World Class Renewable Energy in the U.S. ....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-27-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
Since the energy independence of the United States from imported oil is so critical and the global importance of turning off CO2 release from burning fossil fuels is even more critically important, it seems clear that the best thing to do is to have a massive, country-wide emphasis on increasing energy efficiency and rapidly building and connecting renewable power sources everywhere in the country.
And, here in the Silicon Valley with its many solar and biofuel companies, it seems as if the United States is developing the companies and technologies needed to do this.
So, it was with a good bit of shock I read John Doerr’s comments at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/PERAB-First-Official-Memo
In this position paper supporting the use of cap & trade in part by noting the strong success in its use in controlling sulfur emissions, he points out something I had no clue was happening.:
“If the U.S. fails to adopt an economy-wide carbon abatement program, we will continue to cede leadership in energy technology to other nations.
The U.S. is now home to only two of the ten largest solar Photo-Voltaic producers in the world, two of the top ten wind turbine producers and one of the top ten advanced battery manufacturers. That is, only one-sixth of the top renewable energy manufacturers are based in the United States. To lose our advantage in technologies that were pioneered in the U.S. may cost us dearly if not reversed.
Sustainable technologies in solar, wind, electric vehicles, nuclear and other innovations will, in the view of many on our board, drive the future global economy. We can either invest in policies to build U.S. leadership in these new industries and jobs today, or we can continue with business as usual and buy windmills from Europe, batteries from Japan and solar panels from Asia.
The new green economy could be transformational for our country. Compare it to the internet. Fifteen years ago there was no web browser. There was no internet at your fingertips, no ecommerce, no search engines. Now, the internet has transformed our lives: how we learn and inform, how we entertain and communicate, how we buy and sell goods. Today, the internet economy is estimated at $1 trillion with 1.5 billion internet users worldwide—and growing.
The new green economy has greater potential. Energy is a large and growing global market with 4 billion users of electricity—and usage doubling in 25 years. It is perhaps the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century. With the right policies driving innovation and investment, America can retake the lead in energy technology and create millions of new green jobs and industries, preserve millions of indirect jobs and repower our economy.”
Seeing the many Silicon Valley companies in renewable energy, I had no clue until I read his comments that we are lagging the rest of the world so badly.
It IS true that we have been installing renewable energy at something like one percent of the amount needed to transition to it as much as we need to do.
In the rest of his position paper, John Doerr explains why he believes passing Cap & Trade legislation in the United States will help us to grow our innovative renewable and other related energy companies enough to begin reversing this situation.
Another thing I think is imperative is that we have national guidelines for enacting the precise kind of contracts for renewable energy, called feed-in tariffs that have enabled Germany to build half the world’s solar installation and create 250,000 jobs. They have perfected this and proved it worked. So we should use their model and see to it that it is enacted in every state and city in the United States.
Given the very large amount of potential renewable energy in the United States, if we do the same, we can create 5,000,000 million new jobs and harvest enough renewable energy to provide at least half our energy needs.
But we also need to do more. The German government also, according to a Parade magazine article last Sunday, “worked to promote a green culture through all levels of society.” They also began to promote every kind of energy-efficiency program that was workable they could find. They also set up several competitions “to see who could save the most power.”
What was the return on this investment of effort and new incentives? And what did it cost?
“The green-jobs creation program costs the average German family $38 a year on its utility bill.”
And, how much revenue do they now have from the industries employing the people holding those 250,000 new jobs? $240 billion per year.
So, this means that as a country, we need to do far more than we are now. We need to do it much better. And, we need even more leadership from our national government than we have now.
Mercifully we now have some leadership as I’ll show directly. But we need closer to the level of national effort the United States used during World War II – far more than was used for the Apollo moon program or even the Manhattan Project.
It has worked for Germany. And if we do it here in the United States as well, other countries will do it also & we may have a fighting chance to turn down global warming enough to save our economy, our coastal cities, and our ability to grow food.
We need to use every workable good idea we can.
One notable example of the several hundred ideas we need was in the news yesterday.
This story was reported by LONDON(AFP) Tues, 5-26-2009
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that it is both important and desirable to paint as many roofs in the United States white as possible.
If virtually all roofs and roads were painted white or a close and “paler” color he said it would “have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said.”
The mechanism for this would be twofold – by reflecting some solar heat back into space and more directly by cooling buildings during sunny weather enough to reduce the energy needed for air conditioning.
The news article also said that scientists have also developed colors besides white that reflect heat nearly as well as white but look like normal colors to the eye.
The article went on to say that painting cars and other vehicles white or in one of those colors would save large amounts of energy air conditioning these cars and other vehicles.
This is just one of several hundred ideas we need to make use of.
For example, preventing solar heated air from being trapped under peaked roofs but to escape and draw in outside air prevents plus good ceiling insulation in hot, sunny weather saves even more on air conditioning than does painting the roof white.
