Pot grow houses eat 8 percent of California's residential electricity use

[Liberal_in_LA]

Source: sf gate

The study estimates that indoor pot-growing operations in the United States burn about $5 billion worth of electricity a year, or about 2 percent of national residential power consumption. The carbon emissions from these operations equal those of about 3 million cars.

In California, indoor cultivation is responsible for a whopping 8 percent of household electricity usage. But, California grows only about a fifth of the nation's bong hits and much of what we grow goes to out-of-state consumers.

-----------------------

The study, written by Evan Mills on his own (non-government-funded) time, makes the case for legalizing and regulating grow operations, suggesting that if marijuana didn't have to be grown in secret and indoors, efficiency could be improved by as much as 75 percent.

Because marijuana production is secret, its electricity demand tends to confound energy forecasts and obscure savings from energy efficiency programs. And more than one person has told this blogger that much of the seemingly bizarre opposition to smart meters comes from growers who fear that their energy usage data will expose their illegal activities.

TGL has also addressed the environmental costs of alcohol and cigarettes.




Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=87663#ixzz1KaaOceZ6

[Bonobo]

1. Answer: Make it legal so people can grow it outside. nt

[HankyDubs]

4. and make it legal so if you grow indoors

you are paying taxes on the product.

[movonne]

10. Couldn't it be grown with solar power??? if it was legal..

[truedelphi]

17. That is already happening in areas where

The medical marijuana clubs have contracts with local people to grow.

Some use green houses, some use the great outdoors.

But the marijuana harvest of 2010 kept Mendocino from having to make and cuts to their police department. The taxes on the product, combined with property seized from illegal growing, was enough to keep the police and one or two other major items on that County's budget up and running.

[freshwest]

6. Yep, sunlight is free. Or the last time I looked it was.

[Xithras]

24. Lighted grows will never go away.

Marijuana grows much faster under grow lights, and with more consistent quality, because you're eliminating variables including weather, bugs, temperature swings and the loss of light during nighttime. Indoor grows also have control over heat and humidity in the grow house, which is a HUGE factor in THC production. Indoor grow houses can also grow during the winter...marijuana doesn't grow well outside in California during the winter months.

A commercial grow tending plants under MH lamps is going to produce more product annually, of higher quality, than an equally sized grow across the street.

Of course, the BEST option is greenhouse grown, with MH lights burning 24/7 to augment the sunlight. There's an argument by some that the wider spectrum of true sunlight produces better weed, and greenhouses provide the best of both worlds. Natural sunlight AND MH lights.

Hey...I know people ;)

[mike_c]

2. in my town grow houses probably account for HALF of all electricity use...

...for which I am profoundly grateful. :smoke: We have a saying in Humboldt County: "It's always 4.20 somewhere! You gonna bogart those Cheetos all day, dude?"

[Wilms]

3. I wonder how much energy is used on marijuana law enforcement, alone.

And on building, maintaining and using the military.

:shrug:

[Sonoman]

7. Bingo, Wilms...

Indoor grow is just a drop in the bucket.

We are in SF and the North Bay.

I would like to know just how much the industry bound by our Financial District's members are using versus our local growers.

Drop in bucket.

Sonoman

[caraher]

14. Study author says not much, by comparison

From http://evan-mills.com/energy-associates/Indoor.html">http://evan-mills.com/energy-associates/Indoor.html:

Are we barking up the wrong tree? Doesn’t law enforcement spent even more energy on suppression and eradication?

Not likely. Certainly a study in and of itself, but per a quick look: Total federal government energy expenditure for vehicles for all purposes is less than half that of Cannabis production and jet fuel for aviation, including military (see page 96 of this report) is “only” $7 billion per year (including overseas operations) -- that was FY 2007, so maybe more now. Total federal government for aviation gasoline (small planes0 is $10 million/year... In any case, two wrongs don’t make a right - seriously. We need to reduce emissions wherever they occur. If we do nothing but point to others who emit more we will never get out of the greenhouse.

[Wilms]

21. Interesting, but it only refers to fuel.

While that's quite a chunk, there's a longer chain in fuel consumption that might add considerably.

[Romulox]

25. Bizarre that the comparison omits electricity, since this would be an apples to apples comparison

I can only assume the comparison is not favorable to your position. :shrug:

[Webster Green]

5. Nice stuff too!

I prefer outdoors myself. Nothing like free sunshine.

Also, spider mites are a real pain in the ass indoors.

Legalize the miracle plant. Problem solved.

[Gregorian]

8. There are growers in Mendocino who have $10,000 PG&E monthly bills.

I have a friend who installs the electrical for many of the grow rooms here. We had this conversation over a year ago, regarding the impact of all of these indoor operations.

I had no idea it was quite the amount of energy as it says in that article.

[Zorra]

9. Sunlight is great for growing weed. hint. nt

[frylock]

11. this is the second "cannabis is destroying the planet" article this week

[RainDog]

12. I think the article is about how prohibition is destroying the planet

because it is the illegality that creates the problem.

if it were legal to grow cannabis, I doubt most people would choose to use all that electricity when the sun will do the same thing for free.

but prohibition of this substance, as with alcohol, pushes an entire industry underground (or, rather, inside) and this has consequences.

people are not going to stop ingesting or growing cannabis, just as people did not stop drinking alcohol when prohibition of it was in full force.

so, how can you deal with reality in a way that creates the least problems for a society?

that's really what the law is supposed to be about, isn't it?

[elias49]

13. I'm calling bullshit on these numbers!

And if somebody is paying those electric bills, who cares the usage.

And this:
"When you smoke a joint, you add two pounds of carbon emissions to your footprint"
sounds like (smells like) horse shit.

IMO

[unblock]

15. whoever came up with those numbers must have been on drugs or something.

and by drugs i mean something more potent than pot.

it doubt it's as high as 8% of ordinary lighting costs, nevermind far greater energy drains such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers.


now for his next project, will he find out if the california porn industry consumes more or less than 8% of the state's electricity?

[uncle ray]

16. apples to oranges.

the usage should be compared to industrial usage of electricity, since that is exactly what it is.

[AngryAmish]

18. If grown outside wouldn't people steal it?

I know a lot is grown outside now but (revealing ignorance) isn't the really good stuff grown hydroponically inside?

[XemaSab]

27. California's got a lot of hills and hollers

I've worked out in the woods in Humboldt County for years, and the only place I ever found a grow was in a riparian preserve in Visalia. :P

[mahatmakanejeeves]

19. and the other 92% is wasted.

.

[Javaman]

20. So where are the rolling blackouts then?

I smell another enron type tactic in the making.

[snooper2]

22. ROFL, some "study" Has anybody here actually read the PDF? It's only 12 pages

what a joke...

:rofl:

http://evan-mills.com/energy-associates/Indoor_files/Indoor-cannabis-energy-use.pdf

[WatsonT]

23. Legal pot is solar powered.

[Romulox]

26. Any idea on how much energy it takes to imprison more people than any other country in the history

of humanity?

Neither do the authors of this "study". :hi:

[vanbean]

28. I find that (8%) very hard to believe. I would be surprised at 1%.