View Story | 230 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
because "13.5 times the average home's monthly usage." doesn't take into account the square footage. Gore's home is 10K square foot large (other big names have even larger homes), whereas an average home is about 2000 sqft. Hence your diary is misleading as well.
Please also post the following: The region (east south central) have the highest energy/electricity consumption in the country. The factor is about 45% higher than national. Proof: from the pdf file:
US National (USN) elec. consumption/household 10,656 KWh East South Central (ESC) consumption/household 15,447 KWh Ratio (ESC/USN) 1.4496
which is about 45% more.
Also, illinifan and Tod's figures use what seems to be a groos approximation. I have been researching this, and was not going to post until I had complete analysis at hand, but the Gore's total electricity bill to the penny in 2006 (including the green power extra charge), I have it at:
$14323.69 for 12 months
About $1200 per month (coinciding with AP's figure) (which includes the green power for how many ever months and block they paid for in 2006).
Their current payments about $430 towards green power switch.
Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:09:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I am moving your whole comment into the body of the diary.
Stop McCain and the GOP. Support Barack Obama and the DNC.
by DaveV on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:13:24 PM PDT
I would've proofread it to remove some typos, had I known you were going to post it up top :)
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:17:21 PM PDT
It's good stuff.
by DaveV on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 10:24:29 PM PDT
This wnole thing misses one of the mainpoints to argue back with--what are other people's utility's bills like? How much is Bush's Crawford ranch utility bill? How about Cheney's bill? Limbaugh's? Hannity's? Why is Gore's bill the only one looked at in this whole episode? Gore really is only accused of being wealthy and having a big house. Once again the Republicons are blaming someone else for something they do themselves.
If Liberals really hated America we'd vote Republican
by exlrrp on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:44:31 AM PDT
What was the electricity bill BEFORE Cheney's secret Task Force meeting with the energy demons?
That would be a gerat spin.. AL Gore pays so much for electricity!.. Ya.. he used to pay a lot less, so did everyone in America.
http://www.wrapupafrica.com A skirt. A skill. A life saved.
by librarianman on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:08:00 AM PDT
about reducing consumption, not for being rich. They don't have anything against being rich, and they don't give a damn what their electric bills are. Getting into a shouting match over who has the highest bill is stupid. Most of them think global warming is complete bull and probobly leave the lights on just to prove a point.
I'm a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce.
by UltraMegaTron on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:45:31 AM PDT
consumption has to be?
No. Reduction can mean from 200,000 kwh to 180,000 kwh or from 10,000 kwh to 5000 kwh -- depending of what you have and what you do.
Gore did not talk about reduction per se. But that people should go carbon neutral which is about reduce what you can, offset what you can’t. How you are doing that exactly is your business. How much is what you can reduce is also your business and Gore didn't set a maximum per capita consumption level. (Doing so would be utterly ridiculous, anyway) It's entirelly normal that different people will use different amount of energy for different purposes.
Unless you know something on this list which Gore has not already done you don't have a case against him:
REDUCE YOUR IMPACT AT HOME http://www.climatecrisis.net/...
A bunch of people put ideas in Gore's head which have never been there. This derives from what they heard elsewhere from other enviros who always emphasize conservation and what people should give up to fight climate change. But Gore never focused on sacrifices. In fact he believes that we can solve this problem without giving up our current living standard -- for which, by the way, a bunch of enviros trashed him.
Wingnuts really love to use these anti-consumption enviros to advance their agenda. Most Americans do not want to consume less, and they will not consume less. By focusing on sacrifices anti-consumption enviros have done more harm than good.
Now the average American really believes that you can't be green and rich at the same time. This is exactly why Gore is called a hypocrite. Someone on a radio show asked: how can Gore talk about carbon footprint while he has a 10,000 sq feet house? They just don't get it because they have been brainwashed over the years by both anti-consumption enviros and wingers that if you want action against global warming you have to give up your high standard of living or even modern lifestyle.
Did you miss when Coulter recently talked about candles on Fox? It's a pattern.
But even if you forget the image problem enviros have to day in the US because of all the talks about conservation, because conservation will not solve global warming I would rather call a tree-hugger hippie who doesn't buy offsets and doesn't do anything to invest in green power a hypocrite than someone who doesn't reduce his own consumption at the cost of giving up his living standard, businesses and security.
Investment will drive expansion, and without a much bigger green energy market you will never reduce CO2 emission in mass quantity.
Why Hillary's war vote excuses do not fly
by elender on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:59:49 PM PDT
Here is an actual example of electric usage by Kossack "Anaxamander" who also uses Nashville Electric service (NES); see this thread.
Anaxamander mentioned that their electric usage last month (presumably based on Feb billing) was: 1710 KWh And (s)he mentioned that the square footage for their home is: 1550 sq. ft.
These numbers give us:
Gore (from WKRN's data): (elec. readings) 1/05/07: 76079, 2/05/07: 91419
Electricity Used: 15340 KWh = (91419-76079) Area: 10,000 sq. ft.
Anaxamander: Electricity Used: 1710 KWh Area: 1550 sq. ft.
Use per square foot:
Gore: 1.534 KWh/sqft/mo Anaxamander: 1.103 KWh/sqft/mo
That is, Gores' consumption per square foot is about one and half times that of Anaxamander's household. Not too bad, if someone is home all day and other additional factors such as live-in security and home-based office needs and staff are accounted for, as mentioned in David Roberts' article: Talking points Rebuttal arguments on the Gore pseudo-scandal.
Furthermore, the Gores are contributing (per month) some $430 (out of their $1200 total bill, on the average) towards green energy infrastructure, via the Green Power Switch. In other words, they are voluntarily paying roughly 50% of their true electric charges towards the construction of things such as windpower turbines and solar energy (see footnote A).
While all of us should explore more and more ways to reduce energy consumption and hence the impact on the environment, I think that given the size of their home and their additional usage needs, and their participation in the green energy program, it appears that one can safely conclude that the Gores are being fairly good towards the environment.
~~~~~~~
Footnote A. This is the good part of dotcommodity's diary. This part of dotcommodity's work should be appreciated.
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:46:58 AM PDT
It used to be (4+ / 0-) $200/month in the winter and $630/month in the summer. The average was around $450/month. This was for a 4000sqft house in Dallas, TX built in 2000. So I am not surprised at Al Gores electrical bill for a 10000sqft mansion in similarly hot Nashville... Moved to a 40 year old 1600sqft house shaded by 60ft tall pecan trees, oaks and cedars in Dallas and my electrical bill went down to $80/month in the winter and $180/month in the summer. All while switching from gas-coal-nuclear TXU to more expensive wind-water Green Mountain Energy. by galore on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:07:47 AM PST
It used to be (4+ / 0-)
$200/month in the winter and $630/month in the summer. The average was around $450/month. This was for a 4000sqft house in Dallas, TX built in 2000. So I am not surprised at Al Gores electrical bill for a 10000sqft mansion in similarly hot Nashville...
Moved to a 40 year old 1600sqft house shaded by 60ft tall pecan trees, oaks and cedars in Dallas and my electrical bill went down to $80/month in the winter and $180/month in the summer. All while switching from gas-coal-nuclear TXU to more expensive wind-water Green Mountain Energy.
by galore on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:07:47 AM PST
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:55:24 AM PDT
I finally got around to carefully reading it, and it seems to make sense on the surface.
I'm curious to your other statement about the 7.8 kWh/square foot thing for the ESC region, and why that differs so much from the 19.83 originally stated.
How to debunk the Right's lies on global warming
by BruinKid on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:00:02 PM PDT
I am working on and crunching #s. If you like that kind of stuff (which you seem to :)), drop me a note. If not, I will post something when I am done with the research.
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:21:01 PM PDT
You might be interested in my comment just below, if you're interested in doing some research and crunching some numbers.
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas
by occams hatchet on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:11:55 AM PDT
As a wingnut rudely told me elsewhere when I used those calculations, some residences use electricity to heat, total end-use energy figures would also include natural gas and oil too, and the Gores also use gas for heating purposes.
Those cannot be accounted for in the equations AnonLib used, and so his numbers are basically worthless.
by BruinKid on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:20:59 AM PDT
That's actually the main flaw in AnonLib's #s. The per square feet usage numbers in his calculation include all forms of energy, a major part of which after electric is natural gas.
Stay tuned. We'll get back to the wingnuts properly.
I could use some help in exploring these instead of meeting you in these comments sporadically. That's why I asked you to write to me so we could work these things out and then write/post something. If you don't want to write, please say so once, so i will stop asking (in that event, i will post what i find when i complete the work, which would be a lot longer if i am doing the work by myself).
