Living "Green" - Is it possible and practical?

At the Help me find a hypocrite! topic, such things as alternative energy, using energy efficiently, as such has become part of the topic. I think it merits it's own topic.So, what about solar generating panels and windmills?What about hybrid cars, biofuels, etc.What about recycling and efficient resource use?Let's talk about it in this topic.Moose

it is my experience that at this juncture it is not practical for the financially challenged. it is becoming more possible and more practical, but then you have to remember that the clothing you buy and the food you buy may not be produced or shipped "greenly". however. there has been a huge upshift in the availability of these kinds of products since the public has begun demanding them. point the market with your wallet.biofuels are financially practical, but not necessarily practical time-wise. not everyone wants a diesel still in his garage. hybrid cars seem to be a pretty good deal. someone said they don't actually save you money. i dunno. only buying one tank of gas in a month seems like it will save you. if all cars are produced to accept flexfuel capability and the grains used for the ethanol are grown using alternative fuels, this could be a real solution. but if we grow corn with inefficient, oil-run tractors, we're really not doing anything.recycling is funny. it uses energy while we have the capability to use solid waste to make energy. so maybe we should only recycle plastics since they are petrol based. trees can grow again, but oil---not so much. efficient resource use is probably the best goal. but good luck getting all the little britneys to use less of anything (except condoms).i think it is more than plausible for every house to have a solar panel on top of it. imagine what would happen. did you hear about the new law in california requiring ten million solar panelled homes? maybe we could make cute little weather vanes with wind collectors on them to make those a little less stand-out-ish.

The off-topic discussion persists at that other topic.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Using one or more of the methods you stated (solar-wind-biofuel-recycle) seems to me to be more like assuaging conscience than contributing to better use of finite resources. Most who go that way still stay connected to the power/water/gas/sewerage grids. They buy foods from afar, clothes from low-wage countries, metals extracted at increasing costs.As a prospector I tend to get around a fair bit of the country, and you bump into many who have 'gone bush', trying to go back to basics on some level. Most tend to tell you how intensive the life is, with a never-ending list of chores. They fear sickness as they will fall behind. With Australia in its sixth year of drought on a major scale, the cost of hauling water may force many of their small farms to be unfunctional. Learning survival in the green sense involves use of technology to make up the difference, as well as mastering new skills to use them. Nature may not give you time.

Going "green" is not as simple as it sounds. It is most definitely not cheap.Let me give you an example from my own experience. I own a house in southern Colorado near Fort Garland. My father did the design work, the family did a lot of the labor. The house (2 bdrm, 1 1/2 bath, 2 story) incorporates about as much "green" as you can reasonably get - and it's nowhere near "ideal".passive solar: We incorporated a great deal of passive solar for heating. The ground floor is adobe, with the walls some 70cm thick packed with insulation. During the summer months, the interior remains cool, during the winter months once heated it remains warm. The design of the second floor (which is wood) incorporates high (14 foot), angled ceilings and 3 m double thermopane wondows (basically the southern wall is all glass). The result is that even if the temp outside plunges to -15 C, the temp upstairs inside (as long as the sun is shining) can reach 26-28 C without any other source of heat.wind and solar electric: We have approx. 20 m² of solar collectors, plus a 900w wind turbine. Since where the house is has high relative insolation (we're at ~2600 m altitude), high average hours/day of sun (upwards of 5.5 h/day - similar to Albuquerque NM), and ~320 days of wind annually, the combination provides sufficient electric power to run most appliances, lights, and our water pump, TV, computer etc.other wind: We have a deep well (250 m) for water. We use an Aeromotor 8 foot windmill (5 m tower design) to draw water to a buried cistern, from which our solar-electric water pump provides water for the house. The water, drawn from a high mountain aquifer, is totally pure and drinkable without treatment (except once when some critter managed to get past the seals and died in the well - that was a real pain).other renewable energy: The downstairs is both small and open-plan, so we use a wood-burning radiator and a fireplace to adequately heat the ground floor during the winter. The wood comes from our property mostly.Are we green? No. Sure, we're completely off the grid. However, we're up against hard physical constraints. There is simply no way using current technology that high-power-requirement appliances (stove, refrigerator and water heater in our case) can be run on solar/wind-electric (we have to use propane). It's intensely frustrating to be so close yet so far. To run those appliances, we'd have to either triple our solar panels OR triple our wind generation capability or both. And even then, we're up against problems of battery drainage (oh yeah, we have a bank of 24v storage batteries). Increasing our power generation capability beyond where we are now is neither financially nor, to be honest, ecologically viable (I'd have to destroy a fair chunk of my property - which I've maintained pretty "natural" - in order to install the systems even if I could afford them).The cost of all that neat green energy technology exceeded the cost of the house and land combined (5 ha).In my opinion, it is simply not physically or financially possible for the average homeowner in the US to become energy self-sufficient. Even worse, it isn't possible for an urban dweller to even come close. Government large-scale green energy generation programs (biofuel, wind, solar, geothermal tap, tidal power generation, etc) whether local, state or federal involve so many ecologically destructive trade-offs that - under current technology - these aren't viable either.So what do we do? At this stage of the game, there isn't a whole lot, although every little bit helps. The idea is to reduce our individual ecological footprint to as small as possible - given the very real constraints of money and logistics. Don't drive if you can walk or ride a bike. Use public transportation as much as possible. Buy and use the most fuel-efficient vehicle you can find (anyone living in a city or other area where a 4-wheel-drive vehicle isn't strictly required should be forced to pay a HUGE energy-use tax for the privilege). Insure your house is fully insulated, and keep the thermostat low in the winter - sweaters are cheap. Turn off the damn lights. If you can afford it, use solar hot-water or other types of renewable heating (even SOME solar power is better than none, even if you still have to stay connected to the grid). If you must use air conditioning (and I recognize there are places in the US where summer a/c is required for health), get as efficient a system as you can - and use it only as necessary. Screw your pretty green lawn - rock gardens can be aesthetically pleasing . Etc.As you can tell, I advocate education for consumers as a first step in reducing our collective and individual footprints.That's enough to go on for the moment, I guess. I didn't really intend for this post to be so long.
Edited by Quetzal, : correction

