Living in the energy conservation stoneage

[erichtopp]

I live in Canada and I feel that the average person here isn't taking energy conservation seriously enough. One of the biggest things I see Canadians doing with energy conservation is replacing their incandescent lights with high efficiency light.......big deal. Lighting is one of the smallest loads in a household. What about heating (it is one of the biggest energy demands in a home)....no one really seems to be tackling this energy conservation problem using solar or wind, etc, etc. The other thing I hear is that wind turbines don't look great in neighbourhoods.......well people better get used to seing them as they will be neccessary in the coming years if you want electricity. Subdivisions are being built here at an alarming rate and taxing the power plants and transmission lines even more. Very little thought (if none at all) is being given in the planning stages of these subdivisions with regard to energy conservation. There is a limit as to how much electricity we have in this country.....and the costs of electricity and fuel/natural gas are soaring at an alarming rate pushing inflation up fast. Does everyone out there have the same problem we have here in Canada??

[pyrocasto]

Of course most people dont conserve near as much as some of us, but even the ones who switch their lights over are doing something good. Heck, lighting for my house is one of the biggest parts of my power bill(was). We used to pay $~50/month on lighting alone. Going to cfls has dropped it tremenasly.

[Jon Miller]

I agree with your points CFl are greta lighting for saome places with in th house.  but i have found that allthough as i type i am using a little 11 watt CFL my Mum wont use them becasue of her eye sight and most people find they take to long to 'warm' up and produce bright light.  that sadi mass production has driven down the cost of them and i rember are first CFL about 5 years ago costing £15 at the time now my most recent ones where sent to me via the post for free and the lkast one i payied for cost me £1.25.

 But even my technologie teachers at my school dont re-cycle even thought they know why they should :s and i recently went to a lecture for a Unie course about renewable technoligies to find that when the bloke left he left all the lights on, the over head progector and the PC.  I mean whats that all about.  any way yes people will only use more efficent items when energy cost to much. just my rant

.

[MelTx]

                       Energy POLICY

   We have a real good energy policy in the U.S...its called drill-dril-dril--use use-use.

 Fearless leader G.B. gets on tv and trys to say conservation and nearly chokes....

 He cant hardly talk because of his past drug & alcohol abuse...HE put things in our latest energy policy where you spend 1.50 worth of gas.And you get back 1.00 worth of ethanol...Sharp thinking G.B

   The murdering theif thinks all americans are dumb.They have run the U.S. 8 trillion dollars in debt only 25 years...But he only need 50.1 percent of the vote.And then hes got a licence to steal..Back in the 1970s we were headed in the right direction in the conservation movement...Dont forget to vote...

[erichtopp]

Speaking of energy effiecient lights, I have converted every light in my home to high effieciency lights including those ones in the closets ( perhaps a little overboard but a lot more than many people are doing for energy conservation.)  Through experience I have found the Phillips brand of high eff. lights turn on immediately versus the Sylvania brand of high eff. lights that take time to turn on. Apparently the Phillips company was the inventor of these new lights. Anyway the price difference is very little between these 2 brands here in Canada. The latest news I've seen about high eff. lights is that the new ones being developed will be a LED type instead of flourescent as are now marketed.

Say look at all the 8 cylinder SUV's that they drive here in Canada.( with one person in the vehicle ). Who had the rocks in their head to come up with the idea that everyone should be driving these huge vehicles over here?? The motor vehicle emits over 51 % of your personal Green House Gas tonnage that you produce every year. In Canada that more than 5 tons of gas per person. Just try picking up a 10,000 pound object every year. That's the amount of waste we have. There has to be an end to this energy consumption somewhere down the line but the average person just isn't in tune that there is an end to our NON-renewable resources. I have to commend each and every one of you that is working on a clean air project ( wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc, etc, etc ). You guys are thinking way out in front of the rest of society.

[marv]

Here's a secret energy conservation project I've been working on!

[crashk6]

Thats really cracked... I kinda like it :~)

--

crashK6

[Cinosh07]

Hello,

There is some action taken here in Canada to. I'm on the process to start a group here in Quebec, about genny construction and R/E things. www.windchaser.ca work on that to, and probably more, hidden somewhere. I think the solution is to start the process yourself in your comunity. Since i've intalled my genny a lot of people have stoped by my house to get information. I'm on the project to build one with a guy who have stoped by, a couple of weeks ago, to ask for help in his genny project. Be positive and have a good wind.

