With all of the attention being paid to global warming and environmental issues this past year, are consumers dreaming of a green Christmas, decking the halls with Trex composite lumber and searching for a free-range partridge for their pesticide-free pear tree?
Not exactly.
"So far we're just buying what we need for the best price," said Janet Robinson of Valley Center, Kan., taking a breather on one of the benches outside Westlake Center on Friday afternoon. Robinson and her daughter, Lindsay Goode of Seattle, were toting numerous Macy's shopping bags.
For Pat Evans of Chattaroy, in Spokane County, fulfilling the wish lists of her grown children was challenging enough without focusing on Earth-friendly presents.
"As far as going green, it's not going that way right now," said Evans.
Environmentalists and solid-waste officials are urging shoppers to consider the ecological effects of their purchases. They're trying to cut down on the amount of trash going to landfills, whether it's packaging and wrapping paper or unwanted gifts. They're concerned about the resources used to make the products and transport them to the stores and then on to homes. The resources include greenhouse gas-producing fossil fuels and petroleum-based plastics.
continue
Sunday 25 November 2007
Thursday 22 November 2007
Canada house cuts energy consumption to zero
TORONTO, (Reuters Life!) - A state-of-the-art Canadian home is offering relief from the high energy bills that come in a cold, northern climate, by generating as much energy as it consumes over a year.
The house, called the Riverdale NetZero Project, in Edmonton, Alberta, is equipped with energy-efficient appliances and a solar power system and is part of a zero-energy project put together by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
"Everybody has always been frustrated by energy bills," said Gordon Howell of Howell-Mayhew Engineering in Edmonton, who is part of the team working on the Riverdale house.
"They're sensing that they want to do something to be responsible themselves for their energy consumption."
For the Edmonton house, one of 12 planned for Canada, 80 percent of the savings will come from reducing the amount of energy used. That includes wall and ceiling insulation, a ventilation system with heat recovery and high-performance windows that don't let heat or cool air escape.
"It's stunning what efficiency can do," said Howell, an electrical engineer specializing in solar power.
Solar energy, which is more expensive to install than energy-efficient products, provides the remaining 20 percent of the energy savings in the house, which is due to be completed by March 2008.
The building uses solar energy to heat water and help heat the home in winter, as well as to help with summer cooling.
By Naomi Kim
continue
The house, called the Riverdale NetZero Project, in Edmonton, Alberta, is equipped with energy-efficient appliances and a solar power system and is part of a zero-energy project put together by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
"Everybody has always been frustrated by energy bills," said Gordon Howell of Howell-Mayhew Engineering in Edmonton, who is part of the team working on the Riverdale house.
"They're sensing that they want to do something to be responsible themselves for their energy consumption."
For the Edmonton house, one of 12 planned for Canada, 80 percent of the savings will come from reducing the amount of energy used. That includes wall and ceiling insulation, a ventilation system with heat recovery and high-performance windows that don't let heat or cool air escape.
"It's stunning what efficiency can do," said Howell, an electrical engineer specializing in solar power.
Solar energy, which is more expensive to install than energy-efficient products, provides the remaining 20 percent of the energy savings in the house, which is due to be completed by March 2008.
The building uses solar energy to heat water and help heat the home in winter, as well as to help with summer cooling.
By Naomi Kim
continue
Sunday 18 November 2007
Gadgets to Spur Energy Conservation
Can glorified glow lamps stop blackouts and slash energy costs? Manhattan-based ConsumerPowerline thinks so. This winter, about a thousand participants in the company's energy-conservation program will receive small plug-in boxes that glow red when power demand peaks, urging them to turn off space heaters, defer dishwasher runs, or otherwise save electricity.
Energy suppliers respond to spikes in demand by gearing up extra production capacity. That can be so expensive that many utilities are willing to pay to promote conservation during periods of peak use. ConsumerPowerline pays apartment complexes, companies, and institutions to conserve on cue, then resells the resulting "negawatts"--reduction in demand--to utilities in New York, Massachusetts, and California.
Currently, ConsumerPowerline requests negawatts from its participants by paging them or sending them faxes, e-mails, or voice mails. This month, however, the firm received its first shipment of digital gauges, each about the size of an air freshener, that download information over a low-bandwidth satellite pager network. In the coming weeks, the company will distribute the gauges to participants in its program and, in some cases, display them in public spaces. Humphrey Wong, ConsumerPowerline's manager of incentive innovations, hopes that the devices will lead to an additional 5 to 10 percent drop in power consumption among organizations that already deliver reductions of 15 percent or more.
"We're trying to provide a relatively inexpensive tool for people to be informed about when to make good energy decisions," Wong says. That tool, the Joule, was developed jointly by ConsumerPowerline and MIT Media Lab spinoff Ambient Devices, based in Cambridge, MA.
When a utility schedules what's called in the business a "demand response event," Ambient signals the appropriate Joules to turn from green to blue and to display a countdown to the time at which the utility wants negawatts. Two hours before the event, the blue light begins to pulse. Finally, the Joule glows red to signal the start of the event, and it displays a new countdown that lets the user know when the event will end.
Wong hopes that, in addition to increasing conservation among current participants in ConsumerPowerline's program, streamlined communications will enable the company to reach out to individual homeowners--a largely untapped market--thereby multiplying its capacity to deliver negawatts.
The Joule isn't Ambient Devices' first foray into demand response. Since 2004, major California utilities have been testing Ambient's Energy Orb, a glass sphere that changes color to indicate the state of the grid. One utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, adopted the Orb as a commercial product last year, distributing 2,000 Orbs to customers who have agreed to supply negawatts. Like all of Ambient's products, the Orb receives its instructions over the pager network.
Ambient is also testing a new signaling device with EnBW, Germany's third-largest utility. Because energy prices in Germany vary by the hour, the new device will receive even more information than the Joule will. Its three-inch-square LCD screen is large enough to display crude graphs of hour-by-hour pricing for the next 24 hours as well as a forecast of the following day's energy prices and weather.
Most U.S. utilities are currently piloting time-specific pricing schemes like the one in Germany, and Wong hopes that this will create a new market for the Joule: helping residential and small commercial consumers track price shifts. Many utilities are planning to break their residential rates into just a few categories--a level of complexity the Joule could handle. Southern California Edison (SCE), for example, plans just three pricing categories: off peak, regular peak, and critical peak (the latter likely limited to the hottest summer afternoons, when the grid is most at risk).
Wong says that on such days, the Joule could make a major difference. "If one home turns off their air conditioner, that's one kilowatt. But if you get 1,000 homes, all of a sudden you're talking about one megawatt."
Ambient and ConsumerPowerline, however, will soon face competition thanks to new utility-installed meters that will use the cellular-telephone network and Wi-Fi, rather than satellites, to relay pricing information. SCE's $1.7 billion SmartConnect program, for example, aims to install smart meters in five million southern California homes and businesses between 2009 and 2012.
Paul De Martini, who directs the SmartConnect program, says that the meters will communicate with the utility via the cellular network, then broadcast pricing and local power-consumption information to home networks, probably using a low-power form of Wi-Fi called ZigBee. De Martini says that at least 20 companies, including giants such as General Electric, are developing ZigBee-enabled devices to pick up, interpret, and display that information. De Martini's team at SCE has assembled a device of its own: a battery-powered ZigBee refrigerator magnet with green, orange, and red LEDs that represent off-peak, normal-peak, and critical-peak pricing. A commercial version of such a device could be cheap enough to give away.
De Martini thinks that an even more effective means of encouraging conservation will be devices that display household power consumption in real time. "The thing that really works well for people is when they can see it dynamically, kind of like when you're at the gas pump and you can see how much it's costing you as the dial clicks around," he says. That dynamic view, he predicts, will not only shift consumption from peak to off peak, but it will actually reduce total power consumption.
Ambient and ConsumerPowerline may survive by incorporating ZigBee into their own devices. But Wong says that his company won't make that move unless this winter's pilot test proves that the Joule display motivates enough negawatts. "We know there will be a behavioral response," he says, "but we need to understand the full value of that behavioral response."
By Peter Fairley
continue
Energy suppliers respond to spikes in demand by gearing up extra production capacity. That can be so expensive that many utilities are willing to pay to promote conservation during periods of peak use. ConsumerPowerline pays apartment complexes, companies, and institutions to conserve on cue, then resells the resulting "negawatts"--reduction in demand--to utilities in New York, Massachusetts, and California.
Currently, ConsumerPowerline requests negawatts from its participants by paging them or sending them faxes, e-mails, or voice mails. This month, however, the firm received its first shipment of digital gauges, each about the size of an air freshener, that download information over a low-bandwidth satellite pager network. In the coming weeks, the company will distribute the gauges to participants in its program and, in some cases, display them in public spaces. Humphrey Wong, ConsumerPowerline's manager of incentive innovations, hopes that the devices will lead to an additional 5 to 10 percent drop in power consumption among organizations that already deliver reductions of 15 percent or more.
"We're trying to provide a relatively inexpensive tool for people to be informed about when to make good energy decisions," Wong says. That tool, the Joule, was developed jointly by ConsumerPowerline and MIT Media Lab spinoff Ambient Devices, based in Cambridge, MA.
When a utility schedules what's called in the business a "demand response event," Ambient signals the appropriate Joules to turn from green to blue and to display a countdown to the time at which the utility wants negawatts. Two hours before the event, the blue light begins to pulse. Finally, the Joule glows red to signal the start of the event, and it displays a new countdown that lets the user know when the event will end.
Wong hopes that, in addition to increasing conservation among current participants in ConsumerPowerline's program, streamlined communications will enable the company to reach out to individual homeowners--a largely untapped market--thereby multiplying its capacity to deliver negawatts.
The Joule isn't Ambient Devices' first foray into demand response. Since 2004, major California utilities have been testing Ambient's Energy Orb, a glass sphere that changes color to indicate the state of the grid. One utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, adopted the Orb as a commercial product last year, distributing 2,000 Orbs to customers who have agreed to supply negawatts. Like all of Ambient's products, the Orb receives its instructions over the pager network.
Ambient is also testing a new signaling device with EnBW, Germany's third-largest utility. Because energy prices in Germany vary by the hour, the new device will receive even more information than the Joule will. Its three-inch-square LCD screen is large enough to display crude graphs of hour-by-hour pricing for the next 24 hours as well as a forecast of the following day's energy prices and weather.
Most U.S. utilities are currently piloting time-specific pricing schemes like the one in Germany, and Wong hopes that this will create a new market for the Joule: helping residential and small commercial consumers track price shifts. Many utilities are planning to break their residential rates into just a few categories--a level of complexity the Joule could handle. Southern California Edison (SCE), for example, plans just three pricing categories: off peak, regular peak, and critical peak (the latter likely limited to the hottest summer afternoons, when the grid is most at risk).
Wong says that on such days, the Joule could make a major difference. "If one home turns off their air conditioner, that's one kilowatt. But if you get 1,000 homes, all of a sudden you're talking about one megawatt."
Ambient and ConsumerPowerline, however, will soon face competition thanks to new utility-installed meters that will use the cellular-telephone network and Wi-Fi, rather than satellites, to relay pricing information. SCE's $1.7 billion SmartConnect program, for example, aims to install smart meters in five million southern California homes and businesses between 2009 and 2012.
Paul De Martini, who directs the SmartConnect program, says that the meters will communicate with the utility via the cellular network, then broadcast pricing and local power-consumption information to home networks, probably using a low-power form of Wi-Fi called ZigBee. De Martini says that at least 20 companies, including giants such as General Electric, are developing ZigBee-enabled devices to pick up, interpret, and display that information. De Martini's team at SCE has assembled a device of its own: a battery-powered ZigBee refrigerator magnet with green, orange, and red LEDs that represent off-peak, normal-peak, and critical-peak pricing. A commercial version of such a device could be cheap enough to give away.
De Martini thinks that an even more effective means of encouraging conservation will be devices that display household power consumption in real time. "The thing that really works well for people is when they can see it dynamically, kind of like when you're at the gas pump and you can see how much it's costing you as the dial clicks around," he says. That dynamic view, he predicts, will not only shift consumption from peak to off peak, but it will actually reduce total power consumption.
Ambient and ConsumerPowerline may survive by incorporating ZigBee into their own devices. But Wong says that his company won't make that move unless this winter's pilot test proves that the Joule display motivates enough negawatts. "We know there will be a behavioral response," he says, "but we need to understand the full value of that behavioral response."
By Peter Fairley
continue
Friday 16 November 2007
Biofuels bonanza facing 'crash'
The biofuels bonanza will crash unless producers can guarantee their crops have been produced responsibly, the UN's environment agency chief has said.
Achim Steiner of the UN Environment Programme (Unep) said there was an urgent need for standards to make sure rainforests weren't being destroyed.
Biofuel makers also had to show their products did not produce more CO2 than they negated, he told BBC News.
Critics say biofuels will lead to food shortages and destroy rainforests.
They point to the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamps as an example of biofuel folly.
The swamps are one the richest stores of carbon on the planet and they are being burned to produce palm oil.
Mr Steiner implied that because of Indonesia's inability to police its land use, biofuels from palm oil grown by the nation might never be deemed to be sustainable.
But he said some biofuels could be considered sustainable. He highlighted ethanol production in Brazil, and a dry land crop called jatropha, which is resistant to pests and droughts.
Mr Steiner urged investors not to turn their backs on developing second or third generation fuels that would use non-food crops and burnable waste.
He feared that beneficial biofuels might be lost as part of a consumer backlash.
False economy
One of the scientists, Tad Patzek from University of California Berkeley, US, said: "In the long-run, the planet cannot afford to produce biofuels because we're going to run out of the land and water and environmental resources.
"In addition, because of the land use changes, drying up peat-swamps, burning tropical forest, these biofuels involve up-front enormous emissions of greenhouse gases that will never be recouped by their later use," he told BBC News.
Professor Patzek also doubted Mr Steiner's confidence in Brazilian ethanol. "The [IPCC] description of Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol production as 'highly advanced' and 'a model' is somewhat of an exaggeration.
"It's neither good nor a model," he said.
Brazilian producers are adamant that their bio-crops are not grown on rainforest land - but the environmental group Friends of the Earth Brazil claim that peasant farmers - dispossessed by biofuel conglomerates - are moving to the Amazon to seek new land
Mr Steiner said Brazil had enough land to ensure that biofuel cropping could be sustainable.
By then much of the Indonesian peat swamps - one of the most valuable stores of carbon in the world - will have been torched.
The only way of stopping may not be through the UN or the Indonesian government, but through one or more private philanthropist with a burning desire to own an Indonesian swamp.
continue
Achim Steiner of the UN Environment Programme (Unep) said there was an urgent need for standards to make sure rainforests weren't being destroyed.
Biofuel makers also had to show their products did not produce more CO2 than they negated, he told BBC News.
Critics say biofuels will lead to food shortages and destroy rainforests.
They point to the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamps as an example of biofuel folly.
The swamps are one the richest stores of carbon on the planet and they are being burned to produce palm oil.
Mr Steiner implied that because of Indonesia's inability to police its land use, biofuels from palm oil grown by the nation might never be deemed to be sustainable.
But he said some biofuels could be considered sustainable. He highlighted ethanol production in Brazil, and a dry land crop called jatropha, which is resistant to pests and droughts.
Mr Steiner urged investors not to turn their backs on developing second or third generation fuels that would use non-food crops and burnable waste.
He feared that beneficial biofuels might be lost as part of a consumer backlash.
False economy
One of the scientists, Tad Patzek from University of California Berkeley, US, said: "In the long-run, the planet cannot afford to produce biofuels because we're going to run out of the land and water and environmental resources.
"In addition, because of the land use changes, drying up peat-swamps, burning tropical forest, these biofuels involve up-front enormous emissions of greenhouse gases that will never be recouped by their later use," he told BBC News.
Professor Patzek also doubted Mr Steiner's confidence in Brazilian ethanol. "The [IPCC] description of Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol production as 'highly advanced' and 'a model' is somewhat of an exaggeration.
"It's neither good nor a model," he said.
Brazilian producers are adamant that their bio-crops are not grown on rainforest land - but the environmental group Friends of the Earth Brazil claim that peasant farmers - dispossessed by biofuel conglomerates - are moving to the Amazon to seek new land
Mr Steiner said Brazil had enough land to ensure that biofuel cropping could be sustainable.
By then much of the Indonesian peat swamps - one of the most valuable stores of carbon in the world - will have been torched.
The only way of stopping may not be through the UN or the Indonesian government, but through one or more private philanthropist with a burning desire to own an Indonesian swamp.
continue
Sunday 11 November 2007
Home solar collectors create buzz
Are your electric bills going through the roof? A solution just may be up there: The roof, for now, is a place to install solar collectors that convert the sun's energy directly into electricity.
Solar water heating for home use and as means of heating pool water has been both an affordable and popular technology for many years. Now, harnessing the sun's power to create energy to power one's home is increasingly popular.
Photovoltaic (PV) systems convert sunlight directly to electricity. They work any time the sun is shining, but more electricity is produced when the sunlight is intense and strikes the PV modules directly (as when rays of sunlight are perpendicular to the modules). Best of all, PV allows you to produce electricity from a clean, renewable resource, without noise or air pollution.
Beyond the standard "vanilla" PV panels, recent aesthetic innovations include solar tiles that look like ordinary roofing.
A typical energy roof uses about 300 square feet of surface. In a sunny climate, it produces many thousands of kilowatts of clean energy per year. Any excess power you have can be fed back into the utility company grid for a credit on your bill.
