Zarquon wrote:A decade ago, at university, I was working on a few energy efficiency concepts for office buildings. And each demonstration or construction project we got funding for had "energy efficiency and comfort" in the project title. You have to assure people that they will get the exact same comfort levels they are used to (or better), but since we were so much smarter than others we'll deliver that comfort for a lot less energy. Mention the possibility of a few days in unusually winters with only 19°C (66F) in the office or more than 25°C (77F) in summer and they turn away. Management knows that they have a riot on their hands if that happens. It's unacceptable.
And IMO it's a generational issue. I know people who grew up in the former East Germany, where heating was practically free. Room temperature in winter was set by opening or closing windows. Some people liked 28°C in their living rooms. And some never changed that habit.
Newfie wrote:One place to start this is in our building codes. Developments are not designed to be energy efficient or to encourage mass transit. Unfortunately we have decades of such thinking here in the USA and consequently a large amount of very wasteful housing stock we can not afford to replace.
We need to figure ways to be more efficient. Higher fuel cost will enable that. Thus I support increase taxes on fossil fuels, dramatically higher, provided the collections go into reducing ff dependency and even greater effiency.
Newfie wrote:We own a 4 apartment brownstone in Philadelphia. Until this year we rented 3 apartments and lived In one. Now all 4 are rented. My Wife is a bug on effiency so we have had a lot of conversation about what to do.
It is a row house built about 1887 and is in a historic district. Walls are 2 bricks thick. LOTS of Windows because when it was built there was no AC. central oil forever hot air heat, included in rent. Window AC units, tenant pays electric. We never has AC in our unit but had to address that to rent it out. AC is a REQUIREMENT to rent even though we never missed it.
Not much you can do with a house like that, extremely little. The good thing is the common walls are almost infinite insulation. The Windows and exterior walls are near zero insulation. Wife put in new "energy efficient"Windows where we were allowed (over my objections.). They made a tiny difference. I rebuilt all the original Windows we weren't allowed to replace. Made a tiny difference.
So we have moved from 1000 sq feet to a boat, under 400 sq feet. Little or no heat, no AC, solar and wind. Good for us right?
No. Nothing has changed because the building still stands and is occupied and still burns as much or more ff as it ever did.
So our conservation measures did nothing. Why? Because there is someone to use the old building. Because there are more people, someone to fill the hole we left behind. Someone to burn those calories we don't.
How do you fix that?
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:The only way to fix it would be to build a new 4 unit apartment building that is super energy efficient, move the residents of the old building in, then demolish the old building so it can no longer be used by anyone in the future.
Newfie wrote:But that's just the issue. Even if it were physically and politically possible would it be worthwhile from a CC viewpoint?
To be zero net energy the site would have to abandoned. Almost zero sunshine.
There is energy use to tear down the old house and dispose of it properly.
New site development energy.
Energy to build the new housing.
I just don't see that math adding up.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
careinke wrote:KJ, I enjoyed reading your vision, thank you.
I agree it is certainly possible to reduce FF consumption to 15%, or less, of present day use with little to no loss of comfort. As a matter of fact, our health both physical and mental would probably improve. Finally, I also appreciate that you take action to validate your beliefs. Because without action, you have nothing.
That said, I was a little surprised that so much of your vision relies on government force, something that is very hard for you or I to achieve. Especially since you mentioned a ground up movement.
Check out "Open source ecology," as an engineer, I can guarantee you will love it:
http://opensourceecology.org/
Highly self efficient (totally?) homes you can build yourself for less than $25,000 in materials for a 750 sq ft model. Plus all materials sourced within 50 miles, with a lot of the materials produced on site.
They use permaculture principals as applied to housing and tool making.
Thanks again,
Zarquon wrote:Pellet heating:
http://energytransition.de/2014/09/is-e ... s-forests/
Pellet heating took off in Germany in the late nineties. Going green was one thing, taking advantage of cheap wood waste was another. A sweet deal, for a while. Last thing I heard was that prices are pretty low at the moment, but were close to natural gas a few years ago. That's because the whole thing became so successful that we quickly ran out of wood waste and began importing freshly cut Canadian lumber for our "green" heating. No reforestation of course, that would ruin the economics.
KaiserJeep wrote:Imagine a USA where petroleum has escalated 400% in cost, as has natural gas. I think it is a decade away.
ROCKMAN wrote:"...where petroleum has escalated 400% in cost, as has natural gas."??? NG well head prices have increased from the lowest point last January of $1.75/MCF to the current $2.80/MCF. A healthy % jump but nothing close to 400%. And in a longer time frame it's at the lowest price for the great majority of the last 10+ years. Especially when it was 400% higher then the current price. Perhaps that's the time frame you meant and I just misread you. But very quickly after spiking 500% higher the price fell almost to the current level.
Imagine a USA where petroleum has escalated 400% in cost, as has natural gas. I think it is a decade away.
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests