That's just lazy Funky! But, here are two quotes which summarise the basics:Funk N. Furter wrote: Yeah, I need a summary or quote really when you get a minute, Loopy, I don't do links in debates on their own.
"The efficiency of generation varies widely with the technology used. In a traditional coal plant, for example, only about 30-35% of the energy in the coal ends up as electricity on the other end of the generator. So-called "supercritical" coal plants can reach efficiency levels in the mid-40's, and the latest coal technology, known as integrated gasification combined cycle or IGCC, is capable of efficiency levels above 60%. The most efficient gas-fired generators achieve a similar level of efficiency.
…The transmission and distribution, or "T&D" system includes everything between a generation plant and an end-use site, i.e. a residential home or commercial business. Along the way, some of the energy supplied by the generator is lost due to the resistance of the wires and equipment that the electricity passes through. Most of this energy is converted to heat. Just how much energy is taken up as losses in the T&D system depends greatly on the physical characteristics of the system in question as well as how it is operated. Generally speaking, T&D losses between 6% and 8% are considered normal."
The first paragraph is just referring to the conversion efficiency but the initial cost of producing the raw material (coal gas uranium etc) must be added to complete the picture. The difference between the cost of supplying this kind of fuel and the cost of manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines etc is that with the first you have to keep on producing the fuel whereas with the alternative you harness renewable fuels which don't have a production cost.
With the second point, transmission losses, you reduce or even eliminate this with the approach I am suggesting. That is why I am arguing that a decentralised system of energy generation which produces energy ubiquitously (everywhere all the time) is at once so much more efficient AND because the scale of production at any one site (one dwelling or building) is very small you can use a range of different small scale energy generating technologies which, once installed, have far lower overheads in terms of maintenance cost etc. And in larger countries like Australia, the USA, Canada, China, Russia etc the cost of maintaining a huge extended national grid over time (replacement of ageing or damaged infrastructure etc) is massive.
It is the use of small scale technologies which makes adaption to changing technologies much cheaper and quicker. It also means people can organise locally to create energy co-ops making it even more efficient. And on top of that, if you want to ask how poor people will be able to participate, the rate of development of new more efficient technology (solar panels, small wind turbines etc) is moving so fast now that there is already a growing second hand market which enables people with less money to build up a system to suit their needs. This is already happening here in Australia.
I must add that there are many government subsidies in most developed countries for various aspects of renewable energy that I would argue could be effectively deployed to subsidise, on a means tested basis perhaps, the establishment of local and personal energy systems. In most countries the means of connecting local communities in small local grids is already there in the form of the existing grid. Just need to break it down. The only problem really is in countries where the transmission system (the actual poles and wires) is privately owned. And even this can be overcome by creating house to house connections as part of individual installations to create small local area grids, thus bypassing existing infrastructure. This would obviously piss off large utility companies but stuff them.
We are talking about freedom of choice and a genuine free market activity here. And the availability of a choice for people to collectively co-operate to efficiently and cheaply provide essential services makes sense even in a socialist political economy because all people can participate at one level or another in creating the means of producing such things a cheaper housing (can build anywhere and in any form etc) so many things can be done based on the above approach. It applies to a whole range of essential services (which is what I did my Honours thesis on)
I am tired of typing so that's all for now.
