# Fighting Climate Change With Simple Ideas



## Drachir (Dec 1, 2009)

OK - I'm aware of the double meaning of "Simple" in this post and freely admit that I do not know the answer to the questions I am posing.  They are just some ideas to kick around - But why doesn't government try a few easy to implement solutions to global warming instead of spending huge amounts of money on more complicated solutions?

Simple idea #1 - why not outfit every home and small business in the US with free LED lighting?  This would achieve several things.  The mass production of LED lights would certainly bring the cost down and create tons of jobs for anyone working in the industry.  It would also lower demand for electricity demand significantly.  
Simple idea #2 - retrofit homes and businesses with heat pump technology once again achieving a boost for domestic manufacturers and lowering energy demand.

Using expensive solutions like carbon capture and switching to nuclear energy may not work anyway.  Why not try the things that we know work?


----------



## skeptical (Dec 1, 2009)

Couple of points

1.  LED lighting is not fully developed yet.   While it is an excellent technology, and carries heaps of benefits, it is still not possible to replace all lights with LEDs.   There are inadequacies in both brightness and colour balance for many uses.   Given another 10 years development and there will be no need for any government subsidy.   People will buy LEDs simply because they will then be by far the best system.

2. Heat pumps are great.   I have one in my own home.   I doubt it will solve anything related to carbon, though.   Manufacturers make heat pumps reversible, so they can be used to cool a house in summer as well as warm it in winter.  The warming function is really efficient and saves carbon emissions.  However, the cooling function, while efficient, does the reverse, and increases carbon emissions.  If everyone had a heat pump in their home, I suspect carbon emissions would go *up* as a result.

There are ways that carbon emissions can be reduced using today's technology.   The best way ordinary people can help is to go out and plant trees.  Lots of trees.  My father was a member of a local tree society, and with them he planted thousands of trees in parks and reserves.   I have 4 acres of land, which I have planted in local rain forest trees, which means that my wife and I are actually carbon negative.  In fact, we are so carbon negative that our property is absorbing the carbon emitted by one other couple as well.   (I calculated this based on a reference from _New Scientist_, showing carbon uptake per acre of forest.)

If you are interested in the idea of government subsidies to households, think of thermal insulation.   A fully insulated house is naturally warmer in winter and cooler in summer.   Home insulation saves carbon big time.   Here in New Zealand, the government is already setting up a subsidy scheme to assist low income people into proper thermal insulation of their homes.

There are lots of other ideas, but I do not want to hog them all.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 1, 2009)

skeptical said:


> However, the cooling function, while efficient, does the reverse, and increases carbon emissions. If everyone had a heat pump in their home, I suspect carbon emissions would go *up* as a result.


Overcome, as I am, by a temporary bout of dopeyness, I'm finding this hard to understand. If you're cooling your home with a heat pump, aren't you merely heating the ground? Why, if the process is - as you say - efficient, are you increasing your carbon emissions compared to other means of air-conditioning your home? (Or is this a comparison with having no air-conditioning?)


----------



## skeptical (Dec 1, 2009)

Comparison is to no air conditioning.
A heat pump is normally reversible, meaning that, used in winter, it heats.  Used in summer, it cools - that is, it is an air conditioner.

However the suggestion was to subsidise heat pumps.  If the government subsidises heat pumps, leading to a lot more homes having heat pumps, then it follows that a lot more homes have air conditioners also.   Used in summer to cool, they will consume electricity, and hence add to carbon emissions.

An air conditioner, or heat pump set to cooling, is moving heat from inside the home to the outside air.  This takes power.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 2, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> Overcome, as I am, by a temporary bout of dopeyness, I'm finding this hard to understand. If you're cooling your home with a heat pump, aren't you merely heating the ground? Why, if the process is - as you say - efficient, are you increasing your carbon emissions compared to other means of air-conditioning your home? (Or is this a comparison with having no air-conditioning?)


I think of it more as if you heat your home with a heat pump, you are providing AC to the great outdoors.  A heat pump is what your A/C is called if it is being run backwards.  Homes in mild climates don't have A/C, would the advantage of using natural gas generated electricity(@40% thermal efficiency) in winter as opposed to burning natural gas directly out weigh running A/C all summer?  On the other hand, heat pumps don't work in cold, cold weather; they only work in fairly cold weather.  Back East they would require auxiliary heating.
LED lighting is expensive for room lighting.  Besides, why in the US?  Why not Canada or Europe.  The US has the lowest CO2 footprint for a given value of goods and services produced in the world. 
 Finding a cheap effective way to reduce coal emissions (particularly in China) would be more effective.  If someone found a way to improve thermal efficiency to 50% instead of 35%?, we could burn 2 tonnes where we used to burn 3 for the same electricity.  That would save money and cut carbon emissions.  Or perhaps biofuel from algae grown on the condensed smokestack emissions (H20 and CO2)?  Or more nuclear for base load generation?  FBR or plutonium or MOX using reactors might reduce the amount of waste storage required.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 2, 2009)

Wiglaf

Fortunately, Obama has allocated $$$$ for researching and developing the ideas you put forward.  eg. Biofuel for algae.

Drachir

Correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered you were proposing simple ways that could be implemented today, especially with a focused government???

Hence my suggestion of planting trees and insulating homes.  Long term, a lot of action needs to be taken to reduce burning of coal, as Wiglaf said, and to fix problems in agriculture.   These require more development, but the work is under way.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 2, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Wiglaf
> 
> Fortunately, Obama has allocated $$$$ for researching and developing the ideas you put forward.  eg. Biofuel for algae.


A private company in Arizona is using algae on a gas plant. A local private company is also researching the idea.  All Obama did was give jobs to union members; non-union members are banned from working on most stimulus projects.  Cap and trade has been rejected by the economists who proposed it in favor of a more traditional approach to negative externalities.  Capitalists do a better job of innovating than government.  Heck, the government has been blocking local solar plant proposals. 
 Simply enact a gas tax, a small carbon tax, allow nuclear plants, provide tax credits for expanding freight rail and to offset the new taxes so that the overall tax burden is not increased, and reform the tax code to reduce disincentives to entrepreneurship and investment.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 2, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> I think of it more as if you heat your home with a heat pump, you are providing AC to the great outdoors.  A heat pump is what your A/C is called if it is being run backwards.  Homes in mild climates don't have A/C, would the advantage of using natural gas generated electricity(@40% thermal efficiency) in winter as opposed to burning natural gas directly out weigh running A/C all summer?  On the other hand, heat pumps don't work in cold, cold weather; they only work in fairly cold weather.  Back East they would require auxiliary heating.
> LED lighting is expensive for room lighting.  Besides, why in the US?  Why not Canada or Europe.  The US has the lowest CO2 footprint for a given value of goods and services produced in the world.
> Finding a cheap effective way to reduce coal emissions (particularly in China) would be more effective.  If someone found a way to improve thermal efficiency to 50% instead of 35%?, we could burn 2 tonnes where we used to burn 3 for the same electricity.  That would save money and cut carbon emissions.  Or perhaps biofuel from algae grown on the condensed smokestack emissions (H20 and CO2)?  Or more nuclear for base load generation?  FBR or plutonium or MOX using reactors might reduce the amount of waste storage required.




I was being modest when I used the US as an example.  Naturally it would make sense for the entire world to adopt these practices and it would make even more sense for Canada to buy into it as Canadians use more energy per capita than any other nation.  I also realize that your suggestions make sense, but the technology you advocate is not my idea of something simple.  What I had in mind was something the average citizen could buy into - I mean after all, who would turn down free light bulbs?  However, it seems that governments continue to think of large scale, expensive, and unproven technology.  For example the government of my province recently set aside $2 billion for carbon capture.  For that amount of money every house and small business in the province could be retrofitted with energy efficient lighting with cash left over.  

We do have heat pumps in Canada.  They simply require that the air pumped through them come from hollow tubes buried in the ground where the yearly temperature is an unchanging 15 degrees.  I have a well on my property and well water is also another source for heat pump technology.  

I like *skeptical's* suggestion of improving the insulation in homes.  When I started the thread I was hoping to see a few more examples of simple ideas in subsequent postings.  

I have no problem accepting the idea of government funding for these adaptations as tax money is already being handed out to large businesses for carbon capture.  

BTW *skeptical* LED lights are already being sold in the local WalMart.  I assumed they must work, but perhaps I was being too trusting.  I do like your tree planting idea.  I live on a property with four acres of trees.  Mind you they were already here when I bought it.  Sadly, we cannot plant rainforest in most of Canada.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 2, 2009)

Here's a great idea.

Why don't we force the entire population of an economic grouping, say the EU, to remove all there old filament lighting systems and replace them with mercury filled fluorescent low energy bulbs.

Then all we have to do is manufacture, at great carbon expense, new dimmer switches for say 50,000,000  (EU wide) homes and have them delivered to local retailers and then have the same number of visits by carbon greedy electrician's gas guzzling vans so that the dimmer switches can be installed. 

We can comfort ourselves in the knowledge that by the time these 'efficient' bulbs have paid back the energy so used that the houses will have long been rebuilt so making the whole exercise a waste of time and money.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 2, 2009)

Drachir said:


> Simple idea #1 - why not outfit every home and small business in the US with free LED lighting?  This would achieve several things.  The mass production of LED lights would certainly bring the cost down and create tons of jobs for anyone working in the industry.  It would also lower demand for electricity demand significantly.
> Simple idea #2 - retrofit homes and businesses with heat pump technology once again achieving a boost for domestic manufacturers and lowering energy demand.



So who is going to pay for the manufacturing and distribution? 

I can't afford a heat pump on our house. If I could, I would have one. 

Would you like to buy me one?

I'm not arguing with you, its just that any time anyone declares that we should be forced to pay for something I get pretty nervous.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 2, 2009)

skeptical said:


> Comparison is to no air conditioning.
> A heat pump is normally reversible, meaning that, used in winter, it heats. Used in summer, it cools - that is, it is an air conditioner.


Thanks.



skeptical said:


> However the suggestion was to subsidise heat pumps. If the government subsidises heat pumps, leading to a lot more homes having heat pumps, then it follows that a lot more homes have air conditioners also. Used in summer to cool, they will consume electricity, and hence add to carbon emissions.


And it _is_ likely that many owners of a heat pump would use it in this way if it was set up to do it.

And note that those of us living in cities or in countries with higher population densities may not have the room for the "outside" end of the equipment.


----------



## Chinook (Dec 2, 2009)

Okay - this one is simple: Just drive your car with the AC on, and the windows open.  (If it's already cold outside you could wear a Skiing outfit) Plus, it would make a funny bumper sticker (STOP GLOBAL WARMING: DRIVE WITH A/C ON AND WINDOWS ROLLED DOWN).

But seriously folks, If you can afford it, buy a Hybrid (They have Hybrid 4 wheel drive SUV's now.) Cars are the biggest factor that the average  citizen can change to have an effect on global warming. (Coal burning power plants are the biggest - see below) You can use the newer fluorescent light bulbs which use less energy to create the same amount of light as the old style bulbs, but they are hazardous waste (go figure). They are calling them "CFLs" Compact Fluorescent Lights. "Compared to general service incandescent lamps giving the same amount of visible light, CFLs use less power, have a longer rated life, but have a higher purchase price. In the United States, a CFL can save over 30 US$ in electricity costs over the lamp's life time compared to an incandescent lamp, and save 2,000 times its own weight in greenhouse gases. Like all fluorescent lamps, CFLs contain mercury, which complicates their disposal." - Wiki.


It took a little digging, but I did find this: "Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually."

source: NRDC: Global Warming Basics

So write to your leaders about alternative energy to produce electricity.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 2, 2009)

On LED lights.   As Drachir said, they are already available.  The problem is that they still do not put out enough light at the right colour balance to replace traditional lights, but the industry is getting there.   I would not advocate any changes to laws or subsidies on domestic lights at present.  Fluorescent lights have their own problems.   The best alternative will be LEDs, and the development of this technology is going at break neck speed.  Within 10 years, everyone will buy LEDs for their cost saving, and long life, and versatility.  No need to make changes now, because it is gonna happen, folks!

On driving cars, the best alternative is an all electric car.  Again, these are under development  BTW, an electric car that is recharged using electricity from a coal burning power station still results in less overall carbon emission than a petrol driven car.  Within a few years, the first all electric family cars will be widely available.

Growing trees.   4 acres of forest in Canada is great.   Recent work has shown that forests in colder parts of the world actually absorb more carbon than forests in warmer parts.

Burning coal.   This is one of the worst carbon emitters.   My own thoughts are that this should be a top priority for governments.   Replace coal burning power stations with non carbon emitting alternatives.  Nuclear is a very good replacement, since one station can pump out as much power as 100,000 wind towers.   And it is continuous, not depending on environmental variables.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 3, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> So who is going to pay for the manufacturing and distribution?
> 
> I can't afford a heat pump on our house. If I could, I would have one.
> 
> ...



I didn't put this in any detail in my post, but in the oil-rich province in which I live, the government has already handed out $2 billion for carbon capture, which is an unproven technology and may not even work.  I would much rather see the money spent on improving energy efficiency.  Governments in the US are doing the same thing so the money is already being spent on your behalf.  It would be nice if a little of that cash was used to implement some more immediate and practical solutions.  In other words, DG your government should have no problem paying for it as it is already using your tax money to fund programs aimed at reducing or dealing with greenhouse emissions.    

As for TEIN's post I assume it was facetious.  It reminds me of some of the rants written by people who opposed the building of railways in the 19th century.  If it was a serious response, the same answer applies.  Governments are already spending very large sums to reduce the affects of greenhouse gas emissions.  If they are going to do this anyway, does it not make sense to spend the money on easy to implement solutions rather than complex technology that may take years to develop and not work anyway?


----------



## Drachir (Dec 3, 2009)

Sorry about this extra post, but when I checked my email and my daily tech letter, I was linked to this article.  At the risk of having this thread become an argument over the efficacy of LED lights, here it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/business/energy-environment/30led.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065


----------



## skeptical (Dec 3, 2009)

Richard

No-one is arguing against the efficiency of LEDs.  Personally, I think they are great.   However, a little over a year ago, my wife and I were setting up the lighting of our new house, and we investigated LEDs.  While they are long life, and very low in energy demand, they are still not good replacements for existing light.   The problem is low light intensity where you need lots of light, and colour balance.

