US is NOT energy inefficient

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 11 2006, 12:18 AM) [snapback]253320[/snapback]</div>

I've done some research on arthritis and medical science doesn't really know why either form (rhuematoid and osteoarthritis) occurs. While it's reasonable to conclude that diet plays a part in whether you get it or not, it's not conclusive that it is the only factor. I'm curious about what it is in your diet that you believe caused arthritis. If diet was the only factor, it seems that a lot more people would have that type of arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis affects only about 2.1 million people while osteoarthritis affects over 20 million. Rheumatoid arthritis is a systemic disease which means that it begins to invade the other parts of the body. The arthritis foundation's website is very useful for information on what you can do for your condition.

http://www.arthritis.org/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ May 11 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]253376[/snapback]</div>

You quote the WSJ- do you happen to write for them as well? Or do you work for ExxonMobil? What qualifies you to make such a statement? I am a marine and environmental scientist and, while climate change is not my area of specialization, I have studied it extensively. Saying that "global warming is a myth" is akin to saying that evolution is a myth (oh, yes- there are people in this forum that believe that also.)

While we don't know all of the answers, we do know that the temperature of the earth is increasing, that is caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century, and most of that is due to anthropogenic causes. Because the earth is a very complex system, we can't fully predict the effects of melting ice, rising sea levels, changing ocean currents, etc. All of those things feed back into the other effects. But making sweeping statements such as that enables people to drive their big cars, live in their oversized houses, and consume endlessly without guilt. So you go right ahead- we "tree huggers" will worry about how to actually solve the problem.

 

Geez - you guys shouldn't argue with a wall. I'm glad that solar is so worthwhile in NJ, and that you, kirbinster, think (contrary to what most of the media and general public think) that the Prius is a good value. I think that most of us would agree that in the long haul, it will be a great value, and that it's a pretty cool car otherwise. Solar power and the Prius are great choices for the environment and, luckily, great choices for many other reasons as well. Even if the US is pretty efficient now, we can do better, and doing so makes sense for the bottom line as well as the environment. Efficiency pays big dividends, and "settling" for the level of performance we have will do nothing to help a company or the national economy and competitiveness.

 

San Diego Steve-
I'd like to raise a small point about your list of energy policy reforms. It's a good list, but you need to just toss the item about tankless water heaters. I am a home builder in Austin Texas. I only use tankless heaters and have one in my home. They are an improvement over typical tank type heaters, but are only slightly better than the most efficient tank type heaters with 2 or 3 inch insulative jackets. There is definitely a place for tank type heaters. On demand heaters have their own drawbacks, not the least of which is a minimum demand of 15,000 btuh before they will activate. I am looking into heatpump water heaters, which are tank type. They have gotten more efficient and use electricity which makes it possible to use PV to power them. Hot water production is also a very small piece of the energy pie. It seems out of place in your list when the big items such as air conditioning, airtight construction and clothes drying are left off.

On the original topic, it is really silly for anyone that lives in the US and sees the huge amounts of wasted energy that we as a nation squander, to claim that we are an energy efficient nation. I build a very energy efficient home. I drive around and see countless homes that are built that use around four times as many KWh per square foot as the homes I build. This is our inventory of homes that we will suffer with for the next 50-100 years. These aren't cars that will be scrap in 10-15 years. These are anchors that will drain our economy for many generations. The short sighted, bottom line mentallity that is driving our homebuilding decisions will be very expensive to correct and is going to hurt our nation for decades to come. The waste in our automobile inventory can be corrected in a decade as the future energy crisis unfolds.

On a positive note, the energy crisis will be softened and postponed for many years by simply correcting the huge amounts of built in waste in our current way of doing business. After the low hanging fruit is picked, it will become more interesting to see what we will do to try to maintain our lifestyle and our GDP.

 

You're absolutely right. Really, not so much arguing with a wall, but banging my head up against it. I forget that many people have a hard time seeing outside of their own frame of reference...

And kirbinster, I think I have every right to ask people not to jack up my air quality. Until we all live in individual bubbles, and people can breathe their own messes, don't screw with mine when there are other options available. Back when there weren't, then okay...but now...give me a break.

It wouldn't be okay for someone to pump poison into my house...why is okay for them to pump it into the air that we breathe? I absolutely believe in every individual's right to live their life the way they choose UNLESS it hurts others...

