First, an apology:

I had promised Snave that I would discuss wind energy, and I hope to in a few days. However, I'm still focused on my previous topic, and wanted to expand upon some highly mature technologies that could lead to huge savings in energy. The two technologies in particular are geothermal heat pumps/water heaters and earth-sheltered homes. I will address the geothermal heat pumps and water heaters first.

I lumped geothermal heat pumps and water heaters in the same category since they're essentially the same technology applied differently, and, according to an industry group, an increasing number of professional installers are doing both. I'll get back to that later, but for now, I'll instead link to the Department of Energy's page on this topic. Granted, these are 1996 dollars, but Keith Swilley of Panama City, FL, homeowner spent only $253 in one YEAR on heating and cooling costs, and the PDF is available on the aforementioned site. At the 1996 rate of $0.06/kWh in Panama City, FL, this works out to a total of just over 4200 kWh per year consumed for heating and, more commonly in this climate, cooling. I cited this example because that city is just a bit to the east of me, and the climates are about as close to identical. Put another way, we're both on the Gulf Coast and within the same network television viewing area, albeit on different ends. Let that sink in for a moment: 4200 kWh per year for heating and cooling in one of the hottest, most humid climates in the U.S. Add to this the fact that this type of heat pump is even more efficient at heating homes than it is at cooling homes, and you get some truly startling numbers for those who live farther north. I promised a link to an industry site for geothermal heat pumps, so I've chosen their FAQ page. Since this industry site is also referenced on the DOE page, I believe this site can be trusted to provide accurate and reliable information, as well as additional resources not available on the DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.

Next is the concept of earth-sheltered homes. Since this is one of the cases where Wikipedia serves as an excellent and well-organized resource for information, here is a link to their article. If executed well, this can provide an energy savings approaching 80%, but the key term is "executed well." Perhaps the most famous example is Bill Gates' house, a feat as ambitious as it was funny in one of its side-effects: The permits required pushed his hometown to a Linux-based document management system. I may finally stop laughing about that in a few years. Still, the concept behind earth-sheltered homes is sound, and may partially or totally eliminate the need for any type of artificial heating or cooling, though ventilation and moisture control are issues that are particularly critical for this type of construction. Should I have the resources to build my dream home, this will probably be the type of home I will build.

As an additional bonus, I have included an additional link to a page devoted to screw-in fluorescent light bulbs, detailing their environmental benefits. Energy efficiency isn't just about the big things. Sometimes, it can be about something as simple as screwing in a light bulb. It's easy, and depending on usage, the return on investment can be as little as two to three weeks even before you factor in the savings caused by not having to replace the incandescent bulbs as often Please look to the left of the page for more information.

Negawatts

According to a Wikipedia article, this was term first coined by Amory Lovins. I know, it sounds a bit weird, but the concept is actually fairly straightforward, and is covered in decent depth by the aforementioned article, and in more depth by the links within it. After reading up on Mr. Lovins, my only surprise is that more people don't know who he is. He is simply brilliant, and his ideas are both sensible and easily practical. The gist of the "negawatt" concept is creating a market for increased energy efficiency, essentially decreasing our power generation needs by achieving the same or even better results by using less energy. For a personal example, we recently replaced a 40-watt incandescent bulb with a 9-watt screw-in fluorescent bulb. This light is on all the time so that people can actually see when they're walking through the kitchen. Assuming 10 cents per kWh, that one bulb will save right around $30 in energy costs and about 272 kWh of energy over the course of the next year. What's more, that bulb puts out much better light than the bulb it replaced. Multiply that by a household, or a workplace, or a town or city, and you get the picture. Sometimes, it's just as simple as turning off lights in rooms you're not in, and using natural lighting when possible. Other times, it's keeping the air conditioning at a higher setting and using fans. It's mostly simple, it makes sense, and it can have a huge impact. Also, if applied widely enough, it can prevent the need for additional power plants. Living simply doesn't always mean living uncomfortably, or doing without conveniences to which we have become accustomed. Sometimes, it means just being a little more thoughtful about the way we go about things.

I have added several links to the sidebar. I strongly encourage visiting all of them. I especially recommend visiting Journey to Forever. I have found it an invaluable resource on biofuel production, and I'm sure you'll find the same. I'm not sure if the links will open in a new window or not because I didn't do the code. Instead, I let Blogger do all the work just because I'm feeling a bit lazy today. :)

Welcome.

The inspiration for this blog was, as was the case with my other, less structured blog, pure ego. :) But seriously... Ugh, save us all from environmentalists and others concerned about the environment who are so serious about EVERYTHING! Where was I? Oh yeah. The real reason I created this was as a forum for ideas. I've read a great deal of information on various environmental concerns, and unlike the increasingly radical modern environmental movement, I wanted to discuss things in a reasoned, rational manner. As I said above, if I've found information elsewhere, I'll cite it.

The reason I chose this name was because I envision a world where technology is used to enhance the environment and crop productivity, though not through the use of pesticides. I'm also not entirely opposed to the genetic modification of organisms, as long as it takes place in a sane and reasoned manner. This has been occurring for countless centuries and will continue to do so. The most significant difference is that much of it now occurs on a far shorter timescale. All that said, the technology to which I am principally referring in the name of my blog is information technology. Also, I believe that we need to respect and honor the ways of our ancestors, and to do that, I believe we need to look at how they did things, see what they did right, and figure out ways to do them better in a responsible, sustainable manner. I see this as key not only to preserving our heritage for the generations to come, but also as a core principle for manned exploration of the rest of the solar system.

Over the coming days, I will be adding previous postings on this and related topics, and when I have something new to say, I won't be shy. For my visitors on this blog, I only ask the same, and that you be courteous and try to leave this site better than you found it, whether that be in the form of insightful commentary, links to other resources, or even a joke or funny story. I don't bite... much. :P

More thoughts about biofuel production:

This is probably more relevant to home-brewed ethanol production, or at least more easily accomplished in this setting, for both fuel and... entertainment purposes, but here are a few ideas I had about some of the wastes from the fermentation process. Since, unless someone is just figuring it out or they're completely barmy, this will be occurring in a dedicated building, and since the fermentation process produces significant amounts of carbon dioxide, why not duct the waste air to a rooftop garden? If there is an engineering solution, perhaps allow the fans to be powered by the heat generated by the fermentation, but if not, other non-polluting energy sources would be good. Eventually, a compost heap could be created on the roof from the waste plant matter, and any excess compost could be lowered to the ground via a chute or a simple, human-powered pulley system. And, again, since this will be a fairly warm building, the composting process will take less time than it might otherwise in certain climates. I'm just thinking of ways to minimize the ecological impact of ethanol production, and perhaps, to find a way to make a single organic farm into a concept that could eventually be used to send people to colonize the stars... Yes, I have heard of the Biosphere, but they clearly fucked up, and part of that may be that they tried to be too cute about it. Perhaps if they had asked farmers as well as scientists, or perhaps if they had made proper use of their scientists, it may not have been such a spectacular failure.

Some questions about biofuels:

I've been reading up on this subject for quite a while now, and my favorite site is Journey to Forever. Frankly, if there's a better website out there on this topic, I haven't seen it. However, I do have some lingering questions, and if anyone who visits this blog regularly knows anyone with the answers, I'd be interested to find out. The questions are as follows: To create ethanol from any raw feedstock (cane sorghum, sugar beets, etc.), how many units of water are required to produce a unit of ethanol? After distillation, can that water be reclaimed and used for other purposes (drinking, etc.)? How many BTU's per unit of ethanol are required for the distillation process? Are there non-petrochemical denaturants or stabilizers for ethanol? Would a mild gelling agent reduce vapor loss of ethanol, and would this cause more problems for an internal combustion engine? Is there an environmentally-friendly bactericide to prevent losses of stored biodiesel? Finally, which engines can run on butanol, an alcohol that can be made with both cellulose and starch/sugars? I'm strongly in favor of biofuels, and I can envision the day when the United States becomes a net exporter of fuel and energy, much like the Middle East is today, only with much better human rights. I just don't know all the answers.

11 September, 2005: Politics, Environment, and Biodiesel

Now, for something that was actually part of the title of the post, I've expressed my support for biodiesel and PHEV's (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles) in the past. I encourage everyone to join the California Cars Initiative group on Yahoo, as I find it has some seriously thought-provoking material. In the 135th post on that group, the fourth point referred to "a 'neo-con-green' alliance of environmentalists and national-security conservatives who see it as the best way to rapidly reduce consumption of foreign oil." I guess I don't quite fit into either of the groups referenced in that alliance, but that's nothing new. Those of you who read my blog know that I stubbornly refuse to fit neatly into any category. So as for me, I see strong arguments in favor of both the neo-cons and the environmentalists supporting PHEV's. Reducing smog and our dependence on foreign energy sources is good for the nation as a whole. However, that also ignores the positive human rights implications of PHEV's. A reduced demand for petrochemicals equates to reduced funding for regimes that treat women as chattel at best and treat all of their people with the exception of their ruling classes like shit. Reducing the money available to tyrants is a good thing. My personal preference would be to see diesel-electric hybrids be at the forefront, since, with my admittedly limited understanding, biodiesel can be used straight in many, if not most, existing diesel engines and all newer diesels. Journeytoforever.org is a good site for information on this topic. Also, Biodiesel.org is a good trade site owned by the National Biodiesel Board and has some interesting information. Also, even as old as he is, Willie Nelson is still kinda cool. Thankfully, such sites and other car sites exist, because my actual knowledge of cars is limited to adding and checking the oil, gasoline, and antifreeze, and changing the air filter. Somehow, that makes me feel less manly than I'd prefer, but I guess we each have our own knowledge base and things that make us curious, and the drive to expand the former and satisfy the latter. In my case, the first is esoteric, the second encompasses very nearly everything, and the third is sorely lacking in this regard.

August 17, 2005: Plug-In Hybrids

There was a time when I thought the only thing I would have in common with California was a President and our probable hatred of modern country music. Then, I read an article on Yahoo News about plug-in hybrid vehicles. I think, in particular, that a Toyota spokesperson's comparison of the do-it-yourself plug-in hybrid modifiers to the hot-rodders of yesteryear is particularly apt. Furthermore, this has the advantage over hydrogen-powered vehicles in that it uses existing technology, and has as an advantage over liquid propane-powered vehicles in that the gasoline/diesel infrastructure is more than established, and also would not require much of a shift in the mindset of the general public. For more information, I strongly recommend following the link at the bottom of the article, the California Cars Initiative.

I've said before that my main support for alternative fuels has been because it reduces our dependence on the whims of nations whose leaders don't like us very much and haven't, regardless of the party affiliation of the president, in my lifetime. Also, if there's a less wasteful way of getting something done, I'm in favor of it.

March 19, 2005: Problems with a large segment of the Environmental Movement

The largest, by far, of the myriad problems with the modern environmental movement is that their leaders have displayed virtually no strategic ability, and those few that do are the ones way out on the fringe. To quote from Yeats' poem "The Second Coming," "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity." The natural allies of the environmentalist movement are the hunters and fishers, those who directly benefit from nature and actually go there for something more than just a photo op. You'll find among them the most avid, most sensible conservationists around; yet the two groups are too often separate, and that's largely the fault of environmentalist groups who turn their noses up at the people doing the real work. Combine that with the alarmist tendencies of even the more moderate of the groups, and it's easy to see why they've made so little headway over the years. So how do we solve this problem? First, get the intellectuals and the hunters/fishers/growers together to determine what the problems are and how best to solve them. Second, use language those in power understand. For example, in the case of oil, I feel the best way to increase investment in alternative fuels is to mention the fact that this resource is controlled, for the most part, by nations that have a very shoddy record on human rights and whose people and/or leaders have shown less than a lot of love for us. And finally, SOUND REASONABLE AND PROPOSE REASONABLE SOLUTIONS!!!

I love the environment, and any useful, feasible, legal, and honorable means to preserve the environment are pretty okay in my book. However, whenever the steps used to "correct" problems end up causing more harm than good, I won't pretend that it's good or makes sense. A prime example of this is paper recycling. It requires far more chemicals and energy to convert post-consumer paper into usable paper than it does to fell trees and make new paper from the fresh pulp. And since 90% of all paper is made from trees that were grown on tree farms owned or leased by the paper companies, trees that were grown for the express purpose of being felled and used for this purpose, all of the arguments in favor of recycling paper fall flat. Any "solution" that requires more money, energy, and resources than the original "problem" is not a solution at all; it's just an exacerbation of a problem. That isn't to say that I'm against using something that was originally used for one purpose to fulfill another purpose. That would just be stupid. I'm all in favor of taking, for example, used paper that has no confidential information on it, cutting it up, and having it used for scratch paper. But taking it to have it recycled, where it will be subjected to all sorts of nasty chemicals that will have to be dumped somewhere, creating more direct waste in the form of those toxic wastes and indirect waste in the form of the byproducts of the energy that's needed to operate these facilities... That makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I won't pretend that it does.

Summed up as succinctly as I know how, I'm in favor of people using their heads for something more than holding their hats. Too bad that doesn't happen as often as we'd like.