cannabisnews.com: Indoor Pot Farms Tax Power Grid





Indoor Pot Farms Tax Power Grid
Posted by FoM on December 06, 2000 at 07:48:08 PT
By J.A. Savage, AlterNet
Source: AlterNet
A hundred females ripe for sex languish impatiently in a brightly-lit room waiting for a male, any male, to filter through that door and satisfy their needs. If only a male would come. They never do. Such are the exasperated lives of indoor-grown marijuana plants. The only commercially useful plants are females, so the males are aborted, before they can impregnate females with their pollen. 
As they mature, these frustrated ladies still produce an enticing perfume, hoping to attract the male pollen -- the chemical THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), quite buzz-inducing and quite illegal, which is why the lusty lasses must be hidden indoors. Unlike their wilder outdoor sisters, these females, kept on the vegetable equivalent of a tanning bed, use up an inordinate amount of electrical energy. Energy that could otherwise be provided by the most renewable power available: the sun. In an era when outdoor pot is a pariah -- the target of multi-million-dollar eradication programs -- indoor growing operations have flourished, creating an electricity-sucking enterprise locked away in barns and closets and backrooms. And this has happened at a time when the nation's electric grid has trouble keeping the juice on for folks who don't have the solar alternative, from big factories to the computer power needed to write this story. Marijuana's move indoors is one more factor stressing out the electric system. So far this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency has seized 80,000 indoor-grown plants, busting 1,000 "operations," according to a DEA source. Doing the math at 20 plants per light running 16 hours a day, leads to the monthly consumption of 2 million kilowatt hours -- about the hourly output of a very large power plant. And that's only what the federal government has discovered. Grow lights suck 1,100 watts apiece out of the system. Compare that with your average 60-watt reading bulb. An average residential consumption is 500 kilowatt hours a month, according to Pacific Gas & Electric. A 10-lamp operation would consume over 3,000-kilowatt hours a month running a minimum of 12 hours a day. Bob Kinosian, analyst with the California's state-run consumer organization, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, estimates the lamps run more like 16 hours a day. A 60-lamp operation running 16 hours a day would suck up a stupendous 30,000 kilowatt-hours in a month. And you think your electric bills are high? Still, the operations can produce at least two or three pounds per light, according to Kinosian -- more than enough to pay the utility. The leading states for indoor growing operations, according to the DEA, are California, Florida, Oregon and Wisconsin. And, officers are finding more and more indoor grows every year, leading to the assumption that marijuana producers and aficionados are forgoing free-range pot grown from renewable solar power for the safer buzz of "kept" sinsemillia. Of all the marijuana seized in 1997, only 6 percent was from indoor grows. That went up to 16 percent in 1999, according to the DEA. High electricity use isn't the only environmental problem associated with indoor marijuana growing. In the fabled "emerald triangle" in Northwestern California, long-time outdoor growers now fearful of well-funded government raids on gardens have also moved inside. But, in the rural triangle (Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties) many folks interested in the trade are "off-grid." They don't have a hook up to the local utility and don't want one. So, instead of hooking up to polluting power plants they go to the local hardware store and buy a generator or three in order to fuel the voracious grow lights. Unfortunately for the environment, generators run on foul-smelling, air- and water-polluting diesel fuel. Wayne Hanson, Humboldt County sergeant in charge of the drug enforcement unit, swears that diesel-fired generators fuel almost all the indoor grows he trips over on his way to busting the folks still growing outdoors. He mentioned that in one case, in trying to apprehend an outdoor grower suspect who fled into the woods on foot, he knocked on three doors of the suspect's remote neighbors. All had indoor grow operations. The cops declined running after the moving suspect, instead busting the homebodies with grow lights. "Diesel fuel is dumped on the ground all the time. Seventy-five percent of the time [that I bust growers] I have to call the Environmental Health Department and Fish & Game to respond to diesel spills," Hanson explained of the fuel's hazards. Any spills or dumping can get into the growers' and their neighbors' legitimate gardens and drinking water, as remote households use the nearest creek or spring for daily needs. In addition, there's the potential for fish kill. While in remote areas, diesel generators also add to air emissions and noise pollution. Air pollution is roundly ignored. Growers tend to try to muffle the sound of generators, though, with hay bales and the like to lessen suspicion. The use of generators is winked at in the off-grid hills. Some actually are used to fuel televisions and refrigeration, but there's also a brisk business in delivering fuel up gated dirt roads with a handful of dollars tipped to the delivery driver to keep quiet about the generators' whereabouts. This energy consumption, resultant pollution and pressure on the grid seems rather absurd given the last few years of state and local votes favoring some form of legalization. In the most recent election, for instance, California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah passed measures to approve limited growing or reduce penalties for marijuana possession. "It's the insanity of prohibition. Every citizen is subsidizing an expanding electric grid. It's completely unnecessary when it could all be fueled by the sun," said one grower source who, understandably, asked to remain anonymous. J.A. Savage is associate editor of California Energy Markets. Source: AlterNetAuthor: J.A. Savage, AlterNetPublished: November 30, 2000Address: 77 Federal Street, San Francisco, CA 94107Copyright: Independent Media Institute Telephone: 415/284-1420Fax: 415/284-1414E-mail: info alternet.orgWebsite: http://www.alternet.org/Contact: http://www.alternet.org/contact.htmlCannabisNews Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by Ethan on December 06, 2000 at 09:59:20 PT:
Environmental Fallout of Indoor Cannabis
This is an interesting spin on the issue, appealing to the Green in the public to influence opinion. I have a better idea. When cannabis cultivation is legal within whatever restraints, the need for clandestine indoor grows will be considerably diminished.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by freedom fighter on December 06, 2000 at 09:54:21 PT
ahh
I know people think they can speed up the vegation but I do think it takes time for a plant to mature to point where they will flower alot. Sexual maturity of a plant is very important. I just think that the outdoor plants do not get 24 hrs of light anywhere. Not even in Alaska where they get 22 hrs of light due to the environment. On the avg. 18-20 hrs down there. Time equals maturity of any living plants. Just my two stupid cents:)Anyway, this article makes growers look like evil weed growers and that sucks! They claimed that people were dumping the disel fuel. It does not make sense. If I brought some fuel, I am going to use it. I will burn up the fuel to make electrcity so how the heck can I dump the fuel?Maybe I would accidently spill some. Just does not make sense to me. What if everybody decided to grow tomato plants indoor, would the author write the article? If it is taxing the power grid, does it tell you that everyone likes to grow? Why not just legalize it so we can use the sun? Only dangerous thing I see out of this is cops chasing someone. That cop probably had gun in his hand when he was chasing. It is just a plant for pete's sake. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by zypherpn on December 06, 2000 at 09:42:03 PT:
not exactly
well if you have done much research you will notice under 24 hrs of light you will have many problems arrise that a 18hr cycle will prevent, 24 hrs of light causes stress on the plant for one thing, never giving them a chance to rest work work work work work, stress can lead to vulnrability to any problem u could have w/ the plant (ie: converting to male/herm, rotting, bugs, wilting, oversaturated salt buildup) not to mention, those 6 hrs of darkness is when the plant does its growing, the plants collect energy and create food durring the day and do most their growing at night, they need that little sleep, and it needs to be un-interupted, just like the flowering cycle...had a friend that went to UC Davis that was testing results on potency in a lab and found that the 18/6 cycle made a higher potency due to less stress as well...i dont remember exactly off the top of my head, but i believe it was somethin like -3% thc +2%cbn on a 24 hr cycle, lowering psychoactive feeling and making it sleepier pot... this all done on pot that was allready in the 20-25% thc range..the reason they say 16 hrs a day is probably cause u have a 12 hr and 18 hr cycle and the 12 hr cycle usually last about 2-6 weeks longer, mean avging out to about 16 hrs a day for a harvest   ..Zy
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by TroutMask on December 06, 2000 at 08:31:04 PT
Depends
I have heard conflicting testimony regarding optimal vegetative growth light cycles. The "consensus" seems to vary between 16 and 24 hours. There are arguments for each end of the spectrum, but most compelling to me is the "fact" that the additional hours of light reduce vegetative growth periods. So, if marijuana were legal and someone was growing it indoors, they'd probably do better to use 24 hours of light during veg cycle to get to the flower cycle faster. IMHO...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by michael on December 06, 2000 at 08:10:55 PT:
Just asking
Did they say 16 hours a day? Uhhhhhh, not that I would know any different, but aren't they underestimating the length of time for lights? Isn't it a classic example of how misinformed "they" are. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: