The Bigger Picture on Energy Efficiency Upgrades

[jebatty]

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]

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

 

[woodgeek]

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]

"... 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]

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]

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.
(broken link removed to http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 we little mortals can easily lose sight of them. I think cautious optimism and progress win big in the long-term, and that excessive optimists often go bust during the steps back.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[semipro]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

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!