Is solar and wind the wave of future?

Dave Yates (PAH)

Solar World Congress - ISES & ASES

I recently attended the Solar World Congress in Orlando, FL. where I had an opportunity to meet and mix with 1,800 of the smartest folks I've ever had the privilege to be with. Most were from other countries & the Asian folks found it necessary to wear coats during much of the Congress due to the meat-locker A/C temps maintained - kind of embarrassing at a conference on the world's energy crisis!

One thing that really struck me was the direct correlation that closely ties the global water & food shortages to the looming energy crisis that will be unavoidable as demand outstrips production capability.

Professor Frank Krieth essentially blew the current hybrid cars off the map, during his presentation, by detailing their total cost to benefit ratio and also pointed out that if a vehicle is plugged in, it's simply a car that pollutes elsewhere. The only exception - use of solar to recharge the vehicle.

He then went on to eviscerate the notion that hydrogen or ethanol are going to "save the day" - again, with hard cold facts. By 2010, our USA ethanol production will only be 15% to 17% of what's required if, and only if, every plant now on the drawing board and/or under construction is completed and on-line. If we use anything other than corn or soy beans (like switch grass or cast-offs from other crops) to produce ethanol, it becomes a net-negative fuel source - meaning it takes more energy to produce that can be returned in its use.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, was just a drop in the bucket of our insatiable thirst for gluttonous use of energy and, if produced using power from a utility, it is a net-negative fuel - unless it's manufactured via solar PV.

Think we have enough grain crops to support an ethanol-based energy supply? Think again. In the US, the aquifers currently utilized to support the corn-belt are being pumped at rates beyond their capacity for regeneration. Some areas have already gone dry. Farmers are finding that their water rights have a much greater value than the crops they can raise & they're selling them off and quitting farming. The coming dust bowl of this century will be pretty much permanent.

The single largest grain producing region in the world was located in China - till they pumped the aquifer dry. They no longer produce any crops in that region and have, instead, become a large importer of grains. Rivers that once flowed to oceans no longer reach their destination or become a trickle instead of a roaring torrent - due to use by humans that sucks them dry.

In our country, flood irrigation and sprinkler irrigation (the least efficient methods, but cheapest where labor costs are concerned) are subsidized by the federal government while drip irrigation (most efficient use of water for irrigation, but also expensive due to higher labor costs) is not subsidized - D'OH!

I'm less concerned about Hubbert's Peak (Google for more info) than I am about the world's water crisis. Solar and wind are the answer to the world's energy crisis. Wars will be over water, not oil or gas.

Water, food & energy are much more closely related than I ever imagined possible.


To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

PJO_5

The Water Crisis...

Dave,

This one deserves a whole new thread...and will be far greater of a tragedy than this topic of petroleum.

Another item we waste in ridiculous amounts...and I'm sure lots of Wallies install sprinkler systems for extra $$$. I personally - due to my years in the industry - think that the average home lawn sprinkler system uses more water than the rest of the house on an all too regular basis.

That's just one small example of a huge problem...again, we don't realize as a country what the he** we are doing!

Have a great weekend everybody.

Take Care, PJO

Unknown

Isn't sprinkling water on the ground simply returning it to the aquifer?

Tony Conner_2

A Very Large...

... portion of it evaporates, and falls as rain hundreds or thousands of miles away.

GMcD

Irrigation/sprinklers

I think the issue is one of large scale irregation and sprinkling for farming/ranching etc. as well. Here in my neighborhood there are streams that have less net flow the further downstream they go, due to all the farms and ranches sucking the water out on the way by, and spreading it on the fields, and for a lot of areas it's for hay to feed the horses and cattle, not even for human consumption crops (other than the beef). The effect this has just isn't on the water cycle, it's the salmon and fish that try to spawn in these streams as well, plus the run-off pollution from fertilized fields that ends up back in the streams, killing what's left of the stream and aquifers anyway.

It's not that we don't know better, it's the fact that our human-centrist point of view makes us all think "it's not me, it's the other guy that's doing worse". Well one guy driving one fuel efficient car doesn't make much pollution or use too much resources, but it's the million guys in the same city that are all doing it, and blaming "the other guy". It's a collective problem.

Dave Yates (PAH)

Rob

Up to 80% is lost, which must therefore mean a 20% efficiency.


To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Unknown

even "lost" is a relative term. It comes down again somewhere... right?

I'm not saying it's not a problem, I'm just playing with this trying to see the true nature of the problem.

David_24

Yes on permiate

That's exactly what they have found running the cars on hydrogen - the hydrogen infects the metals and causes cracks - maybe we just can't DO hydrogen engines for that reason. One thing that makes his system safe is the hydride tanks - it stabilizes the hydrogen. You start the car on gas, the hot water heats the hydride tanks releasing the hydrogen, then returns to gas when hydrogen gone - was a great idea- but maybe the new infor on Hydrogen embrittlement has ended the plans.. But you are right - trysting your neighbor to safely handle the stuff is a lot to ask - had not thought of that angle...

Bob W._3

rain/runoff

If and when it gets to the oceans, either by direct rain or runoff, its now salt water.

Unknown

now I'm just going to sound like I'm trying to be difficult... I'm not... but doesn't it also evaporate from oceans?

I mean, it's a water cycle. we're not raising the ocean levels (not through THIS action anyway)... so it's got to get back to fresh water somewhere... right?

I am not a climate scientist, apparently.

