[CraigBen]

Peak Oil?

So what will you give up?

well?

It has to be a joint effort - one way or other it is coming, so let's decide.

I'll start the ball rolling :

1. Burning electric lights when I am not in the room.

2. ........

[OneLoneClone]

probably I'll just give up my current hopes and dreams

[Byron100]

Peak Oil?

So what will you give up?

well?

It has to be a joint effort - one way or other it is coming, so let's decide.

I'll start the ball rolling :

1. Burning electric lights when I am not in the room.

2. I'm giving up debt.

[donshan]

Peak Oil?

So what will you give up?

well?

It has to be a joint effort - one way or other it is coming, so let's decide.

I'll start the ball rolling :

1. Burning electric lights when I am not in the room.

2. ........

I note that you just joined this forum, so welcome. I too have found it a place to learn something every time I visit.

Your suggesting turning out lights, prompts my answer here since it is a very common misconception of how to save energy.

During the heating season, ten 100 watt bulbs consume 1 Kw of electricity and add 3412 BTU per hour of heat to the house (touch a bulb- it is hot!). If you turn the lights out, the house heating system has to run longer to replace that 3412 BTU of heat from gas, oil or wood, or whatever you heat with. Thus there is NO total energy savings by turning out lights, since the heat loss of the house is set by the construction/insulation of the house and the thermostat setting. There may be a small cost savings if electricity costs more than the others. If you heat with electricity ( not a heat pump) then it is a wash- one electric heat source switched to another. You just save a little money on bulbs.

In contrast, turning off lights in an air conditioned house in the summer time saves energy twice, the lights plus the A/C compressor electricity to remove that 3412 BTU of heat from the house. So you are partly right.

I would suggest an alternative. At this time of year a far larger electric energy saving is to eliminate outdoor electric Christmas decoration lights. They heat the outdoors and are a total waste of energy.

In the end though, saving small items are not enough. Peak oil is the coming shortage of cheap liquid fuels, mostly for transportation. Thus my candidate is to start with personal transport.

Reduce the vehicles owned from two (or more) to one ( or none) and then reduce the miles you need to drive by lifestyle changes. We cut from two cars and a truck used just occasionally to just one car.

The reason this is also so wildly unpopular is that we place a higher premium on optimizing time, rather than saving energy. By definition productivity is output per unit of time.

Thus a married couple with two cars, can quickly get to two jobs, juggle multiple errands, get kids to multiple places in a day, and maximize the things they get done in a day. Using a bus takes more time to do 5 errands in 5 places. Cut to just one shared car and they can't get it all done! They use fuel more efficiently, but use time much less efficiently. In some cases cutting to one car, might mean cutting to one income.

Cutting down to one car almost certainly means slowing down the pace of living and slowing down the number of events done in an average day. It is a major lifestyle change. But eliminating some of those events probably saves both energy and money too. Slowing down may be better for everyone, and save visits to the doctor for stress illnesses too.

We have not begun to consider the lifestyle effects of reduced use of the automobile on family life and the economy. Cutting from two cars just to one would seem draconian to a lot of couples. They need to start thinking about it. Someday even having one car may be a luxury of the rich.

[CraigBen]

.....Thus there is NO total energy savings by turning out lights, since the heat loss of the house is set by the construction/insulation of the house and the thermostat setting.

A typical response by an energy-guzzling North American! My Dad always told me to put an extra jumper on if I was cold.... not rely on the thermostat !

(in good humour!)

CB

[RonMN]

I've given up AC for 2 summers & turned the heat down to 60 F this winter...that alone wont do it...but it's a beginning. Problem is...there are soooooooooo many that find me a total FOOL for not using the AC

We're in deep deep doo doo!!!

[Seadragon]

Ok, Ron, if you actually live in Minnesota, turning off the A/C in the summer may be an option for you. It's not for us living in South Texas. I can live for most of the winter without turning on the heat (hell, just wear more clothes, how tough is that?) but summer here without A/C is brutal. Wish people here hadn't forgotten how to build houses that took advantage of shade, breezes, orientation, etc.

BTW, I'd give up the car, if I could bike without getting run over out here in suburban hell.

[Merlin]

BTW, I'd give up the car, if I could bike without getting run over out here in suburban hell.

I'm not sure that "suburban hell" where you live is a whole lot different from here. Yes, there are streets I won't ride, with four lanes of heavy traffic. But there are also side streets and bike paths conveniently located here and there. Are you absolutely sure?

For me, the question is: Am I really retired? Answer, Yes? Get rid of one car. Answer, No? Bike probably won't get me to work.

Steve, in NW Indiana

[Jack]

What will I, personally, give up? Nothing. Not one thing.

