wyrick’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The quoted cost of $24 billion is not the best estimate given that the author uses $8 per 1,000 cubic feet. The state of the economy and significant increases natural gas finds have kept future delivery prices at the $5-$6 range (in the US at least - see http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp). Even $15-$18 billion is no small number. Regardless, it is a wasted resource that is damaging our environment. The natural gas system in the US leaked about 400 Billion cubic feet in 2008 down almost 20% from 2000. My understanding is that most of the leakage happens at the distribution system (ie your local utility). Here in Chicago, we have nearly 2,000 miles of aged leaking gas mains; some as old as the 1850's. Fortunately for the utility, the amount of leaked gas is estimated and accounted for based on gas brought into the system and amount passing through meters. Unfortunately for everyone else, this cost is recouped in the rate base and is not seen as lost revenue. The Illinois Commerce Commission has thus far been unwilling to provide rate relief to accelerate the retirement of the aging infrastructure beyond the current plan of ~50 miles per year.On Methane leakage runs up a $50 billion bill posted 1 week, 6 days ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The key word here is "busbar" meaning that it ignores transmission, distribution, and in the case of wind intermittent mitigation technologies. With transmission costs in the $1-$4 million/mile there is significant hurdles to deployment of these mega turbines at remote sites. In Texas wind power is ~10% of generating capacity and ~5% of total power generation. On a couple of occasions over the past couple years there have been rolling brownouts that affected mainly industrial customers. As RPS require even more renewables, more problems will arise that will cost money to deal with.On SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment posted 1 month ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  In my previous post I should have made couple of points: -I take issue with the author's use of EV's as justification (economic or otherwise) for an expensive purchase that is just as much a feather in the hat as an environmentally minded action . -Widespread use of EV's is one the best options we have today address energy used in transportation. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much regarding the other ~70% of the energy consumed in the country.On SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment posted 1 month ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  While I support these efforts and believe they have their place, the article as written is misleading at best. Besides being the domain of the very wealthy, the economics hear gloss over some important basics: capital. Ignoring that, sure it cost pennies to run the car and only comparing those pennies to a gallon of gasoline looks great. The problem is that it required a huge upfront capital commitment. Think of cost premium, finance charges, resource consumption involved in making this happen. Now nearly double that number because of the large subsidies that are underwriting the project. We can't keep running the money presses to make it happen. There are many, many far more cost effective and environmentally sound actions that we can take today, with existing technology that does more to address climate change: Efficiency, combined heat and power, mass transit, did I mention efficiency? $20k extra to remove the tailpipe impact of one car seems like a horrible deal to me.On SolarCity makes electric cars an even smarter investment posted 1 month ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Have you had an energy audit completed by a RESNET certified rater? Have you considered much cheaper and easier to install storm windows? I doubt your new windows, even vinyl ones, would pay for themselves within the next 20 years in energy savings alone. Windows are a small part of your total wall, floor and ceiling area exposed to the outside conditions and they are likely 30% or less of your total heating load. Storm windows are a great alternative to replacement windows. They are cheaper and easier to install. Interior storms provide the best air sealing and are cheapest. Unfortunately, they usually are not operable (no sash to lift up and down, must be taken down). Exterior storms provide good insulation, protect existing windows, and are operable while left in place. Due to moisture, the frames are vented and some air bypasses the whole window. Please get a complete audit done before buying new windows. Think of it as a few hundred dollars of insurance against a potentially unwise investment.

  On Should I suck it up and buy vinyl windows? posted 2 months ago 30 Responses