# The Bigger Picture on Energy Efficiency Upgrades



## valuman (Feb 20, 2015)

This isn't meant to be preachy. That's not what I'm about, so please don't take me that way. That said, I don't understand when people post about being green, then do what is purported to be a thorough cost analysis in order to determine whether an energy upgrade is a good decision or not. I tend to think more in terms of the big picture and whether I can afford to make changes that reduce my energy usage, not whether I'm going to see any immediate cost savings.

For example, I paid more for a TDi Jetta because I want to burn less fuel, not because I want to save a few bucks on fuel. Why? Because I see the oil industry as extremely destructive to our world, environmentally, economically and from a national security standpoint. My company provides me with a Prius, not because it's an overall lower cost of ownership, but because it's in alignment with our mission and will hopefully provide a long term gain in the big picture.

What is the path to sustainability? It's not oil and I'll do what I can to reduce the amount of oil products I consume.


----------



## BrotherBart (Feb 20, 2015)

Oil companies provide what oil users demand. They don't make anybody use it.

I retired from an oil major. And loved when protestors showed up at our headquarters. In cars.


----------



## sesmith (Feb 21, 2015)

It all goes hand in hand.  Just the title you chose would imply that an upgrade, being more energy efficient might have a payback.  To get the general public to buy in, there has to be some sort of benefit, than just being able to say you did a "green" thing.  So I'm always glad to read when someone does a cost analysis and can justify their choice with some sort of payback that makes sense.  Others are then more likely to do the same thing.

There are also personal choices when it comes to these upgrades.  I know of people who have put up solar panels, but could have dropped their energy usage and made more of an impact on their footprint, by doing other things with their money first, like improvements to their insulation and / or heating system.  These are the things that no one sees.  In a case like this, maybe a thorough cost and payback analysis would have helped the bigger picture.  

Your example of the TDI, is one that some here might argue with and say you should have gone electric or hybrid.  In our case, we just replaced our Toyota Yaris with a VW Golf TDI.  Fuel economy did play a major factor in the purchase, but for us, it was mainly comfort and driving experience.  The Yaris was very efficient, but long drives were just no fun.  There is no comparison between a Golf TDI and a Yaris, driving and comfort wise.  The golf will probably cost more to maintain, and less in fuel.  I suppose, it can be argued that it is a "green" car, but there's more to buying a car than just a moral stand.  The average car buyer needs more to go that way, like high fuel prices and a car that they want to buy.


----------



## valuman (Feb 21, 2015)

I can see where you're coming from, especially since you worked in the industry, BrotherBart. The challenge I have with that is, our economy and infrastructure are petroleum powered. The demand was created over decades and supplied by local, then regional companies who competed to supply us with product. Today's market is very different, with only a small handful of oil companies and consortiums controlling the supply and wielding massive financial muscle in the world of policy. Because of that combination we don't have many, if any practical options to petroleum.

Taking the bus is a perfect example of this. While it still burns petroleum, it's much more efficient than driving alone in a car and quite likely the only viable option for many who are trying to reduce their use of it. My driving a TDi is a similar example, it's the best option for me. If I had other choices, I might select one, but I don't at this point in time.

I hope I haven't stepped across any lines here. My hope is to have a considered discussion, not an argument. I really appreciate this board and want to stay within the bounds of civility without causing any moderation headaches. I'll leave it to the management to decide if this is a discussion that can be had without escalating into something unpleasant.


----------



## valuman (Feb 21, 2015)

sesmith said:


> It all goes hand in hand.  Just the title you chose would imply that an upgrade, being more energy efficient might have a payback.  To get the general public to buy in, there has to be some sort of benefit, than just being able to say you did a "green" thing.  So I'm always glad to read when someone does a cost analysis and can justify their choice with some sort of payback that makes sense.  Others are then more likely to do the same thing.
> 
> There are also personal choices when it comes to these upgrades.  I know of people who have put up solar panels, but could have dropped their energy usage and made more of an impact on their footprint, by doing other things with their money first, like improvements to their insulation and / or heating system.  These are the things that no one sees.  In a case like this, maybe a thorough cost and payback analysis would have helped the bigger picture.
> 
> Your example of the TDI, is one that some here might argue with and say you should have gone electric or hybrid.  In our case, we just replaced our Toyota Yaris with a VW Golf TDI.  Fuel economy did play a major factor in the purchase, but for us, it was mainly comfort and driving experience.  The Yaris was very efficient, but long drives were just no fun.  There is no comparison between a Golf TDI and a Yaris, driving and comfort wise.  The golf will probably cost more to maintain, and less in fuel.  I suppose, it can be argued that it is a "green" car, but there's more to buying a car than just a moral stand.  The average car buyer needs more to go that way, like high fuel prices and a car that they want to buy.


Absolutely! For the vast majority, the choices need to be practical and provide their own justification for the time, effort and money invested. A lot of folks go solar because they want to continue to enjoy the way they use electricity without depending upon generation sources they have no control over. It seems that you and I both chose our vehicles for the combination of efficiency and driving experience. I drive a lot of miles and I want to make that as enjoyable as possible without throwing money out the window along the way.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 21, 2015)

It's complicated, for sure. One fact is that the world now, and always has, thrived on energy. Cheap and plentiful oil for a long time has been that energy source. Other new energy sources, primarily wind and solar, are becoming that cheap energy source. Good for all of us. A second leg of a multiple leg stool is marketing with the powers of better understanding what motivates human behavior, and then changing that, or manipulating that, for profit, for image, for "being the right kind of person." A third leg is the power of big money to manipulate the political and economic system for its benefit. All of these are interrelated. 

All of this operates within natural systems, environmental, climate, weather, temperature, rainfall, drought, flood, extinction, new species, disease, viruses, etc. These ultimately will determine the outcome of human impact, or regardless of human impact.

One thing not well accepted, or better yet rejected, is that humans are part of and not external to these natural forces. Humans will rise and fall with nature, she will have her way, and all inputs, including human inputs, will drive nature in her continual quest for stability and her handling of instability, and in this quest the ultimate impact on humans, or on cockroaches, is irrelevant. Will humans adapt? They will try. Will they succeed? Time will tell. The cockroaches likely will adapt better than humans.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 21, 2015)

Hmmm.  I would politely counter the OP that the choice between cheaper and greener is a false dichotomy.  If we list the 'defenses' of the fossil-fuel status quo, reasons to just keep using FF, it is a mixture of...

1. We don't need it (Peak Oil or AGW are not real)
2. We have no choice (Renewable Energy 'doesn't work' or there 'isn't enough')
3. We can't afford it (RE is just too expensive, or RE+storage is just too expensive, so RE is always a niche)
4. We don't want to live with less (given the above, RE advocates will force lower consumption, tiny dangerous cars, etc)

I would say that '1' and '2' are on the ropes these days, even slim majorities of folks on the right think AGW is 'real' and ~80% of Americans think we should build more solar and wind.

'3' is in a state of flux in 2015.  A lot of economists have been reporting estimates for the cost of switching the economy to a mostly RE basis (say 80% lower CO2) that include zero cost in the uncertainty range (within the error bars).  Notably, zero cost even without subsidies or externalities like lower health care costs! Consensus is not there yet, but it seems likely that when health externalities are included, CO2 mitigation in the energy sector will be negative net cost to the economy.  Even if the estimates are incorrect and the costs are net positive, the worst case maximum estimates of cost are quite manageable (like 1% of GDP).

