Too high energy consumption - easiest thing to give up?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


This whole thead is based on the premise (right or wrong) that the average energy/resource consumption of the 1st world citizen is presently too high for a sustainable case, and that some things must be done to lessen that average.

If you disagree with the premise - please start a thread in order to disprove it. Do not, however, post stuff that breaks with the stated premise, it makes discourse messy. Threaddrift will also rear its ugly head once people do that kind of stuff.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, what can be done? Of all the millions of things that possibly can be done, which would have the best benefit/cost ratio, cost here being measured in loss of quality of life (however you want to define that)?

There is a class of actions which in short are "do the same thing, but use engineering to fulfill the desiderata with less resources". A example of that that I recently read about was a paper pulp factory, where the enginners had tweaked with temperatures, chemical solutions, etc, and got the same paper quality while spending much less energy. While that is all fine and dandy, the discussion of that kind of actions requires technical expertise, and it is highly unlikely that we would find two f.net members who both are knowledgeable about the same subtopic, so that kind of actions will in all probablility not start much interesting conversation.

There is another type of actions which does not require technical expertise - simply stop doing things, and not try to replace the good that performing them was intended to produce. This is much easier for the layman to understand, so it is a better candidate for discussion. Therefore, I ask the f.net discussion team to focus on such resource-conserving actions in this thread. Let the suggestions begin! I will start:

I recently read that a significant proportion of the energy consumption in the USA during summer months is due to residential cooling. When one looks at pictures of many residential buildings in the sourthen USA, one notices that windowpanes take up a large proportion of the wall surface, and that walls are thin. The consequence of this is that a lot of power is needed to maintain a given temperature differential between indoors and the surrounding. However, if the walls are made thick - and most importantly, windows are made away with - then much less power is needed to keep a comfortable temperature indoors. Furthermore, if the house is clad in reflective stainless steel, heat from direct sunlight will be mirrored away. If the walls are made of concrete-insulation-concrete-steel (inwards to outwards) the total heat transmission will be very low. As an added benefit, a concrete house with no windows will be much more resistant to hurricanes than the piles of sticks that one sees on the news every hurricane season.

Lots of energy saved, sturdier houses (probably give lower insurance premiums), and the only thing that one has to give up is the view from inside of the outside! Seems like a no-brainer deal to me.

Sure, there are people who like external views (why on earth??? I have never understood that particular quirk), but they can not be 100% of the population, can they? In any case, with sufficient savings, some of them should be enticed to give up that thing. So why are not more houses like that built?

I "consume" windows (if that is the word) despite that I derive no positive life quality from them, because society is built that way. What things do you consume, despite not deriving anything positive from them that you would easily give up and thereby lessen total resource consumption?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Teme]

However, if the walls are made thick - and most importantly, windows are made away with - then much less power is needed to keep a comfortable temperature indoors.

Or use triple-glass windows -- they're as good keeping the cold outside as keeping it inside...

Furthermore, if the house is clad in reflective stainless steel, heat from direct sunlight will be mirrored away. If the walls are made of concrete-insulation-concrete-steel (inwards to outwards) the total heat transmission will be very low. As an added benefit, a concrete house with no windows will be much more resistant to hurricanes than the piles of sticks that one sees on the news every hurricane season.

Or, like in windows, use air as insulation by leaving a small space between outer surface and actual (load bearing) wall...

Simpler, prettier, more efficient and already available everywhere

[Lucifer]

Er, I thought you were talking about food energy and was going to suggest turning off your tv. Then I realized what you meant, and my suggestion stays the same. Turn off your tv.

[Slim]

Hi!

Lots of energy saved, sturdier houses (probably give lower insurance premiums), and the only thing that one has to give up is the view from inside of the outside! Seems like a no-brainer deal to me.

Sure, there are people who like external views (why on earth??? I have never understood that particular quirk), but they can not be 100% of the population, can they? In any case, with sufficient savings, some of them should be enticed to give up that thing. So why are not more houses like that built?

Wouldnt just living in a hole the ground even further reduce the energy required for cooling?

Think of all the $$ you could make selling bumper stickers at Phish shows....

"Think globally. Act subterraineously."

You should team up with Cheryl Crowe. She has recently come out with a similar great idea...limiting the amount of TP used to wipe your bottom. Why not just stick your fanny in the sink for a little, how the french say....."douche", rather than killing more trees?

Now that's thinking. Or stinking, as the case may be.

[jBirch]

A couple of comments...

1) Environmental Conditioning

Triple pane glass has a larger environmental footprint then simply burying the structure underground. As far as energy conservation goes, using the geothermic properties of the earth, coupled with technologies to dynamically modify the structure seasonally is probably the leading contender for individual energy conservation. Effectively "burying" a structure can be achieved with creative use of indiginous materials (clays, stones, plants, etc...) on all surfaces of the home as it exists currently. Roof top food-bearing gardens is probably the best way to start.

Behavioural modification suggestion: plant more.

2) Food

Significant energy is invested in moving food from the point of efficient harvest to the point of consumption. Further, we tend to use inefficient caloric generators (animals).

Behavioural modification suggestion: stop buying food. Produce your own. Cultivate simple tastes.

3) Water usage takes up another significant portion of the energy footprint of an individual. The three items in a home that take up the largest amount of water are the lawn, the toilet and the shower.

Efficiency can be achieved in the shower by using 10s of cold water: soak (5s), soap (using a biodegradable unpackaged soap produced in the home from food waste), rinse(5s), towel.

Efficiency can be achieved in the toilet by simply allowing the waste water to become full before flushing and by reusing the waste water from the shower/sinks in the toilet. There is no reason why a toilet needs to have drinkable water in it. Except maybe for the dog.

Efficiency can be achieved in the garden by choosing native materials for landscaping.

Behavioural modification suggestion: Shower less, flush less and grow native plants that do not require extra water.

4) Transportation

Significant environmental usage is taken up with transportation of goods and materials from point to point. Reducing dependence on travel for economic prosperity is key (kill the commute) and can be achieved by sacrificing centrality to our distribution system. We need to invest in smaller, more local production and distribution centres (in contrast to the current trend which is larger, more regional production centres).

Behavioural modification: work closer to home. Use only products produced within cycling distance of the home (50km).

5) Economics.

Part of the problem here is that we are conditioned to evaluate efficiency in terms of money. A poor worker is more "efficient" then a rich worker because the cost of labour is significantly reduced. Therefor, a product of equivalent quality manufactured by the poor worker is to be desired over one manufactured by the rich worker. If we can figure out a way to value the environmental impact of that production, then we can encourage it. Until then, there is a vested human interest in producing product cheaply and selling it expensively. However, there is equal human interest in depressing the spending power of the poor worker and increasing the spending power of the rich worker so that the margin between the cost and the revenue is as wide as possible.

Behavioural modification: pay more.

6) Energy generation

A lot of energy is wasted through the production of heat and the inefficient transference of energy. We should produce power locally using mostly solar technology. Any surface that can not be covered with plants, should instead be covered with solar energy producing material. Body heat should be the primary mechanism by which we heat our homes. Food should be eaten raw as often as possible.

Behavioural modification: Remove power poles.

So yes, we should all become vegetarian hippies.

James.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


JBirch: while you post several thinkable alternatives, you do not prioritize among them, and all seem to me to be of the kind where one has to give up quite a lot in life quality.

I am more trying to get to posts where people just do not copy off some generic conservation brochures, and instead list stuff that they personally could give up with no (or minimal) loss in life quality, such as windows in my case.

To everyone who feels up to it: I have often heard people state that they must have sunlight, that external view is absolutely necessary, etc. When I have said that it is not so for me, they have looked at me in a strange view, and said that I am not telling the truth. Gets quite irritating in the long run to hear that I do not know what I want. Yet, when I have asked them why all that sunlight is necessary, they have been unable to produce a coherent answer, and instead either start reasoning in circles or simply do not understand the question. Idiots.

(Yes, I understand it in the special cases when one has bought a house in a scenic area, when one has specific safety concerns, one has psoriasis, etc specific reasons. But in most cases, nothing of that applies.)