Cinosh07

[electrondady1]

people,  for the  most part prety much do what there told.it's a weekness. if youre told a 100 times a day  to purchase certan items or to live with a particular set of values then its tough to strike out on a different path, there's a lot of pressure to  do what every one else is doing. seeing lots of wind mills around will get people thinking and talking. i'm optimistic , i think the cat's out of the bag so to speak.

[Jon Miller]

Cinosh07

'Since I've installed my genny a lot of people have stopped by my house to get information.'

Same here I live down a small road that sees maybe 5 cars a day and maybe 12-15 on Sundays.  When I have been working on my turbine people have stopped and ask if they could know more about it.  I tell the people who ask me all they are will to take in but thoses people who don't ask but still stop go to my web site as I left a small sign with the address on.

maybe that's an idea we should all use maybe a link to this places?

Any way most people don't have a problem with using CFL just there to much when compare to incandescent bulbs, most people go for short team cheap cost apposed to long term low cost.  Strange but there we go.

.

[erichtopp]

I loved that energy conservation car posted here. Just wish we could find a way to make that idea work. Also the other comment of people buying cheap regular lights shows us that few people even think about tommorrow at all. Your comment Jon is right on. It's great to see you guys putting up wind gennys and solar panels so that people can see them.......and get them thinking about tommorrow. That's the kind of creative thinking that is lacking in todays world. Say I just had a look at the gas prices in europe and they are paying 2 to 3 times what we pay over here in North America. Wait a minute, isn't this supposed to be a global economy where all things are equal everywhere in the world. That means we should be paying 2 to 3 times the price of gas we're paying over here in North America, right??? Or is there some other political / marketing agenda on the table over here in North America???

[Jeff7]

Actually, I wonder that the closet lights would be better off as incandescent? Reasoning is, closet lights are usually only on for a minute or less, I'd imagine (I've never had lit closets) and flourescents are generally best for places where they stay on awhile, because each startup affects the lifetime of the entire bulb. I just wonder that the reduce lifespan, and having to buy replacements earlier, doesn't offset the small gains in efficiency.

That would be a location where some sort of LED lighting would probably be better, as I do not believe that they suffer from the same problem.

[finnsawyer]

There are a lot of reasons for the situation being the way it is, and I don't think blaming G. W. is the answer.  Blame congress and the voter's penchant for returning the same idiots year after year.  Look at the way people live today.  Everybody wants to live in the country far from their work and the problems of the city.  Eventually they create the same problems they're trying to leave behind.  Personally, I'd like to see them all move back to the towns and cities so lifelong country folk like me can enjoy it as it was.  This running to and fro is crazy.  Stop busing kids a hundred miles to play a game.  As far as the difference in gas prices between here and Europe, it has more to do with politics and taxes than anything else.  The high taxes are needed to finance the cradle to grave socialism.

Finally, why conserve?  Using up the oil will hasten the day when other systems are competitive.  The ultimate answer is space based energy generation.  The sun's energy is going by 24/7.  Currently, it is estimated such a system would be 7% efficient.  And it doesn't release carbon dioxide.  The problem would be it's initial cost, degradation of the system due to radiation, and the difficulty of servicing it.

To end on a positive note, how about bringing back the railroads and electrifying them?  There is no more efficient way of moving cargo on land than the steel wheel on a steel rail.

[maker of toys]

I agree that playing the blame game isn't solving anything. . . unfortunately, that seems to be the way the US works. . . fix the blame, not the problem.

as for using up the oil faster, I'll have to disagree on that; there are some things that oil is the best answer for (chemical feedstocks) that enable RE;  things like FRP and carbon fiber.  the trick is to use the oil for the correct purposes.

My solution:  turn the current tax structure around.  Instead of offering tax breaks on renewable energy and conservation prorgams, tax the things that are REALLY BAD at a much higher rate.  Do it right up front, and be merciless about it.  then, if someone could show that the resource-intensive, high-tax option was the only one that would solve a given problem, then THEY can do all the tax-break paperwork.

