, was produced as a joint project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.

"A technological revolution has been brewing in the last few years, so it won't cost an arm and a leg to eliminate both CO2 emissions and nuclear power," said Dr. Arjun Makhijani, author of the study and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "We can solve the problems of oil imports, nuclear proliferation as it is linked to nuclear power, and carbon dioxide emissions simultaneously if we are bold enough."

snip

"What is really innovative about this Roadmap is that it combines technologies to show how to create a reliable electricity and energy system entirely from renewable sources of energy," said Dr. Hisham Zerriffi, Ivan Head South/North Chair at the University of British Columbia and an expert on distributed electricity grids. "The United States must take action now in order to lead and this Roadmap lays out specific steps that it should take. The study is also remarkable in that it provides backup plans and recommends redundancies that are important for avoiding major missteps on the road to an economy without zero-CO2 emissions."

The study recommends an elimination of subsidies for nuclear power and fossil fuels, and also for biofuels like ethanol when they are made from food crops.

"Ethanol from corn is inefficient and, at best, has only a marginal effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions" said Dr. Makhijani. "Even at current production levels it is causing inflation in food prices in the United States and hardship for the poor in Mexico and other countries. Biofuels can be made much more efficiently, for instance from microalgae, on land not useful for food."

The study recommends a "hard cap" on CO2 emissions by large fossil fuel users (more than 100 billion Btu per year). The cap would be reduced each year until it reaches zero in 30 to 50 years. There would be no free emissions allowances, no international trade of allowances, and no offsets that would allow corporations to emit CO2 by investing in outside projects to reduce emissions. The emissions of smaller users would be reduced by efficiency standards for appliances, cars, homes, and commercial buildings.

end of excerpt

~~
Summary of the roadmap

1. A goal of a zero-CO2 economy is necessary to minimize harm related to climate change.

2. The use of nuclear power entails risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and serious accidents. It exacerbates the problem of nuclear waste and perpetuates vulnerabilities and insecurities in the energy system that are avoidable.

3. A hard cap on CO2 emissions - that is, a fixed emissions limit that declines year by year until it reaches zero - would provide large users of fossil fuels with a flexible way to phase out CO2 emissions. However, free allowances, offsets that permit emissions by third party reductions, or international trading of allowances, notably with developing countries that have no CO2 cap, would undermine and defeat the purpose of the system. A measurement-based physical limit, with appropriate enforcement, should be put into place.

4. A reliable U.S. electricity sector with zero-CO2 emissions can be achieved without the use of nuclear power or fossil fuels.

5. The use of highly efficient energy technologies and building design, generally available today, can greatly ease the transition to a zero-CO2 economy and reduce its cost. A two percent annual increase in efficiency per unit of Gross Domestic Product relative to recent trends would result in a one percent decline in energy use per year, while providing three percent GDP annual growth. This is well within the capacity of available technological performance.

6. Biofuels, broadly defined, could be crucial to the transition to a zero-CO2 economy without serious environmental side effects or, alternatively, they could produce considerable collateral damage or even be very harmful to the environment and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome will depend essentially on policy choices, incentives, and research and development, both public and private.

7. Much of the reduction in CO2 emissions can be achieved without incurring any cost penalties (as, for instance, with efficient lighting and refrigerators). The cost of eliminating the rest of CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use is likely to be in the range of $10 to $30 per metric ton of CO2.

8. The transition to a zero-CO2 system can be made in a manner compatible with local economic development in areas that now produce fossil fuels.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Energy policy
I've said this before and I will say it again, the technology is available now to free us from pollution from electric production. Solar or thermal panels on every roof, financed through tax breaks for individuals, as opposed to corporations could achieve this goal by 2017, or sooner. Many jobs would be created manufacturing and installing these things and we could thumb our nose at big oil. Will it happen? I don't think so, as that would put pressure on the big money. I will vote for most any Dem. but I think Al Gore is our only real hope. Save the earth, one roof at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. It sure is there...
But those who would lose $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ by seeing it happen will obviously yell the loudest that it can't be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
amitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Please don't kill everybody.
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. It's official: nuclear power sucks
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 10:49 AM by jpak
that is all...

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. 30 to 50 years?
And there was me thinking we were in sort sort of trouble - y'know, melting icecaps & glaciers, acidifying oceans, shifting rainfall, Europe on fire and what-not - when it turns out we're got 30-50 years to fix it.

Cool.