Before you decide to buy a PV system, there are some things to consider:
First, PV produces power intermittently because it works only when the sun is shining. This is not a problem for PV systems connected to the utility grid, because any additional electricity required is automatically delivered to you by your utility. In the case of non-grid, or stand-alone, PV systems, batteries can be purchased to store energy for later use. Batteries are also an option for storing excess power, even when connected to the utility grid.
Second, if you live near existing power lines, PV-generated electricity is usually more expensive than conventional utility-supplied electricity. Although PV now costs less than 1 percent of what it did in the 1970s, the amortized price over the life of the system can still be higher than what most people pay for electricity from their utilities.
State and federal tax credits and solar rebate programs help make PV more affordable, but they typically can't match today's price for utility electricity in most cases. This condition is rapidly changing as utility prices continue to increase, making PV a sensible and cost-effective alternative. Also, PV system reliability and durability are excellent, with a typical PV system lasting up to 30 years with minimal maintenance.
Third, unlike electricity purchased monthly from a utility company, PV power requires a high initial investment. This means that buying a PV system is like paying years of electric bills up front. Your monthly electric bills will go down, but the initial expense of PV may be significant. By financing your PV system, you can spread the cost over many years, and rebates can also lighten your financial load. Many PV installation companies have teamed up with lending institutions that offer creative financing.
The price for a PV system depends on a number of factors, including whether your home is under construction and whether PV is integrated into the roof or mounted on top of an existing roof. The price also depends on the PV system rating, manufacturer, retailer and installer.
The size of your system may be the most significant factor in any measurement of costs versus benefits. For example, a 2-kilowatt system that meets nearly all the needs of a very energy efficient home could cost $16,000 to $20,000 installed, or $8 to $10 per watt. At the high end, a 5-kilowatt system that completely meets the energy needs of many conventional homes can cost $30,000 to $40,000 installed, or $6 to $8 per watt. These prices are rough estimates.
By James and Morris Carey
full article
Solar water heating for home use and as means of heating pool water has been both an affordable and popular technology for many years. Now, harnessing the sun's power to create energy to power one's home is increasingly popular.
Photovoltaic (PV) systems convert sunlight directly to electricity. They work any time the sun is shining, but more electricity is produced when the sunlight is intense and strikes the PV modules directly (as when rays of sunlight are perpendicular to the modules). Best of all, PV allows you to produce electricity from a clean, renewable resource, without noise or air pollution.
Beyond the standard "vanilla" PV panels, recent aesthetic innovations include solar tiles that look like ordinary roofing.
A typical energy roof uses about 300 square feet of surface. In a sunny climate, it produces many thousands of kilowatts of clean energy per year. Any excess power you have can be fed back into the utility company grid for a credit on your bill.
Before you decide to buy a PV system, there are some things to consider:
First, PV produces power intermittently because it works only when the sun is shining. This is not a problem for PV systems connected to the utility grid, because any additional electricity required is automatically delivered to you by your utility. In the case of non-grid, or stand-alone, PV systems, batteries can be purchased to store energy for later use. Batteries are also an option for storing excess power, even when connected to the utility grid.
Second, if you live near existing power lines, PV-generated electricity is usually more expensive than conventional utility-supplied electricity. Although PV now costs less than 1 percent of what it did in the 1970s, the amortized price over the life of the system can still be higher than what most people pay for electricity from their utilities.
State and federal tax credits and solar rebate programs help make PV more affordable, but they typically can't match today's price for utility electricity in most cases. This condition is rapidly changing as utility prices continue to increase, making PV a sensible and cost-effective alternative. Also, PV system reliability and durability are excellent, with a typical PV system lasting up to 30 years with minimal maintenance.
Third, unlike electricity purchased monthly from a utility company, PV power requires a high initial investment. This means that buying a PV system is like paying years of electric bills up front. Your monthly electric bills will go down, but the initial expense of PV may be significant. By financing your PV system, you can spread the cost over many years, and rebates can also lighten your financial load. Many PV installation companies have teamed up with lending institutions that offer creative financing.
The price for a PV system depends on a number of factors, including whether your home is under construction and whether PV is integrated into the roof or mounted on top of an existing roof. The price also depends on the PV system rating, manufacturer, retailer and installer.
The size of your system may be the most significant factor in any measurement of costs versus benefits. For example, a 2-kilowatt system that meets nearly all the needs of a very energy efficient home could cost $16,000 to $20,000 installed, or $8 to $10 per watt. At the high end, a 5-kilowatt system that completely meets the energy needs of many conventional homes can cost $30,000 to $40,000 installed, or $6 to $8 per watt. These prices are rough estimates.
By James and Morris Carey
full article
Saturday 10 November 2007
High heating bills make winterizing your
Ideally, consumers in cold regions have winterized their homes by now in an effort to save energy and money.
But for busy people, back-to-school season soon becomes Halloween, and before you know it Thanksgiving is approaching, and the winterizing to-do list was lost in the bustle.
It's not too late, and it's worth doing. Heating bills this winter likely will be much higher than last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts. Winter months are predicted to be 4 percent colder, and energy sources for heat will be more expensive.
This winter's spending for natural gas, used to heat more than half of U.S. homes, is expected to be 10 percent higher. Spending on heating oil will see the biggest jump, 22 percent, followed by propane at 16 percent. Electricity spending will rise about 4 percent, and electricity customers are coming off a 9 percent price increase during 2006, the largest increase since 1981.
In dollars, average heating expenditures this winter will be between about $900 and $1,800, depending on the fuel, with electricity the cheapest and heating oil the most expensive. Of course, owners of larger homes will pay more than those averages.
For a few regions and fuel types, you can shop different suppliers for the best prices. But most energy savings will come in one of two other ways: You have to take steps that allow you to lower the thermostat or, keeping the thermostat the same, you need your furnace to turn on less often, mostly by keeping your paid-for heated air indoors longer.
If you are pinched for time and money, here are heat-saving tips that you could probably complete in three hours for less than $100.
Make a plan. Many of the usual home-heating tips are useless unless they allow you to set the thermostat lower.
Sit down with pen and paper and devise a plan for controlling temperature in your home. At what times of day can you set the thermostat really low, without risk of freezing pipes, of course? While you're home, can you set the temperature at 68 degrees instead of 72 if everyone in the household agrees to wear sweaters and slippers around the house? Can you be comfortable at 64 degrees? Will flannel pajamas and an extra blanket allow you to lower the temperature into the 50s at night?
If someone is home all day, make it a routine to open drapes on the sunny side of the house to let in heat. Otherwise, close drapes to help further insulate windows.
If you're undisciplined about adjusting the thermostat, buy an Energy Star-rated programmable thermostat. This device is easy to install and costs about $100. It's basically just a timer that sets your thermostat to a prescribed temperature at various times during the day and night. If you are diligent about controlling temperature the old-fashioned way, by walking over to the thermostat and setting it by hand, you don't need a programmable thermostat. If you're not diligent, you could make back the cost of the $100 programmable thermostat in one year's worth of energy savings.
Seal leaks. This seems like obvious advice, but you have to take the time to find and seal leaks. Walk around the inside of your home. Hold a candle or other flame near the seams in your windows and exterior doors. If the flame and smoke blow inward, you know you have a leak.
"For a pretty modest investment, you can get products like caulking, weather-stripping and foam sealant to plug up those leaks," said Ronnie Kweller, spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy, a group that promotes efficient and clean use of energy.
Also, check recessed lights, baseboards, electrical outlets to exterior walls and unfinished spaces behind cupboards and closets. As an alternative to adding expensive storm windows, you can cover drafty windows with plastic sheeting installed on the inside.
Then examine the exterior of your house, looking for cracks and gaps, not only around windows and doors, but in pipe cutouts to the outdoors, chimneys and the foundation. For more on sealing, see the publication "A Do-it-Yourself Guide to Energy Star Home Sealing" by the Environmental Protection Agency. Call 888-782-7937 or get it online at www.energystar.gov (Look under Home Improvement for the Air Seal and Insulate link).
Seal ducts. Seal leaky air ducts at joints, starting at the furnace air handler, and insulate ducts that run through unheated basements or attics.
In a typical house, about 20 percent of the air that moves through the duct system is lost due to leaks and poorly sealed connections, according to the federal Energy Star program.
But duct tape isn't the answer. It's a poor way to seal duct cracks and seams. Use a mashed potato-like duct sealant called mastic. Use the water-based kind. You paint it on duct joints and tiny holes, and it hardens. Or use metallic duct tape with an UL-181 rating. Search the EnergyStar site for the online brochure, "Duct Sealing" (Also under Air Seal and Insulate).
Close vents. If you have a central heating system with ductwork, go around the house and close heating vents in rooms you don't use daily, especially those where you can close the door and seal off the room. If you have rooms with individual thermostats, keep seldom-used rooms cool.
Change furnace air filters. Buy a dozen filters to last you through a year's worth of monthly changes. If you already have filters in the house, you will be more likely to change them monthly. You don't need fancy air filters. Cheap ones that cost $1 or less each work. Also, cover the filter slot with a piece of wide tape to make sure all the air goes through the filter. Dirty filters block airflow through your heating and cooling systems, increasing your energy bill and shortening the equipment's life.
Do it now. Make energy improvements before the end of the year to take advantage of tax credits that expire after Dec. 31. The credit probably won't amount to big bucks, but it is worth learning about. For example, you would get back 10 percent of what you spend on sealing and insulation, up to $500. So spending $100 gets you back $10.
"People definitely want to get on it before the end of the year and have all their receipts in place," Kweller said. Find details about tax credits online at www.ase.org/taxcredits and www.energystar.gov/taxcre dits.
continue
But for busy people, back-to-school season soon becomes Halloween, and before you know it Thanksgiving is approaching, and the winterizing to-do list was lost in the bustle.
It's not too late, and it's worth doing. Heating bills this winter likely will be much higher than last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts. Winter months are predicted to be 4 percent colder, and energy sources for heat will be more expensive.
This winter's spending for natural gas, used to heat more than half of U.S. homes, is expected to be 10 percent higher. Spending on heating oil will see the biggest jump, 22 percent, followed by propane at 16 percent. Electricity spending will rise about 4 percent, and electricity customers are coming off a 9 percent price increase during 2006, the largest increase since 1981.
In dollars, average heating expenditures this winter will be between about $900 and $1,800, depending on the fuel, with electricity the cheapest and heating oil the most expensive. Of course, owners of larger homes will pay more than those averages.
For a few regions and fuel types, you can shop different suppliers for the best prices. But most energy savings will come in one of two other ways: You have to take steps that allow you to lower the thermostat or, keeping the thermostat the same, you need your furnace to turn on less often, mostly by keeping your paid-for heated air indoors longer.
If you are pinched for time and money, here are heat-saving tips that you could probably complete in three hours for less than $100.
Make a plan. Many of the usual home-heating tips are useless unless they allow you to set the thermostat lower.
Sit down with pen and paper and devise a plan for controlling temperature in your home. At what times of day can you set the thermostat really low, without risk of freezing pipes, of course? While you're home, can you set the temperature at 68 degrees instead of 72 if everyone in the household agrees to wear sweaters and slippers around the house? Can you be comfortable at 64 degrees? Will flannel pajamas and an extra blanket allow you to lower the temperature into the 50s at night?
If someone is home all day, make it a routine to open drapes on the sunny side of the house to let in heat. Otherwise, close drapes to help further insulate windows.
If you're undisciplined about adjusting the thermostat, buy an Energy Star-rated programmable thermostat. This device is easy to install and costs about $100. It's basically just a timer that sets your thermostat to a prescribed temperature at various times during the day and night. If you are diligent about controlling temperature the old-fashioned way, by walking over to the thermostat and setting it by hand, you don't need a programmable thermostat. If you're not diligent, you could make back the cost of the $100 programmable thermostat in one year's worth of energy savings.
Seal leaks. This seems like obvious advice, but you have to take the time to find and seal leaks. Walk around the inside of your home. Hold a candle or other flame near the seams in your windows and exterior doors. If the flame and smoke blow inward, you know you have a leak.
"For a pretty modest investment, you can get products like caulking, weather-stripping and foam sealant to plug up those leaks," said Ronnie Kweller, spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy, a group that promotes efficient and clean use of energy.
Also, check recessed lights, baseboards, electrical outlets to exterior walls and unfinished spaces behind cupboards and closets. As an alternative to adding expensive storm windows, you can cover drafty windows with plastic sheeting installed on the inside.
Then examine the exterior of your house, looking for cracks and gaps, not only around windows and doors, but in pipe cutouts to the outdoors, chimneys and the foundation. For more on sealing, see the publication "A Do-it-Yourself Guide to Energy Star Home Sealing" by the Environmental Protection Agency. Call 888-782-7937 or get it online at www.energystar.gov (Look under Home Improvement for the Air Seal and Insulate link).
Seal ducts. Seal leaky air ducts at joints, starting at the furnace air handler, and insulate ducts that run through unheated basements or attics.
In a typical house, about 20 percent of the air that moves through the duct system is lost due to leaks and poorly sealed connections, according to the federal Energy Star program.
But duct tape isn't the answer. It's a poor way to seal duct cracks and seams. Use a mashed potato-like duct sealant called mastic. Use the water-based kind. You paint it on duct joints and tiny holes, and it hardens. Or use metallic duct tape with an UL-181 rating. Search the EnergyStar site for the online brochure, "Duct Sealing" (Also under Air Seal and Insulate).
Close vents. If you have a central heating system with ductwork, go around the house and close heating vents in rooms you don't use daily, especially those where you can close the door and seal off the room. If you have rooms with individual thermostats, keep seldom-used rooms cool.
Change furnace air filters. Buy a dozen filters to last you through a year's worth of monthly changes. If you already have filters in the house, you will be more likely to change them monthly. You don't need fancy air filters. Cheap ones that cost $1 or less each work. Also, cover the filter slot with a piece of wide tape to make sure all the air goes through the filter. Dirty filters block airflow through your heating and cooling systems, increasing your energy bill and shortening the equipment's life.
Do it now. Make energy improvements before the end of the year to take advantage of tax credits that expire after Dec. 31. The credit probably won't amount to big bucks, but it is worth learning about. For example, you would get back 10 percent of what you spend on sealing and insulation, up to $500. So spending $100 gets you back $10.
"People definitely want to get on it before the end of the year and have all their receipts in place," Kweller said. Find details about tax credits online at www.ase.org/taxcredits and www.energystar.gov/taxcre dits.
continue
Friday 9 November 2007
Make sure it is a Solar Hot Water system
Installing a solar hot water system is one of the most efficient and cost effectiveinitiatives a householder can undertake to make an existing home more sustainable.
The Australian Greenhouse Office is offering households a $1000 rebate to reduce thecost of a solar hot water system providing:
1. They are changing from an electric storage hot water system (which are the mostemissions intensive); and
2. Their combined family taxable income is less than $100,000 a year
The rebate applies to an existing principal place of residence and is available to bothhomeowners and renters.
The average savings in CO2 emissions per year as a result of switching to solar from anelectric storage hot water system is two to four tonnes.
The average savings in electricity costs is between $300 and $700 per year depending onthe climate and the number of people in the household.
The average solar hot water system lasts for 13 years (some even last for 20 years).There are approximately 70,000 new hot water systems sold each year but only a smallpercentage are solar.
Even though electric hot water systems have a lower upfront cost, the long term benefitsof a solar system will outweigh the initial outlay. A household may have to replace twoelectric systems over the life of one solar system and there are lower yearly electricitycosts with a solar system.
As well as the $1000 rebate from the Australian Greenhouse Office, there are furtherincentives to install a solar hot water system when an electric storage system is ready tobe replaced.
Nearly all solar systems on the market come with a certain number of Renewable EnergyCertificates (RECs). RECs are assigned by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulatoras part of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. The certificates are tradable and canbe used to provide a discount on the up front cost of a solar hot water system.
The numbers of RECs that come with a solar hot water system depend on its size andwhere in Australia it is installed. Each solar system sold in Australia usually comes with20 to 40 RECS… that equates to an extra discount of $600 to $1200 on top of the $1000dollar rebate.
Because switching from an electric storage hot water system to a solar hot water systemis the simplest and most effective single measure to make a house more greenhousefriendly, most state and territory governments have their own incentives to encouragehouseholds to install a solar hot water system. In NSW, for example, switching to solarhot water attracts a rebate in the order of $600 to $800 depending on the type of systemchosen.
Why switch? - A real life example from Sydney…
Replacement of an existing electric storage hot water system:
Costs
• Retail cost of a new solar hot water system: 250 litre tank (suitable for a three tofour person household): $3928
• Installation cost: $1400
Total: $5328
Offset by Rebates and RECS
• Australian Greenhouse Office rebate: $1000
• NSW Government rebate: $600,
• Value of RECs attached to the system (bought back by the retailer in the form ofan upfront discount): $728
Net Cost: $ 3000
Electricity saved over the life of the system ($400 a year for 13 years): $5200
Net benefit to owner is $2200 over the lifetime of the system. Any future increases in the cost of electricity will only increase the benefits.
continue
The Australian Greenhouse Office is offering households a $1000 rebate to reduce thecost of a solar hot water system providing:
1. They are changing from an electric storage hot water system (which are the mostemissions intensive); and
2. Their combined family taxable income is less than $100,000 a year
The rebate applies to an existing principal place of residence and is available to bothhomeowners and renters.
The average savings in CO2 emissions per year as a result of switching to solar from anelectric storage hot water system is two to four tonnes.
The average savings in electricity costs is between $300 and $700 per year depending onthe climate and the number of people in the household.
