GE's Smart Grid aims to cut home energy consumption to zero, promote world peace
By Darren Murph 
posted July 15th 2009 9:46AM
posted July 15th 2009 9:46AM
[Via CNET]
posted July 15th 2009 9:46AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@kjb434 actually human influence DOSE have a big impact on the earth
t what extent NOONE KNOWS but a fact is certain al gore if a moron and the hippies are too...
we should make a better effort to conserve and not be so destructive.. "love canal" anyone?
hell in the 1800's and early 1900's London was very very dark and foggy because of all the coal that ppl were burning to heat there homes.. and in the 1910's London banned coal fireplaces now its not so bad so we DO have an effect on stuff
and if we can eliminate our impact as much as possible then we CAN find out what the hell is really going on...
btw one last statement i HATE FOX NEWS BUT i enjoy Glenn Beck..
Global warming, pollution, and going green is all bulls**t. I think we should just carry on with our current situations and cemmence with operation 2012.
I had a device on my power meter for a while that would switch off certain appliances during peak demand. It saved me about $4 per month on my bill. When it got hot, my air conditioner wouldn't work. At dinner time, I couldn't cook dinner. It SUCKED. I had it removed.
Zero energy consumption home? It's called a cave. Try living in one. You won't like it.
Thank you....Why don't people understand that "peak time" means "the time when you probably want to use your electronics". It's only peak time becuase it is probably needed at that time. What happens when everyone stops cooking dinner at 7 o'clock because it is "peak time" and electricity cost more then? Everyone will start cooking at 5:30 and that will become the new "peak time". You can't win with idealogues.
Anybody grow up when we didn't have A/C or electric clothes dryers?
I did and I remember how my mom suffered in SoFla.
Y'all go right back to the third world, I'll take nuclear FTW.
I haven't read all of the paper that you cited, but I will not trust results from it until some basic questions are answered. How did they generate the average capital stock per worker data? What sectors did they do it for? Why is it valid to compare this to a seemingly totally different stat for government subsidy? These are questions from just one paragraph that did not appear to be answered, although as I say I have not read it all or in detail.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=are_ucb
damn comments, should be @nastro
Man has influence on the globe in a microscopic way, not macroscopic.
I assume for the sake of discussion you know the following:
- Global human fossil-fuel use accounts for about 2% of the CO2 emitted annually, mother nature provides the rest;
- water vapor (good old H2O) retains solar heat about 23,000 times as much as pathetic CO2 does;
- NASA’s “Y2K corrected” US temperature data has the hottest year on record as 1934, 5 of the top 10 hottest years in the US are before WWII;
- Greenland was inhabited (and truly “green”) during the Medieval Warming Period of about 1,000-1,300 AD, which had much lower CO2 levels;
- The scientific data shown that the rise in CO2 trails natural temperature increases as an indicator, not a cause. [“Ice Core Record of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations”; Science; 283 (1999) 1712-1714]
Back on topic, I actually wonder more when GE will apply their "egomagination" (or is that "egomagination"?) to clean up the Hudson river basin of their PCB contamination...
I live in the Bay Area. *all* homes run quite a bit more than I'm willing to pay.
This is total BS. This is simply to further the control of the people. Lets make up some project like "smart meters" so we can find a way to give money to some big companies, and have total knowledge of how, and when you use your electricity. Then when its time to start telling you all that we need to charge the crap out of you to "save the planet" and encourage you to save power, you can mindlessly obey. Lets put in windmills and solar when nuclear would simply and safely solve the problem. I am all for keeping the planet clean, I would love to have some solar panels on the roof, but being scared into all this is a bunch of BS. I would drive a hybrid to save gas money, but not because I am so diluted to think the emissions I am saving are any better then the batteries I would eventually discard.
"A consensus of scientists agree..." Yeah sure the same consensus that said we would not have this high of unemployment if we pass that terrible stimulus plan.
We do not have the ability to control the weather, nimrods. If there is any "climate change" its caused by things like THE SUN. Do some research and stop just believing all the BS you are told. Who is getting all the government money (our money) to do this? GE! Who tells you this is all so important? The news stations that GE owns! There is so much more to it, but I guess you people all feel really good when you think that you are somehow "saving" the planet when your really just another one of the mindless masses who buy in to so much with so little real knowledge or research.