Guess I can go back to sleep, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. That's not what it says at all
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 11:12 AM by RestoreGore
It is akin to Al Gore's Live Earth pledge in working to mitigate GHG emissions by 90% by 2050. We have to start now to get there, and building nuclear and coal plants that do nothing but exacerbate the problem is not the way to go. It is time for some VISION not living in the past, and it doesn't have to take 50 years if people would stop trying to SELL and just DO it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. Nuclear doesn't exacerbate the problem
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 06:15 PM by Dead_Parrot
It's second only to hydro for low emissions. Which you don't want to know, because that would involve reading something written by scientists. Because it aims to be as accurate as possible rather telling you what you want to hear, you look away.

"I don't want want to live in a nuclear world"

I've got news for you, RG: What you want or don't want doesn't change what is, and thinking that is does is the the very essence of religion. I really don't want a bunch of religious zealots deciding what sort of fucked up planet my daughter is going to have to grow up in, but I'm realistic enough to spot that it's happening anyway. Whether or not you're one of them is up to you.

You do, however, raise an interesting point about "if people would stop trying to SELL and just DO it.". Helen Caldicott, who raised the funds this one-man paper, continues to fly on regular basis between Australia and the US, and within the US dozens of times a year. If you made a list of everybody on the planet, and ordered them them by fossil fuel use, Caldicott would be pretty fucking high on the list. She could stop doing it, of course, but them she might not sell as many books or be paid $10k a pop as a speaker. She isn't doing jack shit to help the planet, she's riding the hand-basket all the way down and scooping up the cash en-route.

The scientists at ExternE, on the other hand, aren't selling anything. They're just investigating the truth and telling us what it is.

If you choose to ignore the science and buy the bullshit, that's fine. But don't you dare claim that that makes an environmentalist. This isn't about politics, this is about facts. The sooner you realise this, the sooner you might stop paying a doctor-turned-failed-politician's air-miles and start doing something useful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. It doesn't solve it either.
So that line of BS is definitely not going to sell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Wow, that must have taken a long time to think up
No stout defence of why Caldicott's long-haul flights, and an explanation of how that jet-fuel has to be burned to save us?
No deep secrets about Monica Gullberg's ties to Exxon, Dara Connolly's kick-backs from Areva or Rudi Torfs's free holiday courtesy of TEPCO? Just lying about the environmental impacts for the sake of it, you reckon?
No streams of figures about carbon monoxide emissions from Si smelters?
No off-the-cuff answers about energy storage or smart grids or how easy it is to switch off a steel-mill?
Not even a tirade about the nature of what is "science" and why it means "just a bunch of corporate whores shilling for Dick Cheney"?

Let me guess: too much hard work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. No, just not worth my time
To continue to indulge your rudeness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-30-07 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Great post!
It's doable.

If we all have the will to push our elected representatives, and push them hard....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
11.  And move them to search for their moral conscience
Which the nuclear and coal lobbies that have a hold on them certainly do not seem to have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razzleberry Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. the US is not the whole world
how many times do I have to write that?
....

somebody else, go first
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. The U.S. is the main culprit in GHG emissions, with China just about to pass us by
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 11:13 AM by RestoreGore
Anyway, isn't living a clean, safe, sustainable life simply logical? And when we lead the way, others do tend to follow. We need a stronger climate treaty within the next two years, and we along with China, India, and other countries need to lead the way for the world. This is a moral issue, not an issue of you first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razzleberry Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. why does the US have to do everything?
is there some reason Europeans can't
go first with whatever you are talking about.



keep in mind ......
they --> WANT <-- it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. You're talking as if leading the way on this is bad...
when it isn't. Leading the way to a better future is something positiveand now something imperative. Why are you looking at it as some sort of competition? Morally since we are first in emissions, does it not follow that we have a moral obligation to do something about it? I feel the same way about any country contributing to this crisis. And we will never mitigate this in time if people continue to wait for someone else to go first, and we cannot afford to wait any longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. You hit it right on the head with this line
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 01:05 PM by GliderGuider
And we will never mitigate this in time if people continue to wait for someone else to go first, and we cannot afford to wait any longer.


What does the fact that we're still waiting even though we are out of time tell you?

Why not put your energy into ensuring that the world retains the knowledge and values it will need to rebuild following the decline? Wouldn't that make more sense than fighting a rearguard action in a battle that's already lost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. If you believe the battle is lost, sure
But I don't believe that and for the sake of my child I will not. Not yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Everyone needs to draw their own conclusions
and fight the battles they need to fight. If you get stuck though, remember that there's a real difference between giving up and waking up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. 1,000,000 Megawatts of PV by 2015?
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 10:25 AM by One_Life_To_Give
Cause thats the scale required to sideline Fossil Fuel and Nuclear generated electricity in the US. At retail the cells alone would cost $5 Trillion, installation say another $3 Trillion. Roughly 80% of the GNP for the entire US. Or around 8 Iraq's.