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:45:53 AM PDT
Finals are coming up soon at UCLA, and combined with March Madness (turned to utter despair about an hour ago), I don't think I'll have the time to take on any extra work. I've had like 5 things running around my head about things to diary, and haven't had any time to put any of them down in print yet.
by BruinKid on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:08:05 PM PDT
sorry about March madness. Good contribution to global warming with that diary of yours in your sigline! Check your hotlist once in a while; I may prompt you to my diary or comments after I resolve this question with greater clarity (if i am able with the info. available out there in public domain).
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:59:32 PM PDT
Never knew what that was all about, and I've been here since 2004. Heh.
by BruinKid on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:48:15 PM PDT
In their case, the Green Switch is adding a surcharge approximately 50% of the charges for actual usage. Thanks for that. I posted yesterday saying I'd seen figures between 25% - 50%. Thanks for pinning it down.
Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org
by FischFry on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:18:26 AM PDT
Gore are voluntarily paying roughly 40-50% of their electric bill towards the green Switch.
Here is the key: Since that green switch money is being used to build things like wind turbines and solar arrays, it pays back to the environment repeatedly through the lifetime of that green energy infrastucture being enabled by such contributions.
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:53:22 AM PDT
The price is pretty consistent with green energy programs around the country. In Atlanta we paid Georgia Power 5 cents/kwh on top of about 8 cents for their dirty power (and Georgia Power's truly is dirty). Now that we've moved to Wisconsin, we pay 4 cents to subsidize wind power development on top of 11 cents for the regular rate.
Anybody can buy green power, even if their utility does not have a program, through companies like 3 Phases Energy, Terrapass, and Sterling Planet (all easily Googled; sorry don't have time to embed links right now).
Searching for John McCain
by ATL Dem on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:36:26 AM PDT
used by his secret service protection? And what other extra domestic electonic systems/ devices this highly fuctional ex vp might have in his domicile. While I find it important to challenge charges of hypocricy and false defences, I find the idea that this man is somehow obligated not to travel or use energy is infantile and absurd. Responsible energy consumption and conservation for social progress and safety is the message and responsibility, not some rediculous task of shutting down our ability to function. The argument that somehow a green conscious impedes civil and economic progress by withholding people ability to function needs to be denied.
Obama!
by fisheye on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 05:36:21 AM PDT
I imagine he does quite a bit of work out of his home, including entertaining for business/advocacy/political purposes. If you consider it a home and office, the energy use is really modest.
by ATL Dem on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:32:40 AM PDT
...in his huge boat near Kennebunkport telling us all to conserve energy to help with the war effort. It's always funny how those at the top ask the bottom to sacrifice for the betterment of the world. So, by pointing out that Al Gore's lifestyle consumes a huge quantity of energy, we are "shutting down our ability to function?" The man has been at the highest level of public exposure for over twenty years, and his main effort to help the environment came after he was out of office, after 2000. Bravo to him for his efforts, but he isn't above criticism.
Green consciousness will have to impede civil and economic progress or the dent it makes will be too miniscule. To deny that, is to deny the whole thing.
At least Benedict Arnold did something heroic before he became a traitor.
by bwide on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:13:49 AM PDT
Conservation, environmental responsibility and alternative energy sources will be the driving force behind our continued economic expansion and the beacon of hope for developing nations to leapfrog the fossil fuel infrastructure as they have with wireless communications. To deny this is to deny the whole thing. What business will you support as a consumer, the one promoting green progress or one who doesn't?
by fisheye on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:02:12 PM PDT
First, the "average home size," as near as I can tell, is derived from building-industry sources, and refers to houses built. It is not, AFAIK, from Census Bureau data. If I had to guess, I'd say the average home (as opposed to "house") is smaller. I means, let's face it: What percentage of New Yorkers or Angelenos live in a house? Huge numbers of Americans live in apartments, duplexes, and mobile homes, not traditional "houses." And, I can guarantee you, FWIW, I never lived in a 2,000-square-foot apartment. So, that "average" might be meaningless.
Second, most 10,000-square-foot houses that I've been in are not only five times larger in floor area than the 2,000-square-foot variety, but their volume is probably more like seven or eight times greater than the smaller homes', because of their greater ceiling heights. And when you're heating or cooling, you're heating or cooling the volume of air, not just its floor area.
Just sayin'.
I think, from my limited research, that those "average" numbers might not mean much, aside from those that measure "average" consumption per household. The trick is in defining precisely just what the dimensions of the "average" household are. The only meaningful statistic in Gore's case - and good luck trying to get it - would compare the energy consumption of other 10,000-square-foot houses in his area to his consumption.
Although - having written that, it might actually be possible to, say, ascertain what the average house size is in Gore's ZIP code, say - title companies and service such as Dataquick might have that - and then, assuming it's large, find out what the average residential consumption is in that ZIP code (the utility company might even have that info).
Then you might have a more meaningful baseline from which to work.
by occams hatchet on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:09:53 AM PDT
if higher ceilings are accounted for, say 50% higher than usual, in the per square foot usage example, we just about break even on per cubic foot energy use.
Actually, I just realized this (and posted it in a couple comments). Since the Gore's are paying about $430 per month towards green energy infrastructure, and each such investment would pay off over the full life cycle of the equipment (such as a wind mill/turbine), one may be able to estimate the impact of such contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions to be a several fold the actual amount. If let's say a wind turbine costs $X, and it produces over its life cycle "green energy" to the tune of $Y (i.e. using current elec. prices), then that contribution is actually worth $Y, if one thinks about it.
by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:37:31 AM PDT
is electric. If it is, you're totally right -- volume is the appropriate denominator.
If it's lighting, etc., not sure if volume is the appropriate denominator. Square footage is probably a better approximation of "living" space.
I think "high volume" houses with vaulted ceilings, great rooms, etc., are a big contributor to energy waste. It's nice to feel like you're in open space, but there is a cost.
by DaveV on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:58:30 AM PDT
is electric, and if it is, and he's anything like me, that alone will account for a huge chunk of his total annual bill.
There are just too many unknowns at this point.
And, re: lighting costs for "high-volume" houses: To put the same number of foot-candles on, say, a counter, table, or the floor, from fixtures mounted on a 15-foot ceiling as opposed to an 8-foot ceiling requires a lumen output from those fixtures that increases with the square of the distance from the surface to be illuminated; i.e., if the distance from the fixtures to the surface to be illuminated increases from, say, 5 feet to 12 feet, the lumen output would need to go from, say, 60 to about 350 (by my very rough calculation).
by occams hatchet on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:58:46 AM PDT
This thread has a high geek quotient -- and it's awesome! Really appreciate the back and forth -- and the point about lighting needs increasing with volume do make sense. But, I would guess that lighting is usually a fairly small component of the overall electric bill.
But living in the midwest in winter -- I forgot about air conditioning! Doh!
by DaveV on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:04:21 AM PDT
about the high geek quotient. Also, in case anyone is going to be building a house anytime soon, look into high thermal mass homes. This is one of my favorite sites on the subject.
http://www.thenaturalhome.com/...
Super energy efficient houses rock.
by UltraMegaTron on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:54:49 AM PDT
cubic feet? Is it necessary to cool the entire structure in summer, or just the rooms in use? Lighting needs likewise are not proportional to square footage.
Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred. Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703
by ben masel on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:38:58 AM PDT
unknowns -- as are good friend Rumsfeld would put it.
But 9 our of 10 people find it much more convenient to jump to conclusions and accept half-baked talking points and headlines at face value than to look for or at least wait for more info.
We don't know what condition the building was when Gore bought it and what he has done to improve efficiency since then.
We don't know how many people used the house and for what in 2005 or 2006. Using and wasting energy are not the same. Gore is not against usage but againt waste.
We know that it's 10,000 sq feet but we don't know how high it is, a factor that can greatly affect lighting, cooling and heating costs.
We don't know how much Gore has paid for offsets and exactly what happened to that money.
We don't what % of the building functions as a home, as an office and as a guest house.
We don't know how much time people have spent in the building or whether it was ever empty during the period in question.
We don't know whether anyone else who would use the building for the same purposes could make it more efficient or not. There is certainly a limit.
Just to take consumption, the national average for family homes and decide that they use too much is as stupid as comparing the CIA HQ to an average office building in Jamaica.
by elender on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:22:52 PM PDT
Heating usage will vary with the heat loss rate of the building, which will be approximately proportional to the surface area of the building exposed to the outside, not the volume. Conductive heat loss through a wall or window or attic will all be related as Q=A/R*dT where Q=heat loss rate, A=area, R=R-value and dT = temperature difference across it. To get an annual estimate in Btu/yr of heat transfer, you can use HDD*24 instead of dT. It's all proportional to the exposed area. For air infiltration, it will be related to the size of the holes, which will again be more related to surface area than to volume.
In terms of summer heat gain, it's all about the sun -- solar gain through windows, solar gain into attic, etc..
by NRG Guy on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 06:38:52 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 230 comments