Once 1-3 are debunked.....'4' ceases to have any traction as a 'scare tactic'

----------------------------------------------------------

In my own case, like most people I make lots of life decisions that involve energy and money.  Some things do a lot to save CO2 (a concern of mine) and save me $$ at the same time with good ROI, say >10% per year.  Some things I do are still green but end up costing me more money than alternative choices or have an ROI of <10% per year.

Since I am investing any extra cash I have for my retirement or my kids college, and expecting to earn 10% or so per year, I see anything with and ROI<10% as costing me money (opportunity cost).

On this board, I will tend to 'crow' about green moves that save stupid amounts of $$, i.e. > >10% ROI.  Maybe others will make similar moves. Or maybe I will learn from others' experience.

Conversely, if I make some other green moves that save <10% ROI, I might post them here, or I might not, but I don't 'crow' so much as I see it just as a personal choice to spend money, that I don't expect others to emulate or learn from.


----------



## semipro (Feb 21, 2015)

valuman said:


> What is the path to sustainability?


Warning, some rambling and scattered thoughts below.

Some see it as complex; so complex that many throw their hands up in the air and claim "it doesn't matter" or the "science isn't final".  Like politics though, IMO its worth investing the time to get closer to the truth rather than allowing others to try and do it for you.

E.g., one might say that your choice to drive a TDi, while using less FF, also created more pollution and disease than the alternatives. A really detailed life cycle analysis where the indirect effects and unintended consequences are quantified may reveal that your choice resulted in more adverse impact (and possibly use of FF) rather than less.

Like litter on the roadside, it only takes one jackwagon with trash flying out bed of their pickup truck to really have an impact, in effect negating the efforts of the many others that somehow keep their trash in their vehicle as they drive by.  Likewise, the efforts of us peons will have little impact compared to, say, the US military.

IMO, if you can just get individuals (and entities) to care enough to at least try and do the right thing you've won.  Using ROI as justification rather than moral admonishment is one way to achieve this.

Edit: Related interesting read on who is investing in rooftop solar.  BTW, its not the people that can most afford it. 
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...rise-of-rooftop-solar-among-the-middle-class/


----------



## valuman (Feb 21, 2015)

semipro said:


> E.g., one might say that your choice to drive a TDi, while using less FF, also created more pollution and disease than the alternatives. A really detailed life cycle analysis where the indirect effects and unintended consequences are quantified may reveal that your choice resulted in more adverse impact (and possibly use of FF) rather than less.


I'm not following this. AFAIK, burning fewer gallons of low sulfur diesel in a modern engine is less polluting than burning more gallons of gasoline. That said, I'm always willing to learn new things, so please feel free to educate me.



semipro said:


> IMO, if you can just get individuals (and entities) to care enough to at least try and do the right thing you've won.  Using ROI as justification rather than moral admonishment is one way to achieve this.


If you're saying that in order for us to change our energy sources on a mass scale, there must be a viable business reason to do so, from both the consumer and supplier point of view, I totally agree. I believe that exists now for many consumers as well as some companies and the adoption rate would be higher if the true cost of continuing to base our energy use on petroleum products was more fully articulated.


----------



## semipro (Feb 21, 2015)

valuman said:


> I'm not following this. AFAIK, burning fewer gallons of low sulfur diesel in a modern engine is less polluting than burning more gallons of gasoline. That said, I'm always willing to learn new things, so please feel free to educate me.


First, let me say I don't know the answer to the question I posed about your choice of TDi.  I'm merely say that without life cycle impact quantification its very hard to know the ultimate impact of your choice.

That said, the nature of compression combustion versus spark combustion results in differences in efficiencies, operating characteristics, and exhaust emissions.  Diesel engines may emit less carbon than otto cycle engines per mile but they typically emit more, harder to treat and manage, exhaust emissions. Also, the newest diesel technologies require the use of urea exhaust fluids that require increased user maintenance as well as production.

Europe is reconsidering their long-standing support of diesel vehicles because of these and other factors.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/627c6812-7faf-11e4-adff-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3SOkYX6VD
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...racks-down-on-Britain-over-air-pollution.html
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fumes-worse-petrol
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/353na4_en.pdf

As an analogy, I had a very "green" friend who rode a motorcycle because he believed the GHG, carbon, and other environmental impacts would be less than his driving his car.  He was astounded to find later that every motorcycle sold in the US released more air pollution (mass-per-mile) than every car sold.  This is because of the relatively low tech design of motorcycle engines compared to cars.  This was true even of fuel-injected motorcycles with catalytic converters.  BTW, he got rid of the motorcycle.  I"m not sure he made the right decision though.

Edit: I should have added early on that exhaust emissions are dependent upon much more than just quantity of fuel burned.  E.g., you can burn less fuel and still create more emissions.  Carbon emission can be estimated solely on fuel used but carbon is just one of many emissions.


----------



## semipro (Feb 21, 2015)

valuman said:


> I believe that exists now for many consumers as well as some companies and the adoption rate would be higher if the true cost of continuing to base our energy use on petroleum products was more fully articulated.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## DBoon (Feb 21, 2015)

The essence of your question implies that most people make rational, ROI-driven decisions, and the fact is that few people do, even if they think they are.  Economists are finally only beginning to realize this (about 50 years too late).  

Case in point (and I went through this with my wife before she bought a TDI, so I'm not picking on you):


valuman said:


> burning fewer gallons of low sulfur diesel in a modern engine is less polluting than burning more gallons of gasoline.


It's not necessarily less polluting, and it's not necessarily more efficient on a miles/BTU basis (diesel has 140,000 BTUs/gal, gasoline 120,000 BTUs/gal.  A Golf TDI that can get 52 mpg on the highway is about the same as a gasoline-powered car that can get 44 miles/gal, and a Prius hybrid would be better yet.  However, at the end of the day, she bought what she liked, and feels good about the decision, and the efficiency is good (though not the best).  Frankly, I'm thrilled I don't have to drive a Prius - it is about the least enjoyable car to drive ("soul sucking" is how one non-automotive publication described it).  I like the Golf, but my 2002 Saturn still gets me 47mpg in the summer and 40 mpg in the winter, so I'll be hanging on to that for a while longer.  

Another case in point - friends who replace a 35 mpg car with a new Prius hybrid (let's imagine that is a $15,000 purchase after trade-in).  For $15k, they are saving 100 gallons of fuel a year, for perhaps 10-12 years (life of vehicle).   For $4k, I upgrade my oil boiler and save 100 gallons of oil a year for likely a 25 to 30 year period.  My purchase is a much better investment, from an ROI perspective, but I don't drive my oil boiler to a friend's house and show it off and get "enviro cred points" for buying it.  It is just a dull, boring oil boiler and nobody wants to hear about that, while everyone loves to see the new car, and the green bonus points go to the person with the Prius - that is the entire marketing strategy of the Prius.  To most, I look like like part of the problem.    

At some point, if you are making rational ROI choices, you have to decide what to do first - there is never an "infinite" pile of money to apply to green improvements.  I would love to be carbon-neutral.  But I am not in a financial position to do that now, nor is it practical with my existing work situation.  So I pick and choose the best things I can do first, while at the same time making sure I can enjoy my remaining years, and if a Golf TDI is a bit of a backslide, compared to other choices that can be made, that's just the way it is.  Installing a 5.3kW solar system and a mini-split to heat a house that I am remodeling is a good investment, and pays off given the oil savings, and my long-term plans for the property and life.  Trading in my existing car for something even more efficient (to save 100 gallons of gasoline a year) would seem to be better to most people (and a more public statement of my greenness), but it doesn't make my ROI cut - I post green, then do an ROI, and fail to act.


