A realistic look at electrical energy

There is no such thing as a free lunch, someone has to pay for it.

Everything we do directly represents an expenditure (use) of energy. Everything

There exists countless examples.
You cannot spend a single dollar without it directly representing a  use of energy.
It's impossible 

You cannot earn a single dollar without it directly representing a  use of energy.
It's impossible

A few simple examples:

You go to work to earn a dollar. Your burning energy in your vehicle to get there, ware on your vehicle that takes energy to replace tires etc. You are burning energy in calories that must be replaced with sustenance (food). This sustenance takes pure energy to produce, to package, to ship to market etc. The market place is using pure energy, heating, cooling, lighting, computers, employees etc.
Your burning more energy in returning home.Get the idea?

It is totally impossible to earn or spend a single nickel that does not directly represent 100% a use of energy one way or the other.   It is impossible

Example #1
Do you really save on a hybrid car?  Let's be realistic

According to most reports, the additional manufacturing cost of a typical hybrid vehicle such as a Prius is about 20% over the price of a comparable non-hybrid. Recent prices for a Prius for example is about $23,500. So, you could be paying up to about $4700.00 more for the Prius than a comparable non-hybrid. Obviously, the manufacturing cost of a hybrid would be higher than a non-hybrid. Electric motors, batteries and numerous other items that a non-hybrid would not need. They say a new Prius gets about 50 MPG. A typical comparable non-hybrid today gets about 35 MPG or more. Because of our government (tax payers) subsidizing the purchase of a hybrid car with a big tax deduction, is obviously why many if not most people purchase  them. If they are really cost effective, one might ask, why would they need to be subsidized? The tax payers must pick up the tab. Remember, all money spent or earned directly represents a use of energy no matter how you look at it.

Let's do a little math. If you put 100,000 miles on let's say a Hybrid  getting  50 MPG at $3.00 per gallon, you have spent $6000.00 on fuel. The non-hybrid car at 35 MPG would cost you about $8571.00 for fuel.  Wow - the Hybrid  has saved you a whopping $2570.00 at 100,000 miles.
Can't beat that - right?   However, if we're honest, we really should deduct the extra $4700.00 in manufacturing costs (energy expenditure) that we paid for the Hybrid. If we do, we would be in the  red  by $2130.00 (4700 - 2570). But not to worry. The next 50,000 miles will make up for that loss if you keep the car that much longer. At a total of 150,000 miles on the hybrid, you should be ahead by a whopping $870.00 But wait - is that hybrid battery still under warranty at 150,000 miles?  Apparently, when these batteries have this number of miles on them, they're not exactly working like when they were new. No battery is. Same with solar system batteries or any rechargeable battery system  for that matter. Batteries take pure energy to manufacture, deliver and install etc.  And then, a lot of energy to recycle or get rid of them etc.

What's a new battery going to cost you by the time you have 150,000 miles on the Hybrid  at perhaps around ten years or so? Ten years of inflation? Presently, it looks like the cost to replace the battery system is up to about $4200.00 including removal labor, installation labor, old battery recycling fee's, taxes etc. If you keep the vehicle and replace the battery, now it seems you are really at a loss financially. If you decide to sell the hybrid, who the hell is going to buy it faced with the replacement of this battery? Or, are you going to replace it before you sell it?

Something I've always wondered about.  With a tiny little Prius hybrid, how many mpg would you get if you removed all the extra weight that you are  hauling around such as the battery pack, electric motors and all the other gadgets and equipment. According to most estimates, the extra goodies in a typical hybrid  weigh in at between 300 to 500 pounds. Let's use an average of 400 pounds. That's more than the weight of two average passengers.
I wonder - with that tiny little gas engine, how many miles per gallon would you get if you were not hauling all this extra weight around?? I have a feeling you might be getting just about that advertised 50 mpg. And, you wouldn't be paying that extra $4000.00 plus in manufacturing (energy) costs and being faced with replacing an expensive battery. Think about it. Even if you only got 45 mpg, you would be far ahead.   

All of this free energy stuff is for the most part nothing but nonsense put out by environmentalists, politicians that want money and votes, and big corporations that manufacture these goodies.
But it makes a few people feel good? - Save the planet?  How?