This is one more way, ultimately, the government wants to control us. If I want to waste as much energy as Al Gore's Nashville house in a day, as long as I can afford it, it should be provided to me. I see commercials for conservation where the wife puts the thermostat up to 78. Yeah right. I want my thermostat between 70 & 72, MAX. People need to stop meddling in the affairs of the citizens of this great country and let's get back to what we're good at, consuming energy, making more of it and along the way making this country and the world a better place, without forcing on us Socialism/Marxism/Communism or any other ism, I just want to be me. ;)
I really like the image it's all sort of model train set / snowglobe :)
This is exactly what we need to start lowering our energy consumption. Homeowners need to have the technology to monitor all of their energy consumption within the home and turn off everything when it is not being used, from a centralized device. Also, the structure of the energy utility industry needs to be altered. Utility companies need to be rewarded for saving energy, not using more energy.
There are people in my town already putting up wind turbines, which will pay themselves off in 10-14 years. With GE's support all of these things are possible. This is definitely a step in the right direction, hats off to GE.
But what is the working lifespan of those wind-turbines? Maintenace and remanufacturing costs includd in that 12-14 year estimate?
I am guessing at the 12-14 year point, they will be near end-of-life.
Plus, all your neighbors will stop speaking to you, let the air out of your tires, or resort to more drastic action due to the noise produced by the wind turbine. One of your neighbors a lawyer? Say goodbye to your "public nuisance". NIMBY.
It is very possible to "go off the grid", but individuals who chose to do so make significant lifestyle changes.
Clothes dryer? How about a clothes line. Air conditioner? hmmm... Want to run your microwave? Better check your storage battery state of charge first. Oh yeah, you have to recycle those storage batteries every 7 years or so at a significant cost. Hot water heater? No, that is done by a tank and heat exchanger on the roof that the sun warms. Get used to some tepid, short showers in the morning.
until they (the industry) can get stuff like ACPI right, then I'll believe it.
That cake looks delicious
GeekPI above is right; net-zero energy is achievable affordably. (His site: http://geekpi.com/?p=479). I'm an architect with a "grid-tied" occupied and zero-energy home project in its second year now. Here's an update on this very affordable design with electric bill of zero/year with all electric appliances, dw/refrig/stove/dryer/wash1er/hotwater, and other household devices and lighting: Small house: 1,000 s.f. area. Extra initial cost for all features: about $20,000. Cold winter climate (i.e. less than 14 degreesF 1% of year). Modest PV 2kw solar collector on roof ($11,000); Superinsulated (2x8@24"o.c. stud walls R-30 fiberglass batts; 1" foam under siding); ceiling insulation R:60; underslab foam insulation R-7.5; Windows' U-value:0.25; careful construction techniques, including elimination of unneeded wall studs; caulked and sealed essentially all leaks; non-toxic interior materials; controlled ventilation; water-sourced heat pump and a/c. Now you're bored. But the design looks rather conventional other than smaller windows, and the electric bill is a joke it's so low. Costs a little in the winter, averages 0 per year, and in the summer the power company sends you a check every month.