Most houses with peaked roofs in the United States do not yet have that system in place. The results as I’ve posted about in this blog are spectacular. Instead of needing heavy use of air conditioning to fight the trapped heat, you need none at all on many summer days – or you need 10 % as much. That’s a huge difference.
I think that it may be even more useful to see to it that all roofs are covered with solar hot water collectors, focused solar cells, and thin film solar rather than be painted white. (Though it could be that thin film solar might be made that reflected heat that the solar photovoltaic film did not use to create electricity.)
However, other than using solar cells on their roofs and hoods, painting cars white or one of these heat reflective colors is clearly a winning idea.
Try this experiment. On a sunny day touch a black or dark colored car. And be careful so you don’t get burned. At the very least you’ll feel definite warmth. Then touch a white car at that time. It will feel surprisingly cool.
That means that the white car will also be much cooler inside and need far less air conditioning.
We need to find and use every workable idea of this kind we can and see to it that such ideas are used all over the United States.
But the most important thing is to build new renewable energy both on the buildings where it will be used or their covered parking lots AND large renewable energy installations that feed into a new and better connected grid for electricity that gets it where it is needed.
Germany has done this with a feed-tariff that adds a bit over $3 a month on the average families utility bill. With inflation and more renewable energy potential, it might cost more like 5 or 6 dollars a month here in the United States.
But we would also create up to 5,000,000 jobs and 4.8 Trillion dollars year in new revenue in those industries! (Both numbers are 20 times that of Germany due to the very large photovoltaic and thermal solar potential in the United States and the larger potential for wind energy.)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Will CO2 reduction save or cost money?....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-20-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
But will CO2 reduction save or cost money?
Two emails I get this week suggest opposite answers.:
“Help curb global warming while saving consumers money” is the email from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Help Stop the National Energy Tax” is the email from the Republican Party.
It seems they expect different answers to the question will CO2 reduction save or cost money.
The Union of Concerned Scientists sounds more like they know what they are talking about as they include the results of an extensive analysis.
And, as is typical of the current Republican Party, they simply rely on their readers reacting to “taxes” as a bull reacts to a waving red flag.
My suspicion though is that they are BOTH correct despite the seeming incompetence of the current Republican party.
Here’s the statement from yesterday’s email from the Union of Concerned Scientists.:
"Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released the Climate 2030 Blueprint, a peer-reviewed study showing that the United States can dramatically cut global warming pollution while saving households and businesses in every region of the nation billions of dollars in energy costs.
The study shows that combining energy and transportation policies with a strong limit or "cap" on emissions-set at 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030-would save the average U.S. household $900 on electricity, heating, and transportation costs in 2030. In that same year, businesses would benefit from collective net energy savings of $130 billion." "
I have reason to believe that this analysis is correct or nearly so.
When all the current Republican Party has to offer is in essence, “Taxes are bad. And we believe the current cap & trade efforts are an energy tax.” -- and says virtually nothing else at all, why do I think they might be correct that CO2 reduction might cost money similar to a new tax?
How can they both be correct?
The simple answer is to look at when the statements are correct.
Today, we depend massively on petroleum for transport and burning coal for generating electricity.
So when cap & trade and other CO2 reduction programs in some way costs the companies that provide petroleum and coal or which use them more money, they will charge us more to stay profitable and to survive.
Worse, there is evidence that cap & trade systems may be manipulated in a way that increases their cost to everyone concerned.
That’s why I favor having them phase in slowly and to have their full effect conditional on more renewable energy sources becoming actually available to do the job at what will then be a LOWER cost while making much more massive increases in renewable energy occur much faster then is now expected.
However, if we do build the renewable energy sources well and quickly and get to the point where we have cap & trade AND various kinds of carbon taxes, our real energy costs will be dramatically lower than they would have been had we not acted.
If we fail to act, we will have $8 to $10 a gallon costs for gasoline and diesel fuel due to global economic and population growth. And paying for the costs of pollution, armed forces to ensure oil supply, and the costs of global warming will all be dramatically more. So the taxes to pay for those will also be much more.
So my emphasis and that also I believe the country should emphasize is to dramatically speed up bringing much more renewable energy online, while postponing somewhat the full effect of cap & trade and carbon taxes, etc.
A second way to cut the initial cost of switching to an economy NOT based on fossil fuels is to work out ways to run our existing economy with less energy.
The recent sharp increase in the mileage required for new cars is clearly an extremely desirable and large scale step in that direction.
This may cause buyers to pay up to $1300 more for a new car but will return something like double that for sure in net savings if gasoline prices stay as low as they are now and much, much more than that if gasoline prices go up as I think they will.
President Obama also is quoted as saying this.:
"Consumers pay less for fuel, which means less money going overseas and more money to save or spend here at home. The economy as a whole runs more efficiently by using less oil and producing less pollution," he said. "And companies like those here today have new incentives to create the technologies and the jobs that will provide smarter ways to power our vehicles."