For each household we would be installing 10,000 Watts of PV panels at a cost of $80,000USD.
Even subsidized what percentage of this total cost could the average US household be expected to absorb? ($10K, $20K?)

Then there is replacements for all of the non-electric fossil fuel replacements. Tractors, trains and trucks need to run on something.



edit spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Well then I guess we better stop funding wars and start using our money for good
Eh? And where is the back up for your numbers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Oops, I was low
From DOE/EIA eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/chap1.pdf

2006 Electric consumption 4,052,968 (Thousands Megawatt hours)

Which = 4,052,968,000,000,000 Watt hours/year

Assuming the PV panel can generate 100% power for 4 hours every day/ 365 days a year
The total installed base of PV panels would need to be equal to 4,052,968,000,000,000 / (4hrs * 365) = 2,776,005,479,452Watts installed nationally.

Current retail costs of PV are around $5/watt.
Installation cost for figures I have seen run a little more than half of the PV Cell cost (including misc additional equipment, wiring, grid tie inverter, etc.)

Cost of the cells alone $13,880,027,397,260
Cost for installation, etc at 50% is rougly another $7 Trillion.

So my back of the envelope calculation was low by a factor of half.
Total installed cost would be roughly $21 Trillion or 2 years of GNP of $13 Trillion
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us

US Census estimate 110 million houselholds in US
$21Trillion/110million for $191,000 per household for their installation of
25,236Watts per household.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Is this on grid or off grid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. Ummm...The Electric Power Research Institute estimates the US could reduce electricity demand
by 24-48% with existing technology.

Wind *and* solar *and* biomass *and* hydro *and* geothermal *and* wave *and *tidal* power can work synergistically to satisfy the remainder of US electrical demand.

Putting one's eggs in one basket is not clever, efficient or advisable...no need for 1 million MW of PV by 2015...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Joules are Joules
Pick your mix of sources.
It's a matter of scale and cost. Any way you slice it your looking at spending a minimum of $5 trillion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. And what is the price tag for all nuclear???
Including decommissioning and spent fuel disposal???

And just where is the US going to get all that uranium from??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Current decommissioning doesn't matter
Actually using the proposal it could get worse. Trying to decommission all 100+ Nuke plants by 2015 will only add to our short term expenditures. And no matter what they will have to be decommissioned one day or another. So why rush? Is the incremental risk of allowing them to continue operation a few more years really worth the aggravation at this time?

You can postpone 20% of that huge renewable electricity project just by not forciong all of the Nuke plants to close immediatly. That saves a minimum of $1Trillion over the next 8 years in the proposed plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Exactly, but that is how some are twisting this
No one is saying solar is ALL we can or should use, but in that mix coal and nuclear are simply not feasible options if we truly wish to see a sustainable future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Fine, pick your poison
You won't be able to get their without spending from $5-20+ Trillion in building the equivalent of 350-1200 of Boston's "Big Dig".

Without addressing these basic points the end results will never be acheived. No matter how worthy the goal, spending pocket change won't do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
10. What, RestoreGore?
There isn't any there there.

A lot of words, no meaning. One can say anything but that doesn't mean it can, or could be, real.

The original post is an appeal to fairy godmothers, the Cinderella dream of a dirty coal based economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. I have been informed...
that we just aren't clapping hard enough, goddammit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
22. FAQ regarding renewable energy in your state
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. Efficient Refrigerators ...
Several years ago I was thinking of replacing our side-by-side kitchen refrigerator, as it's an old model that I bought used and it uses A LOT of power. I came up with a list of 3 features that I wanted for its replacement. (didn't care about side-by-side):

1. Extra thick wall insulation, in the neighborhood of 3 inches or more.
2. No automatic defrost, only manual (this means no electric HEATER inside, reason for this should be obvious)
3. Condenser on top of unit (the condenser is typically located outside the unit, it emits the heat removed from the inside. Heat RISES, many American models now place this underneath, some have it on the back, and some models place it inside the back wall)
4. Reasonable price

The only unit I could find on the Internet at that time that met all of those features and wasn't overpriced was a Chinese model shipped from a Chinese factory. They required a bulk purchase. Boutique American retailers had some models similar to it that were easily priced at 3 times what a typical fridge should cost, and without the automatic defroster heater, they have LESS parts so they should COST LESS.

