Sincere Question - Straight Answer

I think you raise some great questions.

My first reaction is, if we had a cogent energy/tax policy that forced us through a carbon tax, to pay the "real" cost of our choices. If we were to pay these real costs, then more environmentally friendly choices would be more cost effective.

I had a client the other day who was contemplating Pv solar for his house. It turns out his gird power cost him $.07kwh, about 1/5 of what peak power costs in CA, not counting any carbon tax! With such artificially low energy costs, flying, boating snowmobiling etc are "cheap" entertainment, but at a very high environmental cost.

So as I tell everyone, do all the conservation you can, then do some more and then consider solar water heat, passive and active solar space heat, and then consider Pv solar.

Icarus

 

Changing people's attitudes is the hardest part. It's sadly ironic we have to destroy nature while we think we're out appreciating it. We really don't need all that 'stuff', especially the power toys. The best holiday I ever had was cycling down the West coast to San Francisco. I carried everything I needed on the bike, and the only fuel I used was the occasional burn of an LPG canister. Many a late afternoon, I'd roll into a campsite past people in garish monstrosities, some bigger than apartments I'd lived in, both of us shaking our heads at the other. Even most of the kids thought being a thousand miles from home, alone on a bicycle, was nuts. Even now, when I've lowered myself to camping with a car, the wardens walk away muttering when I refuse their offers of firewood by saying "No thanks. I came to look at the trees, not burn them."

You can probably guess what I think of powerboating, fourwheeling, and snowmobiling. Not that I don't enjoy lakes, rivers, and mountains, because I do, very much, but I visit them with a canoe, a mountain bike, or hiking boots. The slower you go, the more you see.

 

Felt,

Don't discount solar in climates other than the Southwest. Many parts of the world have very good insolation on an annual basis. There are some nuance differences in the ability to use active and passive solar heat, and Pv solar, but on balance solar is perfectly viable most every where. The economics are in question often because of the aforementioned artificially low energy prices.

For example in the damp grey Pac.NW we run a home made flat plat solar water heater that cost ~$500 and contributes ~75% of our hot water on an annual basis. (150% in the summer, 30% in the winter)

We also live about 1/2 the year off grid in Northern Canada where we are 100% solar electricity. Counterintuitively, we have much better Pv harvest in the winter, largely due to cold Pv temps (Pv is more ef at lower temps) and reflection off of snow and ice.

I suggest that you play with the following link. It gives you a real time solar averages for almost every location in N. america, giving perspective payoff times etc.

PVWatts v. 2

Actually, V1 may be easier to use:http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/

Icarus

Also be advised that even if your house is built to "modern" codes, these energy codes are usually a compromise between builders who want to build as cheaply as possible and code writers who may have a "greener" agenda. So in most houses there are TONS of places to work around the edges to increase energy eff. Extra insulation, demand hot water heat, ground source heat pumps, water heat capturing heat pumps, insulated night shades for windows, heat capturing air exchangers, and on and on and on! As I have always suggested, little of this is exotic or space age technology, and in the net is not very expensive. For example, adding an additional 6" of attic insulation is a matter of a few cents per square foot, and the payoff is huge. Most such things will have a payoff in a matter of months, if not a couple of years! The reality is it is incumbent on us to push the matter forward as I don't think we are likely to see much real leadership from governments on this subject.

I would finally add, that it is much easier to mobilize a local government to action than it is a larger state/federal one. If you care, work actively in your community to move your community forward. Encourage better local energy codes, encourage local PUC/PUD to enact "real cost" energy pricing, time of day metering, net metering for alternative energy systems tied to the grid. Clearly local government, particularly on the west coast have taken the lead on this issue. Despised by many, but Seattle, Vancouver, Portland have become leaders in brining these changes to the local curb stone, and it was pushed by an active populist. If you care, do all you can.

 

Straight Question-Crooked Answer

I think your questions contain the biggest problem facing finding viable solutions to global warming. You posed these questions saying upfront you don't want to debate the existence of Global Warming, you just want to discuss "solutions". You closed by saying you are genuinely interested in where the Global Warming debate is headed. That in my opinion illustrates the problem any solution has in finding any traction.

First of all, Global Warming is what? It's global. In my opinion it's a world wide problem which is going to take a world wide commitment to address. Therefore when talking about solutions, we must take into account the debate. I don't think we will be able to move towards any meaningful resolution until that debate is more or less put to bed.

We can talk about what we ourselves have done, Prius ownership, Energy Efficient Appliances and so forth...and we can talk about what some cities, countys, states and even countries have done, Microcosm and Macrocosm but until we get a world wide general consensus that Global Warming is a problem, that it is real, then I'm afraid solutions will fall short. What is it we tell individuals? The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one? Until the debate is resolved or at least removed from the concious battleground of economic and political agenda, then unfortunately I don't think any meaningful solutions will be employed on the scale needed to initiate actual change.

That being said, all the things mentioned are steps in the right direction. I suppose even in the microcosm of an individual, a town, city, state or country, any move supporting our enviroment and the planet has benefit. One would not want to use the enormity and complexity of Global Warming to simply sidestep looking for solutions or remedy. But it is my contention that we can't ignore the debate. It's the biggest road block to real solution.

I know this is not the answer the OP wanted. Unfortunately it's part of the reality of dealing with a large problem and a world inwhich agenda of people and government is often manipulated by forces motivated often by economic, financial and political factors that are often counter to enviromental well being.

So my crooked answer is that I'm not saying the "solution glass" is half empty, or half full....I'm saying we need to get the majority of people believing we need a glass. I worry about this because in my opinion history has shown humanity can be very resitant to this type of change, it taking painful almost undeniable problems before people reach consensus and really work for solution.

 

NIMBY trumps all other philosophies. It shouldn't, but it does.

 

Felt
For the purpose of the question ... we accept that GW is an accepted fact. Not interested in debating GW.

The debate is all in the public media. The scientific concensus has been solidifying for quite some time.


Within the GW advocates, is a hybrid considered insufficient? Is an EV ultimately considered to be the only viable solution?

The problem isn't that simple. The answers won't be simple either. For me, in my location, at this point in time, a hybrid is as good as it gets. Other people/times/places may do better.


A writer for the NY Times, advocates limiting families to one child. Is that gaining any traction?

China did that, it is a smashing success for them, but it is hard to imagine it happening elsewhere.


Just this week we read that it has been proposed that we all become vegitarians. Is that the position of GW advocates?

It might help (depends how you feed the cow), but it's not the sort of thing you can force on people.


Wind generators, geo-thermal, tides, hydro and capturing the sun's heat are all viable sources within geographic limitations. What are the proposed alternative in portions of the country where these natural resources are not available?

High voltage transmission lines and gas pipelines, the same ones they use now.


... The Prius cannot pull any... vehicles and/or trailers, and an EV would be even less likely to do so.

Diesel locomotives are all hybrids. They tow things. The Prius was not designed as a towing/plowing vehicle. Maybe this is an open market niche for Detroit to fill.


Amid GW concerns, are there ways to accommodate the

airline

Don't know what to do about airlines. Maybe I'll start closer to home.


tourist industry?;

Scenic buggy rides?


cruise lines?;

Wind jammers?


professional sports?

Bus/train/subway? I think we can still keep the Olympic torch though (G)


This is a genuinely interested in where the GW debate is headed ....

It's headed towards saving our donkey while we still have one. The only thing that we really agree on, that I know of, is that we should stop blindly screwing around with the composition of the atmosphere. We know that the old composition worked good and was basically agreeable, and it also has outstanding sentimental value.

 

On a personal basis, you can limit your eneergy consumption as much as possible.

There are some utilities which will compare your consumption to those of neighbors; this will give a benchmark for consumption, although you do need to take family size into account.

Installing solar power is a conundrum for me; since our power bill is about $30 per month, solar power makes no economic sense. I spoke with the solar power seller in Costco, and he immediately said my energy use does not justify solar power, under current law. Perhaps that would change if I had a plug-in hybrid, and I could sell my excess power to SO Cal Edison.

Knowing your 'carbon foot print' can give you personal hints on how to make changes. In my case, air travel and driving (even my Prius) are the most significant sources for energy consumption.

I don't think you need go vegan, but beef production is energy (or perhaps carbon) intensive. The solution could be less beef, and more expensive beef. How meat is produced is not always apparent, but certainly 'grass-fed', if properly defined is better.

I think a change in social values is needed. Why do we strive to have the maximum financial wealth possible? Is it admirable to own multiple homes? To own the most, best largest etc? What material wealth is desirable?

 

NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard (No solution should effect me, my scenery, or my property values) Sorry, it is a very old acronym, I thought everyone knew it. No matter what project you have: High speed rail, Wind farms, solar collectors, high voltage line, etc. NIMBY means you can't do that.

 

This caught my eye and I have to point out that this is nonsense. Electric motors are far better for towing than any other type of motor. Locomotives are massive electric motors powered by diesel generators. The reason for this, as I understand it, is that electric motors have massive torque at very low RPM. In fact, it's for this reason that the Prius has decent acceleration. Without the electric motor (MG2) the Prius would have very poor acceleration because an Atkinson cycle petrol engine has very low torque at low RPM. Its the synergy between MG2 and the petrol engine that gives the "synergy drive system" it's name, I believe.

Just wanted to put that one to bed. An EV should really have far better towing characteristics than a similarly sized petrol or diesel powered vehicle.

 

Don't take this as a personal attack Felt, because it isn't directed at you. But I'm always surprised by the number of people who say they are concerned about the environment,etc yet have lots of new stuff all the time (e.g. I'm always asking: why do you have a new cellphone/electronics gadget/iPod/etc every 9 months?).

I'm happy you know the value of good insulation though

 

A little off-topic, but the NYTimes reporter (Andrew Revkin) raisedd the one-child question as follows: "As I put it in the Wilson event: “Should you get credit — if we’re going to become carbon-centric — for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three. And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”

- Those who disagree (andn I am putting this mildly) jumped on him, equeated him to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Satan, etc. The statement was taken out of context, big-time. See Natural Resources and the Environment - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com for details.

 

That's one of the things that has to change too... this obsession with 'stuff', and 'new' stuff at that.

When you need a tool, device, etc., before you go to the store, do you check the thrift shop? How about Craigslist? Freecycle? Maybe you can make do with a similar thing you already own and just improvise, or perhaps go knock on your neighbor's door and ask if you can borrow his (while making community at the same time). In short, we need a global attitude change about 'stuff'.

Oh, and here's an idea for you too... take out the lawn (if you have one) and put in a veggie producing garden with a few fruit trees to boot.

 

Without getting too OT, this is false. What is accurate is that some opponents are using environmentalism as their excuse for objecting to the project. All of the major environmental interest groups are in support, and are some of the strongest advocates.

Please be careful when using generic terms.

 

Economics is the only "science" that is predicated on the notion that unlimited growth is not only possible, but desirable! Living well with less is a much smarter goal. I heard a stat once that suggested that of all the stuff you buy today (or any day) 99% will be gone within 12 months. Not just food and consumables, but "durables" as well. This includes packaging and products.

So buying junk just to keep some minimum wage guy employed at WallMart is not smart. The reality is, in North America, there is plenty of "wealth" to go around. Plenty to feed, cloth and house every one. The problem is that it is concentrated in too few hands. (No I am not a commie, I am just making the observation!!!)

We live a very comfortable middle class lifestyle on about 1/2 the income of our peers. We do this by not buying stuff we don't need! We also make choices that have benefits (even beyond us) going forward. Buying a Prius instead of a SUV like my brother. Solar heat and solar hot water, both of which came at some small up front cost, but over time allows us to live "more cheaply".

If everyone lived like we did, the "economy" would come to a screeching halt, but, in the long run, the world would be a better place.

Think globally, but act locally!

Icarus

 

When the option is available the easiest thing that the average person can do is to contract with their electric utility to provide 100% renewable or non-fossil electricity. A coal-fired power plant releases almost two pounds of CO2 for every kW-hr of delivered electricity. At 50 MPG a Prius releases one pound of CO2 for every 2.5 miles driven. Check your electric bill and odometer and do the math for your own situation.