Electricity vs Kerosene

Kerosene is fuel oil. It's what we burned in street lamps back before Edison's light bulb. Gasoline is car fuel, back before batteries. The similarities are striking.

Boiled down, alternative energy really takes two forms, electrons or liquids. Liquids are represented by bio diesel or ethanol concepts to fill the vast network we already have for the distribution of liquid energy.

But, electrons also take advantage of a huge network for distribution.

But back in the day, we had kerosene lamps that we filled, lamp by lamp down the street, and lit. Similar to how a big shiny tanker truck pulls up to every gas station and deposits a few thousand gallons of fuel into a tank today. We then pull in, fuel up and light it with the starter.

Lets look at this in more detail:

1. People drill a hole in the ground and pump up oil and put it into a truck.
2. The truck goes to a terminal where its pumped in pipelines or loaded on ships to be sent to a refinery.
   
3. There it's refined into gas or diesel and and again loaded into a pipeline, ship or truck.
   
4. From there it makes its way to another terminal where it's put into truck that takes it to your local gas station.

Pretty much like a kerosene lantern on the streets of Philadelphia in the 1800's.

Now electrons:

1. Wind mill makes electricity that travels over wires to your home where you plug in your car.

Hmmm...let's see...I get fuel for my car from a wire at home instead of driving around looking for a refueling station? I'm pretty sure that's how the kerosene lamp died. It just made too much sense to run a wire into the lamp and put in a bulb.

If you really want to simplify it:

1. Solar panel on roof makes electrons that we convert to AC and fuel our car!

It seems kinda silly that we have been taking our lamp to a gas station for fuel doesn't it? It also seems dumb to truck the gas to the gas station. It's kinda like banking before ATMs, credit cards and online access, there were just bags of money.

So why do we still live with this antiquated fuel concept for our transportation? Two words...big oil. They are the ones who own the entire infrastructure and depend on it to generate huge profits. They need us to drive down to a station of theirs and pay the price they set. They do everything in their power to keep this status quo.

But, there will be a time when we will all laugh about the antiquated car fueling structure we hung on to for so long. We will fuel our cars at home any time we want to at a price we have negotiated or with power we have generated ourselves.

I can't wait.

Peak oil

I love stories in the press about "peak oil". They are always presented like we have no choice but to drill baby drill.

Peak oil is a simple concept, when will we burn more oil per day than we pump out of the ground? If you're today's press, a little fear mongering is a great way to develop a headline or two.

The argument, (today's press's bread and butter) is that there is plenty of oil, or, we have already reached peak. Our latest oil shock was partially attributable to the demand issues of an emerging China and India. Many felt the peak was reached and the price of oil reflected that. The press ran with that worldwide.

But let's step back for a minute. Is the real issue peak oil? Or is the real issue peak demand? When will we humans stop growing our demand for oil? Or, more importantly, when will the nation that leads the free world, the US, reach peak demand?

So, do we have to drill our way to the last drop?

That is entirely our choice. We are not destined to run out of oil, or fight more wars over it. It's not pre-ordained. We are not locked in to a peak oil economy!

So I reject the idea that it's a supply issue and I reject the notion that we are stuck here. We all know that oil in every form is bad for our environment, bad for our geo politics, bad for our image around the world, bad for our soldiers and bad for our economy. What once was the engine of our growth is now a millstone around our neck.

Before we can address this challenge let's at least get it defined correctly. It isn't how much oil is out there or who we have to fight to get it...it's how much we use. And we have a choice about that, and, we should support every effort to reduce it. Alternate forms of energy are out there and they are becoming more competitive every day.

New mileage standards

Today's green headlines talk a lot about new aggressive mileage standards for vehicles in the US, and California.

We have had mileage standards for many years yet we are far behind the rest of the world on this front. In addition:

Our car makers are on life support.

We import a huge amount of oil.

The city of Dallas regularly exceeds its air pollution standards.

The question is...are all those things caused by the vagaries of the market or is it in fact the problem with government rule making? Is the government able to implement and manage complex market changing regulation when large scale business is involved?

The answer is no.

Our car makers are a huge industry with a lot of political clout. They are union labor which has huge political clout. The foreign car makers doing business in our markets have clout. The oil companies who depend on the car business have huge clout. All the tertiary businesses connected to cars represent a large amount of voters.

With all of that monetary and voter pressure to "do whats right " for the auto industry, what politician could do anything different than be highly sensitive to their wishes?

We now have a 650 page initial document on new vehicle mileage standards and it will surely grow as it goes through the public comment stage. Why 650 pages? Its all the "considerations" of the industry as described.

We all know that the SUV craze was caused by the government exempting this group from the lower car mileage standards. The regulation caused Detroit to focus on big cars and trucks and make more money with them because they had little foreign competition. They became dependent on that revenue stream that dried up with the $4.00 gas price. This crippled the US Auto industry.

So looking back now, what should we have done? In my view it's simple. Let the market work.

When we had an energy crisis in the Carter era we should have responded with real change...many countries did. But instead we worked really hard to get OPEC in line and get things back to "normal". We sold our independence and stability for cheap foreign oil. Why, because we could. We were huge customers that could bomb them off the map. We have been meddling in Middle East affairs ever since.

