--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wind and solar combine for 1%, with solar at 0.2%.
> >
> > Dan M.
> >
>
> Question: how much of the electricity in California is used for heating
> water for bathing and washing-up?
>
My source is
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html
It doesn't give just California, but in the US, 10% of the residential and
about 5% of the total electricity use is for heating hot water. Natural gas
is the preferred method of heating water.
> That proportion of of the electricity consuptions can be reduced by a
> considerable amount (more than 50%, year round), purely through the use of
> solar water heaters.
>
> And this is not pie in the sky, this is standard practice in Cyprus, which
> has pretty much an identical climate to California.
I thought you had long streatches of days around 40C? Much of California
does not get that hot. Also, a lot of California is further North than you
might be thinking. I realize that you were specifically talking about
California, but I did some quick numbers in my head and figured that there
is no way that I could get a solar boiler to have a reasonable payoff. Even
after the big natural gas price hike, my gas bill was only $18.00 last
month. I'm guessing that, including the costs of messing with my roof, the
costs of installing a solar unit would run in the thousands. Plus, we have
many more cloudy days than Cyprus.
>
>
> Those other figures, that showed Americans as using double the energy per
> capita of pretty much anyone else... on *what*???
The best figure is per GDP unit, I think. That's about a 40% premium.
>We have TVs and computers and washing machines and cars and central heating
and >factories too... and yet *double* the energy is used by the average
American?
> Surely simple conservation of energy could lower your power usage by a
> considerable amount???
Just simple conservations measures will probably not do the trick. When
crude oil prices went up by about a factor of four , usage dropped by about
10%. The United States is built around cheap abundant energy. Our city
structrues are quite different from Europe. We have more energy intensive
industries, including energy production industries than Europe. Improving
efficiencies is possible, but it will not be an easy matter.
Cutting back 30% would require a massive upheaval. The easiest way to do
that would probably be the taxing of energy usage. It might be a necessity,
but it won't come easy. Indeed, it is probably a political impossibility.
Just look at how the pro-environmental movement is not embracing high prices
as a necessity.
For example, I'd guess that, if solar boilers were installed wherever
practical, we might gain a per cent or so on non-renewable energy usage.
Dan M.
Dan M.
