• Climate Change (too much CO2 is being emitted)

• No Money (we’re all in debt)

Logically, we should spend our limited resources to the best effect. So, what is the best bang for our buck ? The parameter to measure is Tons of Carbon Dioxide (avoided) per Dollar…. the lower the better. So, here are a few of the common things we can do to reduce energy usage.  The spreadsheet shows most of the calculations (contact me if you want to know more details), but what is missing is the usual energy savings return on investment. This figure is all about environmental good. It just so happens that environmental good is good for your pocketbook.

So, please let’s spend our money wisely. Hint: Electric cars are cool (not as cool as pluggable hybrids), but they are not the best way to spend our money if we want to reduce carbon dioxide.

* There are many other energy and carbon dioxide reducing strategies not mentioned here.

Get them while they last, though, as the application states it is effective for purchases made from April 1st to June 1st, 2011. We hope for more rebates to roll out soon in Hawaii for all sorts of energy-saving and energy-producing technologies with the recent progress of SB 1520, which would have been left to die if it weren’t for a great showing of public support. Thanks to Hawaii Energy and the Blue Planet Foundation for their efforts to help secure a clean-energy future!

Me walking uphill

So how does this relate to energy, and its inherent value ?  If I worked at that energy output rate for 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, for 5 years, I would have produced 1,747 kWh.  As it turns out, a barrel of oil contains about 1,700 kWh of energy (if transformed at 100% efficiency).

Reference: Barrel of oil equivalent

So, which way do you think railroads will lobby (they are corporate “citizens” after all).  Will they throw their weight towards laws which reward efficiency => win for rail transportation. Or will they throw their weight behind more coal burning => still good for railroads.?

• Newer electrical rate structures encourage conservation (tiered rates)
• ‘Energy Security’ is a powerful motivator
• Photovoltaic rebates require house efficiency check-ups

We think  solar energy gathering is great. The idea of  getting electricity essentially for  free energy has certainly captivated our imaginations. Even though the cost of photovoltaic panels is dropping very quickly, the investment is still considerable.  Our crystal ball tells us that electrical energy is very, very versatile and will be in demand as electrical cars come on stream and coal fired electrical power plants start to show their ugly side. (coal burning)

As the demand for clean electrical energy increases, its value will certainly not go down.   In fact, if the validity of predicting cheap energy such as the famous line is any guide “too cheap to meter”,then we should get prepared for high prices.

By combining whole house fans solar contractors and  homeowners  can:

• Decrease the initial investment in PV panels
• AND/ OR
• Increase the  Return on Investment for the entire system

This article by Henry Gifford, an energy saving specialist discusses why heat pumps are no panacea.  His points, well made, bring home the messages that building envelope efficiency is critical and the importance of examining the entire energy chain -  from power house to your house.  Not that readers of this blog need reminding, but Henry also points out that over half of this country’s electricity derives from coal burning . (BTW clean coal = oxymoron du jour)

www.energysavingscience.com/

http://www.finehomebuilding.com/departments/taking-issue/heat-pump-schmeat-pump.aspx

What a wonderfully simple way to describe much of our world.  I am reminded of this whenever I see people working on the “energy” problem.  Software people clearly know, that if only we wired everything up and monitored our energy use, the rest of the problem would be trivial.  Economists clearly have the upper hand, because they can describe carbon trading as the sure fire method to reduce carbon output,  increase energy efficiency, and still have economic growth.  Photovoltaic manufacturers, electric car builders, and wind farm developers are among the many queuing up at the public feeding trough.

Nothing wrong with any of those solutions.  Just bear in mind the aphorism.

By the way, our hammer is a whole house fan.

If you do it right, and it’s a tall order, you could model the “real” costs of resource extraction.  Our simplistic economic models increase the Gross Domestic Product when a tree is cut down, or oil is burnt.  Basic accounting practices would at least require us to decrease the amount in our natural resource account.

Let’s table that thought. Onto the rant du jour.  Our local food co-op has the following announcement:

——————————local Co-op announcement——————————————–

FRIDAY also means PORT ORFORD Hook and Line Caught Fish are here.Port Orford fisherman also dropped off some sea water! We’re going to make our own “Port Orford Sea Salt” for Eat Local Week!

—————————————–\\——————————————————————

Isn’t that great?  Well, of course not! Otherwise this would not be a rant.

How do you make your own salt?  Evaporate the water.  Great. With what energy?  Electricity as it turns out.

Let’s do some calculations …

Salt Evaporation Using Solar Energy

Bottom line. You made your own salt. If you had purchased standard packaged salt, it would most likely have been harvested using solar energy, and energy efficient vacuum evaporation process (see http://www.cargill.com/static/sb/tour.htm).

Perhaps this adventure falls into the self-contained, but not sustainable category.

The best source for energy statistics is the US department of energy website (http://eia.doe.gov/).

I thought this was going to be hard. In fact the data is all right on this one table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/c&e/excel/tableus1part1.xls

It seems that the average US household consumes 95,000,000 BTU (equivalent) for electricity, natural gas, and heating oil.The average daily consumption of gasoline for the U.S. is about 9,000,000 barrels (42 gallons.)  I’ll assume that half of that consumption is for individuals (tell me if I’m wrong). There are 127,000,000  dwelling units.

The total energy growing requirements calculate out to about 157,000,000 BTU per year.

On the supply side…How much solar energy do plants absorb ?  According to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/main.aspx it’s possible to obtain 10 tons of dry plant material per acre per year.  At an average of 19GigaJoules per ton, this would yield (assuming 50% conversion to useful energy) 45,000,000 BTU per acre.  Doing the division 157,000,000/45,000,000 gives us 3.5 acres.

In reality, you’ll need much more area. Because you have to eat, the horses (or tractors) have to eat, you may have to irrigate your energy crops, and you need manufactured products.

Assuming very little “home grown energy”, we would need: 127,000,000 households x 3.5 acres = 445,000,000 acres of additional cultivation. The US has about 407,000,000 acres of arable land.

OOPS…

Well, maybe this efficiency thing isn’t such a bad idea after all..

Other sources:

• http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html has conversions from different energy sources and units.
• http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html

“I have been so happy as by accident to hit upon a method of restoring air which has been injured by the burning of candles and to have discovered at least one of the restoratives which Nature employs for this purpose. It is vegetation.”
Joseph Priestley 1771