[/quote]If you really care about your son stop the ecological babble and work hard to provide for them. Mine will both be going to college shortly and will have no loans or debt because I work hard and provide for them. Hard work and a free economy is the way to a better future, not complaining because someone else gets 7 mpg. In a free economy that is their right.[/quote]

And, in a free society, I can complain about someone screwing with my existence WHILE working hard, providing for my son, AND saving the environment...

It sounds like your ability to multi-task is limited. Put your head back in the sand where it belongs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ May 11 2006, 03:10 AM) [snapback]253376[/snapback]</div>

What non-biased evidence is there to suggest that it's false? Look at the consequences: if Global Warming is a myth, and climate changes are solely just the normal course of the planet, then making changes to reduce green-house emissions have no harm. If emissions do have an effect, although small, then shouldn't we do everything that we can to stop it, or should we just take it as it comes and throw up our hands and wait for armegedon? If emissions are directly responsible for climate changes, then we absolutely have to change.

To me, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that polution has direct effects on both environment (weather) and health. So we better start taking steps to limit polution.

As for people getting 7 MPG, look at it economically. For one, enough people getting 7 MPG when they don't need to leads to higher gas prices for everyone. Second, because of the higher gas prices, food goes up. As more people can no longer afford to work and/or eat, we will have more poverty. When enough people cannot survive, civil war may ensue. At the bare minimun taxes will increase to support the impovershed.

I think your statement about uneconomical existence is simply wrong. In fact, it's good economics to start investing in technologies that polute less, If we can make poluting less more economical than poluting more, we have a gold mine. In the short term, perhaps the next 10 years, it will run as a loss of course. We'd have to pump billions into research and short term solutions. But in the long run, it will pay off. I'd equate it to funding of the first space walk - it took a good 8 years or so after JFK before we got a man on the moon, and that's not counting any money spent before him. In that case, there was no economic incentive - nobody has lined up to buy trips to the moon. But people will line up to buy more efficient vehicles if there is an economic advantage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore @ May 11 2006, 04:37 AM) [snapback]253397[/snapback]</div>

Ray:

Thanks for the input/education. I'd be open to anything that makes sense. I may be a little biased against the tank type hot water heaters - mine went a few weeks ago and leaked all over the garage. But the tankless one was still too expensive to replace it with, even factoring in water heating costs. Of course, I live in San Diego, where the weather is very moderate, and therefore a little insulation around the heater goes along way for me - ambient surrounding temperature is hardly ever below 60. In other areas such as the northeast it may make more sense. But I'm open to anything that doesn't continually waste energy, whatever that technology is. The new water heater is rated about 30% better than the one the builder put in on my 7 year old house, but I think the next one will be tankless or something that aims for 50% of the energy costs of the new one.

You're also right that it's pretty low on the energy list, but it's an easy one to retrofit in existing homes, which of course the majority of the country will be. Anything that can be done to make new homes more energy efficient should be high on the list too.

SD Steve

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore @ May 11 2006, 07:37 AM) [snapback]253397[/snapback]</div>

Hello Ray:

About 2 miles from my hobby farm, a neighbor has a geothermal heat pump system to heat/cool his home. The exchange loops are buried 10 ft down and his total electric bill is around $680 a year.

He has a "de-superheater" on the heat pump loop that goes through a HX to supplement the hot water storage tank. When the heat pump is used to cool/dehumidify, the de-superheater provides plenty of hot water. He can leave the hot water heater breaker off from May-September.

j

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ May 11 2006, 09:40 AM) [snapback]253444[/snapback]</div>

IMHO any modern house (2x6 walls, vapor barrier with accoustic sealant along the sills, all vapor barrier tuck-taped, tight double or triple pane windows, etc) is too "tight" to be healthy without the assistance of mechanical ventilation. The Indoor Air Quality - IAQ - will be very poor, at the very least high humidity levels and mold. Couple the possibility of Radon from the basement and the sump pump pit, and you have major health concerns.

The construction code here is in a state of flux, due to the severe climate (-40 in winter, +95 F in summer, high humidity in summer, etc), and the need to conserve energy. It's recognized up here that homes are a major user of energy and a contributer to GHG.

Currently, homes require Central Exhaust, which means exhaust grilles in the bathrooms, kitchen, and basement, hooked up to a large central exhaust fan, usually controlled by a humidistat. A 6 inch cold air intake is brought into the basement or into the furnace return air duct. Very basic "fresh" air but inefficient, especially in winter.

There is talk of requiring HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilator) in all new home construction. The stale/humid indoor air is passed through a heat exchanger, which warms/cools the incoming fresh air. This is the ultimate in healthy IAQ provided proper filtration is done.

Most HRV's have chunks of foam as "filters." I had a Bryant Evolution system in my former house in the burbs, and I quickly replaced the chunk of foam on the intake side with a Canadian Tire Supreme furnace filter, trimmed to fit. The filter is rated MERV 12 and made a dramatic difference in IAQ.

I retrofitted an HRV in my condo due to the stale air inside, which was fairly easy as they could hide the small HRV in the large walk-in master closet, and poke 2 small holes through the exterior wall at the balcony outside. A shelf was built to hide the ductwork, which ties into the forced air heat exchanger, but it was a pricey retrofit at almost $2,500. New condos being built here have HRV's already installed, as the vast majority of condo buyers are demanding them.

I also have an HRV at my hobby farm, due to concern of leaving the house tightly closed up for long periods. That can cause nasty indoor humidity problems, and that area has tested positive for Radon as well. I programmed the system to cycle every 2 hours, which keeps the house fresh.

About the only problem with HRV's is that wasps, bees, mosquitoes, etc, are attracted to the intake hood and get sucked inside, where they establish nests and breed like crazy. A clunky "solution" is to cut a chunk of window screen to fit the air intake hood, and put the window screen in for the months of April-October.

As Ray Moore will caution, what works in Manitoba will NOT work in a hot humid climate. An ERV is necessary, an HRV will actually cause humidity problems in the home. There are other differences too, it all depends on how cold your climate gets in winter. Hope this helps

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ May 11 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]253376[/snapback]</div>

You appear to be misinformed. Your "opinion" is copntradicted by:

NASA
NOAA
All the Kyoto nations
The UN
The vast majority of scientists who study climate for a living
George W. Bush (unless he's lying again)

And you may want to consider these quotes from the United States Deparetment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Institution website.
"Is the climate warming? Yes."
and
"recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years."
and
"Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1 to 2 mm/year over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years."

And this from NASA:

http://www.scenta.co.uk/scenta/news.cfm?ci...5644862587751TR

and:

"NASA-led scientists say ocean data ties manmade emissions to warmer Earth"
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/

And consider the following based on information from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

"Stark Effects From Global Warming
CO2 emissions are causing oceans to warm, ocean chemistry to change, and rainfall patterns to shift"
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i12/8312globalwarming.html

and

"Studies confirm global warming underway"
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...143&sid=5548239

Or this from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies
"2005 Warmest Year in Over a Century"
http://grounds-mag.com/news/warmest_year_030706/

But I'm sure you are better informed than they are....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 10 2006, 09:34 AM) [snapback]252837[/snapback]</div>

I was just looking through the many different threads and found this, which seems to be odd:

1 kWh of coal emits 2.095 lbs of CO2...
...depending on how completely it is burned,
...depending on how much other energy is used for smog abatemement,
...depending on the method of generation, for that matter (assume steam turbine?).

But compared to a gallon of gas...apples and oranges, friend. Best way to compare is the EPA method...BTUs. Does 1 kWh of coal (minus appropriate energy for smog abatement hardware) indeed equal the thermal output of the burning of 1 gallon of gas?

Oh, and by the way, have you ever seen a 'pound' of CO2? Let me tell you something. In working with the EPA, the measurements we get regarding pounds of this and that are calculations, not physical measurements of the emissions. The amount of CO2 is arrived at by a rather complex formula using molecular weights along with the amount of fuel used, available Oxygen, and so forth. This goes for pounds of NOx, SOx, as well as CO2.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...0.1.1.4&idno=40Appendix G, Equasion G-1 or G-4
(ps...we burn natural gas out here in California to make electric power. Somebody needs to change their fuels.)

 

Jayman, Kirbinster, & Ray,

Any advice to offer regarding best replacement for an old water heater, that will eventually become part of a PV array ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finally_got_one @ May 11 2006, 10:20 AM) [snapback]253519[/snapback]</div>

I think that you're missed the point. My point was this...

Citizen A has a 5 kW PV array on his house that produces as much energy as he uses in his house. He drives an H2 40 miles in stop and go traffic each day, getting about 8 MPG.

Citizen B has a house that uses 400 kWh/month. All of that electricity comes from a coal fired power plant. He drives about 50 mi each week in a Prius and gets 50 MPG.

So which one produces more CO2? One is creating a lot by buring gasoline in a car. The other produces a large amount via coal and a smaller amount of gasoline.

So I'm comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 emissions. I dont' care what the source is. That's irrelevant.

Here's my source. I'm using the 1999 figures.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/p...t.html#electric


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ May 11 2006, 05:41 AM) [snapback]253381[/snapback]</div>

Actually, inflammatory diseases are popping up all over the place. I probably have a genetic predisposition for it, for sure. It's not diet alone, you're right. But there are a number of studies that suggest that reduction of pro-inflammtory checmicals in the body (omega-6 fatty acids and insulin for example) and an increase in anti-inflammatory chemicals (omega-3 fatty acids) helps a lot. In the modern American diet the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is about 20:1. They should be about 1:1. So that, coupled with a faulty gene may well be a big contributor to the problem. Other research indicates that a virus and subsequent autoimmune response triggers the onset. Diet would exascerbate the problem. Thanks for the link.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 11 2006, 12:56 PM) [snapback]253707[/snapback]</div>

Now the big question is did the faulty gene come around because of environmental factors?? Or perhaps activated due to environment? Of course nobody knows the answer, but something to think about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kirbinster @ May 11 2006, 08:40 AM) [snapback]253444[/snapback]</div>

Kirbinster-
The Rinnai is 88% efficient with 0 standby losses. Here is a link. http://www.foreverhotwater.com/products.shtml

The Super E is 94 or 95% efficient with standby losses according to size. The small 45 gallon unit loses 180 btuh and the 80 gallon unit loses 320 btuh. They don't report flue losses but it may be insignificant. Usually it is quite high. Which unit do you use and how much did it cost. The capacities are very similar. The Rinnai is 180,000 btu and the Super E is 199,000. The Rinnai heats 6 GPM at a 50 degree rise. The Super E does not give a figure but it should be about 6.6 GPM. If the lost heat from your unit is adding heat to your building then it is good in the winter and bad in the summer. The Rinnai can be installed outside. The Super E must be placed inside the building, taking up valuable space at a cost of about 12 sq ft times the cost per square foot. Because the Rinnai is installed outside, the cost of installation will not need to include exhaust venting, combustion air venting, condensate drain line, drain pans and lines or PTR piping. If it ever leaks it will be to the exterior. The unit is protected from freezing down to minus 30F as long as there is power to the unit. The rinnai uses a very small amount of electrical power while the Super E requires a 10 electric service to operate the fan that helps it to achive it's high efficiency. There are lot's of upsides to the Rinnai tankless.

On the issue of energy efficient housing, I use an inexpensive system of building a home that allows us to achieve energy consumption levels of 1/4 KWh per square foot per month in Austin TX. My home is 4000 square feet and I average just 1000 KWh per month. The home is extremely airtight, allowing us full control over our indoor air quality. We use mechanical ventilation to provide filtered air from outside at a rate that we control. We control the relative humidity to stay at 50% or less, year round. When tested, the air in one of our homes had a tiny fraction of the airborne mold spores that were found outside. The outdoor air tested at 3900 parts per cubic meter while the bedroom tested at 210 parts. The living room tested at 113 parts and the basement tested at 13 parts per cubic meter. The mold that was found in the home was being brought in on the kids clothing. Contaminants from offgassing of materials was measured at very low levels.

The total cost of electricity for our home for one year is $1,200 with propane costs at $200 annually. Our gasoline bill was $2,400 dollars last year. We both drive Prius. In our household, further reductions will require a newer model refrigerator or a significant change in lifestyle. There is really no economic incentive at this point to make further improvements. I now make my improvements by helping others to improve existing or build new energy efficient homes on a pro bono basis.

Jay- It sure is good to see your posts. You really are the man.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore @ May 11 2006, 06:11 PM) [snapback]253805[/snapback]</div>

People helping people. I love it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore @ May 11 2006, 04:11 PM) [snapback]253805[/snapback]</div>

Ray: If you ever make it to San Diego, I'd love to hear your ideas on cost effective ways to make the house more fuel efficient.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ray Moore @ May 11 2006, 07:11 PM) [snapback]253805[/snapback]</div>

Ray:

Unfortunately my new contract at work requires much more overseas travel. I'm off this Monday for another 2 weeks. Sorry to say my posts will become more infrequent as time goes on

There was/is a popular Canadian band from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, called The Northern Pike. They had a song in '83 "The Things I Do For Money." Kind of scary how my career is reflecting that song.

j