----------



## sesmith (Feb 21, 2015)

On the cars, the epa has just published their 2015 guide:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2015.pdf

Besides fuel economy, it also has a relative scale for CO2 emissions, so you can compare cars.  As far as modern diesels are with emissions, I do know that the 2015 vw golf tdi meets California LEV III standards, which won't even be required there for several years.  There is no indication from the tailpipe, that you are behind a diesel vehicle.  The car does come with a pretty complex exhaust and emission system, though.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Feb 21, 2015)

The payback is 90% of what matters to me.  Instead of an ultra efficient condensing boiler, I chose to insulate and air seal.  I'd rather the boiler I have not turn on.  If you want to call it green, go ahead.  I'll call it fiscal responsibility.  I estimate that summer electricity will be around 100 to 150 kWh per month, and my family's standard of living is higher than before I started my campaign against the electric company.  Call it green if you want, but saving the earth wasn't my motivation for lowering the electric bill.


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 21, 2015)

Nice thread.

In the end most people do what they do because everyone else does it too.  Monkey see Monkey do. Once a nebulous need to retool our electrical grid/supply/cars/homes reaches a tipping point in the larger culture, and it is clear that the changes are win-win-win-win for costs/air pollution/AGW/sustainability then the necessary changes will become ubiquitous and inevitable.  Eventually the new infrastructure will get associated with 'progress' and health and cost savings, and the old infrastructure will be seen as a dead end, or a bad investment, or a money pit.

Folks will expect cars to drive quietly and smoothly with a ton of torque (like an EV), homes to be comfortable all seasons and have great IAQ (like a super-insulated home with all electric or direct vented heating units and active ventilation), appliances will all be ultra-low energy consumption, etc.

Will people still be buying all this stuff to be 'green'...Nope.  People will be buying it all to conform, and because anything else will be generally seen as foolish/out of style/wasteful/dangerous/etc.


----------



## valuman (Feb 22, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Will people still be buying all this stuff to be 'green'...Nope.  People will be buying it all to conform, and because anything else will be generally seen as foolish/out of style/wasteful/dangerous/etc.


This shows really good insight to the American mindset. I've been saying for years that we'll eventually get to the point where not having a solar system on your home will be cause for some handwringing and that people will be bragging about how their solar system is bigger than yours. I guess that would be on the other side of the "tipping point."


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 22, 2015)

I hope that rooftop solar doesn't become de rigeuer.  I live on a N face of a hill covered in 100 yo trees and can barely see blue sky from my yard.  And I would like to sell my house someday.

Since I think the suitable rooftops are a little inadequate for the amount of solar most folks need, I think we will see industrial solar.  It will be interesting to see how this scales....will there just be a small number of enormous projects in rural areas, or will there be smaller projects integrated into neighborhoods, like brownfields, or mall roofs or big box parking lots, or will we see both?  Will the projects be owned by investor owned utilities, or will some be co-ops that folks can buy shares in?  Who knows?  

That is, when solar penetration is high, and we can buy it at a reasonable price from the grid, the 'green cachet' of rooftop solar might become small to non-existent.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 22, 2015)

Recognizing that many do not have immediate funds for their private solar, and that many sites are not well situated, MN also encourages community solar projects, relatively small to medium scale solar where individuals can buy into the output. Several of these are now being built and interest is high. Some of the major MN utilities are buying into these projects as well and otherwise encouraging them, and also utility scale solar is moving forward at a pace which likely will increase, regardless of current incentives. Solar is increasingly cost effective at all levels.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Feb 22, 2015)

With Teslas battery ideas, it's entirely possible that hoses can be partially, or even fully off grid, quite easily.  It all comes down to cost.  I really like the idea of individual houses on their own system.

The back of my house faces South.  My 9/12 pitch even places it close to the optimum angle for collection.  I'd be a great candidate.  If I ever went solar, I'd probably set up a new electrical panel and move circuits over to the new system while keeping the old as a fail safe.

It would drive the utility crazy changing out meters left and right thinking I was stealing power somehow.


----------



## valuman (Feb 22, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Since I think the suitable rooftops are a little inadequate for the amount of solar most folks need, I think we will see industrial solar.  It will be interesting to see how this scales....will there just be a small number of enormous projects in rural areas, or will there be smaller projects integrated into neighborhoods, like brownfields, or mall roofs or big box parking lots, or will we see both?  Will the projects be owned by investor owned utilities, or will some be co-ops that folks can buy shares in?  Who knows?  .


I'm not a big fan of utility scale solar arrays, but they're being built now in many places. I think community solar is a great solution for those folks who's homes won't work for a rooftop, or small ground array. 150- 200kw can be built on 1.5 acres, sited for maximum production and minimal footprint. Then those who can't do residential solar can simply buy a membership in, or a portion of those community arrays and have the kWh produced by their share applied to their electric bills. They'll also see a quick, or possibly an immediate ROI, depending on the specific business model being used.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Feb 22, 2015)

I always liked the idea of solar shingles.  Every house will eventually need to be reroofed.  If the cost of a system could be lowered due to the new roof being put on I think many more would bite on it.  If a new roof was going to cost $10k, and a solar shingle roof $15k I'd be thinking long and hard and crunching numbers to see how long that payback period was.  Even if the payback didn't happen, it might work out to a really cheap roof.


----------



## DBoon (Feb 27, 2015)

I really believe that people likely fall into 4 categories on this topic - you have to know how a person thinks to understand what they really want.  

My four categories are people who do the following:

1. Just make improvements or investments because the technology seems cool and they like cool technology, or they are on a "mission" (e.g. carbon-neutral, reduce oil consumption, etc.).  
2. See improvements or energy reductions as "investments" and will do the math to understand the ROI or the energy usage impact, and the best ROI to tackle first.
3. Have some "belief" or "feeling" that they are paying too much, and make a purchase or have some work done to mitigate the cost, perhaps based on what a salesperson tells them, without ever really knowing or learning whether there was a real savings or not.  
4. Want to be acknowledged by a wider community for a "contribution", so make purchases that advertise their "contribution" to the public before anything else. 

People in the first or second category will admit to being in the first or category.  Maybe this is 10% of the overall population, at the most.  Probably most people on this forum at Hearth.com are in the second category.  Eaten by Limestone said it best:





EatenByLimestone said:


> The payback is 90% of what matters to me. Instead of an ultra efficient condensing boiler, I chose to insulate and air seal....If you want to call it green, go ahead. I'll call it fiscal responsibility.


.  

People in the third category may think they are in the second category, but they can't or won't "do the math" and can't or won't explain the logical reasoning behind their decision.  I'd estimate that this is probably 60-70% of the overall population. They may talk a little like they are in category 2, but if you are a category 2 person, you will find out in three questions or less that they are really category 3. The classic example is the person who spends a bunch of money for new windows for their house because their house is too cold, and then convinces themselves that the house is a lot warmer afterwards and that they are saving a lot of money.  I know a lot of people like this.  These are the people who ask you for advice to convince themselves they are doing the right thing, and then likely never take your advice.  

People in the fourth category will never admit to being in this category since that is admitting to a high level of vanity or ability to be manipulated (my opinion) by marketing messages.  They will describe their investment or improvement as financially driven, but in reality, the more you question them as to why they made the purchase they did, the less likely you will hear a financial justification that really makes sense and/or their reasons will keep changing.  I think this is 10-30% of the population, or at least the % of the population that think this way and can afford the big ticket purchases we are discussing here (e.g. cars, solar panels, etc.).