So we have artificially supported cheap oil. We spend a huge amount of money (and lives) making sure we get our cheap oil. This is a government distortion of the market...they enact the diplomacy and the wars.

Oil comes from risky places, is an environmental mess, is price volatile, pollution generating and politically and religiously charged. But does $2.00 a gallon gas reflect that? Of course not, it's an artificially low price matched only by the big oil producing countries themselves.

So a $5.00 a gallon price might be more accurate and you could throw away that 650 page document. American consumers have already shown they will eschew big cars and trucks at $4.00 a gallon and so has the rest of the world.

A pollution fee for the air we foul and a military fee on gasoline would do the trick, and be a lot less pages. Or we could just make an amendment to the constitution that we would never use military might to secure goods and services outside our borders.

Bottom Line - Cheap oil is bad because it's artificially cheap. To enact laws and complex regulations to artificially make us all use less of an artificially cheap product is silly. To spend more money bailing out Detroit because of our own artificial market distortions is sillier yet.

There is some new sabre rattling about reducing the huge incentives and supports for the oil industry. Can you imagine? We artificially support our oil companies? Just like our farmers and our auto industry? Does any of this artificial support work in the long run?

We have to artificially support renewable energy so it can compete with the artificially supported oil and coal industries?

I get the feeling that good lobbyists are way more valuable than a good product aimed at a healthy market.

Nuke or not?

It seems almost impossible that we are still having this discussion. The last Nuclear plant constructed in the US was started in 1977! That little mishap at Three Mile island? 1979. Coincidence? Not hardly. We decided, rightly or wrongly that coal was less dangerous than Nukes. (Tell that to a Virginia coal miner).

But now, with carbon reduction on the agenda, are Nukes a renewable clean energy resource? The simple answer is yes. No carbon, no soot, no mercury, no sulfur dioxide. All you get out of them is warm water discharge, steam and some nasty leftover radioactive material that lasts forever. What's not to love?

Over the years we have spent serious R&D money on Nuclear research, mostly on Nuclear fusion which is different than today's fission reactors. The difference between fission and fusion is that one is available, and the other isn't. (A few thousand nuclear scientists and researchers might disagree that it's that simple, but it is for me.)

It's worth noting that those old fission reactors provide 20% of US electricity today. We have 64 plants operating 104 reactors, all carbon and air pollution free and they haven't killed anyone yet... We are by far the largest world user with France and Japan having around 50 each. There are 436 reactors around the world currently operating. (This number does not include Nuclear ships and subs). China and India have the most under construction.

So what's the point of all the statistics? Well, Nuclear works, works well and is widespread and safe if one judges it on actual performance, not on "what ifs". But the "what ifs" are big ones.

So what if a terrorist bombs one, what if one goes rogue and melts down ala Chernobyl, what if we never find a way to safely deal with the radioactive waste?

There are 295 reactors proposed around the world with the US having 19 of those. Vietnam has 9! China has 90! So are we falling behind? Are we going to find ourselves with less cheap energy to run our economy? Can we afford the let Nuclear fall by the wayside here in the US while the world continues it's expansion? Did you know American companies Westinghouse and GE are major players in the global reactor business?

Bottom Line - After having posed all these question I only have one thought. We either should or shouldn't. This fence sitting and arguing is a ridiculous waste of time for our country. We can't accomplish much of anything meaningful if we are constantly at war with ourselves.

So let's have the largest Nuclear reactor expansion of all time to help save the earth from climate calamity. Or, let's stop all efforts and focus our energy on other...well...energy.

Geothermal - I want some

As we complete the cooling season here in Dallas, I am still pining for a geothermal heating and air-conditioning system. In some ways it's more compelling that a photovoltaic (PV) electricity system. Here's why....

Basically the system is a heat pump connected to holes in the ground. Heat pumps have been around for ages and are generally perceived as more efficient than regular AC compressors and furnaces. And more expensive to purchase and install.

What geothermal does is marry a high efficiency heat pump to a source for steady temperatures from the ground. We have local companies that do this by drilling deep but small diameter holes and running a plastic pipe to the bottom and back to form a ground loop (300 feet). Depending on the size of the system, (mine is five ton), they would drill one hole per ton.

They need 20 feet between each hole and they connect them all together and to a pump to circulate fluid to transfer the ground temperature to the pump. The ground is a steady 68 degrees all year round here in Dallas. This fluid is used to cool the air or warm the air in the heat pump. (It's actually way more complex, but that's the gist of it).

So on a hundred degree day the heat pump, (bad name), takes 68 degree water and uses it to cool the house rather than using a compressor to cool whatever the latest freon equivalent is... That's right, no compressor! No noise outside, no ugly box, no unreliable and expensive outside gear to make coolness.

On a chilly winter day, all the heat pump has to do is get the 68 degrees up to your thermostat setting using natural gas or electric. As a side benefit, you can also put your water heater in the loop so it isn't heating up colder water all the time.

All of this combines to save around 50% on heating and cooling costs per my contractor. Now my guess is your mileage may vary but...that's a huge amount! My AC compressor is rated at 14 SEER and the heat pump is around 27 SEER. The heat pump is a variable device meaning I could safely close off rooms and the heat pump adjusts its output without harm to itself.