I'm still waiting for these types of refrigerators to hit the discount stores. They're much more energy efficient.

It seems most modern American households don't want a refrigerator without an automatic defroster (I mean inside-the-fridge HEATER), so the discount stores don't seem to have them.

I still have the power hog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. I remember the days of manual defrosting...
But again, seems convenience wins out these days. I purchased a smaller refrigerator a couple of years ago that is an energy saver, though yes, even that one is still a power hog. Amazing how so many people don't equate this to being part of the problem too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RestoreGore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Here is a manual defrost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Lowes also has an upright freezer, manual defrost.
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 10:16 PM by SimpleTrend
To make that work as a fridge, it would need an external thermostat that turns the power off and on in the right temperature range, 32-40 degrees F. It would make an interesting experiment, whether that setup would use less power than a fridge designed for refrigerator temps, and whether vegetables and milk, etc., were kept fresh. Often, those upright freezer models would not have a crisper section, usually there are only shelves. Sometimes the 'evaporator' (what makes the inside cold) is incorporated into the shelves in a freezer unit, and that would probably not work well for a refrigerator, though there may be a work around.

I already have a spare freezer, no automatic defrost, chest type, and it seems to use very little power. I never thought to try to adapt it to a higher temperature range than it was designed for. I know external thermostats are sold, though I don't have a link to one handy right now. I think that home beer brewers use them for their lagers, but I'm not clear on the temperature range they operate at, or the range width, or how reliable they are under long term use.

My current fridge has the condenser on the bottom, and I can't think of a more moronic place to put it, as it requires 2 electric fans (power) to run to circulate the air around it, and it's also hard to keep clean. It's almost as if it was designed to use MORE power on purpose, while the ratings scheme we're presented with by retailers, when we buy new, may be meant to deceive us in the sense that we will believe the one we choose is more efficient than it is.

My main point, relative to your OP that mentions inefficient refrigerators, and numerous other posts that accuse Americans of being power hungry compared to citizens of other countries, is how the 'discount' mass market here seems to choose the features on products that we consume for us. Most of us are poor and often can't afford the higher prices found in 'boutique' shops (such as solar shops that sell off-the-grid appliances that do use less power).

If there are a few consumers who want something a bit different, such as more energy efficiency, in the mass market we're sold instead on a new ratings scheme to rate how relatively efficient the products are, even though there are basic design flaws that if corrected, could save substantial amounts of power. The people running the corporations making these decisions seem to think we're all either morons and/or have infinitely deep wallets!

Yeah, defrosting manually is a chore to be done every six months or so, but it really doesn't take that long, and its a good opportunity to clean the inside at the same time. I'd happily trade that chore for a twenty dollar a month savings on the power bill!

BTW, thanks for the link and discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-31-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Off-the-Grid refrigerator:
Edited on Tue Jul-31-07 11:32 PM by SimpleTrend
http://www.sunfrost.com.nyud.net:8090/images/index_fridge.jpg
Source Image: http://www.sunfrost.com
Note the thicker walls that indicate more insulation.

Here's a site that explains why these refrigerators are better and use less power:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/energyconservation/sunfrost/kosukiSP2002/index.html#theworlds

"The Sun Frost Refrigerator reduces refrigerator energy consumption by a factor of five." From the explanation, it doesn't appear that the refrigerator needs any defrosting.

Another picture:
http://www.humboldt.edu.nyud.net:8090/~ccat/energyconservation/sunfrost/kosukiSP2002/frost.jpg

This site sells them for $2000-$3000.
http://www.sierrasolar.com/manufacturers.php?manufacturer_id=64

Those prices are not really competitive with the $400-$1500 range that discounters sell mass-market and higher-power use typical refrigerators.

Are the major appliance makers in cahoots with the power companies to inflate power usage? Wouldn't surprise me. I think the major board members sit on each others boards in an old-boy network dreaming up greed schemes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Tooling Costs
With fairly basic cavity molds for plastics running $50,000USD. And all of the other tools required to make a low cost product. Unless you are moving tens of thousands of each model. The costs of the tools for even the basic parts adds to cost. And the higher efficiency tools are even more expensive to design and build.

The US probably consumes 10-20 million refrigerators a year. Of those perhaps not even several thousand will be sold without automatic defrost. The standard refrigerator is 30inches wide(IIRC) and shoppers look for how much room they can find in that size. Which means less space for insulation. And so on thru all of the different design considerations. In the end you get the most efficient fridge possible given all of the other requirements the consumer conciders more important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC