X-Envelope-to: BIOSPH-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
X-VMS-Cc: WHITLOCK
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:02:40 -0400
Reply-To:     Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
From:         Jeremy Whitlock <WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lovins.

Tracy Logan writes:

  > Jeremy Whitlock noted a while ago:
  >>
  >>The butter cutting with the chainsaw thing is a hook of Lovins that really
  >>seems to draw them in.
  >
  >>With a million dollars (not his, of course) in "soft" energy systems
  >>running his home, the "Rocky Mtn. Institute", Amory Lovins still plugs
  >>himself into the power grid.
  >
  > And that is a hook too often employed on this list to make Lovins'
  > arguments uncredible.  I'd like to move forward -- for instance,
  > how about a critique of the Lovins domicile that draws on some
  > thorough reading, attempts some balance?  How about a reading
  > list of responsible critiques of *Soft Energy Paths*?  - tracy

But that "hook", in itself, goes to the heart of the argument:  The Lovins
live in a house furnished with a level of "soft" technology that no average
Joe could ever afford, and yet he still relies on his utility's "hard"
technology to make things work in his home.  If any home could demonstrate
the ability to rely on decentralized, simple, "soft" energy systems alone (and
still maintain a decent standard of living), then their's should be the one.

In my view Amory Lovins dug his own grave when he wrote in an article in
the mid-80's that a "solar" home would cost about 10X more to outfit than a
home doing the same heating, etc. with electricity -- even *with* the hefty
tax credits of the era his home was built in.  His point, of course, was
that you may pay 1/10 the cost when using electricity, but you are
indirectly causing the utility to invest 200X what you paid, in terms of
capacity expansion and transmission.  In other words, the "total"
investment of the solar home is about 1/20 that of an electric home.

Powerful conclusion, but it ignores:

1) The investment that "somebody" makes in photovoltaic production,
high-tech glass production, etc. for the solar home.

2) The fact that utilties generally don't add capacity or transmission to
supply heating needs, since this is off-peak power.

3) The fact that a large fraction of homes are not suitable, either by
orientation, location, size, or shape to take advantage of solar sources,
whereas electricity (or other alternative fuels) can be directly fed to
most homes, 24 hours a day.

4) The fact that utility investment is not such a linear function of
demand, as "X dollars for Y demand" implies.

5) The fact that $10,000, compared to $1000 (typical amount), is an
unreasonable sum for homebuyers to shell out, with or without the subtext
of "lower total investment".

That said, I acknowledge that I have used this "hook" before, and I accept
the criticism.  If I see the Lovins on a pedestal again, I will probably
pull it out once more.

Jeremy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Whitlock                        e-mail:  WHITLOCK@MCMASTER.CA
Dept. of Engineering Physics
McMaster University                    phone: (416) 525-9140 ext.7140
Hamilton, Ont.
CANADA   L8S 4L8
                   "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU