DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

New photovoltaic users in California look forward to their first “trueup” bill from PG&E, as its 12 pages are dense with tables and graphs showing energy usage and fees for the month. It promises to reveal in fascinating detail the PV system’s production and the household’s demand, culminating in the month’s balance — charge or credit — which ultimately, at the end of the year, will ideally be $0 for a well-sized PV array.

But a month later, photovoltaic users simply file the monthly trueup bill without a glance, because 11 of those 12 pages are utterly incomprehensible.

I used to read the cover page, because as noted above it shows the running total dollar amount, which is both interesting and easily understood. Most of the time.

My numbers for the first quarter:

In other words, according to the trueup bill, in February we generated about 30,000 kWh of surplus power, which if my math is right would actually require 500 days of pure sunshine, with no clouds, and 70°F ambient temperatures so the panels don’t get too hot. Oh, and those would have to be 24-hour days. And the sun would have to be perfectly overhead the entire time.

Considering that we get somewhat less than 24 hours of perfect direct sunshine every day, and we occasionally see a cloud, it would actually take more than 500 days to generate 30,000 kWh of power. Our array was turned up in January, 2004, and to date we’ve only generated about 9850 kWh… so we’ll need something like 7.7 years to hit 30,000 kWh. A bit more than 28 days, anyway.

Then in March, according to the trueup bill, we burned over 30,000 kWh, which I guess would be possible if I accidentally left the oven on for, say, 8 months. In February.

So the dumb thing is that there’s no bounds checking in PG&E’s bill calculation. It ought to seem unlikely that a household could spike its solar electric generation by a factor of 100 within a month’s time, especially considering that the last time a private citizen tried to put a 30kW PV system on the grid, it took 14 months of negotiations and a lawsuit before PG&E turned it up.

The other dumb thing is that the correction one month later was also incorrect. My unbilled charges for March should be $100 or less, not $544. But nobody caught this either. Had I not called to complain, I’m sure my year-end bill would have been ~$400 too high.

Fortunately, PG&E was relatively quick with the explanation (a mis-read meter) and a corrected trueup bill.

Unfortunately, our generation for 2006 is low by about 12% as compared to 2005. I’ve contacted our vendor to investigate possible problems. It’s possible the weather this year is to blame; our vendor can compare our generation to other installations in the area.

See also our running total electric charges for the year — we appear to have recently squandered a savings of ~20% off our 2005 fees. This week’s heat wave sure isn’t helping anything, either.

Next week I’m going to buy either a high-end Macbook or a low-end Macbook Pro. They are very similar machines, with a couple key differences that may or may not justify the $700 price difference. Following is a feature-by-feature comparison, assembled to help me decide whether the Pro is worth the extra money.

Similarities
cpu:	2.0 GHz Duo	2.0 GHz Duo
disk rpm:	5400	5400
usb 2.0 ports:	2	2
firewire ports:	1 (400)	1 (400)
wifi interface:	802.11b/g	802.11b/g
optical drive:	DVD±RW, CD-RW	DVD±RW, CD-RW
ethernet:	gigabit	gigabit
Bluetooth:	yes	yes
iLife bundle:	yes	yes
optical digital audio i/o:	yes	yes
iSight camera:	yes	yes
Differences
RAM:	256MBx2	512MBx1
ExpressCard/34:	no	yes
video card:	Intel 950	Radeon X1600
dedicated VRAM:	no	yes
disk capacity:	60 gb	80 gb
backlit keyboard:	no	yes
weight:	5.2 lbs	5.6 lbs
screen size:	13.3''	15.4''
resolution:	1280x800	1440x900
max battery life:	6 hrs	4.5 hrs
case:	plastic (white)	aluminum alloy
Price:	$1299	$1999 ($1849 $1499 at Amazon)

Taking the differences in turn:

• I wouldn’t recommend keeping the default RAM configuration of 512 MB because there are few easier ways to make a computer slow down than running it with insufficient RAM. I’ll personally upgrade either machine to 1GB total, or possibly 2GB.
  Both machines realize a performance benefit from having a matched pair of DIMMs, e.g. 2x512 (1GB total) or 2x1024MB (2GB total).
  It’s worth noting that because the default Macbook configuration consists of 2x256MB, a future RAM upgrade is more expensive than it would be on the Pro, because both 256MB modules would have to be discarded to make room for higher-density DIMMs. Both models have only two available RAM slots.
• The Pro has a faster video subsystem; it has dedicated VRAM and an upgraded video card. For people planning to play games or do video processing (e.g. via iMovie) this would be valuable. If like me you spend most of your time typing text into terminal windows and web forms, this upgrade is less compelling.
• The Pro has an ExpressCard/34 slot, which allows the use of expansion cards, e.g. Firewire 800 interfaces, memory card readers, cellular wifi cards, etc.
  Initially I thought I’d be interested in the Firewire 800 interface, because I plan to use this computer to record 16 channels of 24-bit audio simultaneously — that’s a lot of data — but research indicates that any single hard drive is slower than the Macbook’s built-in Firewire 400 bus, making such an upgrade pointless.
  Still, having the possibility of future expansion is attractive, even if not immediately useful.
• The hard drive in the Pro is 20GB bigger — nice to have, although for me not relevant. I’ll probably upgrade to a 7200 RPM drive in a year anyway as that’s a performance boost one can feel, especially when rebooting or launching large applications.
• The Pro has a backlit keyboard. I really want this feature. I’m constantly squinting at the my Powerbook’s keyboard (which is ironic given that the QWERTY keycaps don’t match what I’m typing anyway). On the other hand, I could buy a $5 USB-powered LED lamp instead of a computer that costs $700 more.
• The Macbook is not quite a half-pound lighter. That’s a nontrivial difference for anyone who travels.
  I can always identify people who have been going to too many tech conferences; one shoulder hangs an inch lower than the other.
• The Pro has a bigger screen — 2.1 diagonal inches and 272,000 pixels. I’d miss this if I bought the small unit.
  Of course, the Macbook has a longer batter life, due in large part to the smaller screen. This isn’t a tough tradeoff for me, but if I spent more time on airplanes or at conferences where power is hard to find, the Macbook would be a better choice.
• The plastic case on the Macbook has the advantage of not interfering with wifi signals. My G4 Powerbook has terrible wifi performance due to the titanium case. I’ve read that Apple has relocated the antenna on its current models to address this problem, but I’m not sure how effective this fix is. I wouldn’t be surprised of the Macbook’s airport performance is superior to the Pro’s. My wife’s G4 iBook smokes my Powerbook in this regard.

So what would the extra $700 really buy me? A bigger screen, but shorter battery life… a backlit keyboard, but potentially inferior wifi performance.

Or, on the other hand, it could buy me a couple nice microphones!

Hmm, anybody want to buy a well-loved Powerbook for $550?

I saw the global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, on opening weekend, eager to contribute in some small way to a box-office success story.

I left the theater with mixed feelings, simultaneously elated that, finally, someone had made a vehicle that could carry an overdue pro-environment message to a mainstream audience, and thoroughly depressed that we appear to be well and truly f*cked. (For example, if those carbon dioxide numbers are correct, will the atmosphere recover before we’re all crowded inland battling neighbors for fresh water?)

The other depressing thought I had was that this movie could have a further polarizing effect on Americans, when clearly the only possible solution is for everyone to pull together to solve the problem — much as we apparently did in the 1980s to phase out CFCs to prevent further damage to the ozone layer of the atmosphere.

For example, as the Chronicle reports in Gore movie reaching the red states, too:

Since the Al Gore global warming film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” opened in the Bay Area five weeks ago, approving audiences have left the theater murmuring a similar refrain: “I hope the people who need to see it, see it.”

I realize that’s maybe just the author’s hook, but if it’s true, then the movie is failing. Global warming is not a “them” issue. If you drive your Prius to Whole Foods to buy organic bell peppers from Israel and store them in your EnergyStar refrigerator, you’ve produced 100x as much global-warming gas as the average resident of any nonindustrialized country in the world did today.

