Joe Fischer wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
On Sat, Andy Hall wrote:
All of this is focus in completely the wrong area. All the time that
the U.S. continues
not to make much of a federal effort in terms of emissions control
The federal government doesn't own many fossil
fuel power plants.
The US govt does control policy/law though.
Only to a certain extent, on most things the federal
government only has authority for things crossing state lines,
and exerts some control over states by withholding funds
if some goal is not met.
so it does have power. But I accept the political setup is not nearly
as easy there in this respect.
But both the coal industry and the
power plants have been spending fortunes cleaning up
coal to reduce pollution.
Less toxins is nice, but wont have any effect on CO2 output tho.
Frankly, except for Al Gore and this newsgroup,
I never see any mention of CO2.
Thats hard to understand, since CO2 is supposed to be the big player in
global warming.
and
China is opening
a new coal fired power station weekly, all of this other stuff makes so
little difference
that it is a waste of time on environmental grounds.
There is a lot of USA bashing, but other than the
French nuclear industry, I see very little about what other
countries are doing to reduce CO2 emissions.
This is because US uses a lot more energy per person than other
coutries. Where the european drive is more toward efficient use of more
limited resources, the US approach is still generally excess and waste.
Most countries in Europe have no choice,
yes. But today the US does have a choice, and can do things more this
way if it chooses. But US people arent choosing.
Believe me, the cars in use in Europe are not
adequate for US highways, I drove my Alfa Romeo
4 door sedan 6 miles each way to have tires fixed,
and I hate driving it so much I took a wheel off
and took it to have it fixed.
Call me chicken, but I am afraid to be on
the road in it.
Yes, I know. But there are 2 factors, one is car size, the other is
engine power. Most cars on our roads today are overpowered to the point
of silly. New cars having lower power engines would improve fuel
economy. Taxation according to tested mpg would swing consumer choice.
If there was a way I could reduce the energy
use in space heating, I would.
insulation, secondary glazing, draughtproofing, replacing electric
resistance heat with electric heatpumps, and most of all insulation.
Perhaps you've done all you can , but lots havent, especially on older
properties.
Even if the case for CO2 induced global warming could
be demonstrated clearly and proven beyond doubt, there is
nothing much that can be done without people freezing or
giving up income.
Oh, there is.
First bear in mind convincing evidence would cause many more people to
make greener decisions.
So convince me.
No, you missed what I meant. We dont have anything convincing, if/when
we do, people may take more notice.
1 National new build energy policies can switch from gas and coal to
nuke and wind.
The stoppage of nuke plant building was not a policy
decision, it was a failure of contractors and labor to produce
at contract prices, or even at double contract prices.
Also, when nukes were being built there was a
power producer policy of encouraging "all electric"
houses, and they anticipated a constant increase in
electric use that did not materialize, and that made
the failure of nuke contractors and labor more critical.
Wind is probably moving along as fast as possible,
where it is feasible.
One can always skew the playing field some. Nuke is not the only non
CO2 gen tech of course.
2 New build houses can be required to have 6" insulation instead of 2".
Saves people money
Where? The ceilings probably have at least 10 inches
now, but it is difficult to put more than 3.5 inches with 3.5 inch
wall studs.
I'm talking about new build Joe, not retrofit. Building walls with 6"
cavities is hardly rocket surgery.
3 New CH systems can be required to have a programmer for each room, so
time and temp can be set for each. Saves people money
With forced air? Easy, but expensive with existing
hot water systems, but forced air central furnaces would
need powered shutoffs for large ducts, and I have never
seen any for sale.
I do have thermostats in each room, but I also use
switches so I can do the work of the programmable thermostat.
Forced air is almost unheard of here in UK. Most use a hydronic
radiator CH system, with the less well off typically having a wall
mounted gas fire. Room by room programming is suited to hydronic rather
than air.
Fitting room programming is not expensive, though of course its no
freebie. Per room one needs: programmer £40, wallwart £2, resistance
wire to wrap round sensing element on trv £ next to nothing. So a 7
room house would cost 6x42 = £250. Savings would vary, but over the
life of the system would typically be several times £250.
4 A quality BS can be set up for cfls so the decent ones are recognised
by buyers, and marked properly instead of the nonsense equivalence
claims now common. People knowing they can buy quality cfls would mean
many more sales. Saves people money
That would be up to the stores and bulb makers
to advertise and display (in a free country).
No, I didnt explain that one very much. Previously I've proposed a BS
(British Standard) for quality CFLs. Compliance would be voluntary. The
BS would cover all the issues that people are unhappy about with many
cfls. This includes proper power equivalance mrking, tip to base size
marking, CCT, CRI, ave lifetime, etc. If people knew they could buy
decent cfls, many would. Today most dont even realise that there are
good and iffy ones.
5 filament bulbs can be taxed to prod people to move to cfl - the
amount of tax would be low enough not to have much real effect on
anyone's purse, and there is little need to buy filament bulbs anyway.
There are lots of places where cfl will not work,
even where I do use them, they are too long.
There are few such places in reality. Some are too long for old
fittings, some arent.
6 Legalise car engine conversion for greater mpg. The simplest way to
do this is to close off one or more cylinders by removing rocker arms.
Saves people money
You're kidding? The average ICE barely has
enough power to run on all cylinders.
Thats not even remotely true.
7 Heavily tax hungry cars at point of sale. Moving people to leaner
vehicles reduces costs. Saves people money
Congressmen like to get reelected, and raising taxes
too much might get them lynched.
One has to start with people wanting it. The US doesnt seem to have
that.
There are simply too many old cars here to change
faster than they are doing, people earning less than $10
an hour can't afford a modern efficient car.
thats a non issue. The point is to influence new car purchases. I'm
surprised you havent said anything about distorting the market yet
8 Increase VED for low mpg cars (annual tax disc), while at the same
time offering a free VED bracket for the 5% highest mpg vehicles (this
would be a moving target, moved annually to keep it to the top 5%).
This could together not change total revenue, though we all know how
it'll go in practice. Saves people money by reducing total fuel
consumption.
There is little or no choice for the majority of drivers
in the US, they buy used cars, drive them till they quit,
junk them and buy another used car.
still a non issue.
There are 240 million vehicles here, at 20 million
new cars a year, it will take another 8 years for everybody
to get a 2000 model or newer.
thats fairly quick.
10 Govt to offer a nice fat prize to the person who can design the best
of various categories of energy reduction equipment. Eg:
- solar space heating
- solar dhw
- any other enrgy saving tech
and so on. The requirements would include good ROI, little or minimal
maintnance, and practical diy fitting.
All that is easy on new construction, but difficult
on existing houses, and it only works for young people
who own a home and can count on payback for 20 years.
No, you missed it again. I have no interest for systems that barely pay
their way in 20 years, those are no use to anyone. The point is to
offer a fat prize for the first design that meets sensible targets. One
of the key targets would be good ROI, lets say at least 10% pa.
Theres plenty more. The main barriers are lack of genuine belief in the
need for it and general ignorance regarding energy saving options,
solar design and so on.
For space heating, economics has a bad effect, many
people are using electric heaters in outlets and extension
cords that are not rated for the amperage.
This often comes down to ignorance. Replace the resistance heater with
an air source heatpump ac style unit, and your energy use goes down
60%.
And they are using unvented kerosene heaters,
and even torpedo kerosene heaters without adequate
ventilation.
Oh. Those things went the way of the dodo in the 70s here.
For both space heating and gasoline, economics
is the determining factor, people are hurting, and have
no way to do much. They really can't afford to
change cars, they owe on the one they are driving.
what does a rock bottom ac unit cost? How much does it save per year on
heating, using it as a winter heat pump? Sure some cant stump up the
$200, but also some can. Increasing awareness improves things, even if
only some do it.
I dont see any reason for anyone to change cars.
There are ways to reduce energy use, like having
people move close to where they work, but there isn't
a power that can accomplish that.
Fuel taxation would, but I'm not sure this would be productive anyway.
More tax incentives for home workers, making up for it with tax on
non-homers would also skew the picture and reduce energy use.
There isn't any "home work" to speak of, except
a very few computer users.
Most jobs require a person to do something physical,
and they need to go to work.
Yes, hence increasing the taxation skew would make businesses more
interested in finding ways to get more people working from home. Its
doable in some cases.
Solar energy is primarily a sub-tropic region
energy source, and is not being guided in the right
direction. Solar panels on the roof, especially
retrofitted, is not a good idea, on walls facing the
equator is a much better idea.
Just one leak caused by installing panels
on the roof, and all the savings for 10 years is lost,
Kit mounted atop single storey flat roofs has significant advantages.
We have no single story flat roofs, we don't really
have a good roofing material for nearly flat roofs.
I thought these were standard in hot dry regions in the US?
I have tried to buy what is called "selvage" roll
roofing, which is 36 inch material with aggregate only
on 18 inches, and no nails showing with 18 inch overlap,
but the roofers never heard of it, and the supply houses
don't stock it.
IIUC this would be a lot more damage prone in your severe weather than
shingles. Our flat roofs are rolls of shingle like material glued down
onto a flat wood roof. And they dont last so well, hence are not well
regarded.
FWIW its quite possible to use a controller that detects leaks and
shuts off one section of a parallelled system. This would improve
reliability, reduce ongoing costs, and extend system lifetimes. But
this is only going to be cost effective when the equipment reaches mass
production.
I wasn't talking about the system leaking, it is
the roof leaks that is a problem,
right ok.
roofing __MUST__
be done so that gravity drain without cement or caulking
is accomplished, and it is difficult to do that and still
put screws through the roof to mount panels.
Oh, we do that without any difficulty. Steelwork is slipped under the
slates and secured on the inside. But of more significant is new build,
where any type of panel can be integrated into the roof, and replace
some of the roofing cover material.
roofs don't usually last more than 15 or 20 years,
so installing panels on a 10 year old roof is not
a good idea.
In Britain average roof lifetime is mesured in centuries.
I need to check out what new homes are roofed
with, I can't believe there can be that much difference
in available materials.
I think its more choice than availability. Most new houses have
concrete tiles, most old houses, of which there are a great number, use
real slate. US style shingles are rarely seen here. Millions of 1800s
houses still have their original roof.
Bee-hive apartments may be energy efficient
with less outside walls, but not everybody is willing
to live in an apartment.
Many are though. New build programs could become more apartment block
oriented. The British planning system makes extending existing
buildings difficult to impossible, and this could also be improved.
Larger buildings house more people more energy efficiently.
British planning can do a lot, because of the times
when the labor party is in control, many accept central
government more than in the US.
Yes, sadly. It does great damage to our overall housing stock. Both
main parties support the planning system, despite the complaints from
the people.
Really old buildings may be the most difficult
to heat, and the trend in the US is larger homes,
so nothing is moving in the right direction to save
energy.
Its not too hard to retroinsulate old houses.
It is a nightmare in some cases, my house was
built in 1895, and mu aunt had insulation blown in
the attic without properly sealing all the cracks.
So I have 10 inches of insulation, and dust
in the house.
sealing the cracks is difficult? Today one would use rockwool roll, not
blown insulation or lofts.
The walls are a special problem, they have no
insulation, and drilling holes and blowing it in is
not usually satisfactory, so anything done is expensive.
youre lucky enough to have cavity walls there? Here theres a big
national drive to retroinsulate cavity walls, and unsatisfactory
results are rare.
For older houses that dont have cavity walls, battens, rockwool and
plasterboard/sheetrock is the usual way to go.
It seems evident that for solar energy to
be affordable by the masses, there has to be a
large Do-it-Yourself effort, with the right ideas,
and a modular approach that can be done a
little at a time is better both for time, and the
up front cost.
Joe Fischer
Yes, and its doable. As the real cost of energy increases, and
knowledge spreads, courtesy of the www, we see more of it being done.
NT
The www is full of misinformation, and the different
types of housing make it difficult to devise a workable
energy saving solution.
Sorry, but its been done. Its old news here.
Chances are the high cost of energy will cause more
people to do things than any talk of global warming, rising
sea levels, or even shortage scares.
yes... but I dont think they'll rise anything like as much as is hyped.
It is important to work on these problems without
getting too concerned about the pace things are moving,
the majority of people simply do not have the money to
do much of anything, and if it costs money to save money,
they don't have the money unless they are in a position
to borrow the money.
Yes, thats a common problem. Reality is there are very cheap ways to do
things when needed. At one house I saw cardboard cavities on solid
walls, that can be done for peanuts. Borax fire retardant £1, knife
£1, wallpaper glue £1. Plastic film secondary glazing is fairly
cheap, though reuse of old glass is a much better bet. Poverty equals
lack of time for such extras, but when theres savings to be had, some
will do it, once they know it can be done.
NT