The comments in these articles are great; I especially love the guy who wrote, “It is mind-boggling that you can’t take deceitful strategy, terrible design, incompetent auto industry re-treads and make a great car.”
Btw, I’m not implying that there is no room for start-up EV companies; in fact, as I proved just last week, investors still have an appetite for companies like Vision Motor Cars. What’s different here, however, is a cool design and a price-point that makes sense, given the nature of the product offering.
How do we assess “cost” to fossil fuels vs “solar” energy? If the scenario that Malcolm Light posits in a post that he wrote for the Arctic Methane Emergency Group at the Arctic-News.blogspot comes to pass (namely the near term extinction of mankind along with most of the other life on the planet) how much more expensive, then, are fossil fuels compared to clean solar energy? How much shall we say that we paid for a gallon of gasoline? or a KWH of electricity?
Please, I’d like to know the answer…
Ed: I can’t comment on Mr. Light’s analysis, and I certainly won’t attempt an answer to your rhetorical question. But you bring up a point that I make regularly here: our refusal to “price in” the external costs of fossil fuels is arguably the single most reckless thing that we’re doing in our modern-day society.
Everywhere we turn we see increased pressure to get rid of coal in the U.S. California has no coal-fired power plants, but 40% of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from the burning of coal in neighboring states. That, according to this announcement by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, will cease entirely by 2025.
In my estimation, the rapid eradication of coal that we see here in the U.S. is a function of a sea-change in public sentiment, and that, in turn, is the result of extremely effective campaigns to promote public understanding of the dangers of coal. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a public awareness campaign more effective than the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal,” and I’m not alone in pointing out the gigantic effect this has had on consumer consciousness in the energy space.
Congratulations to its architects, and to the people who continue to make it happen.
Here’s an article on desertification, in particular, holding the line against the Kubuchi Desert, that contains a message, variations of which I predict you’ll hear a great deal over the coming years: “The top 6 – 8 inches of top soil is all that stands between us and extinction.”
Is this a rash, “the-sky-is-falling” type of statement? I’ll let you be the judge. It is undeniably true that things like reduction in rainfall, mismanagement of agricultural land, and the removal of trees and shrubs for firewood, biomass energy, etc. all conspire to create an ever-widening set of dust bowl conditions on huge swatches of previously fertile land. In fact, Dr. David Doty, one of the people I most admire for his understanding of science, believes that desertification is the largest single threat resulting from climate change.
In the parlance of the article, may we learn to “preserve and protect.”
I had an interesting discussion with energy program engineer Pierre Delforge from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) when I was up at the Green Grid conference the other day. It even started off well, when I asked Pierre if he happened to know one of NRDC’s most senior litigators Johanna Wald (who had graciously given me an interview for my first book, Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies.)
“Everyone knows Johanna,” he replied with a grin. I suppose I should have suspected that; after almost 40 years of protecting the natural environment against antagonistic forces, it’s understandable that she would have made a few million friends here and there.
Pierre went on to describe the work he does in helping reduce the ecological impact of powering consumer electronics, using both voluntary and mandatory programs. He gave good examples that explain his activities:
The “Energy Star” designation is earned by the top echelon of consumer products that run on external power. Perhaps 10% – 20% of the best refrigerators, television sets, personal computers, etc., are granted the right to carry this designation, and consumers who care about energy efficiency – either to reduce their utility bills or to create a healthier environment — are at liberty to choose them over “dirtier” products. This happens on the demand side, the”buy” side.
Meanwhile, on the supply or “sell” side, we have mandatory regulations that govern the minimum efficiency that is permitted in a product of a certain size and type, if it is to be sold in the U.S. For example, a 37″ color television can use no more than a certain number of Watts.
Why would this be necessary? Take the power supplies on PCs, for example, which are internal on desktops and external on laptops. I learned to my horror that cheap power supplies can be as little as 60% efficient; 40% of each kilowatt-hour used to run certain PCs never gets into the computer at all; it’s converted to heat, and dissipated. Over the lifetime of the computer, this will cost its owner $10 – $20 more in electricity charges than a high-efficiency model, not to mention what it costs the environment to have generated and wasted that electricity. So why does this happen? High-efficiency power supplies cost their manufacturers a few cents more to build, and those few cents go to their bottom line.
A tragic example, but one perfectly illustrative of the sad fact: we need both a carrot and a stick to get the job done in energy efficiency.
With more homeowners subscribing to a green lifestyle, finding an eco-friendly home isn’t nearly as difficult as it once was. While few homes can claim a zero carbon footprint, many factors will keep a house low-impact. When house hunting, here are some factors to consider.