The president also said it will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years.
He said, the reduction of oil burned in that five years in the United States will equal all of a whole year’s U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria combined.
And, he pointed out that is a truly huge sum of money that will no longer leave the United States. That will improve our economy as well since those dollars will be available to fuel our economy when they would not have been available here otherwise.
This action also will increase our national security in ways that likely will save us money as well.
So, even though there will be some up front costs and cap & trade may cost far too much at first, if we focus mostly on these kinds of conservation steps, adding new technology that saves energy, and building huge amounts of renewable energy & the network to transport it to where it will be used, our costs soon WILL be far less than they would have been and our economy will be dramatically stronger.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-20-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
But will CO2 reduction save or cost money?
Two emails I get this week suggest opposite answers.:
“Help curb global warming while saving consumers money” is the email from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Help Stop the National Energy Tax” is the email from the Republican Party.
It seems they expect different answers to the question will CO2 reduction save or cost money.
The Union of Concerned Scientists sounds more like they know what they are talking about as they include the results of an extensive analysis.
And, as is typical of the current Republican Party, they simply rely on their readers reacting to “taxes” as a bull reacts to a waving red flag.
My suspicion though is that they are BOTH correct despite the seeming incompetence of the current Republican party.
Here’s the statement from yesterday’s email from the Union of Concerned Scientists.:
"Today, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released the Climate 2030 Blueprint, a peer-reviewed study showing that the United States can dramatically cut global warming pollution while saving households and businesses in every region of the nation billions of dollars in energy costs.
The study shows that combining energy and transportation policies with a strong limit or "cap" on emissions-set at 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030-would save the average U.S. household $900 on electricity, heating, and transportation costs in 2030. In that same year, businesses would benefit from collective net energy savings of $130 billion." "
I have reason to believe that this analysis is correct or nearly so.
When all the current Republican Party has to offer is in essence, “Taxes are bad. And we believe the current cap & trade efforts are an energy tax.” -- and says virtually nothing else at all, why do I think they might be correct that CO2 reduction might cost money similar to a new tax?
How can they both be correct?
The simple answer is to look at when the statements are correct.
Today, we depend massively on petroleum for transport and burning coal for generating electricity.
So when cap & trade and other CO2 reduction programs in some way costs the companies that provide petroleum and coal or which use them more money, they will charge us more to stay profitable and to survive.
Worse, there is evidence that cap & trade systems may be manipulated in a way that increases their cost to everyone concerned.
That’s why I favor having them phase in slowly and to have their full effect conditional on more renewable energy sources becoming actually available to do the job at what will then be a LOWER cost while making much more massive increases in renewable energy occur much faster then is now expected.
However, if we do build the renewable energy sources well and quickly and get to the point where we have cap & trade AND various kinds of carbon taxes, our real energy costs will be dramatically lower than they would have been had we not acted.
If we fail to act, we will have $8 to $10 a gallon costs for gasoline and diesel fuel due to global economic and population growth. And paying for the costs of pollution, armed forces to ensure oil supply, and the costs of global warming will all be dramatically more. So the taxes to pay for those will also be much more.
So my emphasis and that also I believe the country should emphasize is to dramatically speed up bringing much more renewable energy online, while postponing somewhat the full effect of cap & trade and carbon taxes, etc.
A second way to cut the initial cost of switching to an economy NOT based on fossil fuels is to work out ways to run our existing economy with less energy.
The recent sharp increase in the mileage required for new cars is clearly an extremely desirable and large scale step in that direction.
This may cause buyers to pay up to $1300 more for a new car but will return something like double that for sure in net savings if gasoline prices stay as low as they are now and much, much more than that if gasoline prices go up as I think they will.
President Obama also is quoted as saying this.:
"Consumers pay less for fuel, which means less money going overseas and more money to save or spend here at home. The economy as a whole runs more efficiently by using less oil and producing less pollution," he said. "And companies like those here today have new incentives to create the technologies and the jobs that will provide smarter ways to power our vehicles."
The president also said it will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold in the next five years.
He said, the reduction of oil burned in that five years in the United States will equal all of a whole year’s U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Libya and Nigeria combined.
And, he pointed out that is a truly huge sum of money that will no longer leave the United States. That will improve our economy as well since those dollars will be available to fuel our economy when they would not have been available here otherwise.
This action also will increase our national security in ways that likely will save us money as well.
So, even though there will be some up front costs and cap & trade may cost far too much at first, if we focus mostly on these kinds of conservation steps, adding new technology that saves energy, and building huge amounts of renewable energy & the network to transport it to where it will be used, our costs soon WILL be far less than they would have been and our economy will be dramatically stronger.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Getting to CO2 reduction safely....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-13-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
It’s clear that if we want our economy to use less fossil fuel and release less CO2 we must both increase energy sources quickly that do not use fossil fuels and, best of all, that release no CO2, we must both lower the cost of building renewable energy sources and getting that energy to the people and businesses that use it AND increase the cost of using fossil fuels.
