<It's Time for More Green OptionsThe Oil DrumCrude Impact>
<DrumBeat: February 8, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: February 10, 2007>

159 comments on DrumBeat: February 9, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

panarchist on February 9, 2007 - 12:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Robert, I've always found your posts to be excellent and I applaud your efforts to "walk the talk!" I now find myself getting excited about the monthly utility bills. It is upsetting when I don't live up to my own expectations some months. But other months are a big surprise, like the sub-300 KWH used in each October and November...weather's been even milder than usual here in Florida.

I recently bought a 1,400 SF house built in the 1950s. Simply switching out the incandescent bulbs with CFLs, adding a programable thermostat, replacing the original oven/cooktop, replacing a 15+ year old refrigerator with an Energy Star model, and slowly but surely improving the weatherstripping in the house has made a nice difference in our energy use. Also, replacing one of the original toilets with a new dual-flush model has dropped our family of two down to between 1,000 - 3,000 gallons of water used per month (of course we don't have an irrigated landscape like every other house in Florida). But like you stated, getting control of the ghost plug loads from electronics helps as well.

We eventually plan on improving our attic insulation to R-38 (or higher) and replacing our 18 year old water heater with a passive solar water heater. What so many people fail to realize is the biggest wedge for the foreseeable future is by far the efficiency wedge. The US DoE's Building America Program aims to make "zero-energy" homes an industry standard by 2020. How do they hope to get there?...by reducing the energy demands of a typical home by 70% and making up the other 30% with renewables as they come online. TOD readers, check out their free publications based on your climate for ideas on how to improve your home.

One thing TOD should consider is adding a new section to the archives that "pre-sorts" posts according to certain topics. TOD has always been a global leader on reporting "the situation," but it would be great to have a section on "solutions for the individual consumer," or something like that.

Keep up the great work!...and GOOD LUCK!

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
toilforoil on February 9, 2007 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If the Energy Star appliance needs to be replaced frequently it may not be worth the investment, energetically. We need a durability label.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
InfinitePossibilities on February 9, 2007 - 3:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"We need a durability label."

We have one. It's called "guarantee period". After a year, or five, if the manufacturer feels good about their product, all bets are off. Yet, my parent's had their fridge for over twenty years and it was a good thing that it died! The new one uses half the electricity.

Be careful what you are asking for. Products that are too durable have their own set of problems. A couple years from now we will wish we could replace the vehicle pool faster than every dozen years.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sgage on February 9, 2007 - 3:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I read somewhere recently that the manufacture of an automobile accounts for 40% of the total CO2 emission of the thing over its lifetime. So durability would seem to be a good thing in many cases. It would seem to make sense to get maximum life out of our stuff. We sometimes seem to draw a line between stuff and the energy use of that stuff, but making stuff takes lots of energy...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
InfinitePossibilities on February 9, 2007 - 4:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"I read somewhere recently that the manufacture of an automobile accounts for 40% of the total CO2 emission of the thing over its lifetime. It would seem to make sense to get maximum life out of our stuff."

That, unfortunately, is not generally correct. Compare early vs. late replacement. In both cases you have to invest the energy/CO2 to make the replacement car. But since the CO2 emissions for making the next generation cars will continue to fall because of better manufacturing practices and because more and more renewables are going to be used in the energy mix, the total CO2 emissions for it come down in time. In contrast, the CO2 emissions over the lifetime of the SUV stay the same. The longer you wait, the more you waste.

Also keep in mind that when you scrap an SUV, almost two small cars can be made from the recycled materials. In other words: you save enormous amounts of resources.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Todd on February 9, 2007 - 9:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Actually, the warentee is often doubled depending upon your charge card. Does that mean the manufacturer has somehow singled you out for that one in a hundred that runs twice as long as the one other that non-card users buy?

From an energy point of view, about half of the lifetime energy, IIRC, is involved with the manufacture of the vehicle. Cuba may know something we haven't adopted yet.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.