I was faced with a similar choice as EatenbyLimestone - pay an extra $2k (or more) for a condensing boiler and save an extra 30 gallons of oil a year (maybe).  Didn't seem worth it (category 2) - there are better ways to spend my money, and (unlike some things) I don't find condensing boilers so cool that I want to buy one just for the sake of buying one (not category 1).   I do have a personal mission to reduce my oil usage to as low as possible (I believe I am funding unfriendly governments and peoples through my oil purchases), so this probably bumped the purchase up the ladder a bit (category 1).   I had a co-worker buy a Prius, and he did it because he likes new technology, and definitely not for best MPG or efficiency (category 1).  My neighbor bought a Prius and he definitely wants to advertise to the world how green he is.  He can't understand that my decision not to buy a Prius and keep an older car that basically gets the same MPG as his is as good for the environment as his decision - because my decision announces me as a poor person who can't afford a newer car, doesn't care about the environment, or something similar (who knows?) (he is category 4).


----------



## jebatty (Feb 28, 2015)

What about modifying your #4 to "Want to be acknowledged by a wider community as being the "right kind of person," so make purchases that advertise their "lifestyle" to their part of the public with whom they want to be accepted and want to impress by showing they are part of the "right people."


----------



## thinkxingu (Feb 28, 2015)

If the OP was really concerned, he'd walk.

JK--I appreciate this has remained civil and would like to add a dimension I haven't seen discussed: there are many articles that examine the "whole" impact of a vehicle that are interesting. Specifically, though the Prius may get ridiculous mileage, the building process and materials are supposed to be more pollutive and the fix vs. disposal methods are uncertain. What happens to the batteries of these vehicles, how many other resources are used to mine and produce batteries, what happens to a Prius when it hits its end-of-life?

A couple articles suggest the Jeep Wrangler is, overall, better than the Prius as every part of a Wrangler is either reused or recycled. Ever try to find one in a junkyard?!


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 28, 2015)

The elements in the batteries and motors are completely recyclable, and are recycled.  The batt in the regular Prius is quite small, and NiMH.  Not enough of the much larger Li batteries in proper EVs have worn out yet, but they will certainly get recycled too.

The 'rare-earth' elements and Li are not really rare...the name signifies that they do not show up in conventional hard-rock ore formations.  Instead they show up in 'salt flats' mixed in with a lot of different salts.  Not the most developed or useful or biodiverse parts of the planet. The 'mining' process involves processing brines collected at these salt flat locations. Don't envision strip mining primeval rain-forest here.

Many common metals are byproducts produced when ores are processed to score other metals.  Unlike that case, when no one wants a rare earth element, no one makes any either. When the demand appears (like Li), it suddenly turns out that there is plenty to be had.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 28, 2015)

> If the OP was really concerned, he'd walk.


This is like complaints that were directed at Al Gore. True but not true. Every person can always "do more" to better or more completely achieve a goal or realize a value. And values usually are competing or in conflict with each other. Better realize one and less better realize another. Ying and Yang. For every action there is a reaction, etc.

One of the main points of the OP was advancing on the path of sustainability. One thing that is very apparent, both on its face and on its consequences, is that oil, and all fossil fuels, are not sustainable: no more of each is being made and the consequences will result in a radical change in the earth's environment. So, doing anything to reduce use of fossil fuels is a move forward to sustainability. Can anyone do enough? No. Is doing something better than doing nothing, or worse yet, increasing use of fossil fuels? Certainly. 

In my own case, on direct use of fossil fuels, except for gasoline, we not only use none but with 5.2kw added PV will produce more energy than we use, i.e. net zero+. Even with the PV we now have, we have avoided production of 32,169 lbs of CO2, as well as quantities of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, generators of acidification. This is much better than where we started. Can we do more, absolutely. Our use of gasoline has remained relatively static over the last 24 years, all of our cars have been right around 30 mpg or a little better. Can we reduce use of gasoline, yes. But our current use is much better than had we had 15-20 mpg cars. And I believe our next car likely will be electric, and again we will do better.

If the point is advancing on the path of sustainability, then we are walking the walking. And I suggest the OP is also.


----------



## thinkxingu (Feb 28, 2015)

A question I have on electric cars: electricity is most often created with fossil fuels, right?


----------



## woodgeek (Feb 28, 2015)

thinkxingu said:


> A question I have on electric cars: electricity is most often created with fossil fuels, right?



About 70% of US electricity is produced with FF.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 28, 2015)

"... electricity is most often created with fossil fuels, right?" ... which is part of the reason I am adding more PV, to help fuel that future electric car, plus draw from the grid the future PV.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Feb 28, 2015)

For me it's all about the Benjamin's. I'm not going to dump a bunch of money into something to get a minimal money saving just to boast or feel good about being green. 

When solar becomes more efficient and less costly I'd think about it. When the batteries on hybrid cars become cheaper and last longer and the vehicle doesn't cost more than it's non hybrid counterpart, I'll think about it. 

Until then I'll do things how I do now. Things like combine trips to save gas, bought my house within 4 miles of my job, spray foaming under the moulding of my windows for less drafts. 


As much as I care about the environment I want a damn good rate of return on my investment. If it doesn't offer me a good return or make my life a lot more comfortable then forget it.


----------



## semipro (Feb 28, 2015)

thinkxingu said:


> A question I have on electric cars: electricity is most often created with fossil fuels, right?


Not sure what you're thinking but this report might help.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/docume...ctric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf

Basically, whether an electric car uses more or less FF than a hybrid or conventional car is dependent upon the supplying utility's mix of fuel sources (e.g coal, wind, hydro, etc.). 
Since electricity is merely a means for power transfer and not itself an energy source, EVs allow flexibility with respect to fueling options. Not so for FF (or H2) cars. 
As a result, FF cars typically get dirtier and less efficient with age.  The opposite is now true for EVs.


----------



## valuman (Feb 28, 2015)

This is a most interesting discussion and I'm impressed that all participants have kept it civil and logical. That confirms my impression that the membership here is pretty special group. Kudos to us!

My thinking is this: There is no bad reason for becoming more energy efficient.


----------



## DBoon (Mar 1, 2015)

valuman said:


> There is no bad reason for becoming more energy efficient.


Correct - only different motivations.  Understanding someone's motivation is the first step towards understanding why they do what they do.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 1, 2015)

Being forced by the govt to do it rubs me the wrong way.  I'm all for people doing it under their own motivation.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 1, 2015)

I don't have much problem with the govt forcing higher efficiency standards because the greed element of capitalism, focusing on short term monetary profit, does not much take into account the real costs of products and services, that is, medium and long term social, health and environmental costs are largely ignored. Govt action has the effect of raising costs to account for these factors, real costs otherwise ignored. I'm not saying that govt is perfect, or at times even very good, at this. But it is better that trusting Big Product Company to protect me.

But what I do have a problem with is business using govt to protect the short term profits at the expense of longer term social, health, and environmental factors. A current nationwide example is increasing concern about pollution of ground and surface waters through nitrogen, pesticide and herbicide discharges into our waters by agriculture, and efforts by agriculture and the food products industries to set "standards" that permit continuing impairment of our vital water resources.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

jebatty said:


> I don't have much problem with the govt forcing higher efficiency standards because the greed element of capitalism, focusing on short term monetary profit, does not much take into account the real costs of products and services, that is, medium and long term social, health and environmental costs are largely ignored. Govt action has the effect of raising costs to account for these factors, real costs otherwise ignored. I'm not saying that govt is perfect, or at times even very good, at this. But it is better that trusting Big Product Company to protect me.
> 
> But what I do have a problem with is business using govt to protect the short term profits at the expense of longer term social, health, and environmental factors. A current nationwide example is increasing concern about pollution of ground and surface waters through nitrogen, pesticide and herbicide discharges into our waters by agriculture, and efforts by agriculture and the food products industries to set "standards" that permit continuing impairment of our vital water resources.



back to the 1960's. same story. hell ddt gone for some 43 years, so are many millions of people?( banned unilaterally by B. Ruckelshaus) bread $.25/lb, today $2.00.lb. where would it be if not for todays agric. on and on. same OLD story. hell my old carbon in my septic system from those farms is a pollutant. as is yours no matter what you do.

glad you are able to follow your desires, I've done some of the same things. your overall thoughts just seem just a little over the top at times. I much prefer a more understated choice. jmho


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug...I'd agree with you on much...DDT was banned in the US before the science was done, we still don't know how bad it was for ecosystems.  Green revolution has been a huge advancement....inflation corrected, food is much cheaper now than it was in the 60-70s, bread included.  I think organic agriculture is mostly greenwashing that plays on some people's food anxiety (who are prob getting more carcinogens in the car exhaust in the whole foods parking lot than they are avoiding buying food there), but we CAN have modern agriculture that makes much more efficient use of pesticides and fertilizer.  And nitrogen in ground water IS a long-term problem (C not so much).

The bigger issue you hit upon is the 'optimism-pessimism axis'....is the world going to heck OR approaching a techie utopia?  Should you horde gold and MREs, OR stick every penny you can in the stock market?  When you retire should you move to a few acres in the middle of nowhere, grow your own food/wood to be 'resilient' and future-proof OR buy an efficiency apartment in NYC, not own a car and just get your groceries delivered and take a taxi to the museum/theatre?

We all pick a point on the axis.  Are you Mr. Kunstler, or Mr. Money Mustache?

I personally think the world is 3 steps forward 1 step back, and that many of the steps in both directions are so large and gradual that we little mortals can easily lose sight of them.   I am confident that cautious optimism and progress win big in the long-term, but always try to remember that excessive optimists often go bust during the steps back.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Doug...I'd agree with you on much...DDT was banned in the US before the science was done, we still don't know how bad it was for ecosystems.  Green revolution has been a huge advancement....inflation corrected, food is much cheaper now than it was in the 60-70s, bread included.  I think organic agriculture is mostly greenwashing that plays on some people's food anxiety (who are prob getting more carcinogens in the car exhaust in the whole foods parking lot than they are avoiding buying food there), but we CAN have modern agriculture that makes much more efficient use of pesticides and fertilizer.  And nitrogen in ground water IS a long-term problem (C not so much).
> 
> The bigger issue you hit upon is the 'optimism-pessimism axis'....is the world going to heck OR approaching a techie utopia?  Should you horde gold and MREs, OR stick every penny you can in the stock market?  When you retire should you move to a few acres in the middle of nowhere, grow your own food/wood to be 'resilient' and future-proof OR buy an efficiency apartment in NYC, not own a car and just get your groceries delivered and take a taxi to the museum/theatre?
> 
> ...



your points as always are well made. what some see as forward others see as backwards. a matter of personal  perspective. that is what has created this discussion. may be a copout but I think the answers are somewhere in the middle. combinations of ideas in these matters seem to make common sense, smaller steps, in this persons mind!


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> your points as always are well made. what some see as forward others see as backwards. a matter of personal  perspective. that is what has created this discussion. may be a copout but I think the answers are somewhere in the middle. combinations of ideas in these matters seem to make common sense, smaller steps, in this persons mind!



Aaah.  Some see a forward as a backward, and vice versa.  Not a copout...a good point that brings us back the OP....

For example: the govt requires cars to have higher MPG.  If this makes cars more expensive to buy, its backward.  If the technology doesn't actually work (e.g. mpg doesn't improve after the car ages), its backward.  If it makes the total cost of ownership lower (TCO) due to lower fuel costs, its forward.  If it reduces CO2 pollution, its forward.  If it reduces CO2 but global warming is not real, its backward.  And on an on....

I get it.  It can get confusing.  Myself I am lucky that I can read primary science (rather than crap sci journalism) and I am numerate (I can compute compound interest).  That helps me sort it out.  Common sense can also work.

To bring it back to the OP....money/cost is a great way to organize things...we did it in the car mpg example above.  When we have a complex decision...choosing the one that costs least or earns the most is a great way to make optimal decisions.  Of course its not a panacea, computing the costs properly is still hard...did we correctly estimate our costs (up front versus TCO, financing costs, risk, etc), do we include societal costs?  And on and on.


----------



## sloeffle (Mar 1, 2015)

Good conversation and like @valuman said "I am glad the conversation has remained civil and logical".

Me personally, I am a ROI kinda guy when it comes to things that I feel should be looked at from that perspective. Our geo system is a good example. After the govt rebates it was pretty much the same cost as an ASHP / propane system. I however had to float the 5k until tax time came around for the govt rebate. A couple friends told me I was crazy floating 5k for that long. When I told them that over time I would get my 5k back plus a better ROI they still told me I was crazy. When propane prices were 4$ a gallon last year I was the one who was laughing.

Food items are where our family tends to spend more money on than other families our size. We raise chickens ( meat and eggs ) and sheep for lamb. The eggs / chicken meat are for personal consumption and the lambs are for our business. We do barter with some other farmers for pork and beef. Over the last two years all of the beef, pork and lamb we have eaten has come from a 1 hour drive of our house. We also shop at the local farmers market when in season. If I was looking at this from a dollars and cents perspective it would *a lot* cheaper to buy everything from the grocery store. Their are multiple reasons why we shop this way. I won't be specifically go into them since it will probably take this topic off into the weeds. 

As far as our carbon foot print. We have approximately 30 acres of forest that we own. I only use dead or down trees for firewood. The trees will offset any carbon foot print that I have. Our electric coop does offer the ability to buy from renewable energy sources but when I called and spoke to them about it the cost was almost 25% more than their standard rate. Lowering my electric consumption is a much better way to go IMHO.


----------



## Grisu (Mar 1, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> For example: the govt requires cars to have higher MPG. If this makes cars more expensive to buy, its backward.



Higher cost simply means it takes more labor to produce a higher mpg car. As long as we have unemployment that is not a constraint. Once we reach full employment we have to make a decision whether we rather have a high mpg car versus other goods and services.


> If the technology doesn't actually work (e.g. mpg doesn't improve after the car ages), its backward.



Sure.


> If it makes the total cost of ownership lower (TCO) due to lower fuel costs, its forward.



The fuel cost are based on how much labor it took to extract/produce and deliver those fuels to you. As long as labor is abundant that is not the constraint. Once the labor it takes to extract those fuels outweigh their benefit to us then it does not make any sense anymore. It will just be a bit late then to change to high mpg cars.


> If it reduces CO2 pollution, its forward. If it reduces CO2 but global warming is not real, its backward. And on an on....