yes, this is a punitive tax; that's the whole point.  no, I don't think voters would voluntarily triple the tax on SUVs sprawling parking lots (in place of multi-level garages) and lawn care products.  But proposing it might get people to thinking a bit.  (ok, so I'm an optimist)

there are plenty of reasons to get out of the gravity well, too-  energy might be one of them, though I'm not sanguine about ever beaming energy back to earth as a cost-competitive solution.  Also, doing so would 'widen' earth's energy capture profile vis a vis the sun, and would actually contribute to global climate change by bringing in more energy to drive weather systems.  But, if we use the energy at point of generation to refine materials that are already present in space (metalloids, electronics, etc) we could gain a lot of the benefits of space power without having to beam it back to be squandered. . . there are plenty of other things to do in orbit (weather solar or earth orbit) that COULD help earthbound  problems at a tidy profit:  as an example, one of the problems with current fuelcell technologies is the acute shortage of platnium and pallidium.  Both elements are (relatively) abundant in samples of metallic meteorites, and can be assumed to be abundant on asteroids. (we should verify that . . . let's skip the moon and mars (just more resource-limited gravity wells) and go out there instead!  or to places that we KNOW have useful materials- Europa (water), Titan (hydrocarbons), etc.)  the same arguements apply to gold, silver and copper; I once read that if we were to take up asteroid mining, its entirely possible that gold would wind up being effectively just another industrial metal like copper.

too, living in space would teach us a lot about closed-cycle environments and limited resource agriculture. . . . not a bad thing, no matter what else we learned out there.

again, just my 20 millidollars.

-Dan

[ghurd]

LEDs, so far, are about the same as a decent regular high watt light bulb, light per watt.

So a regular bulb is just as good in large bright uses... for now.

Canada is unusual in the heating department, I think.

Most places use a lot less electric heat.

Canada is big on electric heat because of so much (free?) hydro power.

G-

[ghurd]

Abe Lincoln only had about 30% of the popular vote.

(unpopular?)

He had a low grade education.

(dumb-ass country bumpkin?)

He incited a war.

(blood thirsty?)

He incited the war that killed more US people than any other.

(gonocidal?)

He destroyed half the US economy.

(hidden agenda?)

He believed in ghosts.

(goofy?)

He was a lawyer.

(Lawyer? Lawyer! Nuff said!)

[benjamindees]

how about bringing back the railroads

I can't even begin to understand the reasoning behind semi-trailers.  Perhaps it's a capacity problem of rails?  Tax structures that promote employment?  Railroad monopolies?  Overregulation?  

The general reasoning I've heard is that it takes longer to ship things by rail.  Yeah, so?  Warehouses cost money.  Keeping goods in warehouses costs taxes.  So we get "lean manufacturing", which has got to be the biggest scam the US "free" market has ever created.  The whole thing is 100% dependent on immediate, cheap transport.

The entire system is designed to deny, nay, thwart the laws of physics.  I will not be surprised at all when it comes crashing down.

[finnsawyer]

I believe the biggest reason for the decline of the railroads was simple mismanagement.  The companies couldn't get the cars where they were needed when they were needed, and then they wouldn't guarantee to get them delivered in time.  Even today here in the U.P. of Michigan the dominant railroad (Canadian National, I believe) won't provide enough cars to move logs to the mills.  So logs and pulp are rotting in the woods.  And we're talking about a situation where the need is very predictable.  

[finnsawyer]

Some interesting speculations.  The only thing I would take issue with is the heating of the planet by using space based energy generation.  The energy beamed back would be coherent (microwaves) and could be converted at fairly high efficiencies.  And any heating from this would be more than offset by the global cooling due to the resulting reduction in carbon dioxide over time.  Of course this assumes that the use of fossil fuels will go way down, which in principle it could.

As far as the gravity well thing, it has been proposed to build solar power stations at the poles on the moon and beam the power to earth.  This might have some advantages such as stability and serviceability.  Personally, I think such power might be more likely to be used to propel ion powered craft traveling to mars and beyond.  That little ion powered probe they built used a 1,000 volt accelerator.  Increase it to one million volts and you can get there in one tenth the time with 100 times the pay load for the same amount of propellant.

[finnsawyer]

I tried a CFL once.  It didn't last any longer than a regular bulb, but cost a lot more.  On the basis of that experience it was not worth it.