Funny how human thinking tends to go round in cycles (circles?). Our pioneers found the best way of coping with our climate to be a house set high on stumps to provide shade and a cool area, wide verandahs on at least three sides of a house,lattice that admitted cool air but shaded the sun, a hallway running right through the centre of the house to funnel a breeze, large overhangs of the roof to shade windows, water tanks to catch rain and be independent of mains or well supplies, high ceilings for air circulation, dining table in the kitchen for warmth in winter with another away from the stove for summer, house aligned to utilise the passage of the sun all year round, casement windows that not only opened fully, but were adjustable to direct any breeze inside. These and many other non-energy-consuming practices stood us in fine stead until, say, twenty-five years ago when architects and designers removed the modifications a little at a time until we now have heavily-dependent, electricity-gobbling appliances to maintain comfort, water supply dwindling fast with plans for recycling and desalination, houses poorly designed and constructed,and,as Q pointed out, a lawn that takes considerable time and materials to maintain. Must be some logic to progress.

I'm not really sure where to go with this. Admittedly, I am impressed with Quetzal's home, but I am also admittedly glad that I do not live in such a home (I guess I have become accustomed to being "on the grid" and the dependability it provides (and by that, I of course mean that I can be lazy )). I will say this, however...we (my wife and I...oh, and our pooch as well) do as much as we can to minimize our impact. Our house is relatively small, and pretty efficient. We have an open floor plan which allows for nice cross ventilation (hence, no air conditioning) and a low heating bill in the winter months. We grow our on vegetables and hunt/fish for most of our meat. I ride my bike to work during the warmer months (hey, give me a break...it's a 23 mile ride each way) We did both purchase more fuel efficient cars...but still could do better.But that helps me segue into my main point. How much better are hybrid cars and/or bio-fuel cars? I have heard the bio-fuel made from corn is actually a net loss. The "oil cost" to produce a gallon of corn ethanol is greater than if one simply purchased a gallon of traditional gasoline. So why is everyone pushing for corn based fuel? Could it be....ummmm...politics?Do the hybrids require an electrical outlet in the garage, or do they charge their batteries solely while being driven? I honestly don't know. What about maintenance? We live out in the boonies, so getting to a service center would be a major chore for us.I guess my point is, is that there is almost always a cost somewhere. Solar panels have to be built somewhere. Windmills have to be built somewhere. In the big picture, there is no free lunch. Has anyone really preformed a thorough cost/benefit (in terms of a carbon emission and/or oil use footprint) analysis of going green?

I will add to the list: switch to fluorescent lightbulbs.

quote:

---

So why is everyone pushing for corn based fuel?

---

Might be politics, but corn also is a renewable resource and petroleum is not.

It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive list . There are LOTS of things people can do.

True...in the short picture. What I'm saying is that it "costs" oil to produce corn based ethanol. It actually costs more oil to produce the corn based ethanol than to use the same oil to produce an equivalent amount of gasoline. How is that realistically considered renewable?So while corn itself may be renewable, the production of this renewable resource is actually very costly. You need tractors to plant and harvest. Corn requires large amounts of pesticides which need to be produced and applied. It needs to be transported for production. It needs to be produced. It's a monoculture plant that has replace "green" areas. Etc, etc, etc. It's actually quite terrible.When we run out of oil, we also run out of corn and corn based ethanol. And if we continue to produce corn based ethanol, we will run out of oil sooner than later...that's all I'm saying. Other ethanol production options are much better and result in a net gain (switchgrass, for example).

But don't break them - they contain enough mercury to turn a room into a Superfund site.

Because you're using the wrong measure. It may very well use more oil to get a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of crude petroleum, but the question is - does it use more oil to produce the corn than the oil the corn products replace?I mean, eventually the idea is that you're running the tractors, etc. off of biofuels, too, so that for each gallon of biofuel, some of it goes into the tractors that were used to grow it, some of it goes into the trucks that shipped it, and the rest of it goes into our cars.Here's what I've never seen addressed. The difference between biofuels and fossil fuels is how much sun we're using. A year's worth of biofuel products, in total, can't possibly add up to more energy than the Earth's total energy input from the sun over a year. The advantage of fossil fuels is that you're not limited to the sun's energy in the present; fossil fuels represent what Thom Hartmann calls "ancient sunlight" - the energy of the sun in ages past stored up, like in a battery.If we use more energy in a day than the total energy from the sun in a day, then truly renewable energy isn't sufficient even in theory, and we'll always need to tap the ancient sunlight to make up the deficit. (Realistically we can't turn the entire Earth's surface into solar collectors or biofuel farms.) It'd be interesting to see if someone has run the numbers on that. What's the total caloric consumption of one day of human civilization, I wonder?

Actually, newer ones have much less than they used to; one of those long tube kinds has about 12 mg.As far as overall environmental mercury, the burning of coal, which is how much of our electric power is produces, currently pumps more mercury into the air if you use incandescent bulbs due to their comparative inefficiency than is contained in a typical flourescent bulb.The net mercury released, then, is less with fluorescent.

I agree. Good to know about the newer ones.I'm anxiously awaiting LED light-engine technology.