CO2 may not just cause global warming but also leads to ocean acidification etc. Plus, at some point we WILL run out fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels and other natural resources constitute the wealth of humankind. We are happily burning away that wealth while worrying about a totally social construct like money that we can generate unlimited amounts of with a few keyboard strokes. Money is a good tool to allocate labor. Unfortunately, we also use it to distribute property rights of natural resources to which future generations also hold claims that they cannot enforce.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Mar 1, 2015)

A few towns away from me here in NJ there is a town called point pleasant. I remember the article but I can't find it at the moment but in a nutshell this is what happened.

The town asked everyone to use less water, they put water restrictions in place and really pushed hard to get everyone to use less water due to the drought conditions going on. They were pushing people to replace their old toilets and to use low flow shower heads and all that good stuff.

Well great, it worked. Water consumption went down drastically. Good job everyone. Oh but guess what? The water company didn't make as much money that year. They pushed for and got a rate hike. Now everyone gets to pay more for their water especially after the water restrictions went away and use went back up. 

Things like that happen every day across America. I really don't understand how there hasn't been a revolution. I guess most people are busy with their iPhones and reality tv.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 1, 2015)

I'm waiting for our wonderful govt to outlaw our wood burning and pellet stoves.  It's for the greater good for all...


----------



## semipro (Mar 1, 2015)

Grisu said:


> Money is a good tool to allocate labor. Unfortunately, we also use it to distribute property rights of natural resources to which future generations also hold claims that they cannot enforce.


Well said. 

Motivation, or lack thereof, to be more sustainable seems to be driven by the balance between entitlement and responsibility, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Greed is a powerful motivator.  Responsibility, as a motivator, seems to pale in comparison.  

Whatever the greater good, the responsible will march forward towards it while the entitled are dragged behind kicking and screaming. .


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

Babaganoosh said:


> A few towns away from me here in NJ there is a town called point pleasant. I remember the article but I can't find it at the moment but in a nutshell this is what happened.
> 
> The town asked everyone to use less water, they put water restrictions in place and really pushed hard to get everyone to use less water due to the drought conditions going on. They were pushing people to replace their old toilets and to use low flow shower heads and all that good stuff.
> 
> ...


so true. in my business, business goes away you shrink. fact of life . in gov't, ever see it shrink except the military?

my small town 15k pop. had to have a wind turbine!. put one up for $1mil. didn't work for 3 yrs. builder went chap. 7  turbine now runs part time. costs somewhere at $3 mil.(EST) probably not hooked up to deliver to grid only to it's tiny system or non functional again?. mean WHILE MY NEIGHBORS AND I JUST PAY OUR TAX BILLS. sorry that is another thread!


----------



## Grisu (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> so true. in my business, business goes away you shrink. fact of life . in gov't, ever see it shrink except the military?



How about it shrinking now? http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Public_Sector_Hamilton_Project.PNG (And guess under which "small government"-president it grew the most in the last 30 years?  )



> my small town 15k pop. had to have a wind turbine!. put one up for $1mil. didn't work for 3 yrs. builder went chap. 7  turbine now runs part time. costs somewhere at $3 mil.(EST) probably not hooked up to deliver to grid only to it's tiny system or non functional again?. mean WHILE MY NEIGHBORS AND I JUST PAY OUR TAX BILLS. sorry that is another thread!



Not too long ago I read a story about a town that decided to invest into a wind turbine giving them a ROI of ~5% at current rates. Yours sounds more like mismanagement by the town.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

Grisu said:


> How about it shrinking now? http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Public_Sector_Hamilton_Project.PNG (And guess under which "small government"-president it grew the most in the last 30 years?  )
> 
> 
> 
> Not too long ago I read a story about a town that decided to invest into a wind turbine giving them a ROI of ~5% at current rates. Yours sounds more like mismanagement by the town.


no, no, no, no mismanagement. they just had to have that wind turbine?  no excuses get that wind turbine. that is what counts? Kingston ,Mass . same thing turbine built with no place to send the excess power?


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug...sounds like a cozy relationship between the town board and the developer.

Grisu....you're making my point for me.  Calculating societal cost-benefit for a given decision is difficult.

In practice, when the govt wants a new tech developed for what it sees as a societal good, it puts in economic incentives to make it happen....and if folks didn't act based on ROI, then incentives wouldn't be needed or work.


----------



## semipro (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> no, no, no, no mismanagement. they just had to have that wind turbine?  no excuses get that wind turbine. that is what counts? Kingston ,Mass . same thing turbine built with no place to send the excess power?


I'm not sure what qualifies as mismanagement if this doesn't.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Doug...sounds like a cozy relationship between the town board and the developer.
> 
> Grisu....you're making my point for me.  Calculating societal cost-benefit for a given decision is difficult.
> 
> In practice, when the govt wants a new tech developed for what it sees as a societal good, it puts in economic incentives to make it happen....and if folks didn't act based on ROI, then incentives wouldn't be needed or work.



I'm more a business guy, just doesn't add up. look how progressive we are we all benefit? cost isn't important? got to be careful here ?


woodgeek said:


> Doug...sounds like a cozy relationship between the town board and the developer.
> 
> Grisu....you're making my point for me.  Calculating societal cost-benefit for a given decision is difficult.
> 
> In practice, when the govt wants a new tech developed for what it sees as a societal good, it puts in economic incentives to make it happen....and if folks didn't act based on ROI, then incentives wouldn't be needed or work.


arrogance is closer!


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> I'm more a business guy, just doesn't add up. look how progressive we are we all benefit? cost isn't important? got to be careful here ?
> 
> arrogance is closer!



Someone made money on that deal.  

Did the politicos get re-elected?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> Someone made money on that deal.
> 
> Did the politicos get re-elected?


regardless the citizens bamboozeled sold a bill of goods. another town not mine , just folks sold a bill of goods for their benefit, free electricity.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 1, 2015)

Amusing how we blame or credit things based on what the Govt does or does not do. Easy to forget that we live in a representative democracy. The Govt is us ... or it should be us, so Govt action is our action. Unless of course, someone/things/businesses/interests/money are controlling what Govt does more than "us" controlling Govt. And if that's the case, the blame falls again on "us" for letting that happen. 

The simple fact is that "us" is very diverse and often not in agreement, that democracies are very messy, full of compromises, heavy costs and often poor results, give and take, etc. Amazingly, over time things have worked pretty well, sometimes better, sometimes worse. One real question is in the long run whether or not a large group of people, each person in the group pursuing his/her own self interest, in the end results in a satisfactory outcome for all of "us." I think the jury is still out on the answer to that verdict.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

when over the course of years  more of our daily lives come under the diction of the gov't, the more vocal on both sides of the question come under scrutiny, the louder each side gets.. what were once local discussions are now regional or national. they continue to get larger then even bigger than before. calif. had special rules for autos due to smog and industry now reach every rural area in America. maybe not the best example but it is the truth.(we all pay for calif. gas formulations) governmental proliferation.

with our size, the United States is a beacon to the world. Say what you will, we are above any European country or any where in the world. where we came from should tell us the direction to head towards.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

off topic, in topic 2015 population wise the 5th highest  hhd  total, in last 30 yrs.  not good for anybody in energy, producer, consumer or co2 worrier. more efficiency needed everywhere.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Mar 1, 2015)

Not to get political but we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. We the people rarely means we. It means the privileged few percent that make the laws that usually line their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Corporations are our government. Lobbying to get their ways at the general public's expense. 

While cleaner air, cleaner water and less reliance on fossil fuels are all great they don't mandate these things out of the goodness of their hearts. It's to get votes or money.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

Babaganoosh said:


> Not to get political but we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. We the people rarely means we. It means the privileged few percent that make the laws that usually line their pockets at the taxpayers expense. Corporations are our government. Lobbying to get their ways at the general public's expense.
> 
> While cleaner air, cleaner water and less reliance on fossil fuels are all great they don't mandate these things out of the goodness of their hearts. It's to get votes or money.


aarp is also a lobby? unions are lobbies! how many more should I list> colleges have theirs, ect ect. gov't 5" snow days at fed, state and local levels. just an example.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 1, 2015)

> Not to get political but we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic....


These first two statements are true, but not what follows. Constitution means the powers of the govt are limited to those provided in the constitution as opposed to unlimited powers. Republic means that those entitled to vote elect representatives to be the government. So we are a democracy to the extent we elect representatives. To the extent that the privileged few may make the laws, or that corporation are the government, or that lobbyists get their ways only follows to the extent that the voters continue to elect representatives that allow this to happen.

And as to lobbyists, you and I are lobbyists to the extent we communicate with our elected representatives to seek their support on any issue or concern. That of course does not mean that lobbying by you or me has the same impact that lobbying by an organized group of whatever kind may have on the elected representatives. In general, lobbying by an organized group that has a perspective you or I may support often is considered proper lobbying and if not supported by you or me as improper lobbying. All gray area of various degrees. But I think many of us agree that the power of highly financed lobbying may have a level of influence on the elected representatives disproportionate to the will of those entitled to vote, but for whatever reason those entitled to vote choose to continue to elect those representatives to continue governing.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> aarp is also a lobby? unions are lobbies! how many more should I list> colleges have theirs, ect ect. gov't 5" snow days at fed, state and local levels. just an example.



They might be lobbies but unless they have a lot of money to bribe, I mean lobby with it, it doesn't matter.


----------



## Babaganoosh (Mar 1, 2015)

jebatty said:


> These first two statements are true, but not what follows. Constitution means the powers of the govt are limited to those provided in the constitution as opposed to unlimited powers. Republic means that those entitled to vote elect representatives to be the government. So we are a democracy to the extent we elect representatives. To the extent that the privileged few may make the laws, or that corporation are the government, or that lobbyists get their ways only follows to the extent that the voters continue to elect representatives that allow this to happen.
> 
> And as to lobbyists, you and I are lobbyists to the extent we communicate with our elected representatives to seek their support on any issue or concern. That of course does not mean that lobbying by you or me has the same impact that lobbying by an organized group of whatever kind may have on the elected representatives. In general, lobbying by an organized group that has a perspective you or I may support often is considered proper lobbying and if not supported by you or me as improper lobbying. All gray area of various degrees. But I think many of us agree that the power of highly financed lobbying may have a level of influence on the elected representatives disproportionate to the will of those entitled to vote, but for whatever reason those entitled to vote choose to continue to elect those representatives to continue governing.




Two words. Voter apathy


----------



## jebatty (Mar 1, 2015)

There may be voter apathy but the government cannot be blamed. In short, if I vote and you do not, and the government does what I want, you have no complaint. And vice versa. Might a large part of the problem be the wide division of interests of those who vote? And the unwillingness of those who vote to elect representatives who will compromise to achieve mutually desirable outcomes?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Mar 1, 2015)

Babaganoosh said:


> They might be lobbies but unless they have a lot of money to bribe, I mean lobby with it, it doesn't matter.


insurance,aarp. union dues, how many members, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. how many$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ go to colleges?


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 1, 2015)

Doug MacIVER said:


> off topic, in topic 2015 population wise the 5th highest  hhd  total, in last 30 yrs.  not good for anybody in energy, producer, consumer or co2 worrier. more efficiency needed everywhere.



Whoa, what is the subject here?  hdd?


----------



## begreen (Mar 2, 2015)




----------



## semipro (Mar 3, 2015)

I've thought about the original question a bit more and found my self admitting that I invest in efficiency upgrades just because I like to.  
E.g., Every time I walk into our basement utility room and hear both the condensing dryer and the HPWH running I'm reassured that energy wasted by one is being used by the other to heat our water. I think that's cool.  It makes me feel good. 
I don't typically do ROI calculations and if I did it would only be because I enjoyed it.   Lower costs are good but that's not my primary motivation. 
My neighbors can't even see my house, we don't have guests over much, and when we do the subject of conversation isn't energy efficiency.  Other than here they're not discussed or publicized. So I doubt peer review is much of a motivator. 
I see efficiency of all types as a challenge that's worth my investment of resources -- and, I guess ultimately; a hobby.    

Sort of like my veggie garden which I have yet to see a positive ROI on.   Of course the deer, rabbits, and neighbors all benefit from that and so do I because I enjoy it.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 3, 2015)

semipro, I share your motivation of doing energy upgrades because you like to. I made the decision to install PV, signed the contracts, paid the money, had the system installed and operating, and then I thought to examine more closely whether or not there would be a ROI, and if so, how much and how long. Same thing in replacing nearly all of our lightbulbs with LED's, removing the CFL's, but also giving them away to people who would use them. Besides determining there was a definite ROI on the PV, we prefer the LED light quality and responsiveness over the CFL's. Win-win on all fronts.

Even more so, I see the ROI on my belly from that really good tasting steak I had a week ago. Fast, observable, and visible to all around me.


----------



## DougA (Mar 3, 2015)




----------



## semipro (Mar 7, 2015)

http://m.sciencedaily.com/4.0/html5/44777#!/article/98486/99149772
Interesting article on the "true" costs of energy with respect to air emissions, etc. 

An excerpt: 
_When its environmental and human health toll is factored in, a gallon of gasoline costs us about $3.80 more than the pump price, a new Duke University study finds.

The social cost of a gallon of diesel is about $4.80 more than the pump price; the price of natural gas more than doubles; and coal-fired electricity more than quadruples. Solar and wind power, on the other hand, become cheaper than they initially seem._


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 7, 2015)

"Looking at electricity, for example, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates generation costs per kilowatt hour of power to be about 10 cents for coal, 7 cents for natural gas, 13 cents for solar and 8 for wind," Shindell said.

"Not surprisingly, the U.S. has seen a surge in the use of natural gas, the apparent cheapest option. However, when you add in environmental and health damages, costs rise to 17 cents per kilowatt hour for natural gas and a whopping 42 cents for coal."

The true cost of gasoline is another example. If social costs of around $3.80 a gallon are added in, damages from a typical mid-range gasoline-powered vehicle total nearly $2,000 a year. In comparison, annual damages associated with an electric vehicle are around $1,000 if the power comes exclusively from coal, about $300 if the power is generated using natural gas, and minimal if the electricity is from renewable sources."


----------



## begreen (Mar 8, 2015)

We are far far away at looking at the true total costs of our systems and lifestyles. Manufacturing in the US does not cover the public cost of waste disposal and treatment, the taxpayer does. Because of this, waste is built into the system from excessive packaging, gluttony, obsolescence  and inefficiencies that get passed onto the public. Frugality used to be a national virtue, but it has been derided and scoffed at by Madison Avenue to the point where the opposite is now habit.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 8, 2015)

Probably none of us is immune from consumption beyond the level of world-wide sustainability. No excuse, so every effort has worth. I can find many fingers to point at others, maybe some more deserved than others, and it is easy to ignore the finger-pointing that I might deserve. Yet, many of us have done well, and we need to continue the effort towards sustainability.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 8, 2015)

A major failure of capitalism is the failure to include all costs in the costs of production, which of course strongly skews demand far beyond that which would result if the true price had to be paid.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 8, 2015)

And how exactly would you calculate a cost like that?  