[maker of toys]

he only thing I would take issue with is the heating of the planet by using space based energy generation.  The energy beamed back would be coherent (microwaves) and could be converted at fairly high efficiencies.  And any heating from this would be more than offset by the global cooling due to the resulting reduction in carbon dioxide over time.

ok.  the earth is 13000 km (give or take) in diameter. so, in any given second, it is absorbing (13000/2)^2 *3.14 x1000^2 = 1.3x10^14 kW of solar radiant energy. by and large, that energy is reradiated at the same rate;  the inbalance trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor, methane) causes global warming as the planet heats up to the point where it again reaches thermal equilibrium by radiating at a higher temperature.  what isn't radiated shows up as biomass.

with me so far?

so if we build enough power stations in orbit to supply a significant fraction of  our needs (the figure is eluding me at the moment but is in the exojoules/year) we have effectively increased the solar gain of Earth by that same amount. we'll want the stations in a ball-of-string orbit so that they don't spend significant time in shadow, if for no other reason than to reduce thermal expansion and contraction effects on what  will, by nature, be a very large array. So the panels will not shade the planet in any useful manner.  

Ok, so there would be less anthrogenic greenhouse gas production, but microwaves couple strongly to water and water vapor, and so significant microclimatic effects can be expected in the beam path, which will sweep on a ca. 90 minute cycle, and will not cease during nighttime.  I submit that the heating effects will contribute notably to the transmission losses of the system (ca 4% of incident radiation?) and those losses acrue directly to atmospheric heating.

then theres the fact that the end product of all human energy use is low-grade atmospheric heat . . . and so every watt that's grabbed by a space-borne panel eventually heats up the planet. (not strictly true; we radiate a sizable fraction as visible light-  someone posted a link to a map of the night-side of the planet here a while back. . .)

which makes your 'beam it out to power an ion drive spacecraft' plan the more palatable from where I sit.  That's also why I propose orbital industry; if all the really energy intensive processes are undertaken outside the atmosphere, then the waste heat isn't a problem for the planet at all; and further, the pre-processed material can be expected to offset a similar amount of ground-based processing, which would reduce the amount of anthrogenic heating.

Now, not withstanding the foregoing, the rate of human energy use is small potatoes compared with what comes in from the sun

[maker of toys]

the decline of the railroads comes from several places.  One was poor managment.

the other, more important factor was the simultaneous developent of 'random access' bulk transport (semis) and random access passenger transport (cars, busses, aircraft) and the infrastructure (the interstate highway system) to support them.  Add to that the decentralization of manufacturing, and there you go.

that said, last year was a record year for rail transport; most of it was in tankcars, intermodal containers and coal 'unit trains'.

the only way the railroads will gain market share is if we (the taxpayers) are willing to finance a major expantion in the rail network, and then USE it.  right now, market forces are concentrating rail traffic more and more onto central corridors and the old branch lines out to small towns and small industry are being removed because they cost more in upkeep than they return in revenue.

-Dan

[Bruce S]

Fin;

  Strange reading about the CFL not lasting longer than normal ones. How long ago was this? There were some companies out there that manfactured crappy ones, low light levels cheap internal startup parts.

The only other think I would think that would make it go out sooner would be rolling brown outs and or too high incoming voltage.

Bruce S

[Bruce S]

Jon M.

    I think the best idea would be to do a comparison test on different lighting needs.

Me mum has had cornea replacement and the doc told her to start using the CFLs because she can get a much higher ones when comparing wattage to brightness.

What I did while at the local home DIY place was to test how the bulbs turned on.

I /we ended up getting standard base ones for rooms and hallways that she doesn't want to blind people, quick on units( the newer 60 watt replacement CFLs) and the old stick type that can with stand being turned off/on a whole bunch more times than a regular bulb would stand up to.

So for her it turned out that her bill is now 1/4 less and all we had to do was to take a type of bulb usage selection inventory.

Hope this helps you with your mums eye needs.

BTW: The grow bulb units actually make the rooms look the same as those so called to "Natural-Look" bulbs at 1/2 the or less the energy charge.

Bruce S  

[benjamindees]

You're right.  Orbital power would increase the overall thermal input of the Earth.  But, by displacing fossil fuels, it would decrease the rate of change of thermal input of the Earth.  

Concerns over the former would be far outweighed by benefits of the latter.  Exact figures aren't important.  Maybe orbital power to provide all the Earth's energy use would be equivalent to 20 years worth of CO2 emissions.  Maybe it's more.  The important thing is it's a fixed amount.

Putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is like constantly putting up orbital power stations.  Each CO2 molecule goes to work increasing the Earth's thermal input.  With fossil fuels, it's a neverending process.  With orbital power, it only has to be done once.  Even better, once we create enough non-fossil energy sources, we can put them to use sequestering CO2 and reversing the damage done by fossil fuels.