The average solar hot water system lasts for 13 years (some even last for 20 years).There are approximately 70,000 new hot water systems sold each year but only a smallpercentage are solar.
Even though electric hot water systems have a lower upfront cost, the long term benefitsof a solar system will outweigh the initial outlay. A household may have to replace twoelectric systems over the life of one solar system and there are lower yearly electricitycosts with a solar system.
As well as the $1000 rebate from the Australian Greenhouse Office, there are furtherincentives to install a solar hot water system when an electric storage system is ready tobe replaced.
Nearly all solar systems on the market come with a certain number of Renewable EnergyCertificates (RECs). RECs are assigned by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulatoras part of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. The certificates are tradable and canbe used to provide a discount on the up front cost of a solar hot water system.
The numbers of RECs that come with a solar hot water system depend on its size andwhere in Australia it is installed. Each solar system sold in Australia usually comes with20 to 40 RECS… that equates to an extra discount of $600 to $1200 on top of the $1000dollar rebate.
Because switching from an electric storage hot water system to a solar hot water systemis the simplest and most effective single measure to make a house more greenhousefriendly, most state and territory governments have their own incentives to encouragehouseholds to install a solar hot water system. In NSW, for example, switching to solarhot water attracts a rebate in the order of $600 to $800 depending on the type of systemchosen.
Why switch? - A real life example from Sydney…
Replacement of an existing electric storage hot water system:
Costs
• Retail cost of a new solar hot water system: 250 litre tank (suitable for a three tofour person household): $3928
• Installation cost: $1400
Total: $5328
Offset by Rebates and RECS
• Australian Greenhouse Office rebate: $1000
• NSW Government rebate: $600,
• Value of RECs attached to the system (bought back by the retailer in the form ofan upfront discount): $728
Net Cost: $ 3000
Electricity saved over the life of the system ($400 a year for 13 years): $5200
Net benefit to owner is $2200 over the lifetime of the system. Any future increases in the cost of electricity will only increase the benefits.
continue
Ratings Proliferate For 'Green' Builders
What makes a "green" home green? It depends on who is using the word. In the next several months, three nationwide certifications for environmentally friendly homes will be available to builders. But buyers may be confused by the array of standards.
This week, the U.S. Green Building Council -- a nonprofit that rates commercial buildings on things like energy use and indoor-air quality -- introduced similar rating systems for people's homes. Builders can score points for things like solar panels and energy-efficient appliances, and earn ratings such as silver, gold or platinum for environmental-friendliness.
The National Association of Homebuilders, a trade group whose members build about 80% of the country's new homes each year, say the Green Building Council's criteria for a "green" label are too impractical and costly. They are developing their own standards, which they say are flexible depending on the region and include easier-to-achieve certification in order to appeal to first-time buyers. A new draft will be available for public comment next month, and the standards should be finalized by February.
Yet another eco-friendly certification is available through the federal government's Energy Star program. Started in 1995, the program focuses on certifying homes that meet a standard on energy use. The current yardstick is at least 15% more efficient than homes built to the 2004 residential code. Homes that meet the standard usually have features such as extra insulation and energy-efficient appliances, and must be verified through independent home energy raters. States and local building associations, too, may have their own green building programs or guidelines.
The rush to focus on green homebuilding comes as the residential real-estate market continues to struggle. Builders are eager to jump on the green marketing bandwagon as a way to differentiate their products. New-home sales were a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 770,000 units in September, up 4.8% from the previous month but down 23% from a year earlier, according to data from the National Association of Homebuilders.
Some builders say many of today's consumers would rather pay extra for luxuries such as granite countertops than for "green" features. But they believe that demand will grow in the future for green homes as energy prices stay high. The building industry also wants to develop a voluntary green standard before the federal government -- increasingly focused on energy concerns -- takes matters into its own hands. Builders recently lobbied Congress against legislation that would allow the federal government to write some energy-efficient building codes for states.
EcoManor
Low VOC paint from AFM SafeCoat Paint and Stain adorns the wall of Laura Seydel's study in EcoManor.
Environmental advocates say coaxing people to make changes to their homes that trim energy consumption is important. The residential sector accounts for about 20% of the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions, according to government figures. Buying a green home, while more costly up front, can save money down the road with lower utility bills. There are also a number of state and federal tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades; the federal government offers a $300 tax credit for installation of energy-efficient air-conditioning and heating systems, for example. Some banks even offer a discount on mortgage closing costs for new homes that meet certain energy-saving requirements.
Some builders acknowledge the various "green" labels can be confusing for consumers. Mark Fischer, a builder with Grupe Co. in Rockland, Calif., built around 70 solar-paneled homes to meet the Green Building Council's standards, through the pilot program that has been testing out the ratings. He has found, however, that potential buyers don't really understand the features, or why they should pay more for them. "With all the different green certifications out there, it kind of gets lost," says Mr. Fischer, who has lowered his prices.
A few consumers, though, do seek out a "green" home to save money on utilities and help the environment. After a fallen oak tree destroyed his Atlanta home, Rutherford Seydel decided to rebuild his home to the specifications of the Green Building Council's rating system. A lawyer with an interest in the environment, Mr. Seydel earned a high rating for his home, a "gold," by putting in things like solar panels, a geothermal heating system, low-flush toilets and low-toxin paint. He says that the rating involved extra inspections, which caught air leaks around some doors and problems with the ducts that would have been missed by the contractor.
"That extra layer of eyes is well worth it," he says.
The cost of the Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -- or LEED -- is between $500 and $2,000, depending on things like how big the house is and if there's a certifier in the area. Generally the builder pays and passes costs on to the home buyer. The cost of certification for the home builders' standards hasn't been determined yet, but the association says it is aiming for it to be lower so more builders will be involved.
Both the Green Building Council and the builders association have vied to emerge with the most widely accepted "green" label for homes. The Green Building Council says its LEED rating system is "the nationally accepted benchmark" for green building. Builders earn points in categories such as water efficiency, indoor air quality and the selection of eco-friendly materials. For example, a home would get four points for a rainwater-collection system and two points for high-efficiency appliances. To achieve the highest "platinum" rating, a home needs between 90 and 128 points.
The council's vice president for policy and public affairs, Michelle Moore, disputes the notion that the council's process is too costly or impractical for builders. She says it has rigorous verification standards, with a range of third-party experts who inspect homes and test materials to guard against so-called greenwash -- where any effort that is even nominally environmentally friendly gets painted with a "green" brush.
"In any marketplace, there's inevitably going to be people who do the minimum that they can and call themselves green," she says.
Builders, meanwhile, say their verification process, which will involve training certifiers through local builders associations, is just as rigorous. They point out their National Green Building Standard is being certified by the American National Standards Institute, a national standards-making body -- and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency and members of the Green Building Council itself helped develop it.
EcoManor
A Crestron touch panel in the kitchen monitors the geothermal, water and electricity in the house as well as the lighting, security system, weather and sound system.
Apart from the verification process, there are other differences between the two systems. The Green Building Council program is the same for homes across the country, whereas the builders' standards can be flexible from region to region. For example, the builders are developing water-efficiency requirements that are tighter in the Southwest than in the Northeast.
When building or buying a "green" home, consumers should ask what types of improvements they are paying for and how much money they will save over time. Energy-saving advocates advise that if people want energy efficient appliances, they should focus first on refrigerators, because unlike a dishwasher or clothes washer, they run all the time. Air-conditioning units, too, tend to be big energy hogs, so paying for one that's more efficient is a good investment, they say.
Both the builders' certification and that of the Green Building Council penalize larger homes, since they use more resources. For example, the Green Building Council requires more points for four-bedroom homes bigger than 2,600 square feet in order to achieve a certain rating, while the draft builders' standard allows a home to be built to 4,000 square feet before requiring more points.
The higher ratings -- such as "platinum" and "emerald" -- have some similar requirements from both the Green Building Council and the builders, yet the council says theirs are designed for builders at the leading edge of green innovation. In terms of the lower ratings, builders have pushed for a more stripped-down entry-level standard for inexpensive homes: the "bronze" standard. Instead of putting in costly energy-efficient appliances, for example, builders can earn points by protecting existing trees on a lot or using salvaged materials. The group argues that some green elements are better than none at all.
By SARA SCHAEFER MUÑOZ
full article
This week, the U.S. Green Building Council -- a nonprofit that rates commercial buildings on things like energy use and indoor-air quality -- introduced similar rating systems for people's homes. Builders can score points for things like solar panels and energy-efficient appliances, and earn ratings such as silver, gold or platinum for environmental-friendliness.
The National Association of Homebuilders, a trade group whose members build about 80% of the country's new homes each year, say the Green Building Council's criteria for a "green" label are too impractical and costly. They are developing their own standards, which they say are flexible depending on the region and include easier-to-achieve certification in order to appeal to first-time buyers. A new draft will be available for public comment next month, and the standards should be finalized by February.
Yet another eco-friendly certification is available through the federal government's Energy Star program. Started in 1995, the program focuses on certifying homes that meet a standard on energy use. The current yardstick is at least 15% more efficient than homes built to the 2004 residential code. Homes that meet the standard usually have features such as extra insulation and energy-efficient appliances, and must be verified through independent home energy raters. States and local building associations, too, may have their own green building programs or guidelines.
The rush to focus on green homebuilding comes as the residential real-estate market continues to struggle. Builders are eager to jump on the green marketing bandwagon as a way to differentiate their products. New-home sales were a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 770,000 units in September, up 4.8% from the previous month but down 23% from a year earlier, according to data from the National Association of Homebuilders.
Some builders say many of today's consumers would rather pay extra for luxuries such as granite countertops than for "green" features. But they believe that demand will grow in the future for green homes as energy prices stay high. The building industry also wants to develop a voluntary green standard before the federal government -- increasingly focused on energy concerns -- takes matters into its own hands. Builders recently lobbied Congress against legislation that would allow the federal government to write some energy-efficient building codes for states.
EcoManor
Low VOC paint from AFM SafeCoat Paint and Stain adorns the wall of Laura Seydel's study in EcoManor.
Environmental advocates say coaxing people to make changes to their homes that trim energy consumption is important. The residential sector accounts for about 20% of the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions, according to government figures. Buying a green home, while more costly up front, can save money down the road with lower utility bills. There are also a number of state and federal tax credits for energy-efficient upgrades; the federal government offers a $300 tax credit for installation of energy-efficient air-conditioning and heating systems, for example. Some banks even offer a discount on mortgage closing costs for new homes that meet certain energy-saving requirements.
Some builders acknowledge the various "green" labels can be confusing for consumers. Mark Fischer, a builder with Grupe Co. in Rockland, Calif., built around 70 solar-paneled homes to meet the Green Building Council's standards, through the pilot program that has been testing out the ratings. He has found, however, that potential buyers don't really understand the features, or why they should pay more for them. "With all the different green certifications out there, it kind of gets lost," says Mr. Fischer, who has lowered his prices.
A few consumers, though, do seek out a "green" home to save money on utilities and help the environment. After a fallen oak tree destroyed his Atlanta home, Rutherford Seydel decided to rebuild his home to the specifications of the Green Building Council's rating system. A lawyer with an interest in the environment, Mr. Seydel earned a high rating for his home, a "gold," by putting in things like solar panels, a geothermal heating system, low-flush toilets and low-toxin paint. He says that the rating involved extra inspections, which caught air leaks around some doors and problems with the ducts that would have been missed by the contractor.
"That extra layer of eyes is well worth it," he says.
The cost of the Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -- or LEED -- is between $500 and $2,000, depending on things like how big the house is and if there's a certifier in the area. Generally the builder pays and passes costs on to the home buyer. The cost of certification for the home builders' standards hasn't been determined yet, but the association says it is aiming for it to be lower so more builders will be involved.
Both the Green Building Council and the builders association have vied to emerge with the most widely accepted "green" label for homes. The Green Building Council says its LEED rating system is "the nationally accepted benchmark" for green building. Builders earn points in categories such as water efficiency, indoor air quality and the selection of eco-friendly materials. For example, a home would get four points for a rainwater-collection system and two points for high-efficiency appliances. To achieve the highest "platinum" rating, a home needs between 90 and 128 points.
The council's vice president for policy and public affairs, Michelle Moore, disputes the notion that the council's process is too costly or impractical for builders. She says it has rigorous verification standards, with a range of third-party experts who inspect homes and test materials to guard against so-called greenwash -- where any effort that is even nominally environmentally friendly gets painted with a "green" brush.
"In any marketplace, there's inevitably going to be people who do the minimum that they can and call themselves green," she says.
Builders, meanwhile, say their verification process, which will involve training certifiers through local builders associations, is just as rigorous. They point out their National Green Building Standard is being certified by the American National Standards Institute, a national standards-making body -- and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency and members of the Green Building Council itself helped develop it.
EcoManor
A Crestron touch panel in the kitchen monitors the geothermal, water and electricity in the house as well as the lighting, security system, weather and sound system.
Apart from the verification process, there are other differences between the two systems. The Green Building Council program is the same for homes across the country, whereas the builders' standards can be flexible from region to region. For example, the builders are developing water-efficiency requirements that are tighter in the Southwest than in the Northeast.
When building or buying a "green" home, consumers should ask what types of improvements they are paying for and how much money they will save over time. Energy-saving advocates advise that if people want energy efficient appliances, they should focus first on refrigerators, because unlike a dishwasher or clothes washer, they run all the time. Air-conditioning units, too, tend to be big energy hogs, so paying for one that's more efficient is a good investment, they say.
Both the builders' certification and that of the Green Building Council penalize larger homes, since they use more resources. For example, the Green Building Council requires more points for four-bedroom homes bigger than 2,600 square feet in order to achieve a certain rating, while the draft builders' standard allows a home to be built to 4,000 square feet before requiring more points.
The higher ratings -- such as "platinum" and "emerald" -- have some similar requirements from both the Green Building Council and the builders, yet the council says theirs are designed for builders at the leading edge of green innovation. In terms of the lower ratings, builders have pushed for a more stripped-down entry-level standard for inexpensive homes: the "bronze" standard. Instead of putting in costly energy-efficient appliances, for example, builders can earn points by protecting existing trees on a lot or using salvaged materials. The group argues that some green elements are better than none at all.
By SARA SCHAEFER MUÑOZ
full article
Sunday 4 November 2007
Save money, planet with eco-appliances
Nowadays, we want our appliances to perform well and conserve resources. Here are a few things to consider when shopping for, and using, these new workhorses:
REFRIGERATORS: In most homes, the refrigerator is the single biggest energy sucker in the kitchen, if not the entire house.
The most efficiently designed fridges have a freezer on the bottom or top rather than on the side.
Forgoing conveniences such as through-the-door cold water and automatic ice dispensers can reduce energy usage by up to 55 percent and save you money on the purchase price as well.
Reduce the amount of power your fridge uses by positioning it away from heat sources, such as ovens or dishwashers.
DISHWASHERS: Most dishwashers' electricity goes to heat the water they use.
Optimize savings by running the dishwasher only when it's full.
Use the air-dry instead of the heat-dry feature.
Avoid the rinse-hold and pre-rinse options.
Choose a light or energy-saving wash cycle for dishes that are only slightly soiled.
CLOTHES WASHERS: On average, your dirty duds require a staggering 40 gallons of water per load.
Front loading units similar to those found in your neighborhood Laundromat are the biggest savers.
Look for a low Water Factor and low number of kilowatt hours of electricity.
Choose a model with a high Modified Energy Factor.
Always operate machines with full loads.
Wash clothes in cold water.
If your washer has a spin option, choose high speed or extended modes to reduce the amount of wetness in laundry, and, thus, drying time.
continue
REFRIGERATORS: In most homes, the refrigerator is the single biggest energy sucker in the kitchen, if not the entire house.
The most efficiently designed fridges have a freezer on the bottom or top rather than on the side.
Forgoing conveniences such as through-the-door cold water and automatic ice dispensers can reduce energy usage by up to 55 percent and save you money on the purchase price as well.
Reduce the amount of power your fridge uses by positioning it away from heat sources, such as ovens or dishwashers.
DISHWASHERS: Most dishwashers' electricity goes to heat the water they use.
Optimize savings by running the dishwasher only when it's full.
Use the air-dry instead of the heat-dry feature.
Avoid the rinse-hold and pre-rinse options.
Choose a light or energy-saving wash cycle for dishes that are only slightly soiled.
CLOTHES WASHERS: On average, your dirty duds require a staggering 40 gallons of water per load.
Front loading units similar to those found in your neighborhood Laundromat are the biggest savers.
Look for a low Water Factor and low number of kilowatt hours of electricity.
Choose a model with a high Modified Energy Factor.
Always operate machines with full loads.
Wash clothes in cold water.
If your washer has a spin option, choose high speed or extended modes to reduce the amount of wetness in laundry, and, thus, drying time.
continue
Turf roof is a main attraction
The hills rise like giant bubbles surfacing from an extraterrestrial pond: natural, yet somehow alien. Although they are dotted with native plants, the effect is anything but mundane.
Instead, they incite images of a revolutionary future - a place designed by intelligent creatures who have transcended the division between nature and culture. Welcome to the most natural part of San Francisco's new Academy of Sciences, its living roof.
Like zoos, nature museums have never really done it for me. Sure, I love to gape at the circling shark or the twisting rain forest vine as much as the next city bumpkin, but the clash between my appreciation for nature and this most unnatural of settings always undermines the experience.
Too often, the dull rectangular rooms outfitted with square tanks and filled with carefully staged fake nature serve only to emphasize how little we've learned from our astounding planet.
