Of course this is dominated by Obama worship, green politics, vegitarianism…. and of course getting high and dancing to live music as a means to “change the world” after you are done buying your $30 tie dye shirt.

On the stage, the MC of the show, between musical acts, asked the crowd of thousands… “How many of you have cell phones!?” and then offered this bit of trivial “knowledge”: “Where is the best place to recharge your phone… in your car, or at home?”

Of course she advised the stoned masses that they should charge their phones in their cars… because “there is this little generator in there, which is running anyway, so you should use the free energy coming from it!”

Astounding.

A dancing hippie stepped on my lower lip as my jaw dropped. A woman dressed as a sunflower told her car driving “earth first” fan club to use gasoline to charge their phones.

My plan is to get an electric car without batteries, and tow a gas powered generator behind it to power the thing directly. That way I get to claim that I am green, AND use the commute lanes for being so environmentally friendly.

Why is it that support for global warming theory relies so heavily on stupidity?

Ryder

The Sainsbury system assumes that, irrespective of the “theft” aspect, that these systems will work all the time. A bit like the wind farm enthusiasts who always quote capacity and never output.

Of course the other hypocrisy is that the supermarkets know that they need large flat carparks provided free to make the store viable and thus encouraging car use plus the useful benefit of concentrating rain to increase the risk of flooding.

Cheers

Paul

“Mr. Campbell was surprised to read online that refrigerators do not use all that much energy. Marty O’Gorman, the vice president of Frigidaire, said an 18-cubic-foot Energy Star-rated Frigidaire refrigerator uses about 380 kilowatt-hours a year — less than a standard clothes dryer — and costs a homeowner $40, or about 11 cents a day.”

Here’s another:

“It’s this sort of practical calculus that has led many who advocate sustainable living to view unplugging the fridge as a dubious practice. They point out that it is likely to result in more trips to the store (which burns more gas, for those who drive) and the purchase of food in smaller portions (thus more packaging).”

This really makes me wonder whether the Mustons have turned into worse polluters than before while thinking they’ve gone “green”. It’s painful to watch irrational people do what they do thinking they’re doing good. All one can do is shake one’s head in disbelief.

They are falling into what a lot of people caught by “green” are caught up in: feelings of energy guilt. It looks to me though they may not really be thinking about what they’re doing. According to the article their old refrigerator used 1300 Kwh/yr.

According to Public Service of New Hampshire (http://www.psnh.com/Residential/ReduceBill/Applianceusage.asp) here is what they said about stand-alone freezers in the chest configuration, 17 cu. ft.:

regular: 173 Kwh/mo. (x 12 = 2076 Kwh)
frost-free: 216 Khw/mo. (x 12 = 2592 Kwh)

These use more power than their old refrigerator! It’s difficult to find other energy rating data. Maybe there are smaller freezer units than this and that’s what the Mustons are using. But this should give one pause. People should really check on the energy your appliances are using if you’re going to make a decision like this.

Here are some refrigerator configurations that probably would’ve saved more energy than what the Mustons have, based on what NH Public Service said. Modern refrigerators are much more efficient than the older ones:

This list is apparently refrigerators without separate freezer spaces:

14 cu. ft.: 65 Kwh/mo. (x 12 = 780 Kwh)
14 cu. ft. frost-free: 91 Kwh/mo. (x 12 = 1092 Kwh)

So one can surmise that if they had simply replaced their refrigerator with a more energy-efficient model they’d actually be accomplishing their goal, saving on their energy bill, and not inconveniencing themselves.

I checked the linked articles to try to find some numbers. According to the Guardian article, the devices (how about calling it ‘The Highwayman’?) planned by UK councils cost between £20,000 and £55,000, and ‘generate’ 10 to 36kW, equivalent to between £5,840 and £21,024 a year. Accepting these figures, you could argue that they will pay for themselves in 3-4 years, but in much the same way that a machine-gun can ‘pay for itself’ rather quickly if used to hold up banks. The articles are full of breathtaking rubbish from the inventor and from someone described as Sainsbury’s ‘Environment Manager’(!)about ‘green’ and ‘free’ energy, completely ignoring the fact that you have to drive large numbers of cars over them to make them work! If they are so convinced, they could buy one themselves and fit it to their drive, then spend the day driving backwards and forwards over it – think of all the free energy they could generate!
And I thought that the ‘green lobby’ had lost the power to surprise me!

And the other word is “theft”. Pure and simple.

When the car is stopped, what is it going to do next? Sit there forever?

Oh, My! That is one very fantastic machine! Many thanks for that link!

But back to the original thread…

Any approach like this to harvesting energy can never be “green.” You might be able to build it so it doesn’t constitute theft, but even so, I can’t imagine that the benefits would ever outweigh the costs of operating and maintaining this contraption.