50% of my heating and cooling bill would be around $1320 in electric and $450 in gas for a total of $1,770 savings a year. Now the bad news. The cost for the system is $36,000. There is a 30% federal tax credit that brings the price down to $25,200. That translates to a 14+ year payoff at today's utility rates. If I were forced to replace my current traditional system with a similiar system it would cost me $10,000, I know because my neighbor just priced out the same size system for her house.

That means the geothermal system would cost $15,200 more and that would take 8+ years to pay off at today's rates. If I financed that at 8% for 30 years it would be $110 a month or $1320.00 a year. If I could get low cost financing, like 5%, then my yearly cost would be $996 for a really good positive net effect.

It's important to note that is just the dry numbers. Reducing my carbon output 50% is a big deal as is spending less money on utility bills and spending more money on my home. In the future, the reduced electricity use would make a PV system much smaller and cheaper.

Bottom Line - This concept's time has come but we need a little maturity in the market to get prices down and make this a no-brainer. Right now its a good deal if you have the money or the equity in your home to borrow against. We all agree that energy prices will also go up, and then the deal would get even sweeter.

I hope my old system breaks down again soon...(what am I saying?)

Water savings and my city

In the great city of Dallas we have a lot of cheap water. Even when we have droughts and the reservoirs get low, the price doesn't go up.

Just three hours south we have the city of Austin and they don't have near enough water. They understand water conservation better than most, and, they are the capital of Texas. Their city hall is Xeriscaped, ours has a big fountain.

So laws and regulations that come out of Austin are often aimed at conservation but the City is responsible for enforcement. Somewhere between Austin and Dallas on I35, water conservation falls off the truck.

The City can put in place its own policies and ordinances and they have. There are limits as to when you can sprinkle...(all night every night). Unless you hand water or use soaker hoses...you can do that 24 x 7. And, to really put the fear in the citizenry you absolutely aren't allowed to water during rain or freezing weather.

On the incentives side, the city has some programs to help conserve water. First, their biggest program, you can get $90 to change out your toilet out for a low flow one. From the City's web site...

"Water conservation is a major component of the City’s long-range water supply plan. Our goal is to save 3.5 billion gallons over the lifetime of the 20,000 toilets replaced in the next five years through this program. "


Now that means they are going to save 175,000 gallons per toilet. I will be generous and allow two gallons a flush savings. That single toilet will have to flush 87,500 times in its lifetime to save that much water. If you figure five flushes a day that's about 48 years. 10 flushes (twice our amount), 24 years, or, 20 flushes a day (a family of five home all day with one toilet?) for 12 years!

Of course we have to assume they won't remodel or upgrade that toilet again later.

Now take my sprinklers. I have saved 51,000 gallons in seven months. I will surpass the toilet's lifetime savings in 17 months. In fact, at that rate, in 24 years I will have saved the equivalent of 12 toilets. For us personally, we each use the toilet five times a day and flush less, with two toilets. That means my five flushes a day toilets, upgraded, would take 48 years each to meet the 175,000 gallons city target.

At that rate I will have saved 24 toilets worth of water. My savings cost around $2000. The same toilet saving will cost the city $2,160 and the homeowners around $100 each to install and another $100 average to purchase because cheap toilets don't qualify for the rebate. That adds another $4800, so $6,960 total, about three times my cost per gallon. And of course that doesn't include the administrative costs for the geniuses at city hall to run this program.

You should also bear in mind all those removed toilets are land filled.

Bottom line - upgrading your toilet is a good thing. After about ten other things that have a lot better ROI and water savings potential. The City is almost preying on unsuspecting water consumers who want to be water conscious by leading them to believe this is a good first step. It's not.

So fix your sprinklers, lower the pressure, put in new multi-stream nozzles, get an ET controller, add drip when redoing beds. Inside the home, add flow regulators to showers, change all the aerators on all the faucets, stop drips and flush a little less. You'll save a lot more water and money than calling your plumber to install a new low-flow toilet.

And, for you do it yourselfers out there. Changing out a toilet is relatively easy. A leak however from the connection to the wall, the valve, the tank, etc, can all be catastrophic. There is nothing to safeguard you from flooding your house during a simple weekend trip away. (And they always break when you're away.)

Saving a LOT of money

I just returned from Oklahoma City and an overnight stay at my brother in law's house. He installed central AC about 9 months ago and I was anxious to review their electric bills. (Is that weird or what?)

The bottom line is, going from window units to central AC will save them 55% on their energy costs and pay back the initial investment in 13.5 months. That's impressive.

What are "degree days"?

I am sorry to say that this is important to saving energy. The reason I'm sorry is because it's so darn complex.

The reason we care about "degree days" is because our home's climate control system dominates our energy use. Everything else is secondary. So to properly evaluate our heating and cooling energy use we need to somehow establish a way to compare one day to the next, or week, or month or year. If we spend a bunch of money on conservation how do I really know I have done some good and quantify it.

Degree days was developed just for that purpose and is used by commercial building operators to compare their building's energy use. Before we move on let me make sure I have established the need.

Today, my air conditioning energy use was largely dictated by the weather, minute by minute. Just using the high temperature of the day doesn't really define the amount we use. It's the temperature ALL day that counts. Was it a hot night? Did it warm up fast? Did it cool down slow? All of these contribute to how hot a day it really was. In fact, one could look at the temperature every second of an entire day.