But Renzo Piano's architectural wonder breaks the square mold. The museum is scheduled to open next fall, although it's architecturally mostly complete now. A tour of the ultra-environmental museum one moonlit evening last week reminded me that natural landscapes and the design imagination need not live apart.
The building itself - with its spherical planetarium, domed rain forest, high-tech piazza with suspended glass roof and Plexiglas tunnels - is innovative enough to banish the stuffy taint associated with natural history. It's also arguably the greenest museum in the world, built to achieve a platinum rating from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design's Green Building Rating System.
But the undulating green roof, planted with four native ground covers and five local wildflowers, will be a destination in itself. And in some ways, these hills of 1.7 million plants growing in 50,000 biodegradable coconut husk trays comprise the most inspiring element of the whole museum. The roof design has multiple functions.
Implemented by architectural landscapers SWA Group, in collaboration with green roof guru Paul Kephart of Rana Creek Living Architecture in Carmel Valley, the garden is structured around a network of rock in mesh cages, which allow drainage and offer support to the coconut husk trays. The steep inclines of the little hills draw cool air into the central courtyard. Heat-sensing skylights automatically open like clam shells to ventilate and provide natural sunlight to the coral reefs and rain forest within.
But the seven hillocks, which are said to echo the seven major hills of San Francisco, do more than simply express the curves and support the spaces of the interior; they give the museum a living experiment in native plant restoration amidst the alien greenery of Golden Gate Park.
Piano has suggested that the idea was to pick up a piece of the park and slide the museum under it, but it's much more than that. Since the plants were chosen to attract local butterflies, birds and insects, some of which are endangered, the roof offers a quietly utopian statement. Even as we grow and change, it seems to whisper, "We can do better."
Perhaps even more crucial than its role as native landscaping, it introduces the turf roof to San Franciscans as an architectural choice. Living roofs have been around for centuries in Europe, and some American pioneers incorporated them into early dwellings. And if you've ever gone for a walk across the greenery of Yerba Buena Gardens or Civic Center Plaza, you have experienced the joys of a green roof. But the Civic Center Plaza roof, like most of the city's large-scale turf roofs, is used to hide a subterranean parking lot. That's great. But that's not exactly the same as choosing and designing a green roof for the tops of buildings.
I grew up under a turf roof in a home my father designed, and so the idea of grass growing over your head has never seemed new to me. But the early turf technology (like early solar panels) didn't always deliver on the dream. My mother's strategically placed buckets around the dining room and family room offered a humble testimony to that fact. Huddled under our dripping grassy roof, we sometimes felt the way bunnies must feel in their burrows, waiting for the rain to stop.
In the past decade, however, green roofs have come of age. Although Gap Inc. brought large-scale green roofs to the Bay Area in 1997 with its 69,000-square-foot green headquarters in San Bruno, the concept hasn't taken off here as quickly as in many other places.
In Germany, it's already mainstream, with 7 percent of all new construction incorporating a green roof into the design. In England, large- and small-scale living roofs have spawned a movement of enthusiastic practitioners, researchers and designers, buoyed by government incentives. In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley's love for green roofs led to the new roof energy code, which requires white (reflective) or green (vegetated) roofs, and has produced some 120 green roofs in the city center (including its city hall). The Mormon Church conference center in Salt Lake City features an 8-acre multilevel roof resembling mountain meadows, planted with 300 types of wildflowers.
In an era of carbon consciousness, it's only natural that green roofs should gain currency for a wide variety of reasons. By providing insulation, they lower energy bills. By absorbing rainwater, they reduce storm runoff - one of the primary ways nitrate and phosphorous pollution get into our groundwater.
Populated by plants, they clean the air, absorb urban noise and relax us with their natural beauty. In hot climates, they greatly reduce the heat island effect, in which cities amplify the heat of the sun and create hotter climates. Some research has shown that in hot cities like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, green roofs could reduce inner-city temperatures by 10 degrees.
So what's stopping the greening of San Francisco's skyline? One deterrent is price - although turf roofs are supposed to last twice as long as traditional roofs, they are more expensive - an estimated 300 percent more. But factoring in the building's lower energy costs and reduced storm runoff infrastructure lowers the price substantially. And as turf roofs grow more popular, the price has dropped substantially.
Not every structure is built to carry the extra load of a soil roof (which gets substantially heavier when wet), but lightweight soils and plants have made turf roofs surprisingly adaptable to older homes.
Toyota's non-automotive division has come up with a turf mat of 2-inch-thick lawn tiles that might work for buildings that can't carry a traditional turf roof. According to Mark Palmer of San Francisco's Department of the Environment, the green roof is gaining in popularity. "We're seeing more and more residential applications for turf roofs in the building department," he said, adding that the Department of Building Inspection is working on a set of criteria for living roofs.
Because projects that cross a certain environmental threshold now can get into the priority permit pool, both homeowners and developers are eager to design with green building in mind. A green roof is one way to get green brownie points.
If you're interested in building or retrofitting with a green roof, where should you start? It's best to begin with a structural engineer who can calculate your home's strength. The next step might be to research turf systems that have been used on your type of roof.
I can't imagine that the academy won't inspire a local living-roof mania. And not a minute too soon. According to Palmer, the next 25 years of building have the potential to create a whole new world. "Eighty percent of our buildings will be new or renovated by 2035," he said. "So it's a tremendous opportunity to change our environment."
E-mail Carol Lloyd at surreal@sfgate.com.
continue
Instead, they incite images of a revolutionary future - a place designed by intelligent creatures who have transcended the division between nature and culture. Welcome to the most natural part of San Francisco's new Academy of Sciences, its living roof.
Like zoos, nature museums have never really done it for me. Sure, I love to gape at the circling shark or the twisting rain forest vine as much as the next city bumpkin, but the clash between my appreciation for nature and this most unnatural of settings always undermines the experience.
Too often, the dull rectangular rooms outfitted with square tanks and filled with carefully staged fake nature serve only to emphasize how little we've learned from our astounding planet.
But Renzo Piano's architectural wonder breaks the square mold. The museum is scheduled to open next fall, although it's architecturally mostly complete now. A tour of the ultra-environmental museum one moonlit evening last week reminded me that natural landscapes and the design imagination need not live apart.
The building itself - with its spherical planetarium, domed rain forest, high-tech piazza with suspended glass roof and Plexiglas tunnels - is innovative enough to banish the stuffy taint associated with natural history. It's also arguably the greenest museum in the world, built to achieve a platinum rating from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design's Green Building Rating System.
But the undulating green roof, planted with four native ground covers and five local wildflowers, will be a destination in itself. And in some ways, these hills of 1.7 million plants growing in 50,000 biodegradable coconut husk trays comprise the most inspiring element of the whole museum. The roof design has multiple functions.
Implemented by architectural landscapers SWA Group, in collaboration with green roof guru Paul Kephart of Rana Creek Living Architecture in Carmel Valley, the garden is structured around a network of rock in mesh cages, which allow drainage and offer support to the coconut husk trays. The steep inclines of the little hills draw cool air into the central courtyard. Heat-sensing skylights automatically open like clam shells to ventilate and provide natural sunlight to the coral reefs and rain forest within.
But the seven hillocks, which are said to echo the seven major hills of San Francisco, do more than simply express the curves and support the spaces of the interior; they give the museum a living experiment in native plant restoration amidst the alien greenery of Golden Gate Park.
Piano has suggested that the idea was to pick up a piece of the park and slide the museum under it, but it's much more than that. Since the plants were chosen to attract local butterflies, birds and insects, some of which are endangered, the roof offers a quietly utopian statement. Even as we grow and change, it seems to whisper, "We can do better."
Perhaps even more crucial than its role as native landscaping, it introduces the turf roof to San Franciscans as an architectural choice. Living roofs have been around for centuries in Europe, and some American pioneers incorporated them into early dwellings. And if you've ever gone for a walk across the greenery of Yerba Buena Gardens or Civic Center Plaza, you have experienced the joys of a green roof. But the Civic Center Plaza roof, like most of the city's large-scale turf roofs, is used to hide a subterranean parking lot. That's great. But that's not exactly the same as choosing and designing a green roof for the tops of buildings.
I grew up under a turf roof in a home my father designed, and so the idea of grass growing over your head has never seemed new to me. But the early turf technology (like early solar panels) didn't always deliver on the dream. My mother's strategically placed buckets around the dining room and family room offered a humble testimony to that fact. Huddled under our dripping grassy roof, we sometimes felt the way bunnies must feel in their burrows, waiting for the rain to stop.
In the past decade, however, green roofs have come of age. Although Gap Inc. brought large-scale green roofs to the Bay Area in 1997 with its 69,000-square-foot green headquarters in San Bruno, the concept hasn't taken off here as quickly as in many other places.
In Germany, it's already mainstream, with 7 percent of all new construction incorporating a green roof into the design. In England, large- and small-scale living roofs have spawned a movement of enthusiastic practitioners, researchers and designers, buoyed by government incentives. In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley's love for green roofs led to the new roof energy code, which requires white (reflective) or green (vegetated) roofs, and has produced some 120 green roofs in the city center (including its city hall). The Mormon Church conference center in Salt Lake City features an 8-acre multilevel roof resembling mountain meadows, planted with 300 types of wildflowers.
In an era of carbon consciousness, it's only natural that green roofs should gain currency for a wide variety of reasons. By providing insulation, they lower energy bills. By absorbing rainwater, they reduce storm runoff - one of the primary ways nitrate and phosphorous pollution get into our groundwater.
Populated by plants, they clean the air, absorb urban noise and relax us with their natural beauty. In hot climates, they greatly reduce the heat island effect, in which cities amplify the heat of the sun and create hotter climates. Some research has shown that in hot cities like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, green roofs could reduce inner-city temperatures by 10 degrees.
So what's stopping the greening of San Francisco's skyline? One deterrent is price - although turf roofs are supposed to last twice as long as traditional roofs, they are more expensive - an estimated 300 percent more. But factoring in the building's lower energy costs and reduced storm runoff infrastructure lowers the price substantially. And as turf roofs grow more popular, the price has dropped substantially.
Not every structure is built to carry the extra load of a soil roof (which gets substantially heavier when wet), but lightweight soils and plants have made turf roofs surprisingly adaptable to older homes.
Toyota's non-automotive division has come up with a turf mat of 2-inch-thick lawn tiles that might work for buildings that can't carry a traditional turf roof. According to Mark Palmer of San Francisco's Department of the Environment, the green roof is gaining in popularity. "We're seeing more and more residential applications for turf roofs in the building department," he said, adding that the Department of Building Inspection is working on a set of criteria for living roofs.
Because projects that cross a certain environmental threshold now can get into the priority permit pool, both homeowners and developers are eager to design with green building in mind. A green roof is one way to get green brownie points.
If you're interested in building or retrofitting with a green roof, where should you start? It's best to begin with a structural engineer who can calculate your home's strength. The next step might be to research turf systems that have been used on your type of roof.
I can't imagine that the academy won't inspire a local living-roof mania. And not a minute too soon. According to Palmer, the next 25 years of building have the potential to create a whole new world. "Eighty percent of our buildings will be new or renovated by 2035," he said. "So it's a tremendous opportunity to change our environment."
E-mail Carol Lloyd at surreal@sfgate.com.
continue
Less is More: Energy Efficiency in Alaska
By Brian Yanity - Energy efficiency is being able to a given amount of work with less energy.
Energy efficiency is important because the total amount of energy currently consumed by humans worldwide averages 16 trillion watts. Over 90% of that energy comes from fossil fuels, and almost two-thirds of it is lost during its conversion into the forms used by humans. In a cold region like Alaska, no discussion of sustainable resources would be complete without mentioning energy efficiency.
The use of any energy sources should be accompanied by a simultaneous effort to improve energy efficiency and conservation. Being able to do more with less is always a goal for responsible energy planners because, as Benjamin Franklin once said, a penny saved is a penny earned. Or, if the proverbial bucket of water is leaking, one can either patch the leaks or find more (or cheaper) water. Increased energy efficiency will make Alaska more "economically competitive" in the mainstream sense of the term. Energy efficiency gains that do not compromise comfort, performance, or productivity can be made in transportation, heating, and electricity use. However, it is important to distinguish between energy efficiency on a physical level and ‘economic efficiency' as Wall Street defines it. Making human civilization more energy efficient requires a large-scale effort to refit and improve the modern world's buildings, industrial and commercial processes, lighting, heating, appliances and transportation systems.
Energy conservation is defined as the reduction of end-use energy demand by reducing the service demanded, or cutting back on energy use by "making sacrifices" to accomplish a given task. For example, conservation could include the use of natural daylight from the windows instead of electric lighting, a rural transportation choice between dog sleds and snow machines, or using a handsaw instead of a chainsaw to cut wood.
In energy conservation circles, negawatt power is a term coined supplying additional electrical energy to consumers without increased generation capacity through creation of a ‘market' for trading increased energy efficiencies. It works by utilizing consumption efficiency to increase available market supply rather than by increasing plant generation capacity. While not as glamorous as new energy sources, implementing conservation and efficiency measures to reduce a specified amount of energy used is usually cheaper than building an equivalent amount of new energy production capacity.
With a greater return on investment than most new energy sources, energy efficiency is often the simplest way to start solving serious energy problems. However, energy efficiency efforts alone cannot preclude the exhaustion of fossil fuels in the long run. The energy supply chain basically consists of three main components: primary energy conversion - energy carrier - useful energy form. Efficiency improvements can be made anywhere along this energy supply chain, although most energy users only have control at the end-use part of the chain.
Due to the cold, dark winters, Alaskans consume more energy per capita than any other state in the union. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimated the total Alaskan per capita energy use in 2003 at 1175 million British Thermal Units (mBTU) per year. (One BTU unit represents the energy required to heat one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.) It should be noted that North Slope oil production, which is very energy intensive, is included in this figure. By contrast, the state with the lowest annual per-capita energy consumption rate is Rhode Island (212 mBTU), followed by New York (222 mBTU). Another interesting comparison (also based on DOE statistics for 2003) is the total annual per-capita energy consumption of several other large nations: Japan (176 mBTU), Germany (173 mBTU), and China (35 mBTU). However, these numbers do not take into account each nation's per-capita pollution emissions or energy consumed per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).
A recent report by University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) entitled "Effects of Rising Utility Costs on Alaska Households" says that household utility bills in rural Alaska communities are about 50% greater today than they were in the year 2000, mostly due to fuel costs. According to DOE statistics, Alaska has the sixth-highest per-capita consumption of natural gas of the fifty states, though it also has the sixth-lowest per-capita residential electricity use. The relatively high cost of electricity, especially in rural areas, encourages conservation of it. The state with the highest per-capita electricity consumption is Wyoming (26,000 kWh/year), which gets cheap electricity from its abundant coal and uses a lot of all-electric heating and air-conditioning. California uses the least per-capita amount of electricity (6700 kWh/year). The US average is around 12,000 kWh/year. According to the California Energy Commission, since the mid-1970s, per-capita electricity use in the nation's most populous state has stayed relatively flat while per-capita electricity use grew by more than 50% for the nation as a whole.
Heating and Insulation of Buildings
Space heating uses about 40% of the total energy consumed in Alaska, and about 20% of energy consumed in the US as a whole. Together, heating and cooling represent 56% of the energy costs for an average US home. Overall, Alaskans have the greatest home heating needs in the country. According to a recent report by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, the statewide average price for a gallon of heating fuel rose from $3.48 and $3.99 in the one year period between 2005 and 2006, with lower-income households being most affected. The highest fuel prices, found in the most remote communities, are above $7 per gallon.
In Anchorage, the price of natural gas for home heating has increased 91% between 2000 and 2006 according the ISER report mentioned above. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index reports that Anchorage natural gas prices increased 19% during the year 2006. And these trends show no sign of slowing down, as Enstar Natural Gas Co. abruptly raised its residential rates by 30% in January 2007. Similarly, on May 1, 2007 Fairbanks Natural Gas raised its rates by 29%. Fairbanks gas prices have increased 248% since 2002. In the majority of the Alaska Railbelt, natural gas is the predominant fuel for space heating, most water heaters, and many ovens.
An effective way to begin saving energy is to conduct a home energy audit to find the parts of the home that use (or waste) the most energy. Perhaps the easiest conservation measure is turning down the thermostat a few degrees. An alternative would be to use a programmable "setback" thermostat that turns on the heating system only when needed. A home's heating system should be checked and cleaned annually to ensure efficient performance. Furnace filters should be replaced regularly, and heat vents should be kept clear of clutter and debris.
Insulation keeps buildings warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. It is an essential part of almost every building we inhabit. Adding insulation is usually the easiest way to improve heating efficiency in existing buildings, although heating system upgrades and retrofits are often necessary as well. Even a few hundred dollars spent on proper insulation and sealing air leaks can cut heating costs by up to 30%. According to the DOE, every dollar spent on home weatherization and energy efficiency has a $2.40 return on investment. Every year at least $13 billion of wasted heat energy escapes through the cracks and air leaks of US residential buildings.
For homes, the recommended minimum insulation (either fiberglass or spray-foam) rating is R10 in basements and floors, R12 in walls, and R38 in ceilings and attics. Insulating basements is often essential because concrete doesn't have much insulation value. Weather-stripping around doors is also important, and storm windows should be installed before the cold half of the year. Highly efficient double- or triple-paned windows filled with low-conductivity gas reduce heat flow by 50% or more. Caulking windows and leaky ducts is also part of the building philosophy of "build tight, insulate right," which could also be interpreted as "seal the air leaks first, then insulate." But a building acts as a system, and indoor air quality in a tight building must be preserved by letting it "breathe" with enough ventilation.
Efficiency retrofits of old buildings are important because most buildings have an expected lifetime of 50 to 100 years. During the building boom that accompanied the oil pipeline rush of the 1970s and early 1980s, many Alaska buildings were not designed or constructed properly for a subarctic climate. Such structures were designed merely to minimize construction costs, not energy costs over the building's lifetime. In response, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) introduced voluntary building energy efficiency standards in 1991 to cut home energy use by 50% in AHFC-financed homes. A valuable library of Alaska-related energy efficiency literature can be found at AHFC's Resource Information Center: www.ahfc.state.ak.us/energy/ric.cfm.
Today a northern design course is required for Alaska architects. Studying the construction technology of other cold regions around the world should prove useful in developing new, more energy-efficient building codes for Alaska. The Cold Climate Housing Research Center (www.cchrc.org) was established in 2000 by the Alaska State Homebuilding Association, a nonprofit trade group. The new CCHRC building was opened in 2006 on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus and features the latest in energy-efficient building technology.
These state-level energy efficiency programs are a good start, but more Alaska research is needed. Nationally, a ‘green building' rating system known as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard has been developed by the US Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org). The LEED system addresses five major aspects of building design: sustainable building sites, water consumption, energy use and emissions, materials and resource use, and indoor environmental quality. The first LEED-certified building constructed in Alaska was the National Weather Service's Tsunami Warning Center in Palmer, which opened in 2003.
Zero Net-Energy Homes
A zero net-energy house, which is a type of a zero-energy building (ZEB), is one that produces all of the energy it uses onsite, using renewable sources. Such structures have a super-insulated, passive solar design; extremely efficient lighting and ventilation systems; state-of-the-art home appliances; and usually incorporate solar thermal and photovoltaic panels. Overall, a single-family-sized ZEB uses about one-sixth the energy of a typical single-family home. The manufacture of prefabricated zero net-energy homes has already started in Europe, though on a small scale. A step up from zero net-energy designs are "energy-plus" buildings, which by themselves produce more energy than they use. This may be difficult in Alaska, but such a home is technically feasible in northern climates. As described in Richard Seifert's A Solar Design Manual for Alaska (www.alaskasun.org), one of the first zero net-energy demonstration homes was built in 1974 on the campus of the Technical University of Denmark (above, photo by Richard Seifert), and the similar Saskatchewan Conservation House was constructed in Saskatoon three years later. Although these experiments proved that zero net-energy buildings can be constructed in those northern locations, it remains to be seen whether such a feat is within reach for Alaska. Most of the state has a longer cold season than either Saskatchewan or Denmark.
continue
Energy efficiency is important because the total amount of energy currently consumed by humans worldwide averages 16 trillion watts. Over 90% of that energy comes from fossil fuels, and almost two-thirds of it is lost during its conversion into the forms used by humans. In a cold region like Alaska, no discussion of sustainable resources would be complete without mentioning energy efficiency.
The use of any energy sources should be accompanied by a simultaneous effort to improve energy efficiency and conservation. Being able to do more with less is always a goal for responsible energy planners because, as Benjamin Franklin once said, a penny saved is a penny earned. Or, if the proverbial bucket of water is leaking, one can either patch the leaks or find more (or cheaper) water. Increased energy efficiency will make Alaska more "economically competitive" in the mainstream sense of the term. Energy efficiency gains that do not compromise comfort, performance, or productivity can be made in transportation, heating, and electricity use. However, it is important to distinguish between energy efficiency on a physical level and ‘economic efficiency' as Wall Street defines it. Making human civilization more energy efficient requires a large-scale effort to refit and improve the modern world's buildings, industrial and commercial processes, lighting, heating, appliances and transportation systems.
Energy conservation is defined as the reduction of end-use energy demand by reducing the service demanded, or cutting back on energy use by "making sacrifices" to accomplish a given task. For example, conservation could include the use of natural daylight from the windows instead of electric lighting, a rural transportation choice between dog sleds and snow machines, or using a handsaw instead of a chainsaw to cut wood.
In energy conservation circles, negawatt power is a term coined supplying additional electrical energy to consumers without increased generation capacity through creation of a ‘market' for trading increased energy efficiencies. It works by utilizing consumption efficiency to increase available market supply rather than by increasing plant generation capacity. While not as glamorous as new energy sources, implementing conservation and efficiency measures to reduce a specified amount of energy used is usually cheaper than building an equivalent amount of new energy production capacity.
With a greater return on investment than most new energy sources, energy efficiency is often the simplest way to start solving serious energy problems. However, energy efficiency efforts alone cannot preclude the exhaustion of fossil fuels in the long run. The energy supply chain basically consists of three main components: primary energy conversion - energy carrier - useful energy form. Efficiency improvements can be made anywhere along this energy supply chain, although most energy users only have control at the end-use part of the chain.
Due to the cold, dark winters, Alaskans consume more energy per capita than any other state in the union. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimated the total Alaskan per capita energy use in 2003 at 1175 million British Thermal Units (mBTU) per year. (One BTU unit represents the energy required to heat one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.) It should be noted that North Slope oil production, which is very energy intensive, is included in this figure. By contrast, the state with the lowest annual per-capita energy consumption rate is Rhode Island (212 mBTU), followed by New York (222 mBTU). Another interesting comparison (also based on DOE statistics for 2003) is the total annual per-capita energy consumption of several other large nations: Japan (176 mBTU), Germany (173 mBTU), and China (35 mBTU). However, these numbers do not take into account each nation's per-capita pollution emissions or energy consumed per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).
A recent report by University of Alaska Anchorage's Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) entitled "Effects of Rising Utility Costs on Alaska Households" says that household utility bills in rural Alaska communities are about 50% greater today than they were in the year 2000, mostly due to fuel costs. According to DOE statistics, Alaska has the sixth-highest per-capita consumption of natural gas of the fifty states, though it also has the sixth-lowest per-capita residential electricity use. The relatively high cost of electricity, especially in rural areas, encourages conservation of it. The state with the highest per-capita electricity consumption is Wyoming (26,000 kWh/year), which gets cheap electricity from its abundant coal and uses a lot of all-electric heating and air-conditioning. California uses the least per-capita amount of electricity (6700 kWh/year). The US average is around 12,000 kWh/year. According to the California Energy Commission, since the mid-1970s, per-capita electricity use in the nation's most populous state has stayed relatively flat while per-capita electricity use grew by more than 50% for the nation as a whole.
Heating and Insulation of Buildings
Space heating uses about 40% of the total energy consumed in Alaska, and about 20% of energy consumed in the US as a whole. Together, heating and cooling represent 56% of the energy costs for an average US home. Overall, Alaskans have the greatest home heating needs in the country. According to a recent report by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, the statewide average price for a gallon of heating fuel rose from $3.48 and $3.99 in the one year period between 2005 and 2006, with lower-income households being most affected. The highest fuel prices, found in the most remote communities, are above $7 per gallon.
In Anchorage, the price of natural gas for home heating has increased 91% between 2000 and 2006 according the ISER report mentioned above. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index reports that Anchorage natural gas prices increased 19% during the year 2006. And these trends show no sign of slowing down, as Enstar Natural Gas Co. abruptly raised its residential rates by 30% in January 2007. Similarly, on May 1, 2007 Fairbanks Natural Gas raised its rates by 29%. Fairbanks gas prices have increased 248% since 2002. In the majority of the Alaska Railbelt, natural gas is the predominant fuel for space heating, most water heaters, and many ovens.
An effective way to begin saving energy is to conduct a home energy audit to find the parts of the home that use (or waste) the most energy. Perhaps the easiest conservation measure is turning down the thermostat a few degrees. An alternative would be to use a programmable "setback" thermostat that turns on the heating system only when needed. A home's heating system should be checked and cleaned annually to ensure efficient performance. Furnace filters should be replaced regularly, and heat vents should be kept clear of clutter and debris.
Insulation keeps buildings warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. It is an essential part of almost every building we inhabit. Adding insulation is usually the easiest way to improve heating efficiency in existing buildings, although heating system upgrades and retrofits are often necessary as well. Even a few hundred dollars spent on proper insulation and sealing air leaks can cut heating costs by up to 30%. According to the DOE, every dollar spent on home weatherization and energy efficiency has a $2.40 return on investment. Every year at least $13 billion of wasted heat energy escapes through the cracks and air leaks of US residential buildings.
For homes, the recommended minimum insulation (either fiberglass or spray-foam) rating is R10 in basements and floors, R12 in walls, and R38 in ceilings and attics. Insulating basements is often essential because concrete doesn't have much insulation value. Weather-stripping around doors is also important, and storm windows should be installed before the cold half of the year. Highly efficient double- or triple-paned windows filled with low-conductivity gas reduce heat flow by 50% or more. Caulking windows and leaky ducts is also part of the building philosophy of "build tight, insulate right," which could also be interpreted as "seal the air leaks first, then insulate." But a building acts as a system, and indoor air quality in a tight building must be preserved by letting it "breathe" with enough ventilation.
Efficiency retrofits of old buildings are important because most buildings have an expected lifetime of 50 to 100 years. During the building boom that accompanied the oil pipeline rush of the 1970s and early 1980s, many Alaska buildings were not designed or constructed properly for a subarctic climate. Such structures were designed merely to minimize construction costs, not energy costs over the building's lifetime. In response, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) introduced voluntary building energy efficiency standards in 1991 to cut home energy use by 50% in AHFC-financed homes. A valuable library of Alaska-related energy efficiency literature can be found at AHFC's Resource Information Center: www.ahfc.state.ak.us/energy/ric.cfm.
Today a northern design course is required for Alaska architects. Studying the construction technology of other cold regions around the world should prove useful in developing new, more energy-efficient building codes for Alaska. The Cold Climate Housing Research Center (www.cchrc.org) was established in 2000 by the Alaska State Homebuilding Association, a nonprofit trade group. The new CCHRC building was opened in 2006 on the University of Alaska Fairbanks campus and features the latest in energy-efficient building technology.
These state-level energy efficiency programs are a good start, but more Alaska research is needed. Nationally, a ‘green building' rating system known as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard has been developed by the US Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org). The LEED system addresses five major aspects of building design: sustainable building sites, water consumption, energy use and emissions, materials and resource use, and indoor environmental quality. The first LEED-certified building constructed in Alaska was the National Weather Service's Tsunami Warning Center in Palmer, which opened in 2003.
Zero Net-Energy Homes
A zero net-energy house, which is a type of a zero-energy building (ZEB), is one that produces all of the energy it uses onsite, using renewable sources. Such structures have a super-insulated, passive solar design; extremely efficient lighting and ventilation systems; state-of-the-art home appliances; and usually incorporate solar thermal and photovoltaic panels. Overall, a single-family-sized ZEB uses about one-sixth the energy of a typical single-family home. The manufacture of prefabricated zero net-energy homes has already started in Europe, though on a small scale. A step up from zero net-energy designs are "energy-plus" buildings, which by themselves produce more energy than they use. This may be difficult in Alaska, but such a home is technically feasible in northern climates. As described in Richard Seifert's A Solar Design Manual for Alaska (www.alaskasun.org), one of the first zero net-energy demonstration homes was built in 1974 on the campus of the Technical University of Denmark (above, photo by Richard Seifert), and the similar Saskatchewan Conservation House was constructed in Saskatoon three years later. Although these experiments proved that zero net-energy buildings can be constructed in those northern locations, it remains to be seen whether such a feat is within reach for Alaska. Most of the state has a longer cold season than either Saskatchewan or Denmark.
continue
Wednesday 31 October 2007
Repair or Replace?
As long as you've got electronics and appliances in your home, you're inevitably going to be faced with a choice: Something breaks. Now what?
According to a 2005 Consumer Reports survey, Americans are repairing 16 percent fewer products—including high-cost items like television sets and refrigerators—than in 1997. The number of appliance-repairs shops has declined roughly 37 percent in 15 years while the number of electronics-repair shops has plummeted by 64 percent. So-called "e-waste"--computer monitors, televisions and other electronic waste—is the fastest growing portion of the U.S. waste stream. In 2005, electronics accounted for 2.63 million tons of waste—only 12.5 percent of which was recycled.
If you're lucky enough to find a repair shop, it may seem that the best environmental option would be to hang on to old appliances and electronics for as long as possible. Along with the environmental impact of new-product production, there's another concern: Many electronics contain heavy metals (such as lead and mercury), flame retardants and other toxic chemicals that can wash into waterways and pollute groundwater if sent to a landfill. But older products can be a big drain of household energy. "You need to consider buying a new product—which must be manufactured—or fixing your existing product, which may not be up to the latest energy standards," says Greg Keoleian, Ph.D., co-director of the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan.
From a price perspective, if the cost to repair a household appliance is more than half the price of a new product, advances in energy efficiency will generally make buying a newer model the cheaper choice. Based on these numbers and considering today's more environmentally friendly technologies, here's a guide to when you should repair or replace.
Washers
* Replace all top loaders.
When Keoleian and his colleagues compared the average lifecycle of a washing machine (14 years) with the amount of water and emissions that could be saved by a newer model, they determined that even replacing a 2005 machine could have water-saving benefits. The reason: Water- and energy-saving technology continues to evolve as companies push beyond standards. It's most important to replace top loaders with Energy Star-labeled new front loaders as soon as possible; although they're generally more expensive, these models circulate clothes in a shallower pool of water, using less water and heat, and saving money in the long run. (Getting rid of a pre-1994 washer, for example, can save a family $110 a year on utility bills.) For models, see our Washing Machine Product Report.
Clothes Dryer
* Repair if possible, but line dry clothing whenever you can.
As long as your dryer has a moisture sensor (nearly all models in operation today should), it functions at about the same efficiency as current models, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. A dryer's average life cycle is about 13 years, so if it's possible to fix it during this time, try that first. When it is time to buy a new dryer, look for one with the sensor in the drum, as opposed to in the exhaust vent; it will shut off a little sooner and save slightly more energy. However, since dryers consume large amounts of energy, line drying or hanging your clothes on a rack is a better option. For dryers and drying racks, see Virtuous Cycles.
Refrigerators
* Replace all models manufactured before 2001.
New refrigerators consume 75 percent less energy than those produced in the late 1970s, and are even more efficient than models just six years old, Keoleian's research has found. The newest federal standards went into effect in 2001—so if you need to make repairs on an older fridge, it's worth getting a new one instead. When replacing your refrigerator, opt for a top-freezer configuration rather than a side-by-side, and make sure it's Energy Star-certified. A new refrigerator should then last you about 14 years. And resist the urge to hold on to your old fridge or give it away, since inefficient old models can cost over $100 a year to run. Most communities have specific requirements for disposing of refrigerators and other large appliances; visit www.earth911.org for information in your area. For models, see our Refrigerator Product Report.
Dishwasher
* Replace non-Energy Star models.
Newer, more efficient dishwashers use less hot water, have energy-efficient motors and use sensors to determine the length of the wash cycle—making Energy Star models 25 percent more efficient than the minimum federal standards. This can mean a savings of $25 a year if you replace a pre-1994 machine. When shopping for a new dishwasher, choose one with a "light wash" or "energy saving" cycle—and expect to hang onto it for about 9 years, suggests the National Association of Home Builders. And remember that handwashing dishes is an inefficient alternative, generally wasting more water than dishwashers. For models, see our Dishwasher Product Report.
Air conditioners
* Replace window units older than 10 years and central-air systems older than 10, but consider alternative cooling methods.
Upgrading your window units to a more efficient model can cut energy bills by an average of $14 a year, estimates the Energy Star program. The most efficient room air conditioners have higher-efficiency compressors, fan motors and heat-transfer surfaces than previous models. Central ACs are rated according to their seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER)—for which most 1992 to 2005 models score about a 10; older ACs have ratings of only 6 or 7. New minimum standards set in 2006 require current central-air units to have a SEER of at least 13. Because of the coolants used, old room-AC units need to be disposed of in hazardous waste facilities; old central units are usually disposed of by the contractor hired to install the new unit, but always ask ahead of time to ensure proper disposal.
Before you buy, however, consider alternatives such as ceiling fans, evaporative coolers (if you live in a dry climate), whole-house fans and landscaping or decorating changes, all of which can keep your home comfortable for a fraction of the cost (see Keep Your Cool With Less AC). For models, see our Air Conditioner Product Report.
Water heaters
* Replace all electric heaters, and any gas heaters older than 10 years.
If you have an electric heating system, you can achieve a 50 percent energy savings used by switching to a high-efficiency gas model. Gas heating systems can last for about 25 years but will operate for years at very low efficiency before they finally fail [but do they operate at low efficiency because of something that can be repaired?] ; if yours is more than 10 years old, it probably operates at less than 50 percent efficiency and deserves to be replaced. Consider a "demand," or tankless, system, in which water is circulated through a large coil and heated only when needed. Although EnergyStar doesn't certify these models, the government estimates that they can save between 45 and 60 percent of water heating energy and up to $1,800 a year when compared to standard, minimum-efficiency heaters.
Computers
* Repair as long as you can.
"The manufacture of brand new computer models uses more than four times the energy and resources it would take to extend the life of an older machine for another few years, says Sheila Davis, executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition—so it's best to always repair it yours if possible. Memory can be added to slow computers (1-gig will run about $100 and you can install it yourself). But it's important to consider the repair process, says Davis: Name brand computers often have proprietary parts and need to be shipped back to the manufacturer—or sometimes even overseas—to be fixed. "White box" computers, that is, generic models without name brand parts, can easily be upgraded at local computer stores, but warranties for them can be tricky. They come without software, and finding technical support may be difficult. White box models are available online or at large computer chains.
If you prefer a name-brand item, choose one with a strong takeback program that will guarantee your computer won't end up in a landfill. Dell takes back all branded products for free; others accept new models or charge a small fee. Visit www.computertakeback.com/docUploads/Using_takeback_programsv7a.pdf for a comparison of most popular brands. As far as desktops versus laptops, it's a toss-up: "Even though laptops are smaller, they often have just as many chemicals to dispose of," says Davis. If you still have a large cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitor, replace it with a flat-panel liquid crystal display: A 15-inch LCD screen uses about 18 watts of energy, as opposed to about 200 for CRT's. For models, see our Computers Product Report.
Smaller electronics
* Replace, but recycle.
It's probably not financially practical to repair electronics such as printers, televisions, and digital cameras, but it's best to keep them out of landfills. Before ditching them, always consult the instruction manual and consider contacting the manufacturer; sometimes they'll provide repairs for a small fee. When they do need to be disposed of, visit www.greenerchoices.org for recycling options that won't put toxic chemicals back into the environment. Cell phones, for example, are often reprogrammed and donated to women facing domestic violence (as a 911 lifeline), and chains such as Best Buy and Staples often sponsor collection drives for other broken electronics (see also www.eco-cell.org). Apple will take back iPods (as well as cellphones), offering a 10 percent discount towards your next purchase.
by Amanda MacMillan
continue
According to a 2005 Consumer Reports survey, Americans are repairing 16 percent fewer products—including high-cost items like television sets and refrigerators—than in 1997. The number of appliance-repairs shops has declined roughly 37 percent in 15 years while the number of electronics-repair shops has plummeted by 64 percent. So-called "e-waste"--computer monitors, televisions and other electronic waste—is the fastest growing portion of the U.S. waste stream. In 2005, electronics accounted for 2.63 million tons of waste—only 12.5 percent of which was recycled.
If you're lucky enough to find a repair shop, it may seem that the best environmental option would be to hang on to old appliances and electronics for as long as possible. Along with the environmental impact of new-product production, there's another concern: Many electronics contain heavy metals (such as lead and mercury), flame retardants and other toxic chemicals that can wash into waterways and pollute groundwater if sent to a landfill. But older products can be a big drain of household energy. "You need to consider buying a new product—which must be manufactured—or fixing your existing product, which may not be up to the latest energy standards," says Greg Keoleian, Ph.D., co-director of the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan.
From a price perspective, if the cost to repair a household appliance is more than half the price of a new product, advances in energy efficiency will generally make buying a newer model the cheaper choice. Based on these numbers and considering today's more environmentally friendly technologies, here's a guide to when you should repair or replace.
Washers
* Replace all top loaders.
When Keoleian and his colleagues compared the average lifecycle of a washing machine (14 years) with the amount of water and emissions that could be saved by a newer model, they determined that even replacing a 2005 machine could have water-saving benefits. The reason: Water- and energy-saving technology continues to evolve as companies push beyond standards. It's most important to replace top loaders with Energy Star-labeled new front loaders as soon as possible; although they're generally more expensive, these models circulate clothes in a shallower pool of water, using less water and heat, and saving money in the long run. (Getting rid of a pre-1994 washer, for example, can save a family $110 a year on utility bills.) For models, see our Washing Machine Product Report.
Clothes Dryer
* Repair if possible, but line dry clothing whenever you can.
As long as your dryer has a moisture sensor (nearly all models in operation today should), it functions at about the same efficiency as current models, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. A dryer's average life cycle is about 13 years, so if it's possible to fix it during this time, try that first. When it is time to buy a new dryer, look for one with the sensor in the drum, as opposed to in the exhaust vent; it will shut off a little sooner and save slightly more energy. However, since dryers consume large amounts of energy, line drying or hanging your clothes on a rack is a better option. For dryers and drying racks, see Virtuous Cycles.
Refrigerators
* Replace all models manufactured before 2001.
New refrigerators consume 75 percent less energy than those produced in the late 1970s, and are even more efficient than models just six years old, Keoleian's research has found. The newest federal standards went into effect in 2001—so if you need to make repairs on an older fridge, it's worth getting a new one instead. When replacing your refrigerator, opt for a top-freezer configuration rather than a side-by-side, and make sure it's Energy Star-certified. A new refrigerator should then last you about 14 years. And resist the urge to hold on to your old fridge or give it away, since inefficient old models can cost over $100 a year to run. Most communities have specific requirements for disposing of refrigerators and other large appliances; visit www.earth911.org for information in your area. For models, see our Refrigerator Product Report.
Dishwasher
* Replace non-Energy Star models.
Newer, more efficient dishwashers use less hot water, have energy-efficient motors and use sensors to determine the length of the wash cycle—making Energy Star models 25 percent more efficient than the minimum federal standards. This can mean a savings of $25 a year if you replace a pre-1994 machine. When shopping for a new dishwasher, choose one with a "light wash" or "energy saving" cycle—and expect to hang onto it for about 9 years, suggests the National Association of Home Builders. And remember that handwashing dishes is an inefficient alternative, generally wasting more water than dishwashers. For models, see our Dishwasher Product Report.
Air conditioners
* Replace window units older than 10 years and central-air systems older than 10, but consider alternative cooling methods.
Upgrading your window units to a more efficient model can cut energy bills by an average of $14 a year, estimates the Energy Star program. The most efficient room air conditioners have higher-efficiency compressors, fan motors and heat-transfer surfaces than previous models. Central ACs are rated according to their seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER)—for which most 1992 to 2005 models score about a 10; older ACs have ratings of only 6 or 7. New minimum standards set in 2006 require current central-air units to have a SEER of at least 13. Because of the coolants used, old room-AC units need to be disposed of in hazardous waste facilities; old central units are usually disposed of by the contractor hired to install the new unit, but always ask ahead of time to ensure proper disposal.
Before you buy, however, consider alternatives such as ceiling fans, evaporative coolers (if you live in a dry climate), whole-house fans and landscaping or decorating changes, all of which can keep your home comfortable for a fraction of the cost (see Keep Your Cool With Less AC). For models, see our Air Conditioner Product Report.
Water heaters
* Replace all electric heaters, and any gas heaters older than 10 years.
If you have an electric heating system, you can achieve a 50 percent energy savings used by switching to a high-efficiency gas model. Gas heating systems can last for about 25 years but will operate for years at very low efficiency before they finally fail [but do they operate at low efficiency because of something that can be repaired?] ; if yours is more than 10 years old, it probably operates at less than 50 percent efficiency and deserves to be replaced. Consider a "demand," or tankless, system, in which water is circulated through a large coil and heated only when needed. Although EnergyStar doesn't certify these models, the government estimates that they can save between 45 and 60 percent of water heating energy and up to $1,800 a year when compared to standard, minimum-efficiency heaters.
Computers
* Repair as long as you can.
"The manufacture of brand new computer models uses more than four times the energy and resources it would take to extend the life of an older machine for another few years, says Sheila Davis, executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition—so it's best to always repair it yours if possible. Memory can be added to slow computers (1-gig will run about $100 and you can install it yourself). But it's important to consider the repair process, says Davis: Name brand computers often have proprietary parts and need to be shipped back to the manufacturer—or sometimes even overseas—to be fixed. "White box" computers, that is, generic models without name brand parts, can easily be upgraded at local computer stores, but warranties for them can be tricky. They come without software, and finding technical support may be difficult. White box models are available online or at large computer chains.
If you prefer a name-brand item, choose one with a strong takeback program that will guarantee your computer won't end up in a landfill. Dell takes back all branded products for free; others accept new models or charge a small fee. Visit www.computertakeback.com/docUploads/Using_takeback_programsv7a.pdf for a comparison of most popular brands. As far as desktops versus laptops, it's a toss-up: "Even though laptops are smaller, they often have just as many chemicals to dispose of," says Davis. If you still have a large cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitor, replace it with a flat-panel liquid crystal display: A 15-inch LCD screen uses about 18 watts of energy, as opposed to about 200 for CRT's. For models, see our Computers Product Report.
Smaller electronics
* Replace, but recycle.
It's probably not financially practical to repair electronics such as printers, televisions, and digital cameras, but it's best to keep them out of landfills. Before ditching them, always consult the instruction manual and consider contacting the manufacturer; sometimes they'll provide repairs for a small fee. When they do need to be disposed of, visit www.greenerchoices.org for recycling options that won't put toxic chemicals back into the environment. Cell phones, for example, are often reprogrammed and donated to women facing domestic violence (as a 911 lifeline), and chains such as Best Buy and Staples often sponsor collection drives for other broken electronics (see also www.eco-cell.org). Apple will take back iPods (as well as cellphones), offering a 10 percent discount towards your next purchase.
by Amanda MacMillan
continue
Sunday 28 October 2007
Energy and Fuels
Access to cheap energy is a linchpin of modern industry and civilisation. Energy, mostly from fossil fuels, allows us to heat homes, and power factories and transportation systems. Worldwide every day, we devour the energy equivalent of about 200 million barrels of oil, but much of this energy comes from coal, gas and nuclear fuel too.
Starting with coal, and then oil and gas in the 1800s, we have plundered our fossil fuel riches to drive development. But now, an energy crisis looms. New oil sources are dwindling, and smothering greenhouse gases threaten the Earth - yet energy demands will rise by 50% to 60% by 2030. We need to rapidly develop sustainable solutions - from hydrogen cells to wind turbines - to fuel our future.
Most of the energy on Earth comes from the Sun. In fact enough energy from the Sun hits the planet's surface each minute to cover our needs for an entire year, we just need to find an efficient way to harness it. So far the energy in oil has been cheaper and easier to get at. But as supplies dwindle, this will change, and we will need to cure our addiction to oil.
Thirst for oil
Burning wood satisfied most energy needs until the steam-driven industrial revolution, when energy-dense coal became the fuel of choice. Coal is still used, mostly in power stations, to cover one-quarter of our energy needs, but its use has been declining since we started pumping up oil. Coal is the least efficient, unhealthiest and most environmentally damaging fossil fuel, but could make a comeback, as supplies are still plentiful: its reserves are five times larger than oil's.
Today petroleum (derived from oil) provides around 40% of the world's energy needs, mostly fuelling automobiles. The US guzzles up a quarter of all oil, and generates a similar proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. The first wells were drilled 2400 years ago, but the modern oil industry was born in the 1850s.
The majority of oil comes from the Middle East, which has half of known reserves. But other significant sources include Russia, North America, Norway, Venezuela and the North Sea. Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be a major new US source, to reduce reliance on foreign imports, but drilling there is currently prohibited.
Most experts predict we will exhaust easily accessible reserves within 50 years, though opinions and estimates vary. We could fast reach an energy crisis in the next few decades; when demand outstrips supply. As conventional reserves become more difficult to access, others such as oil shales and tar sands may be used instead. Petrol could also be extracted from coal.
Since we started using fossil fuels, we have released 400 billion tonnes of carbon, and burning the entire reserves could eventually raise world temperatures by 13°C. Among other horrors, this would result in the destruction of all rainforests and the melting of all Arctic ice. London would be as hot as Cairo, but would also be engulfed by seawater. (See our Special Report on Climate Change for more.)
Gas, naturally
Natural gas reserves could plug some of the gap from oil, but reserves of that - some of which are in Russia, the Middle East and the Wadden Sea - will not last into the 22nd century either. We currently use it for around one-third of world electricity generation.
Natural gas, which is mostly methane, is the cleanest fossil fuel by weight, emitting just 40% the greenhouse gases of coal and 25% of oil. As a less-polluting alternative to petrol, its use is increasing in automobiles - either as compressed natural gas or for powering hydrogen fuel cells. When reserves do run low, we may be able to access vast frozen methane hydrate reserves beneath the seabed.
In the next few decades, one way for the UK and others to meet greenhouse gas reduction commitments, could be increased nuclear power generation. Currently, about 440 reactors in 32 countries generate 16% of world electricity. (See our Special Report on The Nuclear Age for more.)
Despite a slow decline of support for nuclear power in the west following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, many countries, such as the US, Japan and India are now embracing the technology again. But using nuclear power to mitigate environmental damage is a double-edged sword, because disposing of nuclear waste is itself an intractable problem. Expense, safety in usual operation and terrorism are major concerns too, not to mention the fact that building new facilities can take decades.
Sustainable alternatives
Less-polluting renewable energy sources offer a more practical long-term energy solution. They may benefit the world's poor too. "Renewable" refers to the fact these resources are not used faster than they can be replaced.
The Chinese and Romans used watermills over 2000 years ago. But the first hydroelectric dam was built in England in 1870. Hydroelectric power is now the most common form of renewable energy, supplying around 20% of world electricity.
China's Three Gorges Dam, which has just been completed, is the largest ever. At five times the size of the US's Hoover Dam, its 26 turbines will generate the equivalent energy of 18 coal-fired power stations. It will satisfy 3% of China's entire electricity demand. Surprisingly, some argue that hydroelectric dams significantly contribute greenhouse gases.
In 2003, the first commercial power station to harness tidal currents in the open sea opened in Norway. It is designed like windmill, but others take the form of turbines, oscillating hydroplanes, flexible eel-like generators, or are made of floating pontoons that rise up and down with the waves and tide.
As prices fall, wind power has become the fastest growing type of electricity generation - quadrupling worldwide between 1999 and 2005. Modern wind farms consist of turbines that generate electricity. Though it will be more expensive, there is more than enough wind to provide the world's entire energy needs.
Wind farms come in onshore and offshore forms. They can often end up at spots of natural beauty, and are often unpopular with residents. And turbines are not totally benign - they can interfere with radar and leave a significant ecological footprint; altering climate, sending wildlife diving for cover and killing sea birds. Migrating birds may have more luck avoiding them.
Scotland is building Europe's largest wind farm, which will power 200,000 homes. The UK's goal is to generate one-fifth of power from renewable sources, mainly wind, by 2020. But this may cause problems, because wind is unreliable.
Future buildings with integrated turbines could generate 20% of their own power. Other visions see wind-power revived for shipping, floating wind farms, or 28-kilometre-wide flying behemoths powered by high speed winds in the upper atmosphere. There are also plans to construct a 1-kilometre-tall tower that would harness wind energy from heated air in the Australian outback.
Catching some rays
Using solar power to generate electricity has been considered since Victorian times and clever building designs that use it to regulate temperature have been around for millennia. Today solar power is used in several ways. In thermal solar power, sunlight directly heats water in rooftop panels for household supplies, while sunlight can also be converted to electricity using photovoltaic cells, which use semiconductors to turn photons into electricity.
Both types of power are intermittent sources, as they can only work in good light. Photovoltaic cells have been too expensive for widespread use, but are already popular for supplying electricity to remote locations and filling gaps in ramshackle electricity grids. Solar panels often power spacecraft too, and solar cars and aeroplanes.
New cheaper versionsof photovoltaic cells could mean more energy is generated from solar than nuclear power by 2020.
In the future we may generate solar power using flexible coverings that "clothe" both buildings and people. There is even a scheme for an orbiting solar power station.
Running on empty
When oil runs out what will we fuel our cars with? This question, plus the fact the exhaust fumes are one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, means the race is on to find a new solution to getting around.
Biofuels have been around since the internal combustion engine. Ethanol is added to petrol in the US, and millions of cars in Brazil are run on it too. Vegetable oils are already used in Europe to produce biodiesel. Soya oil could be used for aviation too. Biofuels such as fast-growing elephant grass or saplings could be used to provide heat and electricity. Even sewage is being considered as a biofuel.
Hydrogen fuel cells have enormous potential if technical problems can be solved. Essentially a kind of battery that can be continuously refilled, fuel cells chemically react hydrogen with oxygen - producing just electricity and water.
This is a far more efficient process than burning fuel, as much less energy is wasted as heat. See how it works here. But it's not just useful in cars: hydrogen could also be used in power stations and electronic and portable gadgets too. Miniature fuel cells may one day oust batteries.
The problem is that catalysts and membranes have been expensive until recently. Other problems include making tanks of pressurised flammable hydrogen safe enough for cars and creating an entire fuelling station infrastructure. Combining traditional engines with fuel cells could be step in the right direction. A new $10 million prize has been offered to help solve these problems.
Fuel cells can also use natural gas, methanol or coal - but these produce carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is not yet a completely clean either, as electricity - currently derived from fossil fuels - is needed to"crack" water to produce the hydrogen. Some cities, such as Reykjavik, already use hydrogen to power buses. But Iceland gets some electricity and over 80% of its heating and hot water from geothermal energy sources, and can produce the hydrogen emission-free. Other countries need to find ways to produce the hydrogen sustainably.
Driving efficiency
Some argue that the "hydrogen economy" is a distraction from meeting future energy needs and slowing climate change, and that we need to focus on more immediate solutions. Making social change might be more difficult than solving technical problems.
Solutions that could be put in place right now include filtering carbon dioxide out of emissions and burying it in oil seams or under the sea. The US is among 6 nations that have turned their back on the Kyoto protocol to curb climate change and are focusing instead on "clean energy" from fossil fuels.
Increasing efficiency in energy production could also yield massive savings, as it did during the oil crises of the 1970s. Methods vary from reducing the friction of trains to lowering speed limits for cars.
Producing combined heat and power with small generators at home, makes use of a lot of the energy wasted in power stations, and might one day feed energy back to the grid. Wind and solar power could also be rigged up on a rooftop near you in the future - even the Queen of England is now generating her own power from the River Thames.
