Getting Greedy?

[EcoVan]

Efficiency alone won't eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. However, what no one seems to ever discuss is that there is a point we can probably return to where the earth's ability to absorb and process the pollution caused by fossil fuel use is in balance with our use. Cost effective efficiency improvements to our current buildings look like they can cut our consumption on those areas on the order of 40% or more ( in my own church congregation's building we've cut heating fuel usage by about 1/2 and electrical consumption about 70% with conventional techniques and equipment with 1 to 5 years simple payback improvements) Choosing more efficient systems for new construction than the cheapest and fastest, like forced air systems, will also help move us in the right direction.
Moving the U.S fleet to diesel and limiting over the rad trucks I suspect would reduce fuel usage by at least 1/3.

Efficiency buys us time to develop and market real solutions, not just pop "green" solutions which I have seen proven to be more energy intensive than well applied conventional systems.

In addition, many efficiency improvements will greatly reduce the needs for alternative energy supplies, making those eventual changes much less costly, and therefore, much more likely to be adopted sooner (at least by those that are thinking clearly, instead of immersed in a haze of marketing)

[freebeard]

If the heating and cooling system can be reduced down to a multipane window (or windows), the rest of the house can be low tech, literally a mud bubble.

[redpoint5]

I'm as annoyed by cheap construction and cut corners as anyone. We save a few cents upfront and pay to eternity in crappy efficiency or longevity.

Tough for the average person to know what improvements are worthwhile, and which aren't.

Glass companies are always trying to sell low E windows here claiming great energy savings. We have 3 cooling months which require maybe 2hrs of AC use per day. The rest of the year I'm depending on the emissivity of the glass to gain free heat.

How would someone know that low E glass makes no sense here when the "expert" is telling them it will save so much money?

[freebeard]

No. I'm more annoyed by corners. They stagnate the air and collect dust and cobwebs. It's unhealthy and they muffle the sound.

I can't provide the citation at this time, but research at an East coast university showed a pavilion with a flat roof and windows on all four sides that need no heating or air conditioning. It's more than low-E, with electrochromic or cloud gel features.

Tempered glass vacuum blocks for structure like Bucky proposed in the 1930s. When I was in high school they had a traveling science presenter on stage in the gym, who used a glass flask to hammer a nail in a board. Then he dropped a tiny piece of pith into the neck of the flask and it imploded. If you could do that with a closed block that would be h*ll for stout. Maybe with lasers?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by EcoVan

Efficiency alone won't eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. However, what no one seems to ever discuss is that there is a point we can probably return to where the earth's ability to absorb and process the pollution caused by fossil fuel use is in balance with our use.

That's a good point.

Moving the U.S fleet to diesel and limiting over the rad trucks I suspect would reduce fuel usage by at least 1/3.

Not sure if moving the entire fleet to Diesel would be so easy, yet for light-duty trucks it does surprise me Diesels are more of an exception instead of the rule. In many countries it's uncommon to find gasser versions of certain trucks, including American imports such as the Silverado 1500 which now in Paraguay for instance is only available through official Chevrolet dealers as a Diesel.

In addition, many efficiency improvements will greatly reduce the needs for alternative energy supplies, making those eventual changes much less costly, and therefore, much more likely to be adopted sooner (at least by those that are thinking clearly, instead of immersed in a haze of marketing)

Another good point. Well, maybe the Brazilian experience replacing gasoline (partially) with ethanol was more successful because the local fleet revolved mostly around smaller cars than in the United States.

[EcoVan]

The studies done many years ago at IIT in Chicago regarding ethanol use are quite interesting. The only area which yielded a net gain or balance in energy use ( energy used for production versus output) was in Agricultural within a radius of maybe 30 miles of the production location. That radius has probably grown with improvements in diesel mpg of trucks, but the fundamentals still hold true. The other really interesting side discovery was that the area needed to be under ethanol producing crops to run the farm equipment was basically the same as the land area that needed to be under production to feed the horses that were used in the old days.
Ethanol proved to be a negative energy source for nearly all applications, so it should be left to history, except for agricultural use.

[EcoVan]

that there is one major reason why the per capita energy consumption of the U.S. is double of any Western European County....the suburbs. This is a wicked combination of:
1) detached single family housing. This type of construction increases exposed heating surfaces by at least 30% over typical multi-family housing in cities (row houses, townhouses and larger multi-unit housing). Heating and cooling energy needs go up accordingly. To further bring home the impact of this choice, we generally find that the peak per square foot heating needs of typical pre WWII multifamily housing is about the same as most modern detached family homes.
2) lack of public transportation and huge energy needs for commutes. The combination of using autos in stop and go traffic for long commutes is a massive inefficiency.
3) No community planning. Construction is almost completely unplanned so regular needs for food, clothing and other necessities require considerable auto use. This, of course, also means there are no provisions for pedestrian traffic. The big box stores rely on the massive public subsidies of road building to make thier profits.... higher taxes for everyone. In many city neighborhoods, there is still local shopping.

[redpoint5]

Exactly. If we had a Great Leader to tell us dumb folks how to do everything, we could reduce energy consumption by not being able to afford it. Then we could huddle in closer to keep warm. We do lose a lot of opportunity to eat rats and bugs.

[EcoVan]

is eating bugs and rats because they use 1/2 the energy we do by using more efficient systems? The standard of living in most Western Europe is now higher than in the US by nearly all standards, despite the fact they are also suffering from similiar wealth concentration extremes as the U.S.

[redpoint5]

Just a comment about how extreme central planning works out.

Where did the US spring up from... mostly Western Europeans. The environment here is different, which is why things are done differently. Mostly there's just so much darn unoccupied space. We could cram everyone into a couple of states to approach the density of Europe.

European solutions don't necessarily make sense to non-European problems.