Degree days essentially takes the temperatures from the entire day, usually in half hour increments, and calculates the number of "units" accumulated through the day and that's the degree days. A "unit" would be a degree for a half hour which is 1/48th of a day. But of course its not that simple.

If you keep your house at 75 degrees on a 75 degree day you would have zero (nada) degree days. Why? Because the calculation is based on how much YOU would have used based on your thermostat. If you set your thermostat at 72, then the house would have to be cooled 3 degrees on that 75 degree day thus accumulating 3 degree days of cooling.

Bottom Line #1 -With degree days you have an accurate amount to determine the demand for energy for heating and cooling. This is very useful to compare July 2008 with 2009. For example...

The average high temp in June 08 was 96 degrees, and 94 in 09. So June was cooler this year right? Well actually, there were 284 cooling days based on my 75 degree thermostat setting in June 08. In 2009 June was 292. So June 09 was actually the hotter month. It made sense my June 09 bill was higher in KWH used, than last year.

But there is even another step. We can divide the cooling KWH used by the degree days and get a rough efficiency number thats useful for comparing months. Dividing the current month by the same month last year gives me a percentage improvement number.

Bottom Line #2 - When I compare the months, I can see the results of my energy saving efforts that are focused on climate control in my home. New insulation, sealing, more attic vents etc all are contributing to a higher efficiency number.

This link takes you to a handy site where you plug in your zip code and thermostat setting and it will give you your personal degree days. http://www.degreedays.net/

Washing machine update

My old top loading machine takes 40 minutes to do a load of laundry. Compare that to 90 minutes for the average front loader.

I guess the next question is...how long to dry?

My dryer takes 40 to 45 for average clothes and around 60 minutes for towels. The front loader takes at least 60 minutes for any load. If you're doing consecutive loads it doesn't really matter since the washer is still the pacing item.

Another "feature" of your front loading washer is that once you start a cycle...you can't stop. If you push the wrong button...you will wait for 90 minutes to start over.

Bottom Line - The new front loaders use time to get water and electricity savings. They also are easier on clothes and use less detergent. But, the expenditure of time (productivity) to go green is generally not a good idea. The manufacturers need to do better.

Climate Change update

I think the argument over climate change is fascinating. Each camp purports to have it figured out, and neither do. The press fuels this debate ad nauseum. In Washington. it's just another item split down the center aisle of congress.

But this issue is different. Mainly because we don't really have much past history to go on...how do we deal with the possibility of real havoc and disruption to our way of life, caused by weather? Dinasaurs know what can happen when the climate goes haywire, but we don't. We did see fascism, Communism and terrorism as real threats to our way of life but only when we were slapped in the face with it...we can't seem to wrap our head around climate weirdness.

Is part of the problem that Bush (Cheney) told us that Saddam was a real global threat and then he turned out not to be? But that was just the US right, not the whole world. The whole world says the threat is real or possibly real, but nothing is really being done. CO2 concentration are going up and will continue to go up.

Cap and Trade you say? That system has already proven to be too cumbersome politically. It might be a good idea until "fine tuned" by state-by-state partisanship. But the reason why it will be ineffective is congressmen don't believe their constituents (special interest groups) will stomach change in the name of climate change. (It may serve them right that they all won their office telling voters to "vote for change".)

It may be obvious that I am very pessimistic about our government's ability to lead on this particular fight. I think this one is up to the populace. We are the ones that will have to drive climate change change. Because deep down no one wants dirty air from coal, unfriendly foreign oil, expensive to operate gas guzzlers, or to toy around with our climate.

Bottom Line - We want a clean healthy environment, no resource wars (oil), stable climate with renewable resources to grow and provide opportunity for generations to come.

We need a common enemy to call out and focus on, ie...Fascism, Communism, terrorism...climate-ism? Resource-ism? Depletion-ism?

What Pogo said was true; "We have met the enemy and he is us." Us-ism?

Frontloading clothes washer

I envied my neighbors LG front loaders. I was just imagining all the water and energy savings form the washer and the dryer. They looked pretty fancy too.

Whenever I asked her about them she would kind of grumble. It seemed like a sore subject. I of course started extolling the virtues of less water, detergent, higher spin rates so the clothes would be dryer going into the dryer. What's not to love?

Last week she told me, in a fit, with passion. "The whole thing's a scam!" "The dang things take forever to wash a load!"

I was shocked. Then I went and did some research on consumer reports, etc etc.

I found that models use 90 minutes a load and some use 100 minutes to wash some clothes. I could do better than that stream-side with a rock! An hour and a half! No wonder she was mad.

I also noticed how little anyone said about it and how hard you had to look to find that info. They really are downplaying this issue in my view. Consumer Reports doesn't even have that as a criteria for ratings.

I think I am going to go hug my old top loader and tell it I am sorry. And then time the next load.

My diswasher is an enigma

I have a fancy Euro dishwasher from ASKO. I put it in in 2001 to match all the other stainless steel stuff. I didn't really care about the energy use then.

Fast forward to today.

I call ASKO North America to get the energy use numbers on this dishwasher. I can't test it myself because the unit is hard wired in...

They don't have the numbers! Their manuals etc all talk about energy savings etc but no numbers. Hmmm, this makes me suspicious. I wonder if their proud proclamation of now being Energy Star compliant is new for the product or just new for them. I wonder if the old product I have is an energy hog. I wonder if the unit is efficient but they want me to buy a new one on the promise of more efficiency.

(Btw, I had no trouble getting energy use numbers on my old refrigerators.)

Bottom Line - I have to test the dang thing and that isn't going to be easy. These Euros are always preaching about their energy consciousness, so why can't I get some numbers?

Update: Same day.

I found a Canadian website that had old Energy Star figures for my dishwasher. It uses 1.29 KWHs per wash. That doesn't tell you how much it uses without electric heat dry. However it is interesting to note that Energy Star numbers have changed over time. It's also interesting to know ASKO "didn't have them" but Canada's Energy Star did.

Does that mean if I buy an Energy Star appliance today thinking it adds value to my home and they change the rules later I no longer have an Energy Star appliance? Or an Energy Star home?

I'd like to know how much I save by using air dry, Ill bet it's a lot. As for water use and savings, I still cant find that. Btw, the new units from ASKO use .853 KWHs per wash.

Trees and woodchippers

I was watching a show called "Extreme Loggers". Those guys have a saw at the end of a big machine on tracks. It takes about a second to cut down a tree. (Chainsaws are way too slow.) Another big machine grabs the logs and hauls them to a wood chipper a few hundred yards away. There another big machine feeds the logs into the wood chipper that dumps into a semi truck to be hauled to the paper mill.

A tree can become a pile of chips in a truck in about 15 minutes easy. They do hundreds of trees a day in a small operation.

It seems odd to me that that's the best use of a forest we can come up with. It also seems odd we cant find another way to make paper. Odder still is that we still need all that paper in our digital society. Weren't we going "paperless" 20 years ago? Did that concept end up in a scrap heap along with the idea of changing over to the metric system?

Bottom Line - I guess its like watching sausage being made, if you did you wouldn't eat sausage. Same with pulp logging. Watching these guys ruin a few acres of forest in a day makes me a little queasy.

Lumber seems different, except when we ship it to Asia. Something about our forests going to Chinese housing so they can have a place to live while they dominate global manufacturing.

Saving energy a room at a time

My air conditioning unit outside recently went kaput. The compressor just overheated and locked up. I spent two days sleeping in an 80+ degree house.

First I want to say that those two days resulted in a big energy savings. And a desire to leave the state or check into a cushy hotel. But what does this have to do with green?

In my Internet travels I have run across multiple articles and advice blogs about closing off rooms in your home to save energy. I pay attention to these as I have three rooms that are seldom used. Many say it's a great idea to close the vents, the door and place something under it to stop the airflow. In fact I have a friend who is in the business of selling remote controlled dampers for your duct work just for this purpose.

In theory if you close off 1/3 of your house you could save 1/3 on heating and cooling. But of course it's never that simple.

A forced air furnace has a fan that forces the air either over a flame or heating element in the winter and over the cooling coil in the summer. That air continues to be forced, once cooled or heated, down the duct and into the room. That air came from a return duct, either one big one or lots of small ones by being sucked in by the same fan. Its just one big loop.

Now if I close a vent, that air backs up and increases the pressure on the fan to work. It also reduces the amount of air running over the flame or coil. In the case of the coil, the refrigerant doesn't properly transfer the temperature and it's sent outside to the compressor improperly. (I don't really understand this part as it is either too liquid or too gas for the compressor thus making it work too hard). But whatever the details are, it isn't good to reduce the airflow over the coil.

When the system works too hard, your efficiency goes down and if you do that long enough the system fails.

So what I have found is the green and DIY sites all say it's a good idea. The three Heating and air conditioning people I talked to all say its a bad idea for the reasons mentioned. Given my neighbors unit also failed this week, it seems that problems exist that aren't obvious and limiting air flow below the system's design is one of them.

Bottom Line #1 - If you want to close a few rooms I would have your trusted heating and air guy come out and measure the pressures and airflow as you close off the ducts. Its possible your ducts leak so much there wont be much back pressure or that there is enough flow from the returns to properly work with your coil. Or there are more ducts than system pressures can fill up, so closing a couple wont matter. The smaller the system the more likely a problem.

It's also worth noting that the room in question will not be insulated between the room and the house. You also have to be careful about letting it get too cold in the winter around water pipes.

It may be that the whole idea is fraught with enough problems or potential problems to render it more trouble than its worth. I intend to get my AC guys out in the fall when they slow down and have them do the tests I described. It's all measurable and can be quantified.

Bottom Line #2 - Heating and air guys understand how to make stuff cool or hot. However, they don't spend much time making it cool or hot for the least amount of energy used, carbon released etc. We have to encourage them to help us save energy.

A Cooler House?

I just completed two days of energy saving work with my contractor, A Cooler House. We stopped some air flow and increased the money flow....out.

As I stated in an earlier blog, I had some concerns about my duct work. The tests showed I was losing at least 37% of my rated airflow capacity through leaks. Now I have the old style hard metal ducts wrapped in foil insulation. I have a vent and return in almost every room so I have a lot of duct work.

Before I go too far, can you imagine losing 37% of anything in regular operation? That's higher than taxes! In theory every dollar I spend on heat and cool I take 37% and throw that away!

Needless to say, I want the guys to focus on duct work. Initially they find a big hole. High fives all around but...that seems to relax them and they don't really find much of anything else. When we test at the end of the day, I am very disappointed. We are now at a 32% loss.

I begin to get some double talk from the contractor about how they couldn't seal everything, or they cant get to everything or there is too much duct work etc etc. Basically it's broke and they don't know how to fix it.

I throw out a few ideas that are discussed, but its too late in the day to try them so we call it a day.

Day two starts better because they get under the floor in another area of the house and they find another hole. It's become obvious to me these guys don't relish crawling under the house...progress on that part of the system is going to be minimal in my view. They also don't implement my idea of testing the supply and return airflow separately to isolate the problem.

We are however placing insulated boxes over the can lights! These are sealed down to the joists and ceiling in the attic. Except, they don't get the ones in the furr downs or close to the edge of the roof. So we seal 15 of the 30 or so I have. It will help, but we fall short of our intentions....again.

We add some more insulation and then test again. The house is now 35% tighter than it was which is decent, but we still fall short of the energy star specifications. The duct work is about 6% tighter than at the start.

Bottom Line #1 - Every time I hear a government official say that saving energy is easy and low hanging fruit, I cringe. Implementing and maintaining savings beyond 30% is hard. The contractors are inexperienced (in Dallas), the customer has little choice of contractor, the duct system is in either hot or dirty areas, and everyone has limited education on all the issues that you uncover.

Overall I am pretty disappointed. I think I was oversold and under delivered, but, the price was reasonable. I had three roof fans installed, two attic walls insulated and sheathed, 15 can lights covered, duct sealing, and 1,850 more cubic feet of insulation added to the attic for a total of $1,317.

The duct sealing was $400 of that number and they did spend a lot of time getting the 5%. It will save me around $75 a year. It's impossible to calculate a payback on everything else I spent. If it's 20% of my overall heating and cooling bills, I would be pretty happy with around a five year payback.

Bottom Line #2 - Unfortunately, this just illustrates the importance of measuring and sealing ducts. Its easy to quantify the savings and a 20% reduction in leakage would have paid back in a little over a year.

I need a new roof

My roof is cedar shakes, one of the few still remaining in Dallas today. It has hail damage and my insurance company would like to buy me a new one! Now what?

My first inclination is to bypass my normally curious self and just replace the wood shakes with...more wood shakes. But, I can't miss this opportunity to explore some green options now can I?

So I start some research...and then some more research, and then add some contractors, more research and then I go into brain lock. That's where I am right now.

Here is my criteria before green issues come into play.

1. It must fit into the supplied insurance money budget
   
2. It must look good to us, fit the house and neighborhood. (Aesthetics.)
   
3. It must add value to the home.
4. It must be durable and relatively maintenance free.

Because a cedar shake roof is expensive and I have replacement cost insurance, I have a pretty big budget, so there are lots of options.

Now the green issues -

1. It needs to help with house cooling. (include radiant barrier or reflect more of the energy or both)
   
2. It should be more reflective to mitigate heat island effect (lighter color)
3. It should come from a renewable resource
4. It should last so we don't fill up the landfill again soon

If that's not enough moving parts, there is the issue of finding good contractors.

Then there is the issue of my future solar panels. The opportunity to integrate solar with the roof change sure seemed to make sense but...

Bottom Line - Once you have achieved your 30% reductions through all the simple stuff, you get the the not so simple stuff. If you live in a city where the green contractors are few and far between you really have trouble getting something done right and green.

The easy decision, going back with shakes, means less durability, high maintenance, they don't add value, provide nothing green, and PV panels are going to look really out of place up there someday.

The hard decision, standing seam metal roof, is difficult because we're not sure about the aesthetics which is number two on the list. It's a good reflector, lasts forever, it's very low maintenance, adds value, and we can add radiant barrier cheap.

I refuse to sacrifice aesthetics for green. And I almost refuse to sacrifice green for aesthetics. I need a win-win here...

Can I sell you some energy?

Have I got a deal for you! I have two great energy products, one is coal and the other is oil! This is a can't miss deal.

Coal is plentiful and cheap! We mine it in areas where people are poor and the health and land problems are way less important than jobs. We either mine it, or when we can, we just dig it out of the ground or blow off the top of a mountain. We have to cut down a lot trees and use a lot of water but like I said, the people that live there are all for it...they have no other choice!

We take the coal just like it is and pile it into trains that ship it everywhere, that's why its so cheap! You build your power plant close to a rail siding and together we've got a great business! Just don't build it too close to any major metropolitan areas because of the, well, the stuff that comes out of the plant.

Burning coal for electricity has a couple of minor problems. The coal, when it's burned, emits a lot of bad stuff like sulfur, mercury, and even carbon dioxide. But who ever heard of anyone dying of carbon dioxide poisoning? But here is the beauty of coal, that stuff we put in the air, we don't really have to pay for it! No-one will charge you for all the fish with mercury in them, will they?

Bottom Line #1- Use all the coal fired electricity you want, it's cheap now and they will never trace climate change back to you!

If coal doesn't get you excited, oil will. We drill holes in the ground and pump this stuff up, send it to a plant that makes it into all kinds of stuff, but mostly gasoline for your car. What's even better is these days we don't even drill that much, we just buy if from those nice boys in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. They have so much that they can ship it all the way over here and it's still cheap! That way we don't spoil the land or water around here, we let them do it to their land.

Now I know what you have heard about price instability, but look at it this way. It's still cheap. Sometimes it gets expensive but when it does we can just quit using it until the recession is over, easy no?

If we have trouble with a country who has a lot of oil, we can always get them back in line with diplomacy, and a few Marines. If that doesn't work, we will just send more Marines. But the cost wont go up that much and once we get them back in line, the price always comes down.

Now I know what you have heard about pollution and oil, gasoline, etc but hey, everything emits bad stuff when you burn it! And remember it's cheap!

Bottom Line #2 - Oil is cheap and chances are good that Iran's oil money wont allow them to build a nuclear device that can hit the US for at least ten years. So why worry?



The siren song of cheap is real. It's hard to say no to cheap energy. China doesn't want to, India either. A little cheap energy and before long your hooked. Everything becomes secondary to cheap energy... heath, economic stability, wars, environment, jobs, religion, morality, balance of trade, climate change etc...you'll sell your soul for this stuff.

We have traditionally sacrificed much in the name of cheap energy and grown to be a superpower. Why do we think others wont follow our lead into the abyss of cheap energy addiction? They have and will continue to, until...we show a better way.

Bottom Line #3 - We know the cost of cheap energy is too high. Those costs shake the very foundation of our economy and democracy. It's time for us to lead the world to new forms of energy and show them the road to prosperity isn't cheap energy, it's democracy, innovation, education, hard work, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and, peace.

Just say no to "cheap" energy.

TXU conspiracy?

Remember my post about my signing up for a new electricity provider? I now know why deregulation isn't really working in Texas.

First it's worth noting that I signed with Direct Energy. They told me they would be sending me a welcome packet and I had three days to agree to switch. No welcome packet arrived. I called, they hemmed and hawed and said they would in fact be able to send another one. It never came. My electricity switched over on the third of this month.

Now to TXU. I get a bill that includes June and the balance of July with a $200 cancellation fee. Now I have had auto bank withdrawal on the account for years but they didn't withdraw June?

I call TXU to straighten this out. After the auto system doesn't recognize the last four digits of my SS number I finally get a human. She says they have had "lots of trouble with the automated system" and she will make sure the amount is withdrawn. I then explain how I don't owe the $200 cancellation. It's a minimum one year program I signed up for in November 2006!

She places me on hold, for a long while and then the phone rings and someone new picks it up!? I explain what happened and then start over. He then transfers me to billing, I start over, they transfer me to a "specialty agent, I start over, he says he is in sales and I need a specialty agent and transfers me...to voicemail. Not anyone's voicemail, just the general mail box. I leave a message while laughing.

Then I start the clock at 1:03. Call back, start over, transfer to Jem, boy is she. Puts me on hold and then comes back and asks me if I am still in Texas and then puts me on hold? Now can you think of a good reason for her to ask me that other than to determine if I have transferred electricity use to another company in Texas? 1:07 she comes back and says she needs to transfer me to Specialty Accounts, I protest to no avail. On hold, music, connect...to the voicemail box again.

I re-call, its now 1:12 and ask for a supervisor. Puts me on hold 1:14, music at 1:16, Alessandro answers at 1:18. By 1:30 he is getting this figured out and agrees I don't owe the $200 and says it will come off my bill, I say great, what's my confirmation number...he cant give me one. He can give me an "investigation number" and assures me it's fixed.

I mention the auto bank draft problem and he is surprised because the reason they didn't draft it was because I was closing the account. That's what they always do...

I pay the bill with him, less the $200, which he can give me a confirmation number for immediately.

Any doubts this isn't over yet?

Bottom Line - I spend years with TXU as a customer. The minute I sign somewhere else their customer service goes down the tubes...coincidence? I spent 36 minutes after the first three transfers getting this far. Any chance "specialty accounts" is how you get rid of a non-loyal customer like me?

Just for laughs I call the PUC to see if I have a legitimate complaint and get their automated system that directs me to the Electricity line that directs me to the Internet and if you push a button its puts you back at the beginning. I went to the web site and sent them an email and asked them to call me.

Any chance the PUC employs ex utility people?

Climate Change update #2

It's been an interesting few weeks in the Climate Change arena politically. Legislation for Cap and Trade and the G-8 talks have roused both sides of the issue into a frenzy.

If you have read my previous posts on the topic, I have come down solidly on the side of no one. The realities of our planet overheating in the future may or may not be exist but...it's the two sides that now bother me...

Warmers, the people who fully believe that the planet is being warmed by man, are called alarmists. People who believe the science is wrong or rigged are called deniers. Alarmist are usually Democrats and deniers are usually Republican. Typically the deniers are described as the minority in the science world.

However, in polls of the American people there seems to be some fence sitting by many and legions for both sides who are sure their brand of religion is best and they KNOW it.

It surprises me in this day and age we can't take more moderated views and be a little more humble about what we think we KNOW. I include both sides in that concern. An AGW alarmist is just as know-it-all as a denier. Both claim the "science is on their side". Engaging in any discussion on the topic will evoke serious "know" statements from either side about the clarity of the science or the lack of clarity about the science.

The media loves a good fight so they fuel this debate for as long as they can. So, why should we care?

Because we have to take action now if we hope to forestall what is possible if all the "alarmists" are right. Man is causing the world to warm and the pace is increasing. A warming climate could cause disruption to all living things on the planet because the pace of warming is too fast for adaptation to it's subsequent climate changes.