Sacrifice does nothing to benefit me. It might help mankind as a whole if everyone did so; but people don't do that.

If prices go into the stratosphere, such that I benefit from not spending money on energy or fuel, then I'll do what's necessary. But sacrifice for some purported common good? No. There's nothing in it for me or thee.

[donshan]

.....Thus there is NO total energy savings by turning out lights, since the heat loss of the house is set by the construction/insulation of the house and the thermostat setting.

A typical response by an energy-guzzling North American! My Dad always told me to put an extra jumper on if I was cold.... not rely on the thermostat !

(in good humour!)

CB

Hmmm!. Is this the beginning of a friendly debate?

Let me assure you I am not an energy-guzzling North American! I have run detailed heat loss/ heat gain calculations on a number of houses, and worked 40 years in the energy industry. I currently live in a carefully designed, partially passive solar home where the small number of electric lights do in fact provide significant heat.

About the jumper (sweater). It depends on where your father sets the thermostat. While people come in all sizes and activity levels, the human body gives off heat; a figure of 100 to 400 BTU/hr of heat is given off by each person. Using a value of 341 for convenience, you are about a 100 watt light bulb. (If you have ever been in a crowded room on a warm day you have observed this fact- crowded rooms heat up.) If the room is only cool, the insulation of the sweater is enough insulation to keep your body temperature normal with this 341 BTU/hr body furnace going. However, people have died of hypothermia inside houses in sweaters if the room gets too cold.

Thus the basic heat input into a house with the thermostat turned OFF, is the sum of the occupant's body heat + the electrical lighting heat + the appliances (TV, refrigerator, etc.)+ sunlight through windows. This link gives some basics of the heat loads in a house. This is for an air conditioner, but these factors also provide the same heat values during the heating season. Many commercial office buildings with lots of people and lighting and computers etc, require NO heating system at all. Rather the problem is to keep them cool even in winter!

http://www.meaco.com/airconsizing.htm

In my passive solar house( built in 1996), with 6 inch insulated walls, special windows, 36 inches of insulation in the attic, and compete urethane foam crack sealing and plastic Tyvac external wrapping , this internal heat production is enough to keep the house at 70 deg F, preventing the gas heat furnace from coming on until outside temperatures are sustained near freezing. We close blinds after dark.

Thus, if I were to turn off all the lights, unplug the appliances, and put on our coats, all that would happen is the gas heat would come on sooner to replace that lost occupant, lighting and appliance heat input with gas heat in order to keep the house at 70F. If if drop the thermostat to 60F, which we do automatically at night, the gas heat is delayed even longer. We definitely used the gas, even with all this insulation, when temps hit -19F with 2 ft of snow two years ago.

Does that sound like an Energy-Guzzling North American? Our gas bill is less than our phone bill-except the occasional extreme. Since the electric rate is only 6.8 cents/KwH here, the savings of turning off lights to just replace the heat with gas is not worth the trouble, especially since gas is now roughly equal in cost to the electricity.

Are you a warm bright bulb too?

(BTW If I detected a move of this thread, thanks, moderator, this belongs in this topic)

[lowem]

Engaging Sports mode and going to 3rd-stage VTEC ...

[Jam1esc0t]

In the process of selling four of my cars, and using some of the money to insulate my house further.

[basil_hayden]

I gave up half my cable TV, the half with the Weather Channel on it.
I intend to go no further, as this was a great sacrifice.

The Weather Channel is clearly the best cable channel.

[Seadragon]

BTW, I'd give up the car, if I could bike without getting run over out here in suburban hell.

I'm not sure that "suburban hell" where you live is a whole lot different from here. Yes, there are streets I won't ride, with four lanes of heavy traffic. But there are also side streets and bike paths conveniently located here and there. Are you absolutely sure?
Steve, in NW Indiana

Unfortunately, a four lane highway is all that will take me into town...if only there were a few side streets and bike paths. I actually rode my bike a short distance (5 miles) on the shoulder, but it was on Sunday, the only day traffic would allow it. I wasn't kidding about the suburban hell...

[LadyRuby]

Who says we'll have choices in what we'll give up? Many of us won't.

Anyway, I've already given up some of my dreams. But that doesn't mean I've lost all hope in having a satisfactory future.

It's all about the attitude.

[dub_scratch]

......if I would have not done so already, the answer would be easy for me. The first thing I would give up is driving. Of course I did that already by reducing my driving from 14,000 miles a year to a paltry 500 miles per year.

Ok since that has been done, what would be the next thing I would give up.....hmmmmm.......

I got it!
I'll give up everybody else's car driving!