Advocacy & Safety - Energy commentary

In this article by Prof. David McKay he writes "... This means that switching the phone charger off for a whole day saves the same energy as is used in driving an average car for one second. Switching off phone chargers is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. I'm not saying you shouldn't unplug it, but please realize, when you do so, what a tiny fraction it is of your total energy footprint.

In total, the European lifestyle uses 125 kWh per day per person for transport, heating, manufacturing, and electricity. That's equivalent to every person having 125 light bulbs switched on all the time. The average American uses 250 kWh per day: 250 light bulbs..."

(article in entirety located at http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html)

I'm not sure where the professor is getting the numbers he's getting; nevertheless, AFAIK the difference between the European number and the US number can in large part be attributed to transport choices. Further argument to overhaul the transport system in the states?

I'd be interested in seeing the differences in efficiency of the carry methods you talk about.

His website link on that article is fairly interesting.

I think the two biggest fuel users attached to the average american is personal transportation and goods transportation. Of the latter, particularly food. A huge amount of the food we eat daily is shipped hundreds to thousands of miles.

The guy's right though; all the electricity used by the average house isn't as much as the energy used by the car taking the average person to work and back.

My electric bill is never more than $20 a month. Now if I could only get my home gas bills to that level...

My electric bill is never more than $20 a month. Now if I could only get my home gas bills to that level...

Outdoor Wood Boiler.

I think the two biggest fuel users attached to the average american is personal transportation and goods transportation. Of the latter, particularly food. A huge amount of the food we eat daily is shipped hundreds to thousands of miles.

The guy's right though; all the electricity used by the average house isn't as much as the energy used by the car taking the average person to work and back.

Does that include heating, AC and hot water?

Of course, as those of us who ride our bikes a lot know, it's fairly easy to cut back on energy used for transit. It's harder to cut back on household use, IMO.

Mackay is good stuff. He recently came out with a book called "Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air" which gives another sobering, realistic assessment of energy prospects for a lay audience. It can be downloaded for free here (http://www.withouthotair.com/). I recommend it highly although it is aimed primarily at English readers. I like how he dresses down the media and those among us who think we can continue on with business-as-usual and everything will be fine if we would all just switch to more efficient lightbulbs and such.

"Have no illusions ... these decreases in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don't be distracted by the myth that 'every little helps.' If everyone does a little, we'll achieve only a little." -- David Mackay

FWIW I have been messing around with building a new webpage, sort of an information hub for energy and transportation issues, still in its early formative stages. A link to Mackay's book there and much more. Please check it out here (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/energy.html).

Lets follow Israel and have all house hold water heating powered by solar power

It is not that hard to cut back on household energy use if you are serious about it. Solar water heaters are a good place to start. Commercial varieties are available, but DIY is easy too. At it's most basic level, a solar water heater can be made from a regular water heater stripped of its insulation and painted black. $5 at the hardware store can buy you the plumbing needed to turn this into a shower. A bit more will allow you to hook this straight up to your household water system. More yet will buy you the afore-mentioned commercial system, which is basically a radiator housed in glass (like a greenhouse) that you put on your roof. These systems are so simple, soon enough they will be common place.

Mackay is good stuff. He recently came out with a book called "Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air" which gives another sobering, realistic assessment of energy prospects for a lay audience. It can be downloaded for free here (http://www.withouthotair.com/). I recommend it highly although it is aimed primarily at English readers. I like how he dresses down the media and those among us who think we can continue on with business-as-usual and everything will be fine if we would all just switch to more efficient lightbulbs and such.

"Have no illusions ... these decreases in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don't be distracted by the myth that 'every little helps.' If everyone does a little, we'll achieve only a little." -- David Mackay

FWIW I have been messing around with building a new webpage, sort of an information hub for energy and transportation issues, still in its early formative stages. A link to Mackay's book there and much more. Please check it out here (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/energy.html).


So how big a cutback are you saying? Like electricity for only a few hours a day?

And how big an increase in supply? Like double the percentage of GDP for energy?

Does that include heating, AC and hot water?

Of course, as those of us who ride our bikes a lot know, it's fairly easy to cut back on energy used for transit. It's harder to cut back on household use, IMO.



I don't think that most people in this forum would be able to make a significant savings on our energy bills. Most of us I think tend to be minimalists already, and have already taken initial steps to do that kind of thing, and cutting back MORE would mean even more significant changes. For your average American household, I don't think a 20% energy cut would have a significant lifestyle change at all... just a little awareness. (I have no info to back that number up, just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion and example.)

I don't think that most people in this forum would be able to make a significant savings on our energy bills. Most of us I think tend to be minimalists already, and have already taken initial steps to do that kind of thing, and cutting back MORE would mean even more significant changes. For your average American household, I don't think a 20% energy cut would have a significant lifestyle change at all... just a little awareness. (I have no info to back that number up, just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion and example.)

20% isn't much at all for an American. In terms of electricity consumption, we would have to cut back 50% to match Europeans, 80% to match the Chinese, and 95% to match Africans.

The biggest problem in America has to do with the size of our houses. I doubt if A & S members are very different from the average American on the size of their homes.

My electric bill is never more than $20 a month. Now if I could only get my home gas bills to that level...

If only I could get my rent to that level.

Does that include heating, AC and hot water?

It would be for me if I were an average american; my household energy usage for gasoline is higher than the energy use of my house, except maybe in the winter. I guess it could be that the transportation of goods usage may be below my electricity and heating gas usage in the coldest months of the winter.

Hot water? Barely registers. In the summer when our only gas usage is for hot water, our bill is typically about $5 to $7 a month.

It is not that hard to cut back on household energy use if you are serious about it. Solar water heaters are a good place to start. Commercial varieties are available, but DIY is easy too. At it's most basic level, a solar water heater can be made from a regular water heater stripped of its insulation and painted black. $5 at the hardware store can buy you the plumbing needed to turn this into a shower. A bit more will allow you to hook this straight up to your household water system. More yet will buy you the afore-mentioned commercial system, which is basically a radiator housed in glass (like a greenhouse) that you put on your roof. These systems are so simple, soon enough they will be common place.

I recall reading that the easiest way to make significant cuts was to switch from storing hot water to having an on demand system where water is heated when needed.

I recall reading that the easiest way to make significant cuts was to switch from storing hot water to having an on demand system where water is heated when needed.

I believe it. Part of this probably has to do with wasting less water - I know that I would use less hot water if I had to wait for the water to heat before I showered. As it is, I just have an insulating blanket on my water heater and have the temperature turned way down. I'd like to do more, but as a college student who rents, it just isn't feasible for me to put lots of money into improving the efficiency of my residence.

The article makes a lot of sense and one would hope that it is a wake up call for Americans but it isn't. We are a greedy nation and don't care about much and how it is brought to us. It is true that many on this board or forums may live minimal lifestyles but we are in small numbers. I think it is up to us as individuals to help others change for the better.
The ideals listed above are a great way to go about things. I am like many of you in my thoughts. I minimalize as much as possible. I share food, rent out a room, ride my bike, drive as little as possible and use grey water to water the yard, plants and to flush the toilet. In order to save on the water bill, I make use of the gym showers after a swim. I recently bought a solar shower to use while camping and will use it in my house to save on the use of hot water.

I recall reading that the easiest way to make significant cuts was to switch from storing hot water to having an on demand system where water is heated when needed.

Two problems with the modern tankless systems:
1) The initial cost of one is so high that it far outweighs any savings in monthly bills. According to Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/appliances/heating-cooling-and-air/water-heaters/tankless-water-heaters/overview/tankless-water-heaters-ov.htm) up to 22 years to pay it off.

2) The water has to run longer for the hot water to start coming. This in turn ends up using more water than a tank system.

Not to mention that the water never gets really hot, and fluctuates between cold and luke-warm. (My uncle has one and the thing sucks bad)

The biggest energy difference between Americans and Europeans has to do with expenses related to heating and cooling. A lot of this has to do with the fact that the climate is much more extreme in the US - residential air-conditioning is quite unusual in Europe, and winters in Europe tend to be pretty mild, too.

But heating and cooling a 2500 sq. ft home is a lot more expensive than heating or cooling a 1000 sq. ft home.

Transportation is another difference - the US is much larger and there is much less population density. This means that goods have to travel a lot more to get to to the people.

Compared to these factors, switching to compact fluorescent bulbs won't make much of a difference, particularly if you only have one or two bulbs on at a time anyway.

Outdoor Wood Boiler.

If only...I also use it for heat in the winter/spring/fall and AC in the summer.


If only I could get my rent to that level.

Ha. Yup, the only way to get sub $500/mo apartments in town is to double up, and I'd rather not, so I pay the loner tax.

I recall reading that the easiest way to make significant cuts was to switch from storing hot water to having an on demand system where water is heated when needed.

Just made the leap to a tankless water heater, initial natural gas savings estimates so far are in the 20 to 30 percent range. As with all my energy saving measures, I'll use the savings to help fund other home energy efficiency projects.

Two problems with the modern tankless systems:
1) The initial cost of one is so high that it far outweighs any savings in monthly bills. According to Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/appliances/heating-cooling-and-air/water-heaters/tankless-water-heaters/overview/tankless-water-heaters-ov.htm) up to 22 years to pay it off.

2) The water has to run longer for the hot water to start coming. This in turn ends up using more water than a tank system.

Not to mention that the water never gets really hot, and fluctuates between cold and luke-warm. (My uncle has one and the thing sucks bad)

At the factory 120 degree default setting, our tankless water heater wasn't going to cut it. I was able to override the factory setting to it's max temperature via factory instructions, and eventually I had to reduce the setting to a more comfortable temperature.
In my case, if I only counted the savings from eliminating the pilot light alone, then the 22 year pay off factor applies. Since I bought my tankless water heater at a reduced price, and installed it myself, it'll pay for itself in 5 years at our current natural gas rates.

With proper water pipe insulation, and having been able to put our tankless water heater closer to where it's most needed (the shower), overall water run time has been reduced.

That's good that it worked out for you dynodonn. With a 5 year payoff at current natural gas rates, that period will only get shorter as price of natural gas increases.

20% isn't much at all for an American. In terms of electricity consumption, we would have to cut back 50% to match Europeans, 80% to match the Chinese, and 95% to match Africans.




We could cut 100% and match the neaderthals. We could cut 150% and match the North Koreans, who import electricity from the Chinese at no cost.

roughstuff

So how big a cutback are you saying? Like electricity for only a few hours a day?

And how big an increase in supply? Like double the percentage of GDP for energy?

Well if an average American uses 250kWh per day and we currently produce a tiny fraction of that from sustainable sources ... This implies that huge upheavals of some sort will be necessary to put the country on a sustainable path. There will be an industrialization of the environment on an unimaginably massive scale or a reduction in energy consumption on an unimaginably massive scale, most likely some combination of the two. Exactly how, when and where these upheavals manifest themselves is the question.

For instance, Mackay calculated that England _could_ possibly produce all of its energy needs from sustainable sources -- if they cover a portion of the country the size of Wales with wind farms AND install hundreds of square kilometers of tidal and wave energy farms AND put solar panels on every roof AND put a huge concentrated solar power plant in the Sahara Desert AND cover 75% of the country in biofuel crops ... etc. IOW it is not practically feasible that England will supply itself with renewable energy without a huge decrease in demand. And Americans use twice as much energy per capita as the Brits.

i think the largest outlays of energy are for transportation in this country, aren't they? Goods to market and driving our corpulent selves around in cars a half mile to the store or five miles to work.

i think the largest outlays of energy are for transportation in this country, aren't they? Goods to market and driving our corpulent selves around in cars a half mile to the store or five miles to work.

That is probably where the biggest difference can be made here. But Americans also use a lot of energy heating and cooling structures, and just the American lifestyle -- without the driving -- is very energy intensive compared to the way others live around the world. Shipping food and freight long distances uses much energy. Less than half of this country's oil consumption is burned as gasoline in private vehicles.

These systems are so simple, soon enough they will be common place.

I hope you're right, but it seems like I've been hearing that for thirty years. I wanted to put some panels up on the roof, but the local authorities here in Spain wouldn't let me, claiming they'd be an eye sore.

Does that include heating, AC and hot water?

Of course, as those of us who ride our bikes a lot know, it's fairly easy to cut back on energy used for transit. It's harder to cut back on household use, IMO.

I use neither heat nor AC, so, according to what I've read, the biggest energy hog in my house is the refrigerator. The technology exists, apparently, to make them much more efficient. This company (http://www.sunfrost.com/refrigerators_main.html) sells some that use so little energy they can even be run by solar panels. If only governments would step in and require all manufacturers to do the same.

i think the largest outlays of energy are for transportation in this country, aren't they? Goods to market and driving our corpulent selves around in cars a half mile to the store or five miles to work.

Buildings make up the largest slice of this country's energy pie (in terms of usage)

Two problems with the modern tankless systems:
1) The initial cost of one is so high that it far outweighs any savings in monthly bills. According to Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/appliances/heating-cooling-and-air/water-heaters/tankless-water-heaters/overview/tankless-water-heaters-ov.htm) up to 22 years to pay it off.

2) The water has to run longer for the hot water to start coming. This in turn ends up using more water than a tank system.

Not to mention that the water never gets really hot, and fluctuates between cold and luke-warm. (My uncle has one and the thing sucks bad)

The ones sold here in Europe are quite reasonably priced (http://www.encuentraprecios.es/precio_calefacciones_calentador_agua_gas.aspx) (€220-€300) and will get your water scalding hot if that's what you want.

I agree about having to run the water longer before it starts getting hot. My solution is to catch that cool water in a bucket and use it for watering the plants or flushing the toilet. I've also heard that insulating your pipes helps.

Think everything will get more local in the US. Food and other goods. Already seeing more interest in maintenance/repair than throwing away and getting new. Likely to have additional energy come on line. Ocean or fusion. But I suspect local is the way to go. This long distance transportation of goods and energy is just going to eat us alive.

For things that have to move, wouldn't be surprised if efficient sailing vessels were on the drawing boards.

I certainly think extra money on airports is being thrown away!

At least Interstates are great cycle paths.