Example #2

Electric vehicles  (EVs)  Non-hybrid all battery operated vehicles.  Maybe they're the ticket to save money and the planet?

The problem is the entire EV industry and infrastructure is being pushed by government  mandates  and  subsidies, not by natural market demand.

A recent report commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency on the life-cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries finds they can lead to �resource depletion, global warming, ecological toxicity and human health impacts.� Whew! It goes on to say that the nickel and cobalt cathodes used in li-ion batteries �may cause adverse respiratory, pulmonary and neurological effects in those exposed.� Doesn�t sound very green to me.

Can you expect to hear any of the above on television prominently when the next commercial is selling a hybrid or EV? Give me a break

Another EV study that came out this year, �Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles,� published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology by Yale University, says the carbon footprint of EVs could be �indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle� depending on how far they are driven and where they get electricity.

Looking at a map showing locations for charging stations for these EVs is downright scary.

If  you're traveling down the west coast highway on a vacation trip in California, you had better plan on burning a lot of energy and time going out of your way to have your battery charged, using of course electrical energy produced likely from "polluting coal" at a charging station. Looking at the charging station map, looks like you might be traveling at fifty to a hundred miles or more out of your way. Then you could be spending hours to get a full charge depending on the station and your EV. All looks a little ridiculous and inconvenience to me.  

If you purchased a nice little Tesla Model S for $74,500, wow - the manufacturing cost "energy expenditure"?  Even if 50% of the sales price was profit which is not likely,  you're paying out one hell of a lot of money that represents a use of energy no matter how you look at it.

Example #3
Another example: PV solar systems
First let's look at another solar energy saving system that was all the rage in the 1970's. In the 70's, natural gas prices were on the rise. In the nanny state of California, the politicians were going to take care of the problem as would be expected. I was in the swimming pool service industry at this time. Companies began to pop up all over manufacturing "Thermo solar systems panels".  Of course  most people purchased them only because they were subsidized by our government (tax payers) with a juicy tax write off.

These would heat the water from sun energy to assist in heating the pools during the season. Actually, energy systems like these are considerably more efficient than today's  electric PV solar systems. Usually about 2 to 3 times more efficient.
Many people wanted them. I sold and installed a few. They of course all used electric pumps,  controls and valves to circulate the water to the panels. Few people ever actually figured this into their costs of operation. Not politically correct! People did save a few dollars until a panel developed a leak, or a pump or valve went out etc. I would destroy their savings in one repair service call.  After a few years, many of the manufacturers began going out of business just like what is happening with  today's solar panel industry particularly after tax credits began being removed. When a pool owner had a leaking panel etc., they were in big trouble. The repair costs after a few years on maintenance was eating up their savings, and  particularly after most of the companies were out of business. You see very few of these systems in use today. What else is new one might ask. There is never a FREE lunch. Never

The same thing is happening today with the magical free electrical energy PV solar industry. They are going out of business like crazy. They can't sell them fast enough to stay in business, so many have started leasing programs. It's amazing how easily you can sell something, if you tell someone it's not going to cost them anything up front?

Many people today are paying $30,000 dollars on a lease for a solar system installed on their house that they will not actually own for 20 years? The actual cost including labor of most of these systems if purchased outright would be about $12,000 to $14,000, plus the owner gets the 30% tax credit. When leased, they don't get this credit in most cases, the leasing company does.

It's generally "estimated" that the average system  might save about $50.00 to $75.00?  per month in some sunny states after selling  some  juice back to the public utility. At $50.00 average per month savings for 20 years (240 months), they have saved a whopping $12,000, but paid $30,000 for the system? At $75.000 per month average, a savings of $18,000. You've got to save or sell enough to make your monthly lease payment plus - Hopefully

A little more solar information - Click here -- Solar lease fraud

Our utility companies:
I personally have not noticed any utility companies laying any workers off or closing any offices and service centers. Their costs of operation continues to rise along with inflation. They can't close down any of their operations because everyone must continue to use the energy they supply. Common sense. The less energy they sell, the more they must charge. This is why in sunny states like California, the rates are sky rocketing.

The rates per kilo watt hours (kwh) in most particularly liberal  nanny states throughout the country continues to rise.  In sunny California where there's a lot of solar systems in 2018, per kwh was typically about 0.1917 cents and rising. In not so sunny Utah for example, it was 10.44 cents per kwh.

Other costs:

Then of course, at typically 5 to 7 years, you might have to purchase a new battery system if that's the type system you have. With seven years of inflation and more environmental BS, considering cost, recycling fee's, labor and taxes could cost many home owners as much as $5,000 or more depending on the system. Anyone who thinks that there solar energy system is going to last twenty years without problems is not living in the real world.

Then of course you probably should pray that the solar company doesn't go bankrupt. They are going out of business or bankrupt like gang busters all over the country and the world. The only way in most cases for them to remain in business is for never ending government tax payer paid subsidies and credits. One might ask, if solar is cost effective, why would it need to be subsidized? It's like dropping the tax credit on electric  or Hybrid vehicles and expecting people to buy them? Give me a break - how many people are  going to pay over $4000.00 extra for a hybrid car without the tax break?

Already, 2017 has been a big year for solar bankruptcies. Residential solar company Sungevity and commercial solar supplier Beamreach have both filed for bankruptcy, following a year when Verengo Solar and SunEdison went under. And Yingli Green Energy, formerly a world leader on solar panel volume, just lost $267.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2016 on $294.0 million in revenue, so its days in its current form are likely numbered. 

But 2017 won't end without a few more companies going under or devolving into much-weaker financial positions.

Germany, apparently the biggest user of solar energy in the world has major problems with their solar industry. SolarWorld recently filed for bankruptcy after first filling insolvency and given a second chance. Still didn't work.  If the tax payers, "governments" aren't going to pick up the tab, it just doesn't work. And let's not forget, all money spent directly represents energy one way or another. You can't get around it no matter what.

It might be wise to have  a good insurance policy for repairs and maintenance on your PV solar system should the company you purchased it from goes out of business? $$

Probably should also increase home owners insurance to cover solar panels? $$

Wind turbines and PV solar systems:

Are they safe and cost effective? A couple interesting videos.
Wind turbine troubles - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=wfzgIxMEo8g
I can't help wonder how much energy is spent manufacturing, installing and maintaining these giant wind turbines. Also, how many fires have they been responsible for starting?

Solar panel fires, there are many - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmbmznk2APc
How many fires have been caused by PV solar systems?

A  simple NO free lunch example just for fun: Rechargeable batteries

Millions of people have these little outdoor LED yard lights. They have a little PV solar cell that keeps a rechargeable nickel cadmium (NiCad) battery charged during daylight hours, then allow the LED light to be on during the night typically for about eight hours. These are great. No need to run electrical wiring.  But the question is, is this free energy. Let's be practical, and do a little math.

A typical LED uses about 20 milliamps at approximately 1-1/2 volts.  In a high electrical energy cost area like California, where the electrical cost is presently on average around 19 cents per kilo watt hour in 2018, this LED would cost you in eight hours of operation approximately 0.000057 cents. Wow - a small fraction of a cent.

If you ran this LED eight hours a day for one year, it would cost you in public utility electrical energy costs of approximately 0.016 cents. If you had to replace the NiCad battery at the end of this time, the new NiCad would cost you at least a  $1.50 each for a package of four. There is certainly no savings here even if the NiCad lasts for two years. Get the idea?

Something to think about:

Many gigantic electric bills in California are with people who have heat pump systems for heating and cooling. Many of these systems are old and not as efficient as newer modern systems. However, heat pump systems are generally only efficient in moderate climates. With big electrical energy costs such as in California, it's generally going to cost considerable more particularly for heating.

Quick example for a heating system:
Comparison of an electric heat pump for heating to a modern efficient propane gas heating system, hydronic for example.

One gallon of propane gas is equal to approximately 91,500 btu's. At last fill up, one gallon of propane cost me $1.87 per gallon.

For comparison, to get 91,500 btu's from electrical energy, it would take  approximately 27.3 kilo watt hours (kwh).  At this time in California, one kwh is 0.1917 cents. So, to get the same 91,500 btu's, it would cost about $5.18. This is approximately a 177% increase over gas at $1.87 per gallon for the same btu's needed. Think about it.
 A BTU is a  BTU.