John Pickrell
continue
Starting with coal, and then oil and gas in the 1800s, we have plundered our fossil fuel riches to drive development. But now, an energy crisis looms. New oil sources are dwindling, and smothering greenhouse gases threaten the Earth - yet energy demands will rise by 50% to 60% by 2030. We need to rapidly develop sustainable solutions - from hydrogen cells to wind turbines - to fuel our future.
Most of the energy on Earth comes from the Sun. In fact enough energy from the Sun hits the planet's surface each minute to cover our needs for an entire year, we just need to find an efficient way to harness it. So far the energy in oil has been cheaper and easier to get at. But as supplies dwindle, this will change, and we will need to cure our addiction to oil.
Thirst for oil
Burning wood satisfied most energy needs until the steam-driven industrial revolution, when energy-dense coal became the fuel of choice. Coal is still used, mostly in power stations, to cover one-quarter of our energy needs, but its use has been declining since we started pumping up oil. Coal is the least efficient, unhealthiest and most environmentally damaging fossil fuel, but could make a comeback, as supplies are still plentiful: its reserves are five times larger than oil's.
Today petroleum (derived from oil) provides around 40% of the world's energy needs, mostly fuelling automobiles. The US guzzles up a quarter of all oil, and generates a similar proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. The first wells were drilled 2400 years ago, but the modern oil industry was born in the 1850s.
The majority of oil comes from the Middle East, which has half of known reserves. But other significant sources include Russia, North America, Norway, Venezuela and the North Sea. Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be a major new US source, to reduce reliance on foreign imports, but drilling there is currently prohibited.
Most experts predict we will exhaust easily accessible reserves within 50 years, though opinions and estimates vary. We could fast reach an energy crisis in the next few decades; when demand outstrips supply. As conventional reserves become more difficult to access, others such as oil shales and tar sands may be used instead. Petrol could also be extracted from coal.
Since we started using fossil fuels, we have released 400 billion tonnes of carbon, and burning the entire reserves could eventually raise world temperatures by 13°C. Among other horrors, this would result in the destruction of all rainforests and the melting of all Arctic ice. London would be as hot as Cairo, but would also be engulfed by seawater. (See our Special Report on Climate Change for more.)
Gas, naturally
Natural gas reserves could plug some of the gap from oil, but reserves of that - some of which are in Russia, the Middle East and the Wadden Sea - will not last into the 22nd century either. We currently use it for around one-third of world electricity generation.
Natural gas, which is mostly methane, is the cleanest fossil fuel by weight, emitting just 40% the greenhouse gases of coal and 25% of oil. As a less-polluting alternative to petrol, its use is increasing in automobiles - either as compressed natural gas or for powering hydrogen fuel cells. When reserves do run low, we may be able to access vast frozen methane hydrate reserves beneath the seabed.
In the next few decades, one way for the UK and others to meet greenhouse gas reduction commitments, could be increased nuclear power generation. Currently, about 440 reactors in 32 countries generate 16% of world electricity. (See our Special Report on The Nuclear Age for more.)
Despite a slow decline of support for nuclear power in the west following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, many countries, such as the US, Japan and India are now embracing the technology again. But using nuclear power to mitigate environmental damage is a double-edged sword, because disposing of nuclear waste is itself an intractable problem. Expense, safety in usual operation and terrorism are major concerns too, not to mention the fact that building new facilities can take decades.
Sustainable alternatives
Less-polluting renewable energy sources offer a more practical long-term energy solution. They may benefit the world's poor too. "Renewable" refers to the fact these resources are not used faster than they can be replaced.
The Chinese and Romans used watermills over 2000 years ago. But the first hydroelectric dam was built in England in 1870. Hydroelectric power is now the most common form of renewable energy, supplying around 20% of world electricity.
China's Three Gorges Dam, which has just been completed, is the largest ever. At five times the size of the US's Hoover Dam, its 26 turbines will generate the equivalent energy of 18 coal-fired power stations. It will satisfy 3% of China's entire electricity demand. Surprisingly, some argue that hydroelectric dams significantly contribute greenhouse gases.
In 2003, the first commercial power station to harness tidal currents in the open sea opened in Norway. It is designed like windmill, but others take the form of turbines, oscillating hydroplanes, flexible eel-like generators, or are made of floating pontoons that rise up and down with the waves and tide.
As prices fall, wind power has become the fastest growing type of electricity generation - quadrupling worldwide between 1999 and 2005. Modern wind farms consist of turbines that generate electricity. Though it will be more expensive, there is more than enough wind to provide the world's entire energy needs.
Wind farms come in onshore and offshore forms. They can often end up at spots of natural beauty, and are often unpopular with residents. And turbines are not totally benign - they can interfere with radar and leave a significant ecological footprint; altering climate, sending wildlife diving for cover and killing sea birds. Migrating birds may have more luck avoiding them.
Scotland is building Europe's largest wind farm, which will power 200,000 homes. The UK's goal is to generate one-fifth of power from renewable sources, mainly wind, by 2020. But this may cause problems, because wind is unreliable.
Future buildings with integrated turbines could generate 20% of their own power. Other visions see wind-power revived for shipping, floating wind farms, or 28-kilometre-wide flying behemoths powered by high speed winds in the upper atmosphere. There are also plans to construct a 1-kilometre-tall tower that would harness wind energy from heated air in the Australian outback.
Catching some rays
Using solar power to generate electricity has been considered since Victorian times and clever building designs that use it to regulate temperature have been around for millennia. Today solar power is used in several ways. In thermal solar power, sunlight directly heats water in rooftop panels for household supplies, while sunlight can also be converted to electricity using photovoltaic cells, which use semiconductors to turn photons into electricity.
Both types of power are intermittent sources, as they can only work in good light. Photovoltaic cells have been too expensive for widespread use, but are already popular for supplying electricity to remote locations and filling gaps in ramshackle electricity grids. Solar panels often power spacecraft too, and solar cars and aeroplanes.
New cheaper versionsof photovoltaic cells could mean more energy is generated from solar than nuclear power by 2020.
In the future we may generate solar power using flexible coverings that "clothe" both buildings and people. There is even a scheme for an orbiting solar power station.
Running on empty
When oil runs out what will we fuel our cars with? This question, plus the fact the exhaust fumes are one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, means the race is on to find a new solution to getting around.
Biofuels have been around since the internal combustion engine. Ethanol is added to petrol in the US, and millions of cars in Brazil are run on it too. Vegetable oils are already used in Europe to produce biodiesel. Soya oil could be used for aviation too. Biofuels such as fast-growing elephant grass or saplings could be used to provide heat and electricity. Even sewage is being considered as a biofuel.
Hydrogen fuel cells have enormous potential if technical problems can be solved. Essentially a kind of battery that can be continuously refilled, fuel cells chemically react hydrogen with oxygen - producing just electricity and water.
This is a far more efficient process than burning fuel, as much less energy is wasted as heat. See how it works here. But it's not just useful in cars: hydrogen could also be used in power stations and electronic and portable gadgets too. Miniature fuel cells may one day oust batteries.
The problem is that catalysts and membranes have been expensive until recently. Other problems include making tanks of pressurised flammable hydrogen safe enough for cars and creating an entire fuelling station infrastructure. Combining traditional engines with fuel cells could be step in the right direction. A new $10 million prize has been offered to help solve these problems.
Fuel cells can also use natural gas, methanol or coal - but these produce carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is not yet a completely clean either, as electricity - currently derived from fossil fuels - is needed to"crack" water to produce the hydrogen. Some cities, such as Reykjavik, already use hydrogen to power buses. But Iceland gets some electricity and over 80% of its heating and hot water from geothermal energy sources, and can produce the hydrogen emission-free. Other countries need to find ways to produce the hydrogen sustainably.
Driving efficiency
Some argue that the "hydrogen economy" is a distraction from meeting future energy needs and slowing climate change, and that we need to focus on more immediate solutions. Making social change might be more difficult than solving technical problems.
Solutions that could be put in place right now include filtering carbon dioxide out of emissions and burying it in oil seams or under the sea. The US is among 6 nations that have turned their back on the Kyoto protocol to curb climate change and are focusing instead on "clean energy" from fossil fuels.
Increasing efficiency in energy production could also yield massive savings, as it did during the oil crises of the 1970s. Methods vary from reducing the friction of trains to lowering speed limits for cars.
Producing combined heat and power with small generators at home, makes use of a lot of the energy wasted in power stations, and might one day feed energy back to the grid. Wind and solar power could also be rigged up on a rooftop near you in the future - even the Queen of England is now generating her own power from the River Thames.
John Pickrell
continue
Beyond the doom and gloom of climate change
Propelled by concern about the bleak future his young daughter might face, Chris Turner spent a year touring the world looking for solutions to the planet’s environmental crisis. `I started off feeling the need to be hopeful,’ the Calgary author admits. But, `I feel the depth of my hope deepening ..... I’m finding my expectations exceeded regularly.’ His new book, The Geography of Hope describes many examples of things being done right. But as Turner researched and wrote it, he also came to the conclusion that most of the environment movement has been spreading the wrong message. The news must be turned on its head, he says. It’s time for us to shift from despair to dreams.
Can Al Gore equal Martin Luther King Jr.? The apparently bizarre, possibly irreverent, question comes to mind while reading The Geography of Hope, a new book by Calgary author Chris Turner.
Turner argues it's time to stop blaring dire warnings about the perils of climate change and, instead, start enthusiastically proclaiming solutions.
We need to dream rather than despair, he says. Just as King did when he was the nearly mythic champion of the U.S. civil rights movement.
Gore has far more presence and appeal than anyone else crusading about the world's major environmental threat, climate change.
But, in Turner's view, he's a long way from being to that cause what King was to his. In his An Inconvenient Truth movie, book and slide shows, the former U.S. vice-president and 2000 contender for the White House, is strong on portraying the dangerous state of the world, but weak on solutions.
"It remains to be seen if he can turn the corner from being the best messenger of the urgency of the thing into the one who points the way ahead," Turner says.
But whether it's Gore, someone else, or – a very long shot – all of us, his main contention is that the message must be turned around.
Turner is not among those who deny soaring greenhouse gas emissions threaten the world. We must confront it, he writes, "unless you consider rendering the planet unfit for human life a viable option."
continue
Can Al Gore equal Martin Luther King Jr.? The apparently bizarre, possibly irreverent, question comes to mind while reading The Geography of Hope, a new book by Calgary author Chris Turner.
Turner argues it's time to stop blaring dire warnings about the perils of climate change and, instead, start enthusiastically proclaiming solutions.
We need to dream rather than despair, he says. Just as King did when he was the nearly mythic champion of the U.S. civil rights movement.
Gore has far more presence and appeal than anyone else crusading about the world's major environmental threat, climate change.
But, in Turner's view, he's a long way from being to that cause what King was to his. In his An Inconvenient Truth movie, book and slide shows, the former U.S. vice-president and 2000 contender for the White House, is strong on portraying the dangerous state of the world, but weak on solutions.
"It remains to be seen if he can turn the corner from being the best messenger of the urgency of the thing into the one who points the way ahead," Turner says.
But whether it's Gore, someone else, or – a very long shot – all of us, his main contention is that the message must be turned around.
Turner is not among those who deny soaring greenhouse gas emissions threaten the world. We must confront it, he writes, "unless you consider rendering the planet unfit for human life a viable option."
continue
Saturday 27 October 2007
Energy bills lower in new-build homes
Carbon-neutral properties and eco-homes may be more expensive to build, but could offer significant cost-savings for homeowners, according to one expert.
John Alker, public affairs manager for the UK Green Building Council, said the cost of building such properties ought to come down over time, as new technologies become less expensive.
However, homeowners are likely to find that the cost of running an eco-home is significantly lower than in other properties, Mr Alker claimed.
"Energy bills are going to be extremely low in the future as opposed to at the moment where gas and oil prices are going up and people are spending more on their electricity and gas bills," he commented.
As part of the Code for Sustainable Homes, the government stated that it would look to introduce a ratings system for properties based on their sustainability.
Under the initiative, properties with low carbon emissions may also be exempt from stamp duty for a certain number of years.
continue
John Alker, public affairs manager for the UK Green Building Council, said the cost of building such properties ought to come down over time, as new technologies become less expensive.
However, homeowners are likely to find that the cost of running an eco-home is significantly lower than in other properties, Mr Alker claimed.
"Energy bills are going to be extremely low in the future as opposed to at the moment where gas and oil prices are going up and people are spending more on their electricity and gas bills," he commented.
As part of the Code for Sustainable Homes, the government stated that it would look to introduce a ratings system for properties based on their sustainability.
Under the initiative, properties with low carbon emissions may also be exempt from stamp duty for a certain number of years.
continue
Making your home carbon neutral
We shiver behind most of Europe thanks to the poor quality of our homes, but we will be feeling a lot warmer if the government has its way.
It wants us to get our houses rated for energy efficiency before we sell them, so buyers can see whether they are moving into an oasis or an icebox.
They are no strangers to the cold in Dunedin, but it is not snow that is the problem.
'Otago University found that student flats were colder than the inside of a fridge in the winter. Students would have been warmer sitting in a fridge,' says professor Robert Vale of Victoria University.
He says we are 30 years behind Europe when it comes to building warm, comfortable, homes.
In Britain, some houses are designed to stay at a constant 18 to 20 degrees - without any heating.
Here they are twice the size, but we skimp on the basics.
'In many countries double glazing is now outlawed because it's not good enough and they have triple glazing,' adds Vale.
In Orewa 700 eco-homes are going up, with an emphasis on energy efficiency, and comfort.
The living areas face north to trap as much sunlight as possible, while heat pumps and double glazing keep things cosy.
At the moment it costs an $30,000 to include the green credentials.
But what about older homes?
Three quarters were built before the 1978 building code introduced minimum insulation standards; half of all homes still lack some insulation.
The government has promised more than seventy million dollars over four years to help us improve our homes, and also to launch the home energy rating scheme.
It ranks how energy efficient a house is for prospective buyers.
Even if you do ventilate and insulate - your home won't be completely carbon neutral, unless you stop using every single electrical appliance.
But you will enjoy the comforts of a warmer home
video
It wants us to get our houses rated for energy efficiency before we sell them, so buyers can see whether they are moving into an oasis or an icebox.
They are no strangers to the cold in Dunedin, but it is not snow that is the problem.
'Otago University found that student flats were colder than the inside of a fridge in the winter. Students would have been warmer sitting in a fridge,' says professor Robert Vale of Victoria University.
He says we are 30 years behind Europe when it comes to building warm, comfortable, homes.
In Britain, some houses are designed to stay at a constant 18 to 20 degrees - without any heating.
Here they are twice the size, but we skimp on the basics.
'In many countries double glazing is now outlawed because it's not good enough and they have triple glazing,' adds Vale.
In Orewa 700 eco-homes are going up, with an emphasis on energy efficiency, and comfort.
The living areas face north to trap as much sunlight as possible, while heat pumps and double glazing keep things cosy.
At the moment it costs an $30,000 to include the green credentials.
But what about older homes?
Three quarters were built before the 1978 building code introduced minimum insulation standards; half of all homes still lack some insulation.
The government has promised more than seventy million dollars over four years to help us improve our homes, and also to launch the home energy rating scheme.
It ranks how energy efficient a house is for prospective buyers.
Even if you do ventilate and insulate - your home won't be completely carbon neutral, unless you stop using every single electrical appliance.
But you will enjoy the comforts of a warmer home
video
Green, mean or just wacky
Zany concept vehicles, fuel efficient hybrids and muscular supercars vied for attention as the Tokyo Motor Show opened Wednesday with Japanese automakers eager to put some vroom vroom back into flagging domestic sales.
From bubble-shaped fantasy vehicles to sleek petrol-guzzling sports cars, lightweight hybrids and cars designed to feel like riding a rollercoaster, automakers touted their own unique visions of the future.
Flashing lights and pumping music added a touch of glitz to the event as hundreds of reporters snapped photos of sleek new cars shown off by glamorous models in hot pants and unwavering smiles.
Rivals flaunted their green credentials with an array of environmentally friendly vehicles crammed into a convention centre near the capital, as record high oil prices prompt unprecedented interest in fuel-efficient motoring.
The auto industry is entering an "era of unprecedented change," said Nissan chief executive Carlos Ghosn, adding that his company hopes to start mass marketing of electric cars by 2012.
"The age of sustainable mobility is closer than anyone realises," he said.
Toyota is among automakers trying to lighten the load so as to reduce fuel consumption, unveiling the 1/X (pronounced one-Xth) plug-in hybrid.
The car is said to be two-thirds lighter than Toyota's hot-selling Prius and twice as fuel efficient thanks to the use of carbon fibre materials.
"We have gone back to the basics and reconsidered everything," said Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe, who trundled onto the stage on the i-REAL, which resembles a high-tech armchair on wheels.
Both Toyota and Honda tried to soften the image of sports cars as gas guzzlers with concept hybrids running on a mix of petrol and electricity.
Fuel cells, which run on hydrogen and emit only water, also make an appearance as Honda shows off the "PUYO" concept car with a "gel body" to improve safety and "the feel of an adorable pet."
Despite the success of the hybrid, car makers are still hedging their bets on green technology, with electricity, biofuels, clean diesel and fuel cells also seen as potential alternative power sources.
"Nobody's ignoring or bypassing any particular technology," said Ghosn.
But it's not all about saving the planet: Nissan took the wraps off its hotly anticipated GT-R supercar, hoping that there is still a market for high-performance muscle machines despite the buzz around hybrids.
And from Mazda came Taiki, a concept sports car with a striking, wind-swept design.
With prices at the pump soaring and the Japanese car market shrinking, industry watchers said high-performance cars appear to be more about polishing makers' brand image than giving a direct boost to their bottom line.