As I said, given 10 years, it will be a no contest.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 3, 2009)

Drachir said:


> As for TEIN's post I assume it was facetious. It reminds me of some of the rants written by people who opposed the building of railways in the 19th century. If it was a serious response, the same answer applies. Governments are already spending very large sums to reduce the affects of greenhouse gas emissions. If they are going to do this anyway, does it not make sense to spend the money on easy to implement solutions rather than complex technology that may take years to develop and not work anyway?


 

It was a serious response. Most old dimmer switches are not compatible with the new low energy bulbs (the ones where you live in a cave for the first couple of minutes as they warm up). Not only that but as I understand it if you don't replace the dimmer switch it can be dangerous and will also affect the lifetime of the bulb. They will also be responsible for mercury contamination which will no doubt need special carbon expensive processes to remove.

The fancy halogen types that look like little cones are usually quite high wattage say 40 or 50 watts, they run of transformers and you need a few scattered about to light a decent sized room. 40 at 12V is still 40Watts. If you have 3 or 4 in a room you're not saving energy, you may as well have a 150 W bulb in the middle of the room. You wouldn't have needed to manufacture an carbon footed transformer and the electricians time money and travelling carbon to install that.

Newbuild - Fair enough that is possibly an argument. However the carbon pay back time on demolishing an old Victorian house to replace it with super efficient modern houses probably doesn't stack up.

LED types I've not looked into they may save energy, but as skeptical they are not natural light.

Wind farms are a total waste unless they operate 24/7 (few ever operate 8/7 and then half the year at best). If you add up all the energy to make, install them and infrastructure required then usually over their useful life they just about break even an energy in energy out basis. They only become attractive 'investments' when government subsidies kick in. The generators and machinery have a life span. There's nothing super about these, they are expensive and last on average seven years. During that time they need to be maintained and all these problems have a footprint.
Most windmills are built with a lifespan of less than 25 years.

I would suggest that all mobile phone masts are turned of. Microwaves add heat to the environment. If you look at the watts generated by every mast, (and of course every phone) then they must have and effect (not even counting the energy spent in their use).

Would anyone here stop using microwave intensive mobiles to save the planet.

Whatever happens the oil will run out long before these solutions have chance to make any an impact. After that it's going to get cold.


----------



## Boneman (Dec 3, 2009)

Okay, here's my simple idea: every new house that is built should have solar tiles on the roof. They look exactly like ordinary tiles but can generate heat or electricity, and the technology exists to change all roof tiles on existing homes. The drawback? The price; but if government really were serious about this, then the green taxes they have put on flying, and the (continual) tax they load on petrol should pay to subsidise these so that they were immediately snapped up. Could always pass a law forcing builders to use 'em...


----------



## skeptical (Dec 3, 2009)

Boneman

There is already research under way to develop some system like that.   The problem is cost.  Electricity generated by solar cells is about 4 times the cost of electricity from coal fired power stations.   And guess what?   It will be *you *paying that price.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 3, 2009)

Boneman: It's a fine idea but would people be prepared to re-roof every ten years. Don't forget to build in the footprint for these repares and the footprint to manufacture the panels in the first place.

Normal roofs would last over thirty years or even longer.

Solar tiles I seem to recall are only guaranteed for twelve months and would probably become 'tired' even before ten years. They are much more expensive too.

Water heating panels also need to be replaced regularly and would need very large ones to heat a normal home without the boiler and then only in the south of England.


----------



## Dave (Dec 3, 2009)

I don't think Solar cells on the roofs in temperate climates are the answer. I looked into getting them, not to produce electricity, but to partially heat the hot water system (saving quite a lot of electricity.) Even so, they would still take something like 50 years to pay for themselves unless their cost came down. Of course, if everyone had them, the cost would become economical very quickly.

There are other things that could be done with roofs though. If they were grassed over that would insulate the house and reflect heat. I think that only works with those modern odd-looking eco-friendly houses. They seem a bit dark and cave-like for me.

A very simple thing would be to just paint all roofs white. Slate black roofs absorb the most heat of all.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 4, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> .
> 
> Wind farms are a total waste unless they operate 24/7 (few ever operate 8/7 and then half the year at best). If you add up all the energy to make, install them and infrastructure required then usually over their useful life they just about break even an energy in energy out basis. They only become attractive 'investments' when government subsidies kick in. The generators and machinery have a life span. There's nothing super about these, they are expensive and last on average seven years. During that time they need to be maintained and all these problems have a footprint.
> Most windmills are built with a lifespan of less than 25 years.



You are right about those little halogen bulbs.  I got rid of all of them in my house and replaced them with fluorescents.

I do have a question concerning subsidies.  How do the subsidies for alternative energy sources compare to the tax breaks and subsidies handed out to the oil and coal industries and the nuclear power industries?

I live in an energy producing province (Alberta) that supplies the USA with about 14% of its oil and I am very well aware of the huge tax breaks and incentives handed out to the producers of carboniferous fuels here.  

I also wonder when comparisons are made about the cost of solar and wind compared to conventional energy sources whether the damage to the environment and the problems caused by pollution are factored into the cost.  So far as I know solar and wind are fairly low on these side effects.


----------



## Window Bar (Dec 5, 2009)

Dave writes: _"Solar cells ... to partially heat the hot water system (saving quite a lot of electricity.) Even so, they would still take something like 50 years to pay for themselves unless their cost came down. Of course, if everyone had them, the cost would become economical very quickly."_

I agree that the cost would have to come way down. We talk a lot about "Payback period" with alternative energy. As posted by Dave, *a 50-year payback period is the same as drawing 2% on your investment for that time.* It may be even worse, given the need for maintenance and replacements.

That's the problem. Big money is not interested in 2% returns.

*Insulation, however, can often pencil out at 10% returns or better*, and it generally requires no upkeep or replacement.

-- WB


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 5, 2009)

Chinook said:


> But seriously folks, If you can afford it, buy a Hybrid (They have Hybrid 4 wheel drive SUV's now.) Cars are the biggest factor that the average  citizen can change to have an effect on global warming. (Coal burning power plants are the biggest - see below) You can use the newer fluorescent light bulbs which use less energy to create the same amount of light as the old style bulbs, but they are hazardous waste (go figure). They are calling them "CFLs" Compact Fluorescent Lights. "Compared to general service incandescent lamps giving the same amount of visible light, CFLs use less power, have a longer rated life, but have a higher purchase price. In the United States, a CFL can save over 30 US$ in electricity costs over the lamp's life time compared to an incandescent lamp, and save 2,000 times its own weight in greenhouse gases. Like all fluorescent lamps, CFLs contain mercury, which complicates their disposal." - Wiki.
> 
> 
> It took a little digging, but I did find this: "Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually."
> ...


Do not buy large hybrids!  Hybrids save 2mpg *freeway* and *0 mpg city* even though they *cost more*.  Buy a car one size smaller.  They cost less money and have better mpg figures for both city and freeway driving than hybrid ripoffs.  Just make sure you don't compensate by driving more.
As for CFLs, you can not install incandescent lighting without motion sensors and dimmers; you have to use fluorescent.  However, in the US only California has a recycling program and California's system isn't used.  Over 90% of that mercury is dumped into the ground water supply.  LED replacement lights cost insane money ($60 for the equivalent of a 60w bulb).
So my recommendations:
1.  Drive less.  For example, when shopping at 2 stores in a strip mall, walk from one end to the other instead of driving and reparking.
2.  Turn off lights and electronics that you are not using.
3.  Use fluorescents but please recycle the old lamps.
4.  Next time you buy a car, buy the smallest, cheapest, most fuel efficient one that you can tolerate.
5.  Caulk around windows (remodels and new construction require double glazed but until then I wouldn't bother).  
6.  Weather strip around exterior doors (the bottom usually has the biggest gap).


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 5, 2009)

Drachir said:


> You are right about those little halogen bulbs.  I got rid of all of them in my house and replaced them with fluorescents.
> 
> I do have a question concerning subsidies.  How do the subsidies for alternative energy sources compare to the tax breaks and subsidies handed out to the oil and coal industries and the nuclear power industries?
> 
> ...


From a cost stand point without subsidies, coal and nuclear are tied for the second cheapest after conventional hydro which is maxed out.  Nuclear however wins hands down vs coal when environmental costs are included.*  However, due to large capital costs for nuclear, the nuclear has to be kept at full output making it suitable only for base load (this is also true of hydro).  That is why increased nuclear capacity is so important; it buys us time to develop other technology to replace coal for production of the additional demand at peak or to make coal vastly cleaner.
*  The per unit cost is still lower than solar and wind on average.  Low chance of meltdown (probability of meltdown x cost of damage is small number), low(nuke)/moderate(coal) cost of global warming per kWh (cost of damage is divided by a large amount of kWh resulting in a smaller number/kWh)

Oh, better gas pipelines in some locations may make gas a viable alternative to coal in some markets.  That said, there is not enough supply to cover total generation particularly if you go to CNG powered or plug-in electric/hybrid vehicles.  Oh, which is worse, gas vehicles or vehicles powered by coal generated electricity?


----------



## jojajihisc (Dec 5, 2009)

Hydroelectric is actually far from maxed out. The USGS estimates about 2/3 of total capacity remains undeveloped worldwide. Particularly China, Russia and Brazil have enormous capacities that are undeveloped and to a lesser extent, but at still very high capacities, so does India, Colombia and Peru. 

Hyrdoelectric and nuclear development should all be considered if we are talking about what governments can do (and govs. are mentioned in the thread starter). If we are talking about what individual citizens can do then I think making your home as efficient as it can be by insulating, sealing, cleaning heating and cooling systems regularly, using fluorescent lighting wherever you can, use mass transit if you can and consume less plastic. Nothing really new or interesting there I realize. Replacing all or even part of your ornamental lawn with something like corn could be useful as well especially as subsidies to that crop continue to drive up food prices.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 5, 2009)

Just for interest and as fuel for the debate, I have some figures for cost of electricity generation.   These are current for 2005, and may not be exactly accurate today, but should be close.   They are averages, in United States cents per kilowatt hour, taken over many operating plants.

Hydro-electricity    5.8
Coal burning          6
Nuclear                 7.5
Wind                    10
Solar cells              25

Most of the cost of nuclear power generation comes from the cost of commissioning a plant and decommissioning it at the end of its service life.   Cost of nuclear fuel is only 5 to 10% of the total.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 6, 2009)

Companies that claim to be carbon neutral to attract extra business need careful consideration if that would be the reason you would deal with them.

It goes like this.

You want your company to to appear environmentally friendly to boost your customer base and open new opportunities, such as government contracts and ethical investment houses.

You get your operation surveyed for is total carbon use by some recognised organisation.

The survey might report that you use 100,000 Lbs of carbon dioxide per year and gives recommendations on how this can be improved.

The usual methods are to install more efficient boilers and insulate the walls, window and floor, install a windmill for some power and maybe switch over from gas to off peak electrical storage, change all your bulbs to low energy types. Have auto switching lighting circuits, Update all those old PC's and buy some new production machinery - whatever.

These improvements you are told will reduce your carbon footprint to say 20,000Lb /per year.

Oh dear not carbon neutral and there's nothing you can do to improve your operation any further.

The actual footprints of these changes are written off as a one of cost. The windmill might cost 50,000lbs to make and the new boiler 10,000. The bulbs etc. etc.

But you still have that shortfall.

Fear not for help is at hand. You don't have to worry because it's not the carbon you actually use that matters. It's the fact your company does something to be carbon neutral.

Every low energy bulb claims to save the user, lets say for the sake of the example 100lbs/year. So all the company has to do is buy enough bulbs to offset it's excessive carbon use. So it buys 200 low energy bulbs. Now this is where it gets nasty. It doesn't matter who uses these bulbs. the company can distribute the bulbs to whoever it likes, Employees for personal use, anybody because if the bulb is used anywhere it's saving carbon somewhere. In fact as far as anybody is concerned it doesn't even matter if the bulbs are ever switched on. The company has a receipt showing a it saved energy/carbon. It could even send them straight to the tip/landfill.

This puts a new light on the new bulb regulations.

It's worse than that. These bulbs are probably being produced/purchased to over capacity just to provide offsets because of course they have to buy the 200 bulbs every year despite the fact the bulbs last longer than that (supposedly)

To show this actually happens, how many of us have come home to find a present of four low energy bulbs on your doorstep - free - gratis and wondered what the hell was going on.

Planting trees is just another 'branch' of this con. It doesn't matter if those trees are cut down and burnt next year. Last year they made the company neutral.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 6, 2009)

It seems to me that we are drifting away from my original post.  Nuclear power and complex mechanisms for calculating greenhouse emissions are not what I had in mind.  Improved solar collectors would be, as would anything that can be done to lower greenhouse emissions at the personal level.

Here is an interesting article on using recycled soft drink cans to build a solar heater.
Solar air heater manufacturers

During the 1970s and 1980s there seemed to be a huge number of ideas associated with more energy efficient building techniques.  I remember the story of one American who built an entire house out of war surplus ammunition boxes.  He filled them with concrete and used them as large bricks. 

More recently there are builders who are constructing relatively low-cost housing out of used shipping containers.  

These are simple ideas, and do not require billions of dollars or nuclear physicists to implement them.

As for nuclear, it may be a technological dead end, not because it does not work, but because the construction of recent nuclear power plants has not gone according to plan and the future construction of nuclear plants may not be possible on the scale imagined.  To avoid cluttering up this thread with a nuclear power debate I have started another dealing with that topic.


----------



## Dave (Dec 6, 2009)

Drachir said:


> During the 1970s and 1980s there seemed to be a huge number of ideas associated with more energy efficient building techniques.  I remember the story of one American who built an entire house out of war surplus ammunition boxes.  He filled them with concrete and used them as large bricks.


Are you aware that the manufacture of cement (and therefore concrete) produces 5% of global man-made CO2 emissions, of which 50% is from the chemical process itself, and 40% from burning fossil fuels? Estimated total carbon emissions from cement production in 1994 were 307 million metric tons of carbon.
CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM THE GLOBAL CEMENT INDUSTRY1 - Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 26(1):303 - Abstract


----------



## skeptical (Dec 6, 2009)

Dave

That argument about cement is often made, but it is actually not that bad.   Cement includes a lot of calcium hydroxide, which reacts with CO2 to make calcium carbonate.  So any cement structure exposed to the air is slowly absorbing CO2 and sequestering it.   It takes decades, but a big fraction of the CO2 originally released in making cement is reabsorbed.


----------



## Werewoman (Dec 6, 2009)

*whips out her jack-hammer and keeps it at the ready just in case*


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 7, 2009)

jojajihisc said:


> Hydroelectric is actually far from maxed out. The USGS estimates about 2/3 of total capacity remains undeveloped worldwide.


Conventional hydro is maxed out in the US.  In fact, it is pretty well maxed out in the majority of highly developed nations.  In the rest there are two issues:  1.  High capital costs and 2.  It is therefore suited only for supplying the base load.


----------



## Nik (Dec 7, 2009)

Harking back to LEDs and CFLs...

I'm working at the top of a flight of stairs under a light fitting with two CFLs and one LED. The CFLs flicker and are dim when they start up, which is just when they're needed the most. The LED comes on 'instantly'-- Except it died a few months after I bought it. At £ 10 UKP, it was expensive enough for me to demand a replacement. But, I could not *prove* I'd made fair use of it, so it just hangs there, forlorn and dark...

Now, I have an always-on CFL clipped to the end of the desk's frame. That provides navigation while the main pair 'boot up'.

FWIW, we've learned to cycle CFLs as little as possible. A low-wattage bulb will run for several years non-stop. If you cycle it on demand, it dies a lot sooner. 

I'm told some new CFLs are dimmable from standard knob, and incorporate a 'soft-start' feature. I like the sound of them. I've had to get 'Halogen in bulb' lamps for our one dimmable fitting. Unfortunately, they're still not as bright as the old 'tungstens' the room and fitting should have... 

Now comes the tricky part: LED lamps are toxic, require special disposal. Not so toxic as the mercury in CFLs and strip-lights, but still toxic...

Another problem. Long ago, we took the decision to replace the big kitchen's and big bathroom's multiple short-lived, inefficient incandescent lights with 3-foot, 4-foot and 5-foot strip fluorescents. We saved a lot of electricity, a lot of waste heat. However, at present, there are no economic replacements for those trusty tube-lights. I've seen 'plug compatible' LED arrays, but they cost £ 25 UKP each, need modifications to the holder / starter and are subject to the same doubt as my forlorn, dark lamp. They must have a long and guaranteed life to be worthwhile...

FWIW, we have a dehumidifier, whose waste heat warms room, too. We also have a heat-exchanger extract fan in bath-room which recovers 70~~80 % of the balanced flue's flow...

We do have a clear, South-facing wall which would be ideal for solar panels. Sadly, we could not get planning permission. Perhaps that's fortunate, as similar installations found their pay-back time would be close to the estimated life of the units...

One 'gotcha': If low-voltage LED lighting is combined with low-voltage storage, a lot of the safety issues with PV generation go away.

A sad gotcha: When our hot water system was 'indirectly' heated by a CH loop through the hot tank, we could have used any 'waste' solar power to drive a low-voltage immersion heater. Now, the system is the more efficient 'direct fired' condensing type, which has no hot-tank and cannot use an immersion heater...

Two steps forwards, one aside, one back...


----------



## Boneman (Dec 7, 2009)

And as everyone is saying, it's the cost that is driving the ideas, either backwards or forwards. 

Here's a simple idea: the Government actually uses all the green taxes it is screwing out of the populace to subsidise environmental products...


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 7, 2009)

Boneman said:


> Here's a simple idea: the Government actually uses all the green taxes it is screwing out of the populace to subsidise environmental products...


Now that really comes under the heading of fantasy


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 7, 2009)

Boneman said:


> And as everyone is saying, it's the cost that is driving the ideas, either backwards or forwards.
> 
> Here's a simple idea: the Government actually uses all the green taxes it is screwing out of the populace to subsidise environmental products...


 
Are you Mad. 

What kind of democracy would that be.

Good grief, you'll be expecting them to tell us the truth next.


----------



## Boneman (Dec 7, 2009)

> By TEIN
> _Good grief, you'll be expecting them to tell us the truth next._


 

You mean they don't??? Next you'll be telling me there's no Father Christmas




ps; sorry for hijacking the thread, bigger boys did it first...


----------



## jojajihisc (Dec 7, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> Conventional hydro is maxed out in the US.  In fact, it is pretty well maxed out in the majority of highly developed nations.  In the rest there are two issues:  1.  High capital costs and 2.  It is therefore suited only for supplying the base load.



You're right it is maxed out in the U.S. as well as "the majority of highly developed nations" (although an extremely narrow double qualification especially when those nations are not major sources of hydroelectric capacity) but since when has finding energy sources been limited to political boundaries or highly developed nations? If China and India had a hydrooelectric infrastructure commensurate with the United State's it would lessen the amount of coal to burn for the "base load" as you put it. The point is that is there is still a large capacity for hydroelectric to expand worldwide.


----------



## Boneman (Dec 7, 2009)

And in England, if this sort of weather keeps up, it would make sense to have Hydroelectric generators (dams) in the rivers. a) generate electricity b) control the water, so no flooding. Or will environmentalists say it's bad for the environment?


----------



## Chinook (Dec 7, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> Do not buy large hybrids!  Hybrids save 2mpg *freeway* and *0 mpg city* even though they *cost more*.  Buy a car one size smaller.  They cost less money and have better mpg figures for both city and freeway driving than hybrid ripoffs.  Just make sure you don't compensate by driving more.



Sorry, Not true Wiggy.  The 4 Wheel Drive version of the Mazda "Tribute" SUV which is more or less a copy of the 4 Wheel Drive version of the Ford Escape gets 31 MPG in the city, burns no gas at all when waiting at a stoplight (or stuck in a traffic jam). 

The front wheel drive version gets 34 MPG city. They actually get less on the Highway (27/30 MPG) because battery weight to power ratio slows it down at higher speeds. 

The non-hybrid version : 

19 MPG city, 25 MPG hwy. So, only if you're doing absolutely no city driving would Wiggy's statement be accurate. (and only the mpg highway part)

These are all okay:




Wiglaf said:


> 1.  Drive less.  For example, when shopping at 2 stores in a strip mall, walk from one end to the other instead of driving and reparking.
> 2.  Turn off lights and electronics that you are not using.
> 3.  Use fluorescents but please recycle the old lamps.
> 4.  Next time you buy a car, buy the smallest, cheapest, most fuel efficient one that you can tolerate.
> ...



But you should add going solar, which can be costly, but you can remove your carbon footprint entirely from the home you live in. Plus, there are government subsidies everywhere to help you pay for the solar systems and if you produce more than your share the utility company will pay you for the extra.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 7, 2009)

Boneman said:


> And in England, if this sort of weather keeps up, it would make sense to have Hydroelectric generators (dams) in the rivers. a) generate electricity b) control the water, so no flooding. Or will environmentalists say it's bad for the environment?



The environmentalists would indeed; and they would have their arguments.

The lakes generated are good for some species, but leave no wetlands, a habitat which has been marginalised over the centuries with marshes drained for farmland, and a remarkable number of birds and beasts require.

Anyway, where were you intending to put these lakes in England? In the downs, perchance? For hydroelectricity you don't only need flow rate, but head. And the rain has to fall higher than that, too.

But while we're on hydroelectric, is anyone considering tide power and wave power? There's a lot of energy there, it's just a bit diffuse and irregular. You could always use the energy of the Severn bore to pump water up a welsh mountain, then get conventional hydroelectric turbines to produce continuous current.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 7, 2009)

The UK should stop messing about and get the Severn Barrage built. A few stupid birds are going have to find a new home but they'll be extinct anyway if the global warming fanatics are right, So no harm there. Estimates for the Severn vary between 5% and 10% of UK needs. This is not the only river that it could be done to and given the variation in tides around the UK that would probably be a river somewhere that was producing.

We could use all the landfill waste for the barrage so we wouldn't have to worry about extra quarrying of infill. It's win win.

On another note if the government really believed it's doom and gloom predictions of rising sea levels then they should be upgrading the coastal and river flood defences like the Thames barrier. But wait no such improvements are on the cards. Instead they are building more homes on low lying coastal sand bars.


----------



## Nik (Dec 8, 2009)

IIRC, there's an un-adopted scheme for Severn Barrage that would retain tidal pattern, wetlands etc etc as if at average tides. The gotcha is that it requires a MASSIVE, oval, pumped-storage reservoir in mid channel. Think 'cooling tower' thrice size of 'New Wembley', tall as the London Eye...

Okay, it would make a great tourist trap, and could have a zillion cliff-birds' nest-boxes on outer face, but it would need a heap of rebar and concrete more than just a barrage...

Free-standing wind, wave and current generation equipment is probably more economical...

Uh, low-lying / flood-plain land is no bar to building new homes *provided* you follow that Dutch/German prototype design and make them float. IIRC, they just slide up a pair of concealed piles. Services are slung beneath a hinged 'gangway'. Worst case, they can ride several feet higher than even the elevated / levéed access road. Just, have a small wind-generator on the roof for emergency lights and a dinghy mooring stanchion on the edge of the deck...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 8, 2009)

NiK:

Stuff the birds, as I said they're going to have to migrate to somewhere else anyway. That's why it'll never get built. We'll all die for the want of the environmentalists who are not prepared to act to save us because some lesser spotted dork gull will die out sooner if they disturb it's 'soon to be flooded under a tide of Maldive ocean water' habitat.


As for houses that can be jacked up:-

No way the UK government is going to think that way. It costs more and in any case, as I said, I don't think they actually believe the doom and gloom they tell us.

In any case raising your house seems a good idea but your car still get swept away in the night. Whereas I, with my hill top based home, am above all that and I can watch the plains flood below me, happy in the knowledge that I'll probably die of starvation as the supplies and fresh water can't get through the flooded roads.

I'm afraid I'm one of those that think it's just and excuse to tax us without using the revenue to do anything.


----------



## skeptical (Dec 8, 2009)

TEIN

You need not be *quite* so enthusiastic about living up to your name!

The IPCC predict a global average sea level rise of 59 cm by 2100.  Currently it is rising at 3 mm per year, so even the 59cm prediction will require a substantial increase in the rate of sea level rise.  I don't think you will be gazing at permanently flooded plains any time soon.


----------



## Dave (Dec 8, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> 1.  Drive less.  For example, when shopping at 2 stores in a strip mall, walk from one end to the other instead of driving and reparking.


I've never been to the US, but Bill Bryson's 'Notes from a Big Country' describes how impossible this is in US 'out of town' retail parks due to the physical barriers between car lots. He humourously describes how you cannot walk to the next store but are forced to drive. In the UK, we also had a surge in the development of these in the late 80's and early 90's. They are a little more pedestrian friendly over here, but they have killed off some old town centres and often can only be visited by road.



Boneman said:


> And in England, if this sort of weather keeps up, it would make sense to have Hydroelectric generators (dams) in the rivers. a) generate electricity b) control the water, so no flooding. Or will environmentalists say it's bad for the environment?


I think most rivers in the UK are already controlled by dams Boneman. 

The River Derwent that just flooded in Cockermouth is already dammed at Bassenthwaite Lake, but it is surrounded by hills that had highest level of rainfall measured in England in a 24 hour period since records began. A dam isn't going to prevent that. I'm not sure any flood defences can.

The River Tyne had a flood in 1815 that washed away buildings on Newcastle and Gateshead Quaysides. That kind of event can never be prevented, but the building of Kielder Dam in 1982 has probably reduced the chances. Even so the Tyne floods in 2005 were the worst since 1815.

The threat of flooding in London does not come downstream where the Thames is controlled by a series of locks down to Kingston. The threat comes not from rainfall, but from a peculiar series of circumstances that result from a combination of rising sea level, lowering land level, high spring tides and a funnelling effect of the North Sea and Thames Estuary when a low pressure storm lies over Norway.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 8, 2009)

They've got to raise the sea level an awfully long way to get me.

Back in the – sixties, I think it was, maybe the early seventies – before plans were finalised for the channel tunnel, along with a channel bridge, there were proposals for a channel dam. A roadway along the top (multilane, plus rails) bridging the enormous locks for merchant shipping (that you could tax as it came through) but above all for this thread, bidirectional turbines generating enough electricity for the south of England, the north of France and Belgium. Now, that would have been engineering (even if I suspect the power requirements or the regions have increased a little in the meantime).

I seem to remember a humourist suggesting a great big changeover jubction in the middle, where cars went from driving on the left, to the right. I'm not sure what the shopping malls and residences along it did for sewage disposal; I do hope they didn't just dump it into the sea.

Now, all they need is to garnish the edges with windmills…


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 8, 2009)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I'm afraid I'm one of those that think it's just and excuse to tax us without using the revenue to do anything.


Doesn't help that Darling recently admitted the recent 'green' tax on air travel which was claimed to help protect the environment was actually to help pay for the bailing out of the banks.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 8, 2009)

Chinook said:


> Sorry, Not true Wiggy.  The 4 Wheel Drive version of the Mazda "Tribute" SUV which is more or less a copy of the 4 Wheel Drive version of the Ford Escape gets 31 MPG in the city, burns no gas at all when waiting at a stoplight (or stuck in a traffic jam).
> 
> The front wheel drive version gets 34 MPG city. They actually get less on the Highway (27/30 MPG) because battery weight to power ratio slows it down at higher speeds.
> 
> ...


I looked at more reliable data; you are right about mpg.  However, I am still correct about buying a smaller vehicle being a vastly superior method of reducing fuel consumption from a cost stand point.  Here solar for your home isn't that helpful as during the day you aren't home to take advantage of it.  However, for commercial situations where you have A/C, dozens of computers, and windowless rooms requiring lighting, it becomes feasible if there are subsidies and/or carbon taxes on electricity generation.  The European method of taxes is more efficient than the American method of regulation.  You could use the revenue to cut business taxes to reduce income effects while maintaining substitution effects.  For all these ideas, it would help for government to foster policy that would make them economically feasible.


----------



## Chinook (Dec 8, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> I looked at more reliable data; you are right about mpg.  However, I am still correct about buying a smaller vehicle being a vastly superior method of reducing fuel consumption from a cost stand point.  Here solar for your home isn't that helpful as during the day you aren't home to take advantage of it.  However, for commercial situations where you have A/C, dozens of computers, and windowless rooms requiring lighting, it becomes feasible if there are subsidies and/or carbon taxes on electricity generation.  The European method of taxes is more efficient than the American method of regulation.  You could use the revenue to cut business taxes to reduce income effects while maintaining substitution effects.  For all these ideas, it would help for government to foster policy that would make them economically feasible.



Right, I was only talking about SUV's because so many people like them as family cars. My theory is that (mothers especially) feel safer in an SUV than a small car. They would be right, and even more so if they are not very good at driving. (I recently read a poll that said that men are more crazy on the road than women, so I'm not saying anything chauvinist. )
What feeds into my theory is that mothers are concerned about the safety of their children which is why (some) will prefer a larger car. A small car like the Honda Insight (43 city/40 hwy) and the Toyota Prius (51 city/48 hwy) will pay for itself in gas cost savings faster than a big car, and of course expell much less in greenhouse gases, but some folks have other concerns, and I was trying to enlighten our audience to those other options, and point out a middle road, so to speak.

And you'd better believe I agree when it comes to taxing business for their greenhouse gas emissions. But I know that there are many companies who are now trying to pitch in by lowering their emissions, plant trees, etc. The jury is still out on whether we can turn the "winds of change" around fast enough. It might be prudent to reward companies who do pitch in.


----------



## Boneman (Dec 9, 2009)

> By Chinook
> _Plus, there are government subsidies everywhere to help you pay for the solar systems _




The government can buy whole solar systems!!! I knew we were taxed too much, but those b******s should give some of it back to us!


And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...


----------



## skeptical (Dec 9, 2009)

Boneman

Not uncommon for cars to get amazing fuel economy under those conditions.   If you have flat motorway, and can pretty much stick to the same speed throughout without accelerating or braking, your fuel economy may look incredible.

However, if you take into account all kinds of driving, including city stop/start driving, you will find the average drops dramatically.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 9, 2009)

Skeptical, I think Boneman was saying he does the same drive, under the same conditions, in a smaller engined car, and gets worse fuel economy.

It's likely that the smaller car will be revving higher at the same speed; that might have something to do with it. Might be that the gauges calculate consumption differently.

I once did a motorway trip in my 1600 VW Beetle and got about 19mpg!


(Edit: 1600 was the engine size, not the year of manufacture - though come to think of it ...)


----------



## skeptical (Dec 9, 2009)

I have a 4 litre Ford. When I drive on the motorway on flat land using cruise control at 110 kph (70 mph), I get 50 mpg. However, I live in a coastal rural area. When I drive there, it is all up and down hills, braking for corners, accelerating out of corners etc. I get 12 mpg!

The difference in consumption due to different types of driving is so dramatic that it is not surprising that a smaller car can get lower economy, assuming it is driven in a less constant manner.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 10, 2009)

Boneman said:


> The government can buy whole solar systems!!! I knew we were taxed too much, but those b******s should give some of it back to us!
> 
> 
> And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...



Actually there are very few cars like that built in the USA.  Even the Humvee only has eight.  Most North American built cars are four cylinder and siz cylinder vehicles.  I must admit, having visited Italy this year that the cars in the US and Canada are still much larger than their European counterparts, but they have shrunk considerably over the years.  I currently drive a four cylinder Kia.


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 10, 2009)

Boneman said:


> The government can buy whole solar systems!!! I knew we were taxed too much, but those b******s should give some of it back to us!
> 
> 
> And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...


The 1.0 is probably undersized for the vehicle and some small vehicles have less transmission speeds.  This is more of a problem with cheap cars.  Also, a better term than smaller would be lighter.  Furthermore, fuel mileage at constant freeway speeds is greatly affected by wind resistance and gearing.  It takes little power as at 70mph you are at what, less than 1/4 throttle.  Fighting inertia from the on-ramp metering light will use more fuel in a heavier car.


----------



## Dave (Dec 10, 2009)

Whatever car you drive - accelerate less and brake less!

What is the point in being first to reach the next set of red traffic lights anyway? In heavy traffic that kind of hard on the pedals driving may save you a minute or two on a 40 minute journey (if you are lucky) but will use much more fuel and wear down your brake pads. It is also much less comfortable for any passengers to be thrown around.


----------



## Chinook (Dec 11, 2009)

I totally agree with that idea, Dave. I even learn the traffic light patterns so I know how fast to drive to get to the next light as it's turning green. Meanwhile, your mention of brakes and such reminded me of this principle, they are already using in many hybrid and electric cars:



> When the driver steps on the brake pedal of an electric or hybrid vehicle, these types of brakes put the vehicle's electric motor into reverse mode, causing it to run backwards, thus slowing the car's wheels. While running backwards, the motor also acts as an electric generator, producing electricity that's then fed into the vehicle's batteries. These types of brakes work better at certain speeds than at others. In fact, they're most effective in stop-and-go driving situations. However, hybrids and fully electric cars also have friction brakes, as a kind of back-up system in situations where regenerative braking simply won't supply enough stopping power.


(From: HowStuffWorks "How Regenerative Braking Works"  )


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 11, 2009)

1. Tinfoil or Mylar on windows reduces energy consumption.
2. Sweep your carpet instead of vacuum.
3. Unplug your cell phone or rechargeable battery charger when not in use.
4. Keep the refrigerator at the medium low setting. 
5. Keep the thermostat at 69 degrees. Wear an extra layer instead.
6. Reduce your speed and rate of increase to conserve gas and reduce emissions.
7. In winter, put a blanket over your car windows. This stops frost, so you waste less time trying to defrost. Also, warm your car up fully before taking off. This reduces emissions and preserves your engine, which helps the environment by not wasting metal. 
8. Only purchase products when you know their origin. For instance, don't by diamonds from Africa or South America for both environmental and humanitarian reasons.
9. Coca Cola purchases sugar in the billions of tons from child labor and slash and burn farming. Don't drink it. Or any of their products.
10. Shop second hand for clothing. Use trade systems and barter at local shops instead of buying new to reduce consumption.
11. Do not eat fast food. The trash from fast food is in the millions billions of tons. It also makes you fart which creates more gas in the air.
12. Kill termites. With your shoe, not poison or fire. Their farts are destroying the air. 
13. Purchase your dry food in bulk using a reusable bag, such as a lined gunny sack. (Flour, pasta, ect). This will prevent millions of tons of garbage. Think about how many empty boxes of pasta you've thrown out your whole life. 
14. Dry your clothes on a line or in the house on a rack.
15. Stop wasting food. Think about how many people you are cooking for. Reuse all left overs or freeze them. Food that you have that you aren't going to eat should go to the food kitchens. 
16. Don't be a whiner and turn off the air conditioner. Put a washcloth or bandanna in the freezer and wrap it about your head when its too hot out.
17. Canning your own food. Its not hard and the jars are reusable unlike the ones you get at the grocery.
18. Stop buying bottled water, or if you have to buy bottled water buy it by the 5 gallon barrel (I've had to buy water lots). Make sure you get the reusable barrels and reuse them. 
19. Be nice to your neighbors and offer to help them recycle/reuse/donate unused stuff to reduce consumption.
20. Be creative...think about what you are wasting and stop wasting it. Think about what you put in your trash and if there is a better way to stop making it trash. Think about what you don't use and if someone else could use it. Think about.......turning waste into resources. 

These are not hard things to do. I've been doing most of these the majority of my life.

PS: You also do not have to flush the toilet each time you go number one. Only for number two. It wastes several gallons of clean, fresh water. Or, if you are lucky enough not to have neighbors, number one outside. No. I'm not joking.


----------



## Window Bar (Dec 11, 2009)

*Re: Fighting Simple Ideas with Climate Change.*

First, please note that I've retitled my post to more accurately reflect what has been going on.***

My offering: The Lady and I have recently begun turning the heat totally OFF, not just down, at night.

We add a blanket, we sleep closer, and the "climate" has changed for the better ... at least at our house.

*** -- meaning in the world at large, not in this forum


----------



## Wiglaf (Dec 11, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> PS: You also do not have to flush the toilet each time you go number one. Only for number two. It wastes several gallons of clean, fresh water. Or, if you are lucky enough not to have neighbors, number one outside. No. I'm not joking.



If its yellow, let it mellow.  If its brown, flush it down.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 12, 2009)

Wiglaf said:


> If its yellow, let it mellow.  If its brown, flush it down.



Your idea has some merit, but right now it is -40 outside.  As a result it is something that will never catch on with modern Canadians.  At that temperature exposed skin freezes in ten minutes, so dawdling is out of the question.  Mind you, the poo freezes too - alt least until spring.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 12, 2009)

Drachir said:


> Your idea has some merit, but right now it is -40 outside.  As a result it is something that will never catch on with modern Canadians.  At that temperature exposed skin freezes in ten minutes, so dawdling is out of the question.  Mind you, the poo freezes too - alt least until spring.



You big sissy. 



Well at least don't flush every time you go potty. It wastes about 5 gallons of water. 

Well, in your own home. Not at a buddies house or store or restaurant or public place.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 12, 2009)

Boneman said:


> And the car thing: if I drive to my place of work (50 Miles) in my 2 Litre BMW the guage tells me that I get 60mpg (it's all motorway and I stick at 70mph). If I drive in my son's 1 litre polo at the same speed, I get 42mpg. Am I wrong, or am I burning more fuel in the smaller car, and polluting more? Maybe it's american cars they mean - 8 litre, 12 cylinder, behemoths...



Acceleration uses more gas, so stop and go uses way more gas, even in my American car. 

And if anybody would like to buy me a new gas efficient truck, I would gladly park my............eh, nah. I love my Chevy.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 12, 2009)

I'm pretty sure that not flushng the toilet is false economy.

The system needs a certain amount of water to keep things moving. If you only flush when things get to  head then the one flush has to do a lot more. If it can't then blockages start to build up and it all goes pear shaped.

As for five gallons - are you sure anout that DG:

In the UK I think it's maybe 2 -2.5 gallons for a long flush


----------



## Dave (Dec 12, 2009)

You can buy something to put inside old cisterns (a kind of inflatable bag) that reduces the amount of water they hold (or you can save your money and just put a brick inside.) Modern cisterns have a dual flush button (long and short.)


----------



## Werewoman (Dec 14, 2009)

In FL I had 1.5 gal. toilets in my house. They had some sort of air pump or something that added more force so less water was needed. That's all I remember. Personally, I'll keep flushing my toilets, folks.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 14, 2009)

WW: Cholera is only a state of mind.

The next state and it's pretty final. 

I'm with you, the end is coming soon enough, no need to jump the gun and miss all the fun


----------



## Werewoman (Dec 14, 2009)

Thanks, TEIN. Yeah, there's just something about modern sanitation that appeals to me. 

What gets me is people who thoroughly wash their recyclables before throwing them into the bin. I mean, I get the concept that you don't want bugs crawling around in it, but then I keep mine in the garage, so I say flush the toilet and let the bugs have the recyclables. That's a simple idea I can live with.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 14, 2009)

Dave said:


> You can buy something to put inside old cisterns (a kind of inflatable bag) that reduces the amount of water they hold (or you can save your money and just put a brick inside.) Modern cisterns have a dual flush button (long and short.)



Actually a couple of bricks works just as well and they are cheaper.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 14, 2009)

Werewoman said:


> Thanks, TEIN. Yeah, there's just something about modern sanitation that appeals to me.
> 
> What gets me is people who thoroughly wash their recyclables before throwing them into the bin. I mean, I get the concept that you don't want bugs crawling around in it, but then I keep mine in the garage, so I say flush the toilet and let the bugs have the recyclables. That's a simple idea I can live with.




Minus 46 here yesterday.  All of the microbes gave up and trekked off to Florida.


----------



## Boneman (Dec 14, 2009)

Originally Posted by *Drachir* 

 
_Your idea has some merit, but right now it is -40 outside. As a result it is something that will never catch on with modern Canadians. At that temperature exposed skin freezes in ten minutes, so dawdling is out of the question. Mind you, the poo freezes too - alt least until spring._


If you think about it, Canada has billions of trees, and not a very big population - the whole country must be carbon negative, no matter what they do...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Dec 14, 2009)

Werewoman said:


> Thanks, TEIN. Yeah, there's just something about modern sanitation that appeals to me.
> 
> What gets me is people who thoroughly wash their recyclables before throwing them into the bin. I mean, I get the concept that you don't want bugs crawling around in it, but then I keep mine in the garage, so I say flush the toilet and let the bugs have the recyclables. That's a simple idea I can live with.


 
Yep and having wasted all that water on cleaning their rubbish they complain when you have an *extra* half hour in the shower


----------



## Drachir (Dec 15, 2009)

Boneman said:


> Originally Posted by *Drachir*
> 
> 
> _Your idea has some merit, but right now it is -40 outside. As a result it is something that will never catch on with modern Canadians. At that temperature exposed skin freezes in ten minutes, so dawdling is out of the question. Mind you, the poo freezes too - alt least until spring._
> ...



We do have lots of trees, but they don't recyle much carbon dioxide in the winter, except in the west coast rainforest.  And Canada has a per capita carbon footprint that is close to the largest in the world.  I am not particularly proud of my country's climate record; as a matter of fact the current government's attitude is absolutely shameful, but what do you expect from a party that was bought by the oil and gas industry.


----------



## Werewoman (Dec 17, 2009)

Drachir said:


> Minus 46 here yesterday. All of the microbes gave up and trekked off to Florida.


 
Ah, that explains it then.


----------



## StormFeather (Jan 29, 2010)

Very interesting thread!

May I suggest, if you're looking for easy, simple solutions that might make a difference on a small scale - houseplants.

Before you scoff, many studies have been done on the significant ability of certain types of houseplants to remove toxins and create clean air. I have the book 'How to Grow Fresh Air' which goes into the original NASA science behind the thinking and lists the top 50 plants to cultivate in your home, depending on ease of care, ability to remove toxins (inc CO2) and oxygen production (have lent the book to a friend so can't recall exactly how it's laid out)

If you're interested it's here:

How To Grow Fresh Air: 50 Houseplants That Purify Your Home Or Office: Amazon.co.uk: B.C. Wolverton: Books

In the interest of providing an informed answer, I googled the book and came up with this website, to which I fear I may lose a lot of time as it has already fascinated me. This link is for a business man from Delhi, giving a 4m talk about the benefits of plants. If you read the comments, people have found more links that provide some more enlightenment on the subject. Follow this link:

Kamal Meattle on how to grow fresh air | Video on TED.com

So, even if you don't have much or anything of a garden, you can still make a difference to your immediate air quality, and brighten up your home in the process. I have houseplants in every room, and nearly all of them are on the top 50 list - most were bought before I read the book, but they are also the staples of garden centres and DIY stores so easy to get hold off. My kids have mother-in-laws tongue in each of their rooms, and spider plants. 

It may not be a huge difference, but in addition to DG's ideas, growing a bit of your own fresh air can't be bad, can it?


----------



## Window Bar (Feb 5, 2010)

Try attaching a toothbrush to the windshield wipers. Then, on rainy days, let the wife travel on the hood of the car while polishing her pearly whites with each swoosh of the wipers. We've found that air resistance (drag) is mitigated if she wears an Olympic quality slick fabric ski suit.

We're still working on improving the visibility aspects.


----------