There is no way to do such a thing.


----------



## semipro (Mar 8, 2015)

EatenByLimestone said:


> And how exactly would you calculate a cost like that?
> 
> There is no way to do such a thing.


People try. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 8, 2015)

I suppose trying is about all they can do.


----------



## jebatty (Mar 9, 2015)

> And how exactly would you calculate a cost like that? There is no way to do such a thing.


 There certainly is a "way" to calculate many costs, probably not all, of a product which are not currently included in supply/demand price setting. The failure to include calculable costs and instead passing those costs on to society to pay, through taxes, health costs, environmental losses, etc., results in under-pricing of those products and consequently in demand greater than would result if the actual cost of the product was included in the price setting mechanism.

An example of many possible. A well known and common practice in the auto safety arena is the ability to reasonably calculate lives lost, injuries suffered, medical costs incurred, etc. as a result of not wearing seatbelts. Knowing those costs allowed for regulation requiring seatbelts, which raised the price of cars with seatbelts vs other modes of transportation without these costs. Ditto the multitude of other safety devices on cars. The elasticity of demand partly will determine the extent to which these price increases resulted in less demand for cars, but if demand was highly elastic, demand would have fallen for cars with these devices because of increased costs and probably would have increased for public transportation.

The ability to calculate the health costs of air and water pollution is quite advanced, and regulation has required some producers to add devices to reduce their pollution, which has raised the prices of the products of those producers. But other producers are not required to do so, which keeps their prices lower than the truer costs of their products. Instead, you and I, society in general, "pays" these costs rather than those who purchase the product.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 9, 2015)

This argument is soooo 2005.

Renewable energy was cheaper than fossils ten years ago when 'externalities' were applied, but the inability of people to understand the concept of externalities, or believe that their costs could be estimated prevented action at that time.  Ten years lost.

Instead the goal posts were moved to just 'RE needs to be lower cost than fossils without incentives'. 

Now that we are approaching that BS goal, and we all know that with _any_ estimate of externalities' cost RE is 'stupid cheaper' for society, now we are going to argue about externality costs again?  Really?


----------



## semipro (Mar 9, 2015)

Some reading for those that need to be "dragged kicking and screaming" forward (and others):
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/

edit: I was thinking about the challenges to the coal industry and my neighbors in West Virginia.  It seems the same state that may be most impacted by cutbacks on coal also has a great potential for RE.  Lots of wind resources: http://www.wvcommerce.org/energy/renewable_energy/wind.aspx
and plenty of flattened mountain tops for PV, not to mention hydro.   It seems ironic to me they are so mired down in coal.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 10, 2015)

My latest electric bill just arrived.  179 kWh!  Longer days will only lower it further as the lights won't be on.  Each kWh is 22.9c here after all taxes and fees have been added in.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 10, 2015)

If you want to plotz....my latest bill arrived and my usage for February was 5479 kWh.   

My HP compressor died at the end of January, with ~15,000 run hours and 6.5 years of heavy use.  It was done in (IMO) by a massive ice storm (about 1.5" of freezing rain, that entombed the unit) in mid-January.  I usually check during those condition, but this time I didn't, and ran it frozen for ~12 hours. RIP.

So, coldest February in living memory, and me running only aux for heat for 10+ days!


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 10, 2015)

Wow.  I got sick of loading the woodstove and ran NG for. The last month and a half.  It shows in my bill, but not too bad.


----------



## Where2 (Mar 10, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> If you want to plotz....my latest bill arrived and my usage for February was 5479 kWh.


Wowzers! That's more power than I bought in *all* of 2014. One of my friends in VA was going through 120kWh per day during some of the cold spells. He occasionally sends me pictures of the readings on his TED 1001. His photos almost make me want to cry. House built in 1928, and added to multiple times.


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 10, 2015)

Yeah.  My 1960 house needed ~1100 gallons of #2, or 130 MMBTU per year, when I bought it in 2005.  If I had heated with baseboards back then, that would have required 38,000 kWh.    Of course, back then I could get winter power for 7.5 cents/kWh, so that would've only cost $2800, no so different from oil a couple years later.

As it is, I have dropped the heating load by ~50%, and heat with a heat pump that does about COP=2.1 on average, getting my usage for heating down to ~9000 kWh (when the HP is not down for repair  ), costing about $1200.  

When it got down to -1°F a couple weeks back, I still used 274 kWh in 1 day with the HP working.


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 10, 2015)

Time for you to start burning wood.


----------



## Grisu (Mar 10, 2015)

woodgeek said:


> I still used 274 kWh in 1 day with the HP working.



And your neighbors were sitting in the dark?


----------



## Babaganoosh (Mar 10, 2015)

That electric bill would cost me 847 bucks. F that.

14.7 cents a kWh here on the Jersey shore.


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 13, 2015)

BrotherBart said:


> Oil companies provide what oil users demand. They don't make anybody use it.
> 
> I retired from an oil major. And loved when protestors showed up at our headquarters. In cars.
> 
> View attachment 154174


 


the "short bus"?


----------



## stoveguy2esw (Mar 13, 2015)

valuman said:


> Taking the bus is a perfect example of this. While it still burns petroleum, it's much more efficient than driving alone in a car and quite likely the only viable option for many who are trying to reduce their use of it.


 

this depends on several factors, first the busses are in constant motion where a single person may only use a fraction of the fuel in their "trip" now if the bus is constantly packed this being more efficient rings true, but if the bus is only transporting a person or two at a time in its route especially if it gets poor gas mileage its not really that efficient is it?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Mar 13, 2015)

There are those who argue that an electric car charged by solar panels on your roof is still not green, so you cant please everyone.


----------



## DougA (Mar 13, 2015)

stoveguy2esw said:


> this depends on several factors, first the busses are in constant motion where a single person may only use a fraction of the fuel in their "trip" now if the bus is constantly packed this being more efficient rings true, but if the bus is only transporting a person or two at a time in its route especially if it gets poor gas mileage its not really that efficient is it?


In the city near me, I have NEVER seen a bus that is more than 25% capacity. Often, there is only one or two passengers.  Yet, city council refuses to disband the system because voters think it's important.  It costs $1.50 for a bus token and the city kicks in just over that much again to subsidize the service. That's over $3. per ride. If they subsidized cabs and sold the buses, it would be cheaper and less environmentally harmful.  Many of the cabs in our area are hybrids.
If a small city can't see the light, seems that we are all doomed.


----------



## semipro (Mar 13, 2015)

The fact that bus transit exists is primarily because of social equity issues.  There are many that simply can't afford a car or taxi.
As far as overall energy efficiency its not real good.  At current passenger usage rates buses are actually less efficient per energy used per passenger distance traveled than cars.
However, as bus usage increases so does its overall efficiency.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Mar 13, 2015)

I used to take the bus when I worked downtown.  The ride in wasn't bad and it was nice not having to find a parking space. The ride home every day ticked me off too much.  I don't have an iPod so I watch and listen to the people.  I heard way too many conversations, "I'd like to get a job, but I don't want to get off meth." 

I'd also look for things like wedding rings on the hands of young women with children.. Only saw 1 in an entire year...

To see if the people wore watches, whether the watch was overly flashy or functional...  How nice of a smart phone those who were on welfare had... That sort of thing.

I stopped riding because it pissed me off too much.


----------