So, it does make sense to begin to charge fossil fuels some fees and costs that their use actually causes instead of allowing them to pretend that those costs don’t exist including the environmental damages caused by their extraction and use. It makes sense to begin to tax fossil fuels beyond that. And, it makes sense to discontinue tax breaks that enable fossil fuels to cost less so using fossil fuels will cost more and to increase tax breaks and other incentives for building and using renewable energy so that soon using fossil fuels will cost MORE than using renewable energy.
Once getting renewable energy and using it begins to cost LESS to the user than using fossil fuels, the market will begin switching us over to renewable sources much more quickly.
However, there are two extremely large problems now with those programs that make using fossil fuels cost more:
1. Since the overwhelming majority of our economy still runs on fossil fuels, if we make them cost a lot more before the renewable energy replacements are beginning to come online, we will slow our economy and make job growth much harder.
2. Since the overwhelming majority of our economy still runs on fossil fuels, the companies that provide them and use them and the localities where those companies are located and provide jobs, have a lot of lobbying money and political clout.
So the safest and most doable transition is to make increasing renewable energy the first priority and to make the increases on fossil fuel costs gradual and to some extent contingent on having the renewable energy successfully in place before some of the increases on fossil fuel costs begin to be added.
We cannot afford to allow fossil fuels to escape these added costs and have a prayer of stopping global warming; but we will actually replace fossil fuels faster, more certainly, more safely, & with more support from people and businesses if we can set up the increases in the way I’ve just described.
It won’t be easy to do at first. But increasing renewable energy with the kind of commitment the United States used in World War II is the key to making it work.
We need for progressive states to do more than the federal government mandates while moving decisions on building new power lines more into the federal government’s control so that non-progressive states do not prevent our effective build up of renewable energy. States and local governments should be able to influence the building of new power lines to minimize any harm that building them might do. But it is also clear that, “just saying no” can no longer be acceptable.
We must remember & not forget that preserving our ability to grow food and minimizing the weather and climate change driven disasters such as fires and coastal flooding depend on using less CO2 -- and to do that safely, we MUST have the transport system to get renewable energy from where it is best generated to where it is most needed.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-13-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
It’s clear that if we want our economy to use less fossil fuel and release less CO2 we must both increase energy sources quickly that do not use fossil fuels and, best of all, that release no CO2, we must both lower the cost of building renewable energy sources and getting that energy to the people and businesses that use it AND increase the cost of using fossil fuels.
So, it does make sense to begin to charge fossil fuels some fees and costs that their use actually causes instead of allowing them to pretend that those costs don’t exist including the environmental damages caused by their extraction and use. It makes sense to begin to tax fossil fuels beyond that. And, it makes sense to discontinue tax breaks that enable fossil fuels to cost less so using fossil fuels will cost more and to increase tax breaks and other incentives for building and using renewable energy so that soon using fossil fuels will cost MORE than using renewable energy.
Once getting renewable energy and using it begins to cost LESS to the user than using fossil fuels, the market will begin switching us over to renewable sources much more quickly.
However, there are two extremely large problems now with those programs that make using fossil fuels cost more:
1. Since the overwhelming majority of our economy still runs on fossil fuels, if we make them cost a lot more before the renewable energy replacements are beginning to come online, we will slow our economy and make job growth much harder.
2. Since the overwhelming majority of our economy still runs on fossil fuels, the companies that provide them and use them and the localities where those companies are located and provide jobs, have a lot of lobbying money and political clout.
So the safest and most doable transition is to make increasing renewable energy the first priority and to make the increases on fossil fuel costs gradual and to some extent contingent on having the renewable energy successfully in place before some of the increases on fossil fuel costs begin to be added.
We cannot afford to allow fossil fuels to escape these added costs and have a prayer of stopping global warming; but we will actually replace fossil fuels faster, more certainly, more safely, & with more support from people and businesses if we can set up the increases in the way I’ve just described.
It won’t be easy to do at first. But increasing renewable energy with the kind of commitment the United States used in World War II is the key to making it work.
We need for progressive states to do more than the federal government mandates while moving decisions on building new power lines more into the federal government’s control so that non-progressive states do not prevent our effective build up of renewable energy. States and local governments should be able to influence the building of new power lines to minimize any harm that building them might do. But it is also clear that, “just saying no” can no longer be acceptable.
We must remember & not forget that preserving our ability to grow food and minimizing the weather and climate change driven disasters such as fires and coastal flooding depend on using less CO2 -- and to do that safely, we MUST have the transport system to get renewable energy from where it is best generated to where it is most needed.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Save Money & Energy....