Now, since the f.net community contains so many people who can think and write coherently, there must be someone in the community who both is a sunlight-lover, and can explain why it is so necessary to them, even if they are not looking at something scenic or imformation-bearing. Explain away!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Lucifer]

Ok, not having the daily rhythm of day/night can cause or exacerbate existing sleeping disorders. The exact mechanisms aren't completely understood in any literature a commoner like myself could get his hands on, but a successful treatment against some sleep disorders is light therapy.

Other than that, I gave up Windows(tm) several years ago in favor of Linux.

Ok, some things I've already done: Push mower and electric weed eater. The push mower is obvious, the weed eater less so. Going electric doesn't make it more efficient, but it does mean that if the power infrastructure gets upgraded, my weed eater benefits.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs. We've got these nice window shades on almost every window, definitely on every window that actually gets pummeled by the sun. My wife buys certain products that are manufactured in certain ways, like dishsoaps, toilet paper, etc, that are supposedly more efficient. It's one of those "if everybody uses this product once a month, <this huge amount of energy> is saved".

I walk to places that are close isntead of drive, unfortunately I live in a suburb, so it's not so easy to avoid driving.

Now, what can I give up right now? I'll tell you waht I can ive up right now. 4 extra hours spent awake every night for no good reason.

Actually, I think we've tapped out how efficient we can get for our budget. We'd need to put more money down in one form or other to get better than we've got, and that's all money we don't have right now. Ask around and it wouldn't surprise me if you hear something similar.

[jBirch]

Hi!


JBirch: while you post several thinkable alternatives, you do not prioritize among them, and all seem to me to be of the kind where one has to give up quite a lot in life quality.

The problem with this reasoning is that you've predetermined what quality of life issues are important to me.

For example, I would vastly prefer to walk to work then drive. I would also prefer to have fresh vegatables grown in my backyard and prairie-grass on my roof. Sadly, upgrading my house is beyond my current economic means.

And I would gladly give up the commute if I could have equivalent economic prospects within walking distance.

Sadly, we have designed the system around cheap transportation and process efficiency. Each place is specialised to efficiently produce one or two things which are then transported to the place where they can command the highest ROI.

To everyone who feels up to it: I have often heard people state that they must have sunlight, that external view is absolutely necessary, etc. When I have said that it is not so for me, they have looked at me in a strange view, and said that I am not telling the truth. Gets quite irritating in the long run to hear that I do not know what I want. Yet, when I have asked them why all that sunlight is necessary, they have been unable to produce a coherent answer, and instead either start reasoning in circles or simply do not understand the question. Idiots.

Now, since the f.net community contains so many people who can think and write coherently, there must be someone in the community who both is a sunlight-lover, and can explain why it is so necessary to them, even if they are not looking at something scenic or imformation-bearing. Explain away!

Quite apart from anything else, natural light makes me feel happy. And feeling happy is perhaps the biggest component to my personal Quality of Life.

Duh. *grin*

Bilogically, natural sunlight transmits Vitamin D which is essential to bone health, though this can certainly be supplemented. There are also the time of day cycles that are important as well, as Lucifer mentioned, though these can be simulated.

It boils down to that fact that I find it hard to see beauty if I can't feel the sun on my face and smell the breeze through the trees. I feel constrained and limited when I'm without the outdoors for too long. I feel dead.

When I'm outside, I feel energised by the world. I feel alive and ready. I sleep better, breathe better, think better and just feel better.

James.

[larkmaj]

There is also the fact that without windows you would have to use artificial light the entire day instead of relying on natural light for most of the time you are awake. Which diminishes the energy saved.

[parrythis]

Of all the millions of things that possibly can be done, which would have the best benefit/cost ratio, cost here being measured in loss of quality of life (however you want to define that)?

In a word: "Telecommuting".

I will use my situation to introduce the concept. I live 42 miles from where I work. My round-trip commute is 84 miles a day, 420 miles a week, 21,000 miles a year. This equates to roughly 750 gallons of gasoline per year - just for me.

At work, I sit at a desk and type on a computer. (In fact, I am doing that right now.) Occasionally, I will get up and walk to someone else's desk or a conference room and have a face-to-face discussion with one or more other individuals. There is nothing that I do at work that I could not do at home if I had a decent internet connection. (Note - this is not a rant - it becomes important later on.)

As I walk around my office, I see 100's of other individuals who's jobs are just as computer-centric as mine is. Multiply that times 10's of thousands of other companies and you get an idea what we are doing to the environment just by coming to work every day.

There are a couple of reasons I cannot telecommute (work from home) today. The first is technological. My internet connection at home is dial-up. I connect at 28.8K on a good day. My choice of living location is not one that can easily be changed to something more urban as I own farm animals that would not be welcome in an urban setting. There is no technological reason the telco or cable companies could not get me faster internet access other than it would cost them money to run the cable. With the lower population density where I live, the ROI (Return On Investment) is not good for them, so they do not do it.

The other reason I cannot telecommute is public perception. We live in a world where the perception is that if you are not AT work, you are not working. This is a perception that is changing, but it is changing slowly.

Granted, not all jobs can be done remotely, but many of them can - enough to make a significant difference.

Cost in terms of loss of quality of life? Telecommuting would actually improve the quality of my life significantly. I wouldn't have to spend two hours a day on the road and spend $2400 per year on gasoline. In that respect, it's a win-win.

Actual cost? Whatever it would take to get a high-enough speed internet connection run out to the boondocks that I could do all my work and videoconference when I need to talk to people.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

I ALWAYS have a nice time.

[Lucifer]

Heh, I just started a job as a lab assistant at the school, and in this case, if you're AT work, you're almost certainly not working. All you do is wait for the next lab to come in, then spend a few minutes handing out equipment. Then nothing until they're done, then clean up. There's probably less than 5 minutes of work per hour on average.

And can't telecommute!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

In a word: "Telecommuting".

I will use my situation to introduce the concept. I live 42 miles from where I work. My round-trip commute is 84 miles a day, 420 miles a week, 21,000 miles a year. This equates to roughly 750 gallons of gasoline per year - just for me.

SNIP

There are a couple of reasons I cannot telecommute (work from home) today. The first is technological. My internet connection at home is dial-up. I connect at 28.8K on a good day. My choice of living location is not one that can easily be changed to something more urban as I own farm animals that would not be welcome in an urban setting. There is no technological reason the telco or cable companies could not get me faster internet access other than it would cost them money to run the cable. With the lower population density where I live, the ROI (Return On Investment) is not good for them, so they do not do it.

The other reason I cannot telecommute is public perception. We live in a world where the perception is that if you are not AT work, you are not working. This is a perception that is changing, but it is changing slowly.

Granted, not all jobs can be done remotely, but many of them can - enough to make a significant difference.

Cost in terms of loss of quality of life? Telecommuting would actually improve the quality of my life significantly. I wouldn't have to spend two hours a day on the road and spend $2400 per year on gasoline. In that respect, it's a win-win.

Actual cost? Whatever it would take to get a high-enough speed internet connection run out to the boondocks that I could do all my work and videoconference when I need to talk to people.

Good post!

So, telecommuting would save you $2400 on gas, more on lessened car wear, and some other costs. It would be a plus for the road authority, since your car would wear the asphalt less. If done by thousands, it would ease traffic congestion, with many accompanying economic pluses. It would not be a economic plus to your company, probably a zero-sum game for them. It would be an economic loss for the cable company.

Let us assume that the total profit for all involved is 2000$/year. (2400$ in gas, 600$ in extras, -1000$ in cable cost) The way to make it happen is to move around that profit in some way so that all involved get some piece of the action, and everyone runs a profit. In Sweden, companies which want to have a right to put up mobile phone networks must do so in a way so that at least 99% (or 99.9%, forget which) of the population is covered. It is expressly forbidden to only try to skim the most high-ROI parts of the market. Maybe your county could pay cable companies to cover the boondocks also, and the county gets less travel-associated (road wear, congestion, pollution, traffic accident, etc) costs?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[ThatReallyHurt]

How about no longer shipping bottled water (even if it is really "fancy") past a particular distance? I shake my head every time I go to the store and see that I can pay two bucks for water that was poured into a bottle thousands of kilometers away and trucked here.