NotForMe - I'd love to hear more details of your project. stevea at jbdg.com
Ok here is why this is complete BS! All the technologies proposed in this initiative are the most expensive to implement. While the truly effective and cheap method of thermal power generation is completely ignored. A thermal generator consists of an enclosed system filled with R134a which has a boiling point of −26.3 °C, housed in a pool of water at any temp above oh well freezing ( But which is still above the boiling point of R134a!) the water heats the R134a and it's then pressurized gas is run through a turbine to make the power. It cools down and returns to the area in the water to be heated again. Which means on any day where the temp is above freezing it makes power. The heat from the turbine can be captured and feed into the water tank to keeps it's temp above freezing. One could also use a small amount of Solar power to heat the water, or a small amount of natural gas. Or heck for those health fanatics a stationary bike with a generator. Why would large corporations ignore this form of power production? Well because the technology to produce it already exists. There are no huge government grants needed to develop it. It's also easy enough to build that anyone with moderate fabrication skills could do it. It's fact that Green house gases can raise the temp, but it's also fact that those pushing for climate change laws are the ones standing to profit from what those bills will bring about. Face it people you are being used to push an agenda that is only good for those in power, and in the business already. They are not doing it for the planet. they are doing it to get rich off of YOU! Thermal power production could be used in electric cars, but then Battery manufactures would lose out, as would those already producing the power to charge them. While we are on the subject CO2 is a huge cause of global warming right? Well isn't CO2 what plants use to breath? So the more CO2 in the air the faster, bigger and stronger plants should be growing. So to really help reduce CO2 shouldn't we be paying farmers and timber companies to plant and grow more plants? Then why are we paying them to reduce the amount they plant and grow? Oh that reason would be because the less they plant and grow , and the more forests we cut down the more CO2 builds up! The theory of global warming is correct in that the more green house gasses we release the more the temp should rise, but it's not taking in to consideration that those fighting global warming the most are the ones behind the scenes writing bills to prevent the actual reduction of CO2 levels! People you are being used, and you are happily letting yourself be used. You are not being told the whole story, nor are you stepping back and rationally thinking about the whole story. They are proposing we build huge CO2 scrubbers to remove large aounts of CO2 from the air. Well that alone is a good thing, but it's what they will do with the captured CO2 that is wrong. They want to store it in the seafloor. That is stupid. Why not build huge greenhouses for growing food, or biomatter for fuel? Oh if we did that it would actually help I see now. We would have an excess of produce, and biofuel ingredients. It would lower fuel costs. it would help aid world hunger. It would help lower green house gases. Those all sound like good things to me, but those in power pushing the climate bills would not profit from that! They would actually stand to lose huge amounts of money, and even larger amounts of ROI. ROI is return on investment. It's fact that the biggest proponent of global warming is Al Gore, well mister Gore has one of the largest personal carbon foot prints int he world, and his personal wealth has increased 5,00% since he started his global warming campaign. I'm sorry to have to tell you, but he isn't doing it for the planet. He is doing it to make more and more money. He owns a company that has made billions of oil speculation. This is fact.
In closing it's all good to want better for the planet, but face it in the present form your desire to make the world a better place is being used against you for personal gain of those in power! There are very good forms of energy that are being over looked, because they will not be profitable for those pushing change and change now! We can make fuel right here in our own back yard. We can use biofuels, and we can use biomatter to produce the oils to lubricate the cars running that biofuel. We can each at home make fuel cheaply and effectively with thermal generators. I mean we all have hot water heaters don't we? Well that little hotwater heater produces enough heat to make power enough to power your whole home. Face it the tools to fix the problem already exist, but they are not profitable for those in power, and those in business. One could take an old gasoline powered generator and easily turn it into a thermal generator relatively cheap. We could also pass law that all new homes build have a natural gas generator, because we have enough natural gas here in our hemisphere to power us for centuries, but that's not profitable for those in power, and those behind the scenes. We could aslo pass legislation to have all new homes build have a thermal generator, but that would be to esy and too cheap. If you doubt the effective ness of thermal generators know that Iceland and greenland get most of their power form them. THere are whole towns in Alaska that get power form them. Even in the dead of winter! Oh, but Alaska is a predominantly republican state so we don't hear about that. Well that and the fact that after the generator is built there is not profit to be made off of it.
One last thing if global warming is such a huge thing how come this past week is the first time this summer it's been hot here in the deep south? This is the coolest summer we've had on record in a seriously long time. Not to mention just a week or two ago people up north were still wearing jackets! It's July people. Normally here in the south it's been 100 degrees for two to three months. In no way am I saying that green house gases can not cause the global temp to rise, but I am saying people are being lied to, and the problem is being over inflated for personal gain. There are much bigger problems we as humans should be addressing. Like litter, and water contamination, and the release of carcinogens in our air, the fact that high tension power lines produce radiation that can be harmful. All these things are falling by the wayside in favor of profit from global warming propaganda. If we all produced our own power there would be no need for High tension power lines. The money it cost to put up, maintain, and upgrade them alone is staggering.
Please for the love of the planet and the future wake up, and look at things as they truly are. There is still time to fix the problems, and fix them in a way that is better for the world not just for the increase in wealth for those behind the scenes.
Oh great. How long do I have to leave my refrigerator door open and blast my A/C to nullify all of this green crap?