The action required is a lot more simple than Cap and Trade and G-8 wrangling would lead you to believe. We just need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use. Don't get too caught up in discussions about deforestation, cow farts, cement plants etc. They have an impact, in fact a large one, but they aren't the real issue. The real issue is we take ancient carbon in coal and oil and turn it into atmospheric carbon in an instant, by burning it. And, our economy is totally dependant on this process.

In addition, there are very large company's and countries around the world that depend on the need for this to continue.

So all the wrangling is about changing the world's economy from a fossil fuel based one to alternative energy. The benefits of which will be enormous. The dream of running the earth on clean energy not controlled by unfriendly countries is worthy in it self. The heath and stability benefits would be an amazing boon to societies rich and poor. The world would be a better place.

And that's without the concerns about Climate Change.

The specter of rapid warming is really ugly. It's clear the effects would be significant but, what and where they are, isn't clear. So alarmists are quick to point out the latest hurricane or pine borer. And denialists are quick to point out the lack of anomaly or cause for concern. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is whether we can afford to play this out with a fossil fuel based economy? Can we wait and see who's right?

The answer is no. A rapid change in our global temperatures would threaten our way of life much more than a shift away from fossil fuel. We can't gamble and hope that the denialists are right. We are going to have to change our energy sources and while we do that, we are going to have to emit less carbon into the atmosphere by using less fossil fuel and cleaning the emissions as much as possible.

Bottom Line - The question isn't who's side is right. The question is, who's side can we afford to be wrong? That answer is clear in my view. One position protects us from calamity and improves our world. One maintains the status quo and hopes for the best.

But, back to the sides. If the sides keep arguing about "if" there is a problem then when we have a vote for cap and trade for example, how much of it is still about "if" instead of how. Does the rhetoric. or votes, reflect a senator or congressman's concerns about whether this is the best way, or if we should be doing anything at all?

I am very concerned we will end up with partisan positions, entrenched and immovable, when we can't really risk doing this wrong. It's the only thing worse than doing nothing.

Faucet fixin...

Given my continued high water use inside the house, I decided it was time to low flow the faucets. This project seemed simple enough...

First I get a two quart measuring cup and go to each sink and measured the flow. I turn on the faucet and count to ten and then multiply the amount by six for "gallons per minute". Most are around 2.2. One old one overflows the cup well before I get to ten! (Five gpm!)

I took an inventory of whether I had male or female threaded aerators on the spouts of all my faucets. And, I noted the metal finish. I then went on-line to search for the best products, and I searched, and searched. It seems this market is dominated by a company called Neoperl. And, with only a couple limited exceptions, no-one really sells these online. I found a few at Ebay and Amazon and that was about it.

Out of frustration I headed to the depot with my list. At my store, these reduced flow aerators are strategically located right above the floor in blister packs. I sit down in the aisle and start weeding through the options. And they are all made by...you guessed it, Neoperl. I guess that's why you cant find them online...

So, I find one brass version that I needed in a 1.5 gallon. I find a spray/stream adjustable one for our utility sink that is 1 and 2.2 gallons, I don't find anything for the pewter color faucets in our guest bath but settle for chrome in the 1 gallon version. I then get two in the 1.5 gallon version chrome for our bathroom.

When I get home I install the 1.5 brass one, no problem, huge flow difference but it's plenty of water. It's in a sink I don't hardly use, but guests do, so I'll save a little. I then change out the guest bathroom sinks, one with the 1.5 and one with the 1.0 gallon to compare. The 1.0 always has a spray pattern and the 1.5 is an aerated flow. I let me wife approve the spray which she preferred, and it again was plenty of water at 1.0! She never notices they are chrome, not pewter.

I then go to our bathroom with the 1.5s but they don't fit? It turns out my Kohler faucets use the "small" all the others use the "regular". (Small is 13/16s).

I switch out the utility sink and then head back to the depot to sit in the aisle a while longer. I find the small version but only in the 1.5 gallon, (I would have taken a 1.0 without any reservations).

While I am there I notice, tucked in back in the seriously disorganized rows of blister packs, some aerator inserts so you don't have to worry about the finish! You just swap out the inserts if the ones you have have some type of insert. I consider starting over but quickly move on as the cost difference is trivial.

Bottom Line 1 - 1.0 gallons is plenty for washing, brushing etc and the spray pattern is surprisingly nice. The 1.5s have the traditional flow and again are plenty of water for bathroom sinks. Having the 1 - 2.2 adjustable is nice for filling things in the utility sink. I switched out the kitchen insert to a 1.5 and it seems fine.

As I was finishing up I decided to measure the two guest showers. Uh-oh. It seems both of these were way over the 2.5 suggested. I put in 2.5 gallon washers to limit the flow.

Bottom Line 2 - I really wasn't sure about all this low flow stuff, I just thought you ended up using the faucet longer to make up for the reduced water but...The EPA and their WaterSense initiatives are driving manufacturers to provide really high quality aerators and restricted flow fixtures. They get stuff wet with less water without compromising performance.

So this project cost me about $40 and took a couple hours including the trips to the depot. I expect to see a significant reduction in water use. It was easy and almost fun. I also learned that the EPA is currently working on standards for showers that may change the 2.5 goal...stay tuned.