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-6-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
The good news is that many of the ways that double the useful work done per unit of electricity also save money for the people employing them.
A. Here are some ways to cut your energy costs that also save you a lot of money that require some upfront investment.
Some of them do take a long time to pay you back and begin to save you money each month. But some will pay you back the first year you do them and then save you money every year after that.
1. In the Northern hemisphere we are on the verge of summer weather. And, in many parts of the United States, a major energy use is for residential air conditioning.
In fact, during the hottest days, it is exactly that air conditioning use that dictates what your utility needs to be able to deliver for peak demand.
Did you know that for many people you can drop your electricity use for air conditioning so much you do pay off the costs in one year and save literally hundreds to thousands of dollars on your summer electric bill for every year after that?
You can. And, it even has a bonus. Your home will be dramatically more comfortable. And the night time temperature in your home will be so much lower that you’ll sleep much better and have a good deal more energy each day!
Here’s our post on this method from last April.:
Slash your Air Conditioning bills this summer....
Today’s post: Weds, 4-9-2008
How does cutting your bill to zero or by 70 % sound?
Hot weather is coming soon to where you live & work this year.
(In our area, in the Silicon Valley, after below average temps recently, our first hot weather of this year is literally predicted to start tomorrow.)
Unfortunately, in many homes & buildings a huge amount of money & energy is spent on air conditioning to pump heat out of buildings it could easily never have gotten into to begin with.
For many buildings & most homes moderately inexpensive fixes can keep enough heat from getting in to cut well over 50% from air conditioning costs & energy use or even eliminate them totally & do it each summer after they are installed.
In addition, the more people do this, the less new electric generating capacity has to be built to manage peak demand for electricity which is now driven by afternoon air conditioning use on the hottest days.
In climates where the temperature falls enough at night, you can let in cool night air to remove any left over heat from the day before by opening the windows &/or by using fans to pull in air from outside & push out the inside air. Often, if you have things well set up to prevent heat from getting in &/or have ceiling fans to lower the perceived temperature a few degrees, from 76 actual to 72 perceived, for example, on most days you then will need NO air conditioning use at all.
In climates where it is much hotter or only falls to a level where you still need to run the air conditioning, if you have things well set up to prevent heat from getting in &/or have ceiling fans to lower the perceived temperature a few degrees, you can get a triple play. You only will need to run your air conditioner at night on most days. That means you can get maximum efficiency per unit of energy as the AC works better with cooler temps to dump the excess heat into so your bill is less. And, you use the electricity at night when it often costs less per kilowatt than at peak times in the afternoon. Lastly, you no longer need to add a lot of load in the afternoon to overstress you local power grid. The idea is to have the house at or office at 68 degrees F or even a bit less in the early morning when it’s coolest outside & have it not set to turn back on until the inside gets to 76 degrees (or perhaps 72 if you don’t have ceiling fans yet. Then, if your heat proofing is good enough, your AC will rarely need to come back on. And, if it does, it will need to run a LOT less.
Well insulated buildings with a lot of thermal mass, ideally with few windows or with double pane windows, that also have good passive design to prevent heat from entering do this very well.
New buildings with part underground or with thick walls made of rammed earth or adobe or straw or well insulated concrete block & heat resistant roofs do this well.
But in most homes today & some commercial buildings, the main problem is in the roof crawl space.
Usually there is no insulation between the roof & the crawl space -- & in some areas not much below it. In addition, the crawl space has almost no ventilation. As a result, instead of the under the roof temperature being only slightly above the outside air, it can be as much as 70 or 80 degrees hotter. Then this trapped heat re-radiates into the rooms beneath acting as a solar heater all afternoon. Even worse, this heat continues to radiate well into the night making the people inside miserable or running up their AC bills like crazy.
My wife & I had a house like that which was also badly insulated and had no air conditioning. On sunny days much above 79 degrees for a high, it was often well over 80 or even 90 until about the time the next morning we had to get up to go to work. This was NOT fun. And, if we had decent air conditioning then, we would have run it a LOT.
We then discovered & installed a system that uses NO OUTSIDE ENERGY AT ALL which prevented this under the roof heat build up. And, we installed ceiling fans.
We didn’t even get to upgrading the insulation and got this result.:
After doing this, we experienced a day well into the high 90’s outside. It would have been over 100 inside from 3 PM to midnight before. After installing this system & adding ceiling fans, it only got up to about 75 inside & then only from about 3 to 6 PM – AND the 75 felt Ok with just the ceiling fans alone. It was in the high 90’s outside and we needed NO air conditioning at all. And, remember that was before we upgraded our ceiling insulation to R19 or better.