[erichtopp]

The idea of space based energy is an interesting idea for sure however the cost of high tech in this world sometimes outweighs the advantages of high tech. That's where the experimenters of the Otherpower.com really shine. You guys are smart because you keep the capital costs to minimum and the output of your ideas to a maximum, therefore your devices for energy consrvation are efficient. Maybe your projects are not for the most part large scale but each and every project helps all of us out to preserve out environment.

In time, the technology of high tech will likely out pace the average person in this world. It will be known as the technology gap. For example, we already have a shortage of highly skilled technical tradesmen simply because high tech is out pacing them especially in the area of electrical / electronic controls. So who will service all this high tech equipment in the future???

I find more and more the greater part of the young generation aren't interested in a skilled trade. Not suprisingly so since who really wants to earn a living getting your hands dirty or being known as a blue collar worker when you can earn a living keeping your hands clean and not being looked down on as a blue collar worker. For over 25 years in the electrical / electronic trade, I have had to live with this stigma of being a blue collar worker. Would I do it again, likely not considering how industry treats it's blue collar workers. Generally industry treats it's skilled workers poorly considering they are what keep the companies going. It's shameful.

Back to energy conservation. I encourage each and everyone one of you to spread the word and your great ideas about alternate energy. After all, it's your children and your children's children that will have to breathe the air and drink the water that we leave behind today.

P.S. I made all the closet lights CFL's because my kids sometimes leave the lights on ( by mistake ). This keeps the bill down. Speaking of which we pay 5.058 cents Canadian for each Kilowatt Hour here plus all the hydro debt and taxes added on.

[maker of toys]

let's not overlook the reduction in fire hazard the lower-total wattage in the closet brings. . . .  that's gotta be worth at least as much as the reduced power cost! <G>

[maker of toys]

for people who have a scholarly bent and are interested in transportation issues, I recommend the following bedside reading as thought provoking:

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Trans/T96-09_NxtIndusrialRev.pdf

my take is that several of the people here on fieldlines might be poised to break into the automotive market, and don't even know it yet.<G>  it seeks to prove that radical improvements in the energy costs of moving people around are possible without too radical a change in the WAY we move around.  I tripped over it this evening on a search for something else, and thougt it intriguing enough to bring to your collective attention.

-Dan

PS:

Does anyone out there know the Cd of a late-model full-size van?  I'm guessing 0.7, but I'd like to firm that number up a bit.

[fishfarm]

See if this site has your vehicle listed.

http://www.mayfco.com/tbls.htm

[finnsawyer]

I don't remember the manufacturer.  It was a couple of years ago.  I do think we have voltage problems in the area.  I may try one again, but am not very optimistic.

[finnsawyer]

According to geo scientists this planet was an ice ball for millions of years due to too low carbon dioxide levels.  The cycle was finally broken when volcanic activity raised the CO2 level enough (to about 10%, if I remember right).  In the frozen earth CO2 was not being removed completely by marine life in the oceans due to the ice cover.  Fortunately for us.  The point is that if we stopped  producing CO2 its level would decline naturally due to marine animals locking it up in their shells (basically making limestone).  You don't want the level to get too low either.

[benjamindees]

You really should try them again.  And there is a difference among manufacturers.  The first ones I got ($10 a piece) quickly turned to an unappealing orange glow.  But that was over three years ago, and I haven't thrown any away yet.  Even at $10 each, they easily pay for themselves.

[nothing to lose]

Bad experience, try again

I mean heck, my first girl friend did not work out either. Didn't stop me from trying a few more

In several years I only had 2 1/2 that don't still work. Kid droped one and it shattered on concrete, the other I left hanging on the back of a truck in the rain upside down, I was using that one as an outdoor work light and forgot about it durring a week of rain.

The 1/2 you probably wonder about

 It was a screw in ring type light and I replaced the bulb ring once but the screw in base still works fine with the new ring on it.

I really think that's all I had go bad, at least all I can remember at the moment. The ring type was/is about 10yrs old now. The rest I just started using in the last couple years. Regular bulbs I was always replacing, at least one a month somewhere in the house would blow. That was one of my big reasons for changing over all of them except the bathroom, the energy savings was another reason of course. I think I would change the bathroom also but the lights not used alot anyway and the fixture would need replaced too.