"Generally my observations of most sporty cars are: they look great and sales start out great but they decay very rapidly," said Christopher Richter, auto analyst at investment bank CLSA.
"You can imagine why makers put sporty cars into their line-ups rather sparingly," he added.
Among the more wacky designs on show was Suzuki's Sharing Coach which looks more like a small spacecraft than a car, with two smaller one-person PIXY pods on wheels that fit snugly inside.
Nissan showed off the Pivo 2 egg-shaped electric concept car that has a rotating cabin, can drive sideways and comes with a talking "robot agent" to cheer you up or help with navigation.
And driving its "Round Box" curvy compact convertible is said to be "like being on a roller-coaster yet without any risk."
This year's show is seen as particularly crucial for Japanese car makers as they battle falling sales in their home market amid a shrinking population and signs the younger generation is losing its lust for cars.
"The Japanese market is still ranked third in the world. But the situation is not good for Japanese automakers," said Hirofumi Yokoi, an analyst at auto consultants CSM Worldwide.
"Young Japanese have a different lifestyle. They are not interested in purchasing big-ticket items like cars," he said.
continue
From bubble-shaped fantasy vehicles to sleek petrol-guzzling sports cars, lightweight hybrids and cars designed to feel like riding a rollercoaster, automakers touted their own unique visions of the future.
Flashing lights and pumping music added a touch of glitz to the event as hundreds of reporters snapped photos of sleek new cars shown off by glamorous models in hot pants and unwavering smiles.
Rivals flaunted their green credentials with an array of environmentally friendly vehicles crammed into a convention centre near the capital, as record high oil prices prompt unprecedented interest in fuel-efficient motoring.
The auto industry is entering an "era of unprecedented change," said Nissan chief executive Carlos Ghosn, adding that his company hopes to start mass marketing of electric cars by 2012.
"The age of sustainable mobility is closer than anyone realises," he said.
Toyota is among automakers trying to lighten the load so as to reduce fuel consumption, unveiling the 1/X (pronounced one-Xth) plug-in hybrid.
The car is said to be two-thirds lighter than Toyota's hot-selling Prius and twice as fuel efficient thanks to the use of carbon fibre materials.
"We have gone back to the basics and reconsidered everything," said Toyota president Katsuaki Watanabe, who trundled onto the stage on the i-REAL, which resembles a high-tech armchair on wheels.
Both Toyota and Honda tried to soften the image of sports cars as gas guzzlers with concept hybrids running on a mix of petrol and electricity.
Fuel cells, which run on hydrogen and emit only water, also make an appearance as Honda shows off the "PUYO" concept car with a "gel body" to improve safety and "the feel of an adorable pet."
Despite the success of the hybrid, car makers are still hedging their bets on green technology, with electricity, biofuels, clean diesel and fuel cells also seen as potential alternative power sources.
"Nobody's ignoring or bypassing any particular technology," said Ghosn.
But it's not all about saving the planet: Nissan took the wraps off its hotly anticipated GT-R supercar, hoping that there is still a market for high-performance muscle machines despite the buzz around hybrids.
And from Mazda came Taiki, a concept sports car with a striking, wind-swept design.
With prices at the pump soaring and the Japanese car market shrinking, industry watchers said high-performance cars appear to be more about polishing makers' brand image than giving a direct boost to their bottom line.
"Generally my observations of most sporty cars are: they look great and sales start out great but they decay very rapidly," said Christopher Richter, auto analyst at investment bank CLSA.
"You can imagine why makers put sporty cars into their line-ups rather sparingly," he added.
Among the more wacky designs on show was Suzuki's Sharing Coach which looks more like a small spacecraft than a car, with two smaller one-person PIXY pods on wheels that fit snugly inside.
Nissan showed off the Pivo 2 egg-shaped electric concept car that has a rotating cabin, can drive sideways and comes with a talking "robot agent" to cheer you up or help with navigation.
And driving its "Round Box" curvy compact convertible is said to be "like being on a roller-coaster yet without any risk."
This year's show is seen as particularly crucial for Japanese car makers as they battle falling sales in their home market amid a shrinking population and signs the younger generation is losing its lust for cars.
"The Japanese market is still ranked third in the world. But the situation is not good for Japanese automakers," said Hirofumi Yokoi, an analyst at auto consultants CSM Worldwide.
"Young Japanese have a different lifestyle. They are not interested in purchasing big-ticket items like cars," he said.
continue
Thursday 25 October 2007
Renewable Stealth Tax
Democrats in Congress are huddling in their low-carbon-footprint backroom in search of a compromise energy bill, and all eyes have been on the issue of raising fuel-economy standards. But there's a lot more to worry about here than whether so-called "Cafe standards" rise to 32 miles per gallon, or 35, from 27.5 today.
The House version omitted Cafe standards altogether to mollify Michigan House baron John Dingell, but that doesn't make it the better piece of legislation. The bill runs to 1,000 pages and bears the vaguely Orwellian title of "New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act."
In fact, the bill undermines energy independence by raising taxes on domestic production and throwing up new barriers to exploration. It's hard to see how it has any effect on national security, and we're at a loss about its consumer-protection claim too, unless you think Americans need "protecting" from the incandescent lightbulb. The bill bans those, effective 2012, on page 601.
But its worst (and little noticed) provision may be a requirement that 15% of U.S. electricity be generated from "renewable" sources by 2020. Utilities that can't meet these goals are fined -- taxed, really -- based on how far short of this Eden they fall. Currently, only about 3% is provided by such renewables as wind, solar or "biofuels."
One obvious problem is that some states have better prospects for renewable energy than others. Hydroelectric power is easier to generate in the mountainous West than back East. So what, supporters might say. If it's more expensive for some to generate electricity through renewables, those utilities can either buy excess credits from others (as permitted in the bill) or pay the fines.
But the fines amount to a tax on low-cost energy producers without generating any environmental benefits. And whether credits are purchased or fines are paid, those added costs will go into the utilities' rate bases, driving up consumer electricity bills. At the same time, utilities would be forced to pour money into pursuing the mandate, rather than investing in badly needed upgrades to the nation's electrical grid.
In any case, as we're all discovering with corn-based ethanol, renewables have their own problems, both substantive and political. Liberals are all for wind power -- as long as it doesn't obstruct their oceanfront views off Nantucket. Hydro power is dandy -- except it kills fish and disrupts their habitat. Solar requires acres and acres of real estate. There's plenty of land for solar arrays in the middle of the country, or at least there was before the land was turned over to grow corn for heavily subsidized ethanol. And, by the way, using farmland for energy means using less to grow food -- which means higher prices at the kitchen table, or more food imports, or both. The House Members who voted for this must figure all of this will be some other Congress's problem.
Earlier this year, Mr. Dingell suggested that if Congress were really serious about global warming, it would impose a carbon tax. At least that's being honest about the costs. The "renewables" mandate in the House energy bill, by contrast, is a multibillion-dollar stealth tax on electrical utilities, and ultimately on electricity users. The danger is that, with all eyes on car-mileage standards, this tax could become law without many people even noticing.
The House version omitted Cafe standards altogether to mollify Michigan House baron John Dingell, but that doesn't make it the better piece of legislation. The bill runs to 1,000 pages and bears the vaguely Orwellian title of "New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act."
In fact, the bill undermines energy independence by raising taxes on domestic production and throwing up new barriers to exploration. It's hard to see how it has any effect on national security, and we're at a loss about its consumer-protection claim too, unless you think Americans need "protecting" from the incandescent lightbulb. The bill bans those, effective 2012, on page 601.
But its worst (and little noticed) provision may be a requirement that 15% of U.S. electricity be generated from "renewable" sources by 2020. Utilities that can't meet these goals are fined -- taxed, really -- based on how far short of this Eden they fall. Currently, only about 3% is provided by such renewables as wind, solar or "biofuels."
One obvious problem is that some states have better prospects for renewable energy than others. Hydroelectric power is easier to generate in the mountainous West than back East. So what, supporters might say. If it's more expensive for some to generate electricity through renewables, those utilities can either buy excess credits from others (as permitted in the bill) or pay the fines.
But the fines amount to a tax on low-cost energy producers without generating any environmental benefits. And whether credits are purchased or fines are paid, those added costs will go into the utilities' rate bases, driving up consumer electricity bills. At the same time, utilities would be forced to pour money into pursuing the mandate, rather than investing in badly needed upgrades to the nation's electrical grid.
In any case, as we're all discovering with corn-based ethanol, renewables have their own problems, both substantive and political. Liberals are all for wind power -- as long as it doesn't obstruct their oceanfront views off Nantucket. Hydro power is dandy -- except it kills fish and disrupts their habitat. Solar requires acres and acres of real estate. There's plenty of land for solar arrays in the middle of the country, or at least there was before the land was turned over to grow corn for heavily subsidized ethanol. And, by the way, using farmland for energy means using less to grow food -- which means higher prices at the kitchen table, or more food imports, or both. The House Members who voted for this must figure all of this will be some other Congress's problem.
Earlier this year, Mr. Dingell suggested that if Congress were really serious about global warming, it would impose a carbon tax. At least that's being honest about the costs. The "renewables" mandate in the House energy bill, by contrast, is a multibillion-dollar stealth tax on electrical utilities, and ultimately on electricity users. The danger is that, with all eyes on car-mileage standards, this tax could become law without many people even noticing.
Wednesday 24 October 2007
22 little ways to go green
Here are some low-stress steps to take around the house to reduce your carbon footprint, create a healthier home, and lower your monthly bills to boot.
It seems everybody knows you can help the planet--and save yourself some cash--with big changes: adding spray-foam insulation to open walls, say, or installing a tankless water heater.
But there are lots of simpler, lower-cost ways to improve your eco-scorecard, too. Here are some low-stress steps to take around the house to reduce your carbon footprint, create a healthier home, and lower your monthly bills to boot.
Workshop
1. Unplug your power tools. Figure out which cordless tools (like drill/drivers) get the most use, then unplug the chargers on all the rest. Most cordless tools have nickel cadmium (NiCad) batteries, which will hold some charge for up to a year. They lose 15 to 20 percent of their juice each month, but only take a couple of hours to power up again. Newer tools with lithium ion batteries lose just 2 to 5 percent of their charge each month, so they'll be ready to go even if you haven't charged them in ages.
2. Spread sawdust on your floor. Take the superfine shavings captured by your dust collection system, wet them down, then push them around with a stiff broom to sweep your concrete garage or workshop floor. The mix is as good as a power-guzzling shop vac at picking up dust but doesn't swirl it into the air.
3. Up the wattage on lights. Where you still use incandescent bulbs (with dimmers or three-ways) on multiple fixtures in a room, try consolidating. One 100-watt incandescent emits more light than two 60-watt bulbs combined but requires 17 percent less power. The 100-watter also uses the same energy as four 25-watt bulbs, but pumps out twice as much light. Just be sure your bulbs don't exceed the maximum wattage recommendation for each fixture. This Old House: Energy-saving bulbs
4. Eat your leftover take-out. Then save the plastic containers it came in--which can't be recycled in most municipal waste systems--and use them to organize your nails, screws, and leftover paints. Not only does their tight seal help preserve solvents, but the see-through containers stack neatly and display contents clearly. For added strength, double up the thin ones.
5. Save used paint thinner. After cleaning oil-based finishes from brushes and tools, allow the dirty solvent to sit overnight. The sludge will settle to the bottom of the jar, leaving a layer of clear thinner on top. Carefully decant the clear thinner into a clean jar, and reseal it for future use. Be sure to dispose of the leftover sludge at a hazardous-waste-disposal site--never down a sink drain or into a street gutter.
continue
It seems everybody knows you can help the planet--and save yourself some cash--with big changes: adding spray-foam insulation to open walls, say, or installing a tankless water heater.
But there are lots of simpler, lower-cost ways to improve your eco-scorecard, too. Here are some low-stress steps to take around the house to reduce your carbon footprint, create a healthier home, and lower your monthly bills to boot.
Workshop
1. Unplug your power tools. Figure out which cordless tools (like drill/drivers) get the most use, then unplug the chargers on all the rest. Most cordless tools have nickel cadmium (NiCad) batteries, which will hold some charge for up to a year. They lose 15 to 20 percent of their juice each month, but only take a couple of hours to power up again. Newer tools with lithium ion batteries lose just 2 to 5 percent of their charge each month, so they'll be ready to go even if you haven't charged them in ages.
2. Spread sawdust on your floor. Take the superfine shavings captured by your dust collection system, wet them down, then push them around with a stiff broom to sweep your concrete garage or workshop floor. The mix is as good as a power-guzzling shop vac at picking up dust but doesn't swirl it into the air.
3. Up the wattage on lights. Where you still use incandescent bulbs (with dimmers or three-ways) on multiple fixtures in a room, try consolidating. One 100-watt incandescent emits more light than two 60-watt bulbs combined but requires 17 percent less power. The 100-watter also uses the same energy as four 25-watt bulbs, but pumps out twice as much light. Just be sure your bulbs don't exceed the maximum wattage recommendation for each fixture. This Old House: Energy-saving bulbs
4. Eat your leftover take-out. Then save the plastic containers it came in--which can't be recycled in most municipal waste systems--and use them to organize your nails, screws, and leftover paints. Not only does their tight seal help preserve solvents, but the see-through containers stack neatly and display contents clearly. For added strength, double up the thin ones.
5. Save used paint thinner. After cleaning oil-based finishes from brushes and tools, allow the dirty solvent to sit overnight. The sludge will settle to the bottom of the jar, leaving a layer of clear thinner on top. Carefully decant the clear thinner into a clean jar, and reseal it for future use. Be sure to dispose of the leftover sludge at a hazardous-waste-disposal site--never down a sink drain or into a street gutter.
continue
Carbon monoxide concerns: Time for a checkup
The new season needs special attention to the dangers of carbon monoxide.
You can't be complacent against carbon monoxide -- a colorless and odorless killer.
Every year when the first cold front of the season rolls through, the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning rises.
"We call it the 'silent killer,' " said Mike Harris, Tulsa Fire Department chief officer of public education.
"The people succumb to it usually around this time of year, when homes are sealed up more."
A furnace check usually takes less than an hour, and can save your life and your money, said Tom Boyce, owner of Airco Service of Tulsa.
"Burning unclean is both unsafe and inefficient," Boyce said.
Here are some of Boyce's and Harris' tips for staying safe while staying warm.
Accept no substitutes: Never use an oven or charcoal grill to heat a home. It may heat, but it will also poison your home. Also, never warm up a car inside a closed garage.
A cause for alarm: Buy carbon monoxide detectors to alert your family to a buildup of gas in your home. Place one on each floor with appliances. Hang them near the appliances and
replace their batteries twice each year.
Don't sacrifice service: Before lighting your furnace for the first time of the season, have it serviced to ensure proper ventilation and, if it's gas, a proper blue flame.
Don't catch it if you can: If everyone in a household has flu-like symptoms when first waking up, and the symptoms fade during the day, you may have a carbon monoxide leak. Symptoms include headaches, dizziness, disorientation, nausea and fatigue.
Call for help: Everyone is at risk for carbon monoxide poisoning, so the Tulsa Fire Department says treat any suspicion as an emergency. Call 911 and ask the Fire Department to check for dangerous gases. Evacuate the home and do not return until it is checked by a professional
continue
You can't be complacent against carbon monoxide -- a colorless and odorless killer.
Every year when the first cold front of the season rolls through, the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning rises.
"We call it the 'silent killer,' " said Mike Harris, Tulsa Fire Department chief officer of public education.
"The people succumb to it usually around this time of year, when homes are sealed up more."
A furnace check usually takes less than an hour, and can save your life and your money, said Tom Boyce, owner of Airco Service of Tulsa.
"Burning unclean is both unsafe and inefficient," Boyce said.
Here are some of Boyce's and Harris' tips for staying safe while staying warm.
Accept no substitutes: Never use an oven or charcoal grill to heat a home. It may heat, but it will also poison your home. Also, never warm up a car inside a closed garage.
A cause for alarm: Buy carbon monoxide detectors to alert your family to a buildup of gas in your home. Place one on each floor with appliances. Hang them near the appliances and
replace their batteries twice each year.
Don't sacrifice service: Before lighting your furnace for the first time of the season, have it serviced to ensure proper ventilation and, if it's gas, a proper blue flame.
Don't catch it if you can: If everyone in a household has flu-like symptoms when first waking up, and the symptoms fade during the day, you may have a carbon monoxide leak. Symptoms include headaches, dizziness, disorientation, nausea and fatigue.
Call for help: Everyone is at risk for carbon monoxide poisoning, so the Tulsa Fire Department says treat any suspicion as an emergency. Call 911 and ask the Fire Department to check for dangerous gases. Evacuate the home and do not return until it is checked by a professional
continue
Tuesday 16 October 2007
Energy saving device from Electro-Com
The SALTO in room energy saving device (ESD) available from Electro-Com helps to save up to 65% of a hotels rooms electricity consumption and unlike standard (magnetic stripe) energy savers, only authorised SALTO key cards will switch on the lights. Any other card (frequent flyer, business card etc) will not be recognised.
The energy saving device is also available in a connected on-line version, which as well as energy saving indicates in real time the presence of guests or staff in a room, logging the information directly into the hotel PC.
When a guest enters the room and inserts their card into the ESD it switches on all electrical equipment.
When staff enters the room for cleaning or maintenance, the ESD recognises their staff card and switches on only the electrical equipment they need to accomplish their work.
The TV, air conditioning and mini bar are switched off or locked saving energy.
continue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