1. Location, Location, Location
Location isn’t just about being able to stamp a flashy ZIP code onto envelopes. Location says a lot about lifestyle, and environmental impact as well. Cities, for instance, are often lauded for their strategic use of space, and many boast leading green initiatives, such as rooftop garden projects.
The same mentality can be applied to homes in the suburbs. In rural areas, seek relatively dense neighborhoods with smaller homes. Large yards allow residents to plant sustainable gardens. Look carefully, at the aspect of a home– the way a home is positioned on its plot of land. Nearby trees on the sunny side of the house help shade the house in the summer, thereby lowering cooling costs. To source the best house location, use an online property search site, which can give you a good sense of location details before you set foot on the property.
2. Energy Star Appliances
The biggest energy costs inside a home are often attributed to its appliances. In fact, refrigerators, microwaves, air conditioners, heaters and dishwashers alone account for more than half of the average family home’s energy costs per year.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides an excellent online resource for identifying energy-efficient appliances. The agency also applies Energy Star labels directly to approved energy-efficient appliances to assist buyers with their purchases. Look for their seal of approval on appliances during open houses, ask sellers directly about Energy Star status or jot down names and model numbers to research them later online. Note that not all appliances are sold with a home, but terms can be agreed upon during negotiations.
3. Strategic Heating and Cooling
Together, heating and cooling are two of the biggest contributors to a home’s footprint. Buyers looking for a home that heats and cools in a sustainable fashion should consider these three contributing features.
• Energy-efficient windows. Double-paned windows are no longer the best on the market. The EPA now recommends low-emittance(low-E) windows, which are coated with a thin metallic glazing to prevent radiative heat flow, i.e., the loss of heat in either direction. When house hunting, look for low-E windows and avoid homes with single-paned windows.
• Eaves. For hot climates, look for homes with eaves that cover any parts of the home that face the sun, effectively working much like shading trees.
• Insulation. Many homes do not have proper insulation, primarily in the roof, where the majority of a home’s heat is lost. A green home will also have insulation in the walls.
4. Alternative Energy Sources
Purchasing a home with solar panels is a BIG bonus.. Solar panels can entirely green a home’s powering and become a revenue source. In sunnier climates, homeowners may be able to sell extra energy back to the grid. While solar panels are becoming more popular, they’re still not all that common. Throughout the house hunt, look for flat, unobstructed places on a home’s roof where panels could be installed at a later date. The cost may be significant upfront, but homeowners will see a significant return on their investment. Expect years of energy savings and government (local, state and federal) rebates and incentives.
5. Savvy Use of Water
The way in which a home uses water plays a key role in determining its green status, particularly in drought-prone areas. A few things to consider:
• Low-flow toilets, shower heads and faucets. Toilets alone account for around 14 percent of an average home’s water usage. Look for low-flow toilets that rely more on gravity than water for flushing. Use faucets and shower heads with EPA WaterSense labels to significantly reduce consumption.
• Rain barrels and grey water systems. Truly green homes use rain barrels in the yard or grey water irrigation systems to redistribute excess water from showers and laundry cycles to outdoor plants.
• Solar hot water systems and heat pumps. From hot showers to sanitizing dishwashing cycles, electric hot water systems contribute as much as 20 percent to a home’s carbon footprint. Look for a passive or active solar hot water system, which uses the sun’s power, panels and evacuated tubes to heat water, or geothermal heat pumps.
Takeaways
There are countless ways that a home can be “green.” When house hunting, focus on homes with green potential rather than green perfection. Buyers should ask sellers about the environmental footprint of the home. Some homes are LEED-certified upfront.. Don’t forget to bring along a green professional to check on the seller’s claims. Consider these tips when house hunting for the ideal green home.
Author Bio Luke Clum and Tali Wee collaborated on the above article. Luke works as a designer and writer in Seattle, Washington. Tali blogs in the northwest and handles Miami community outreach for Zillow.
Have you ever honked at that guy who seems to just inch idly towards a red light, or who takes their time to accelerate once the light turns green? What about that jerk who seems to drive on the side of the road, never breaking the speed limit, despite cars whizzing by all around them? If so, then you might have just given your stamp of disapproval to what is known as a hypermiler — someone who is simply trying to do their part for the earth, stretch their gas usage, and save A TON of money in the process.
According to Mother Jones News, hypermiling can help you achieve 40 percent more miles per gallon than you would normally, allowing devout hypermilers to produce even less of a carbon footprint than many hybrid drivers.
How Low Can You Go?
Wayne Gerdes is held as the messiah, of sorts, to the hypermiling community. Having coined the term, he steers the helm of hypermiling community news, tips and training. Gerdes currently holds the record, having driven 1,445 miles on a single tank of fuel in a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid. At 81 mpg, he more than doubled the 39 mpg EPA rating. While he may be an extreme case, if everyone made a painless effort to adopt some of his techniques, the environment would applaud and our reliance on foreign oil would be lessened significantly. “Hypermiling not only makes you a more aware driver, but it also produces fuel savings that few other methods or practices ever will,” remarks Gerdes in Mother Jones article.
Nationwide hypermiling practices could not only reduce gas costs and reliance, but it would also create less toxic soil and air. According the the EPA, there are over 1,066 toxic chemical sites in the U.S., and over 11 million people are exposed to them. Companies like Sevenson Environmental carry the burden of cleaning up the worst of them through remediation, but lessening everyone’s toxic burden should be something we all strive to do.
Maintenance & Minimizing Mass
Every little bit helps. Scheduling regular maintenance for your car is of the utmost importance when it comes to saving gas. Low tire pressure can increase the resistance of your car by 1.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in all four tires. Using low weight motor oil and monitoring engine function is also an essential part of keeping your car primed. Jettisoning any excess weight also helps, from your camping chairs to your equipment racks, the lighter you make your car, the more it will thank you.
Stop and Go
Perhaps the practice with the most impact: learn to stop and go with ease. Because speed increases wind resistance, taking off like a bat out of hell causes your engine to work excessively harder, burning gas needlessly. The same goes for braking. Braking should be done with extreme ease. Every time you brake you’re wasting some of the gas you used to to accelerate. Improper braking alone can reduce your gas mileage by up to 33 percent. Yikes!
Don’t Be an Airhead
Reducing air conditioning usage can increase fuel efficiency by up to 25 percent, as the air burns gas like a brush fire in a match factory. Gerdes recommends cracking the driver’s window in front and the rear passenger’s window on the opposite side, which causes less drag. For high speeds he recommends closing the windows and using the fan/ventilation system.
Hypermilers definitely have something going for them — the savings are monumental and it’s probably one of the easiest things you can do to make a substantial environmental impact, advancing yourself into the realm of “true” environmentalist and retiring your armchair status.
I just published a short post on the article: U.S. Air Force Report to Congress Bashes Navy’s Biofuels Program in which I mentioned that I find the people who presume to tell the U.S. Navy how it should be planning to defend our country 30 years hence to be “sadly comical.”
Having said this, I will be surprised if biofuels has a long-term future. Helping my son with his botany this semester has reminded me how little of the energy a plant absorbs from the sun can be made available for human benefit. I predict that PV, CSP, and wind, which are more direct and efficient ways to capture solar energy will win the day.
To the degree we need liquid fuels, I believe that synthetic fuels will emerge to make this happen. And coincidentally, I had an email exchange with Dr. Doty (the developer of WindFuels – syn fuels from off-peak wind) earlier today. I remain bullish on what he’s doing.
Interesting commentary from Robert Rapier on a new report written by a navy captain absolutely savaging the navy’s Green Fleet program in particular and biofuels in general.
My 14-hour work day consisted mainly of a drive to and from the San Francisco Bay Area for three key meetings, the content of which I’ll share briefly.
I attended several sessions at this year’s Green Grid conference, which focuses on reducing energy cost and eco-impact of large data centers. The most impressive presentation for my money was delivered by Google. To put the whole thing into perspective, here’s a company that indexes 30 trillion URLs, delivers the results of 3 billion search queries per day, and does all this and so much more with 100% carbon neutrality. What they’ve done in reducing energy consumption and sourcing renewable energy is truly inspiring.
For lunch, I met my colleague Rich Breitbarth, COO of Resource Recovery Corporation; the company specializes in a variety of cutting-edge renewable energy technologies including a unique approach to the thermal anaerobic gasification of biomass. I’ve introduced Rich/RRC to five parties over the couple of years we’ve known one another, and they’ve gained significant levels of traction with three of the five; I’m confident that at least one of these deals will materialize over the next few months. Exciting stuff. We ate here; how this place only gets 3.5 stars on Yelp is beyond me; I thought it was incredible. Perhaps the comments that warn: “Don’t go during prime lunch hours because the line is out the door” are telling; yes, the place actually is packed, but that’s a good sign.
On the way home I went to visit my much-respected friend Jeff Brothers at his new offices in Carmel. Jeff”s company Sol Orchard is a savvy solar energy developer of significant proportion, and I always learn a great deal from our talks. This quote from his website speaks to his down-to-Earth pragmatism and good sense:
Global capacity for solar panel production has increased dramatically in the last three years, bringing panel prices down by over 40%. The combined effects of increased tax incentives, decreased costs, and rising concern over global warming have created a “perfect storm” of opportunity to build and finance cost-effective solar power projects.
Three good meetings, but a fair chunk of driving. Happy to be home.
