Appropriate level technology?
Reading on the oildrum about a renewable energy fair, I wonder when I have some money to invest, what sort of technology is appropriate for an urban home, specifically thinking of electricity generation.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2677
Overall my gut reaction is that home-generation of electricity (like wind turbines or PV) is one of those things that fails my sense of security, specifically (1) requiring battery backup to work off-grid, (2) Complexity of maintenance and repair.
OF COURSE, from a brain-dead issue of dependence, I'd consider automobiles as equally vulnerable technologies. I suppose a NG furnace for winter heating could equally apply to my concerns. I mean depending on any technology that someone else must maintain.
Perhaps this discomfort can extend to home-ownership in general. There's a high level of dependence to own your own home, dependence upon a service industry available to keep it running, and I'm only talking general dependence to throw out lots of money everytime something breaks, NOT even talking about fear of wider support systems failing.
I see primary two approaches to my fears:
(1) Rent from someone else who wants to deal with modern complexity and maintainence.
(2) Simplify my house to systems that are durable, that I can mostly understand, and comfortably do maintence myself.
Then there's a third approach, less visible in our society, but similar to renting but more at sharing - a cooperative.
I mean, SURE I might be willing to spend $20k to have a wind turbine built in my back yard, get all the batteries needed, install a wood fireplace/boiler to heat my water/home, etc. I DON'T do these things, and most people WON'T do these things because they are burdens, less convenient that delegating someone else to handle it.
I just have to wonder if there's not a middle ground between ONE and ALL. Rather than ONE unit per household, or ONE provider per region, perhaps there is technology most appropriate for neighborhood level cooperation.
Instead of my neighbor block containing 46 individual central furnance systems, 46 central air systems, 46 washing machines, 46 clothes dryers, 46 lawn mowers, etc, perhaps some of these needs could be shared? Of course this isn't a new idea, and its what apartment complexes and townhomes do. And of course there's no guarantee of better management or anything, but worth considering.
My neighborhood block has comes that were built around 1955-1970. They're nice relatively small lots (1/6 acre), but no common space besides the streets. Even with the limitation of shared property, I could imagine, for instance, that our block could be wired up for a secondary local emergency power switch that could be turned on whenever the central grid went down. Whatever our energy source, EVEN purely from the grid, our GOAL would be to be able to store energy in a local form that could be converted back into electricity when needed. Perhaps lead-acid batteries are best for cost? Perhaps hydrogen tanks? Perhaps pressurized air storage?
Maybe electricity storage isn't the best approach. Maybe it would be a steam boiler that runs on on various fuels that can run a generator?
The key ideas are: (1) Emergency use means costs can be higher and energy demand can be lower, by conservation at such time. (2) Whatever can be done at an individual household level can probably be done more efficiently at a collective level.
I think of when we had a storm in September 2005 and lost power for 5 days. Some neighbors bought generators to keep minimal power going. In September, we had no need for heating, so most of us just accepted the power being out, and lost some our our refrigerated/frozen food. But if it was winter, my house central-air furnace can't run without electricity. If we had an ice-storm that took out the power for 5 days we'd be in real trouble, not only staying warm, but keeping water pipes above freezing.
I suppose a "local storm" can take out a local electricity system as easily as a centralized one (given power lines above ground).
I accept it would be a lot of work to get a whole block of neighbors to work together, even if most accepted a danger existed, and a collective solution superior. Some will just reject cooperation as its own weakness, seeing too little management skills within the neighborhood to trust, or whatever.
I accept things developed as they did because we collective and individually were affluent enough to afford the "American dream" and there's a simplicity to a lifestyle of personal ownership and simple paid relationships for service as needed.
Anything that can be cooperative shared is going to have to probably start simple (to prove cooperation can be done), and useful enough to encourage people to try.
One dark side of sharing is generally those who "care the most" do the most, while the rest gain free benefits. Whatever cooperative approach was found, it still likely needs some personal accountability, something that rewards care and at least keeps costs connected as best possible to users.
Like myself, I don't own a car, haven't for 28 months. I imagine my average usage of say 2500 miles/year (when I had a car) makes it uneconomical. I might accept value in sharing a car among a neighbor or two who also are low car users. All fine and good, but car costs are rather uneven - purchase costs and maintainance can dominate fuel usage, and there's a general inconvenience if someone else gets in an accident, my whole life gets cut back until its fixed. I accept most people are well-off (and spoiled) enough to not want that inconvenience.
Well mostly I'm thinking about what sorts of technology to invest in myself, and what sorts are best shared. For te time being, I've got good investments for my home still available, like better insulation, windows for one. Overall I trust more "passive" investments, things that don't have moving parts and don't break down.
If I have extra money I might be better off investing in a wind farm than one for my house.
On a scarier side, I admit someday I might consider that my home/neighborhood isn't easily retrofitted with cooperative systems and another place might have both better opportunity and people who think like me. It is scary because change is hard, and I equally wish for whatever I do to be something someone else can do. I don't want to "leave" my home to someone else who will face the same limitations I face.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2677
Overall my gut reaction is that home-generation of electricity (like wind turbines or PV) is one of those things that fails my sense of security, specifically (1) requiring battery backup to work off-grid, (2) Complexity of maintenance and repair.
OF COURSE, from a brain-dead issue of dependence, I'd consider automobiles as equally vulnerable technologies. I suppose a NG furnace for winter heating could equally apply to my concerns. I mean depending on any technology that someone else must maintain.
Perhaps this discomfort can extend to home-ownership in general. There's a high level of dependence to own your own home, dependence upon a service industry available to keep it running, and I'm only talking general dependence to throw out lots of money everytime something breaks, NOT even talking about fear of wider support systems failing.
I see primary two approaches to my fears:
(1) Rent from someone else who wants to deal with modern complexity and maintainence.
(2) Simplify my house to systems that are durable, that I can mostly understand, and comfortably do maintence myself.
Then there's a third approach, less visible in our society, but similar to renting but more at sharing - a cooperative.
I mean, SURE I might be willing to spend $20k to have a wind turbine built in my back yard, get all the batteries needed, install a wood fireplace/boiler to heat my water/home, etc. I DON'T do these things, and most people WON'T do these things because they are burdens, less convenient that delegating someone else to handle it.
I just have to wonder if there's not a middle ground between ONE and ALL. Rather than ONE unit per household, or ONE provider per region, perhaps there is technology most appropriate for neighborhood level cooperation.
Instead of my neighbor block containing 46 individual central furnance systems, 46 central air systems, 46 washing machines, 46 clothes dryers, 46 lawn mowers, etc, perhaps some of these needs could be shared? Of course this isn't a new idea, and its what apartment complexes and townhomes do. And of course there's no guarantee of better management or anything, but worth considering.
My neighborhood block has comes that were built around 1955-1970. They're nice relatively small lots (1/6 acre), but no common space besides the streets. Even with the limitation of shared property, I could imagine, for instance, that our block could be wired up for a secondary local emergency power switch that could be turned on whenever the central grid went down. Whatever our energy source, EVEN purely from the grid, our GOAL would be to be able to store energy in a local form that could be converted back into electricity when needed. Perhaps lead-acid batteries are best for cost? Perhaps hydrogen tanks? Perhaps pressurized air storage?
Maybe electricity storage isn't the best approach. Maybe it would be a steam boiler that runs on on various fuels that can run a generator?
The key ideas are: (1) Emergency use means costs can be higher and energy demand can be lower, by conservation at such time. (2) Whatever can be done at an individual household level can probably be done more efficiently at a collective level.
I think of when we had a storm in September 2005 and lost power for 5 days. Some neighbors bought generators to keep minimal power going. In September, we had no need for heating, so most of us just accepted the power being out, and lost some our our refrigerated/frozen food. But if it was winter, my house central-air furnace can't run without electricity. If we had an ice-storm that took out the power for 5 days we'd be in real trouble, not only staying warm, but keeping water pipes above freezing.
I suppose a "local storm" can take out a local electricity system as easily as a centralized one (given power lines above ground).
I accept it would be a lot of work to get a whole block of neighbors to work together, even if most accepted a danger existed, and a collective solution superior. Some will just reject cooperation as its own weakness, seeing too little management skills within the neighborhood to trust, or whatever.
I accept things developed as they did because we collective and individually were affluent enough to afford the "American dream" and there's a simplicity to a lifestyle of personal ownership and simple paid relationships for service as needed.
Anything that can be cooperative shared is going to have to probably start simple (to prove cooperation can be done), and useful enough to encourage people to try.
One dark side of sharing is generally those who "care the most" do the most, while the rest gain free benefits. Whatever cooperative approach was found, it still likely needs some personal accountability, something that rewards care and at least keeps costs connected as best possible to users.
Like myself, I don't own a car, haven't for 28 months. I imagine my average usage of say 2500 miles/year (when I had a car) makes it uneconomical. I might accept value in sharing a car among a neighbor or two who also are low car users. All fine and good, but car costs are rather uneven - purchase costs and maintainance can dominate fuel usage, and there's a general inconvenience if someone else gets in an accident, my whole life gets cut back until its fixed. I accept most people are well-off (and spoiled) enough to not want that inconvenience.
Well mostly I'm thinking about what sorts of technology to invest in myself, and what sorts are best shared. For te time being, I've got good investments for my home still available, like better insulation, windows for one. Overall I trust more "passive" investments, things that don't have moving parts and don't break down.
If I have extra money I might be better off investing in a wind farm than one for my house.
On a scarier side, I admit someday I might consider that my home/neighborhood isn't easily retrofitted with cooperative systems and another place might have both better opportunity and people who think like me. It is scary because change is hard, and I equally wish for whatever I do to be something someone else can do. I don't want to "leave" my home to someone else who will face the same limitations I face.
posted by Ares Olympus at 5:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home