Really 100x? No, it’s a guess. But you get the idea: Americans consume 26 percent of the world’s energy. The statistic isn’t about “Red state Americans” or “SUV driving Americans.” It’s about multiple TV and refrigerator and washer-dryer and car-owning Americans. You and me and even the guys who work at the Zen Center.

In fact, the illogic of that sentiment — “I hope the people who need to see it, see it.” — is astounding. It means, essentially, “I think the world is facing an unprecented environmental disaster, which I’ll very likely live to see and suffer from… but I’m going to wait for those jerks in the Red states to fix it for me.”

So, the movie needs to pull people together. And I think it tries to, as when Gore talks about a “moral obligation” to solve this problem. I think progressives are so used to thinking about the Republicans or neocons or the remaining third of citizens who think Bush is doing a really knock-out job, etc., as the enemy, that it’s a native reaction to do the same here. But it won’t fly. We can lead, but we have to make sure they follow. For anyone still waiting for “them” to get it, please wait somewhere in southern Florida. Bring your hip-waders.

The challenge for me was to channel the movie’s message into action. I feel like I’m pretty energy conscious and conservative already; e.g.:

• I carpooled to see the movie.
• I telecommute.
• My PV array produces about 99% of the electricity we consume every year.
• We’ve replaced all our incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents.
• We unplug most nonessential appliances when they’re not in use to avoid phantom loads.

But I had to do something; if I couldn’t come up with a constructive reaction to the movie, I’d be just as lame as the people who won’t see it because they dislike Al Gore.

In hopes someone finds inspiration here, here’s a list what I’ve done so far:

• Encouraged a bunch of people to see the movie. Cheap and easy.
• Spent four hours wrapping my water heater in radiant barrier insulation.
• Adopted an acre of Brazilian Rainforest as a gift for family members.
• Cleaned my solar panels (argh, overdue).
• Evangelized CF bulbs and hybrid cars to friends and family.
• Sent money to Environment California and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Still to do: buy carbon offsets [DONE]. Clean the filters in the furnace and the coils under the refrigerator. Bring a PV vendor into the office for a companywide sales pitch. Investigate “green” electricity (PV or not, I’m still on the grid).

What have I missed? Send me your ideas.

Here are 32 ideas from the movie site: Reduce your Global Warming impact at home

So we bought one of those 5 kg boxes of fresh garlic at Costco, thinking we could freeze whatever we didn’t immediately use. It was incredibly convenient to not have to peel garlic for a couple weeks. But now I’ve got approximately 4.997 kg of peeled garlic cloves in the freezer, where I’m afraid they’re doomed to a cold and lonely future like their neighbors, the Brussels sprouts. Seriously, we’re looking at 300 meals’ worth of garlic here.

We’ve used a couple of the frozen cloves lately, in place of fresh. It’s not exactly the same. In fact, it’s not exactly good. Frozen garlic doesn’t mince worth a damn, and when it’s sauteed it gives off an aroma that makes you think pungent really meant skunky all this time.

I wonder if this is one of those things you’re just not supposed to do. Is this something everybody knows but me, like the fact that you have to clean the filter in your dishwasher more than once every four years?

I guess it’s just as well. I was running out of Brussels sprouts anyway.

So, I ran over a deer on the way to work this morning.

I didn’t actually kill the deer. Someone else did that already, and left a pile of deer parts in the middle of the road. I didn’t even try to drive around it. Maybe I’m not the sharpest tine on the combine, but it took a couple seconds of peering into the sunrise to make sense of the rapidly-approaching oversized lump in the roadway. By then the only way to avoid it was to drive into oncoming traffic — not a good trade. I had to take my chances with the dead deer, so I centered my car as best I could and mowed right over the top of it.

Unfortunately my little car doesn’t have quite enough ground clearance to pass a deer underneath. Just when I thought I’d made it I heard a sickening thwack sound and felt what I guess was deer skin tearing at about 30 mph. I think the carcass didn’t move, but the top part stood up a bit when it caught on my car frame, and then plopped back down after I’d passed, minus whatever bits of fur and etc. might still be stuck to my undercarriage. No, I’m not crawling beneath the car to check. But I did smell something a little funky a couple miles later.

I took a different route home, and nearly ran down a rooster.