The effort to earn those dollars is huge; 2 trained people, with expensive equipment, on site for at about 3 hours (more as the house gets larger and more complicated \u2013 we love single story ranches), with several more hours spent on data input, analysis and report generation, then an (at least) one hour presentation back to the homeowner.\u00a0 Clearly a company can\u2019t survive on that income, so has to sell air-seal, insulation and heating upgrades to stay alive.\u00a0 Again, it\u2019s all good<\/em> and to the benefit of the home owner \u2013 it would be great<\/em> if the audit could be profitable in itself and the report include some more alternative energy solutions.<\/p>\n Wouldn\u2019t it also be great if the people at the top<\/strong> would send a clear message?\u00a0 Here is a small report from the Guardian<\/a> (I couldn\u2019t find it in a US news outlet) how the White House declined an offer to install solar panels.\u00a0 OK, so the offer was probably a marketing stunt by a solar panel company.\u00a0 But all the same fitting some panels to the White House would send a message.\u00a0 The last lot, a solar hot water system, was installed by President Carter and removed by Ronald Reagan (not personally as I understand it).<\/p>\n Nuclear energy<\/strong> is getting more press in the meantime.\u00a0 There has been fierce debate in Germany, not about new nuclear plants, but whether to extend the life of existing installations.\u00a0 It looks like they will continue in operation, the number of years is still in contention.<\/p>\n From Greentech Media<\/a> comes this article on \u201cTime to End Nuclear Socialism\u201d:<\/p>\n \u201cA nuclear plant will cost $7,000 to $10,000 per kilowatt, says Mark Cooper of the University of Vermont. That\u2019s more than wind, solar, storage and other renewables\u2014and the price tag will continue to climb\u2026It shouldn’t be called the French Nuclear Miracle, says Mark Cooper. It’s more like a recurring nightmare.\u201d<\/p>\n Hmm \u2013 With a headline like that it is clearly intended to inflame discussion.\u00a0 But the \u201cdiscussion\u201d achieves little.\u00a0 People take up their set positions, call each other liars and do not advance the debate one way or another.\u00a0 I take refuge as usual with MacKay, who in \u201cSustainable Energy \u2013 without the hot air\u201d<\/a> clearly and rationally sets out the costs and benefits.\u00a0 Somewhat to my surprise he seems to endorse nuclear.<\/p>\n Opponents of nuclear overstate the costs and dangers, proponents downplay the costs and ignore the dangers.<\/p>\n Not related to this particular article, but in a similar vein, I am struck by the range of responses \u2013 some are erudite, reasoned and full of facts (which need to be checked for accuracy!), others are either ignorant, or willfully distracting \u2013 I have seen a number of responses that seem to assume that fusion reaction is a reality, and if we only switched to a helium fusion system all our problems would be solved – – if only.<\/p>\n Heat pumps<\/strong> \u2013 ground source heat pumps in particular \u2013 should be much higher on our list of alternative energy solutions. \u00a0Europe leads the way, and here are some comments from the UK<\/a>.\u00a0 The David MacKay quoted is the author of the \u201c – without the hot air\u201d book mentioned above.<\/p>\n “Heat pumps will be a crucial component of our low-carbon future, provided they perform well,” said David Mackay, the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s chief scientific adviser.\u00a0 “It is therefore essential to conduct trials to establish best practice and perfect this technology for use in buildings throughout the UK.\u201d<\/p>\n The article includes this diagram of typical CO2 emissions\u00a0 for a house in the UK – not much different from the average US house in a heating areas (i.e not those states where cooling costs predominate the energy bill).<\/p>\n Just to make sure we don\u2019t confuse ground source heat pumps and geothermal energy<\/strong>, here is a short extract from the Economist Technology Quarterly of September 4th<\/sup> 2010.<\/a> In an article on \u201cHot Rocks and High Hopes \u2013 the promise and pitfalls of geothermal power\u201d The Economist states:<\/p>\n \u201cAustralia\u2019s efforts are probably the most ambitious. Primary Industries and Resources SA (PIRSA), an Australian government agency, projects that between 2002 and 2014, investments in Australian geothermal projects (including more than $250m in government grants) could reach $2.7 billion\u2014with roughly 72% of that figure going toward EGS (Engineered Geothermal Systems) projects. More than 50 companies exploring geothermal projects in Australia have taken out over 400 licences for areas covering nearly 500,000 square kilometres\u2014a combined area roughly the size of Spain\u201d<\/p>\n Climate Change<\/strong> \u2013 still seems to be a discussion point, despite the hottest ever summer in the New York area.\u00a0 But I guess climate change deniers will never go away.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/energyrealist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/UK-home-energy-use-1009.jpg\" "\\"UK")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/energyrealist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/economist-geothermal.png\" "\\"economist")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/energyrealist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/09\/a-vast-machine.jpg\" "\\"a")
<\/a><\/p>\n