Here is the magic trick we used that I cannot recommend more highly after this experience.:
Hot air rises. So, what we did is to install several very well screened air intake vents around the perimeter of our roof’s crawl space that were under the shade of the roof & we had a competent workman also install several convection powered turbines in the roof near its peak. Then we added ceiling fans to our bedrooms & living room. The entire project cost less than $1,000. And, this was a one time fee.
The very same hot air that was giving us such grief before now happily spun the turbines as it rose & drew the much less hot outside air in behind it. This was all solar powered. We needed no outside energy at all to run it.
If we had more money at the time, I would have liked to add the extra ceiling insulation & a radiant heat barrier in our attic and installed wood frame double pan windows.
Even better would have been to add a decent heat pump system to deliver efficient air conditioning it we ever needed it for days above 100 degrees & install enough solar panels to run it all. And, added window shading on the west & south sides of the house would have also helped.
But, much to my delight, we got close to 100 % of the cooling we needed from this single inexpensive fix that still needs no energy bills at all to operate these several years later.
So, if you have a roof that traps heat the way our roof then did, you can add all sorts of useful extras as I would have liked to do. But for about $2500 or less you can heat proof your house better than you might imagine with this simple system.
(In our area we bought the convection powered turbines & ceiling fans at Home Depot.)
X * X* X* X*
Back to the post for 5-7-2009
2. Now you can cut your lighting bills by up to 75% by installing compact fluorescent light bulbs.
They save so much energy and last so much longer, even though they cost more initially, over a few years they save you a LOT of money.
The good news is that, you can now find compact fluorescent light bulbs that both cost less than they once did AND turn on nearly as fast as the old fashioned incandescent light bulbs did. GE has done a good job making compact fluorescent light bulbs with precisely those two improvements.
The bad news is that compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury which can literally harm you if you break one and breathe the air in that room. This same mercury will eventually make its way into landfills, tap water, and fish and seafood since many people have & will toss them into the trash when they break or burn out.
But, do two things to solve that problem. Be extremely careful not to break any compact fluorescent light bulbs in your home. And only discard compact fluorescent light bulbs that go to a special center that will dispose of them without allowing their mercury to get into landfills, tap water, and fish and seafood. (That’s also now the legal requirement in many places.)
The better news is that LED light bulbs and LED wall coverings or ceiling coverings that light up will be available at relatively reasonable prices sometime over the next 5 to 10 years.
Compared to compact fluorescent light bulbs LED light bulbs and LED wall coverings or ceiling coverings that light up produce 50 % to 100 % more light. So, if you replace incandescent bulbs with them, you cut your light bills by 5/6ths or 7/8ths. If it was $24 dollars a month before, it will be $4 or $3 a month with LED’s!
And, if you have switched to compact fluorescent light bulbs and had $6 a month lighting bill, it will be $4 or $3 a month with LED’s!
3. You can also replace appliances, TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers with more energy efficient ones. And, in the case of TV’s, if you get one with a smaller screen as well, you’ll save a lot of money on your electric bill. (Some large screen TV’s use as much electricity as a large refrigerator on a hot day.) One way newer and more energy efficient TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers save money is by using far less electricity in sleep mode when not in use. That alone can cut the cost of using them by about 40 % along with cutting the energy used by 40 %.
4. You can buy and have wired up a special switch that will turn off all electricity to TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers when no one is home. Compared with older and less energy efficient TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers that will save 50% and even 10 % on new TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers that use far less electricity in sleep mode.
The important thing is to have the electricity turned on as soon as someone is home, so the startup time when you want to use something will be faster.
5. If you possibly can in your home, install wind and/or solar electricity generation capacity. Soon, you’ll be able to get paid for any electricity you generate above the amount you use. And already you can cut your bill for electricity by quite a bit. This is even more true for solar and running air conditioning since the same increased sun that heats up your home enough to cause a need for running air conditioning also will provide maximum solar electricity generation.
6. Added insulation and double pane windows or at least weather stripped windows and doors will cut both your heating and air conditioning bills.
7. Simply avoid waste. Why leave on a light for several hours in a room no one is in? Why pay to heat up hot water that gets cold due to lack of insulation or a leak in your hot water tank?
Although most of the things in part A cost money, they do not require you to lower your lifestyle or have less. In fact, buying newer appliances, TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers or heat proofing your house will give you a better lifestyle and quality of life in addition to using less energy.
B. The other way to save money is to make intelligent cuts on how much energy you use that are come from using less or using smaller things.
If you have a 4 bedroom house but now only use one usually and two bedrooms occasionally, move to a two bedroom house. Or move to a one bedroom condo and use the money you save to put up visiting relatives in a nearby motel or hotel instead of paying full time for a two bedroom home or a 4 bedroom home.
If most of your car trips can be done in a small car that uses a lot less energy than the SUV or pickup truck you have been using. Trade in your SUV or pickup truck or only drive it when you need its extra carrying capacity and drive a small car that uses a lot less energy otherwise.
Today’s post: Wednesday, 5-6-2009
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
The good news is that many of the ways that double the useful work done per unit of electricity also save money for the people employing them.
A. Here are some ways to cut your energy costs that also save you a lot of money that require some upfront investment.
Some of them do take a long time to pay you back and begin to save you money each month. But some will pay you back the first year you do them and then save you money every year after that.
1. In the Northern hemisphere we are on the verge of summer weather. And, in many parts of the United States, a major energy use is for residential air conditioning.
In fact, during the hottest days, it is exactly that air conditioning use that dictates what your utility needs to be able to deliver for peak demand.
Did you know that for many people you can drop your electricity use for air conditioning so much you do pay off the costs in one year and save literally hundreds to thousands of dollars on your summer electric bill for every year after that?
You can. And, it even has a bonus. Your home will be dramatically more comfortable. And the night time temperature in your home will be so much lower that you’ll sleep much better and have a good deal more energy each day!
Here’s our post on this method from last April.:
Slash your Air Conditioning bills this summer....
Today’s post: Weds, 4-9-2008
How does cutting your bill to zero or by 70 % sound?
Hot weather is coming soon to where you live & work this year.
(In our area, in the Silicon Valley, after below average temps recently, our first hot weather of this year is literally predicted to start tomorrow.)
Unfortunately, in many homes & buildings a huge amount of money & energy is spent on air conditioning to pump heat out of buildings it could easily never have gotten into to begin with.
For many buildings & most homes moderately inexpensive fixes can keep enough heat from getting in to cut well over 50% from air conditioning costs & energy use or even eliminate them totally & do it each summer after they are installed.
In addition, the more people do this, the less new electric generating capacity has to be built to manage peak demand for electricity which is now driven by afternoon air conditioning use on the hottest days.
In climates where the temperature falls enough at night, you can let in cool night air to remove any left over heat from the day before by opening the windows &/or by using fans to pull in air from outside & push out the inside air. Often, if you have things well set up to prevent heat from getting in &/or have ceiling fans to lower the perceived temperature a few degrees, from 76 actual to 72 perceived, for example, on most days you then will need NO air conditioning use at all.
In climates where it is much hotter or only falls to a level where you still need to run the air conditioning, if you have things well set up to prevent heat from getting in &/or have ceiling fans to lower the perceived temperature a few degrees, you can get a triple play. You only will need to run your air conditioner at night on most days. That means you can get maximum efficiency per unit of energy as the AC works better with cooler temps to dump the excess heat into so your bill is less. And, you use the electricity at night when it often costs less per kilowatt than at peak times in the afternoon. Lastly, you no longer need to add a lot of load in the afternoon to overstress you local power grid. The idea is to have the house at or office at 68 degrees F or even a bit less in the early morning when it’s coolest outside & have it not set to turn back on until the inside gets to 76 degrees (or perhaps 72 if you don’t have ceiling fans yet. Then, if your heat proofing is good enough, your AC will rarely need to come back on. And, if it does, it will need to run a LOT less.
Well insulated buildings with a lot of thermal mass, ideally with few windows or with double pane windows, that also have good passive design to prevent heat from entering do this very well.
New buildings with part underground or with thick walls made of rammed earth or adobe or straw or well insulated concrete block & heat resistant roofs do this well.
But in most homes today & some commercial buildings, the main problem is in the roof crawl space.
Usually there is no insulation between the roof & the crawl space -- & in some areas not much below it. In addition, the crawl space has almost no ventilation. As a result, instead of the under the roof temperature being only slightly above the outside air, it can be as much as 70 or 80 degrees hotter. Then this trapped heat re-radiates into the rooms beneath acting as a solar heater all afternoon. Even worse, this heat continues to radiate well into the night making the people inside miserable or running up their AC bills like crazy.
My wife & I had a house like that which was also badly insulated and had no air conditioning. On sunny days much above 79 degrees for a high, it was often well over 80 or even 90 until about the time the next morning we had to get up to go to work. This was NOT fun. And, if we had decent air conditioning then, we would have run it a LOT.
We then discovered & installed a system that uses NO OUTSIDE ENERGY AT ALL which prevented this under the roof heat build up. And, we installed ceiling fans.
We didn’t even get to upgrading the insulation and got this result.:
After doing this, we experienced a day well into the high 90’s outside. It would have been over 100 inside from 3 PM to midnight before. After installing this system & adding ceiling fans, it only got up to about 75 inside & then only from about 3 to 6 PM – AND the 75 felt Ok with just the ceiling fans alone. It was in the high 90’s outside and we needed NO air conditioning at all. And, remember that was before we upgraded our ceiling insulation to R19 or better.
Here is the magic trick we used that I cannot recommend more highly after this experience.:
Hot air rises. So, what we did is to install several very well screened air intake vents around the perimeter of our roof’s crawl space that were under the shade of the roof & we had a competent workman also install several convection powered turbines in the roof near its peak. Then we added ceiling fans to our bedrooms & living room. The entire project cost less than $1,000. And, this was a one time fee.
The very same hot air that was giving us such grief before now happily spun the turbines as it rose & drew the much less hot outside air in behind it. This was all solar powered. We needed no outside energy at all to run it.
If we had more money at the time, I would have liked to add the extra ceiling insulation & a radiant heat barrier in our attic and installed wood frame double pan windows.
Even better would have been to add a decent heat pump system to deliver efficient air conditioning it we ever needed it for days above 100 degrees & install enough solar panels to run it all. And, added window shading on the west & south sides of the house would have also helped.
But, much to my delight, we got close to 100 % of the cooling we needed from this single inexpensive fix that still needs no energy bills at all to operate these several years later.
So, if you have a roof that traps heat the way our roof then did, you can add all sorts of useful extras as I would have liked to do. But for about $2500 or less you can heat proof your house better than you might imagine with this simple system.
(In our area we bought the convection powered turbines & ceiling fans at Home Depot.)
X * X* X* X*
Back to the post for 5-7-2009
2. Now you can cut your lighting bills by up to 75% by installing compact fluorescent light bulbs.
They save so much energy and last so much longer, even though they cost more initially, over a few years they save you a LOT of money.
The good news is that, you can now find compact fluorescent light bulbs that both cost less than they once did AND turn on nearly as fast as the old fashioned incandescent light bulbs did. GE has done a good job making compact fluorescent light bulbs with precisely those two improvements.
The bad news is that compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury which can literally harm you if you break one and breathe the air in that room. This same mercury will eventually make its way into landfills, tap water, and fish and seafood since many people have & will toss them into the trash when they break or burn out.
But, do two things to solve that problem. Be extremely careful not to break any compact fluorescent light bulbs in your home. And only discard compact fluorescent light bulbs that go to a special center that will dispose of them without allowing their mercury to get into landfills, tap water, and fish and seafood. (That’s also now the legal requirement in many places.)
The better news is that LED light bulbs and LED wall coverings or ceiling coverings that light up will be available at relatively reasonable prices sometime over the next 5 to 10 years.
Compared to compact fluorescent light bulbs LED light bulbs and LED wall coverings or ceiling coverings that light up produce 50 % to 100 % more light. So, if you replace incandescent bulbs with them, you cut your light bills by 5/6ths or 7/8ths. If it was $24 dollars a month before, it will be $4 or $3 a month with LED’s!
And, if you have switched to compact fluorescent light bulbs and had $6 a month lighting bill, it will be $4 or $3 a month with LED’s!
3. You can also replace appliances, TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers with more energy efficient ones. And, in the case of TV’s, if you get one with a smaller screen as well, you’ll save a lot of money on your electric bill. (Some large screen TV’s use as much electricity as a large refrigerator on a hot day.) One way newer and more energy efficient TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers save money is by using far less electricity in sleep mode when not in use. That alone can cut the cost of using them by about 40 % along with cutting the energy used by 40 %.
4. You can buy and have wired up a special switch that will turn off all electricity to TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers when no one is home. Compared with older and less energy efficient TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers that will save 50% and even 10 % on new TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers that use far less electricity in sleep mode.
The important thing is to have the electricity turned on as soon as someone is home, so the startup time when you want to use something will be faster.
5. If you possibly can in your home, install wind and/or solar electricity generation capacity. Soon, you’ll be able to get paid for any electricity you generate above the amount you use. And already you can cut your bill for electricity by quite a bit. This is even more true for solar and running air conditioning since the same increased sun that heats up your home enough to cause a need for running air conditioning also will provide maximum solar electricity generation.
6. Added insulation and double pane windows or at least weather stripped windows and doors will cut both your heating and air conditioning bills.
7. Simply avoid waste. Why leave on a light for several hours in a room no one is in? Why pay to heat up hot water that gets cold due to lack of insulation or a leak in your hot water tank?
Although most of the things in part A cost money, they do not require you to lower your lifestyle or have less. In fact, buying newer appliances, TV’s, consumer electronics, and computers or heat proofing your house will give you a better lifestyle and quality of life in addition to using less energy.
B. The other way to save money is to make intelligent cuts on how much energy you use that are come from using less or using smaller things.
If you have a 4 bedroom house but now only use one usually and two bedrooms occasionally, move to a two bedroom house. Or move to a one bedroom condo and use the money you save to put up visiting relatives in a nearby motel or hotel instead of paying full time for a two bedroom home or a 4 bedroom home.
If most of your car trips can be done in a small car that uses a lot less energy than the SUV or pickup truck you have been using. Trade in your SUV or pickup truck or only drive it when you need its extra carrying capacity and drive a small car that uses a lot less energy otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)