GMcD

Depends

The water used for residential lawn sprinkling is treated potable water which requires energy and infrastructure to create in order for the tap water to come out of the hose bibb at the house and into the lawn. One issue is the indiscriminate waste of expensive treated water.

Another issue is the actual source of the raw water- usually large impoundments that dam creeks, rivers etc, which carry their own weight of ecological impact.

Then the raw water is usualy transported some distance from the source to the end user. Joe Suburban waters his lawn and some of that water recharges his local aquifer (maybe) while some runs off into the storm sewer into the local river/stream/ocean and the rest evaporates and comes down as rain somewhere else as part of the grand water cycle.

Where the source of the raw water is an underground aquifer which hast taken 10,000 years to charge, and we draw water from it at a greater rate that it recharges, then it's a problem. To use an extreme example- water transported to Las Vegas to irrigate the golf courses does not recharge any local aquifer, and the evaporated water generally appears as rain somewhere over the eastern US if you watch the weather patterns. Taking huge amounts of water from one place and letting it fall somewhere else doesn't do Joe Suburban in Las Vegas any good when Lake Mead dries up.

Dave Yates (PAH)

Rob

There's much to learn regarding this issue and it's not an easy subject. Less than 1/3 of 1% of the world's water is suitable for human use and much of that 1/3 is inaccessable - think of polar ice caps as an example. Tonight, 1-billion people will have gone without any drinking water this day, many of them children.

In many third world countries, there is no reliable source of clean drinking water and millions will suffer life-long debilitating illnesses - at least those who don't die from the water-borne diseases associated with drinking contaminated water. Women and children are spending up to eight hours, or more, each day in pursuit of water to drink or for personal hygene. Imagine the contributions they could make to their society if their time was spent productively instead.

As mentioned above, many of the world's aquifers are being pumped out faster than they can be recovered or regenerated. Some can regenerate over time, while others - like the one under Tucson - subside as water is depleted and they can't be regenerated. It's like a sponge that is compressed and can't re-expand due to the weight resting over its surface. 10,000 year-old water and it's a once & done deal. People used to go there for their allergies from "back east". But they missed their eastern green grass and trees and shrubbery. So, they water their back yards like crazy and imported all the same trees, plants, etc that caused the allergies - so much so that Tucson now has the same pollen and allergy issues they ran away from! Desert out front - an oasis out back. My cousin has cacti out front & fruit trees, including a grapefruit tree, out back and has to mow the lush carpet of grass in the back yard frequently - in the GD desert, for crying out loud.

Another aquifer in that area has become contaminated by gasses seeping through the earth's strata from a capped landfill - the first instance of man-made gas contamination.

The multi-state water rights agreement for drawing down the once mighty Colorado River was made using extremely optomistic flow-data derived during heaviest flows recorded and they can't be sustained during normal flow rates or possibly met during times of drought.

We're in for some rocky but very interesting times as we will be forced to meet these issues head on. Our own grain-belt is a major issue that's largely being ignored. Our plumbing codes don't currently permit recycling of gray water, with a few exceptions in some arid zones of AZ, but that too will change.

The good news is that solar and wind are seeing a rebirth that won't die by the stroke of a politician's pen - not this time. And that is why I'm moving my firm into the solar business.

If just 6,000 square miles of the US were covered in PV, all US energy needs could be met. If the world were to become grid-connected, all of its energy needs could be met and routed to where it's needed at any given time. The stuff of fantasy & dreams, but it's not completely outside the realm of possibility. If our government were really pro-active, the 90,000 square miles of rebuilding from Katrina would include lots of solar. If I were the President, every home rebuilt would incorporate a grid-tied system. It's an unprecidented opportunity to do the right thing.



To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Toddj_2

Wow this topic really sparked conversation

I am glad to see that I am not the only one who has interest in this topic. I do think we can solve the energy crisis and again I don't think it will be via a magic bullet or easy.

I think we have to accept to assumptions:

1. It may be we have to accept higher prices than we'd like for energy as we subsidize alternative fuel sources to gain a foot hold and build infrastructure. But again if you figure the increasing extraction costs, the geopolitical costs, the enviromental costs and the health costs of fossil fuel development..then we may realize that alternative fuels are truly cheaper. Economists call the geopolitical, environmental and health costs as externalities. I think the new stirling engine solar dishes have fewer environmental costs..just a high initial fixed cost that will decrease as economies of scale occur.

2. The only way to crack then energy problem is to have an open mind. We have to assume one technology is better suited by geography..For example sterling engine solar dishs in the southwest. Wind power in the midwest and in selected areas off the coast. Garbage, geothermal, some hydro, use of bio-diesal take care of another portion of the energy pie. Fossil Fuels and Nuclear complement these engergy sources. Isnt it possible for the public utility to use alt sources first esp solar during peak time usage and automatically switch when power decreases. Fossil fuels are thus the back up. Ready to be used to elminate power disruptions.

3. Conservation is a given. Building energy efficient homes, fuel efficient cars and increasing hybrid systems. To bad that hydrogen may be more complicated than it seems. I never heard of the embritillment problem until now. Its another piece of the pie.

4. If gas prices stay so high people will conserve more by driving less and perhaps moving closer to work.


Again I am enjoying and learning from this discussion. You are all pretty well informed.

Todd

Wayco Wayne_2

What an interesting thread

I'm an old solar hippie from way back. I took some solar engineering courses in college. I finished a passive solar addition in my old house just before Reagan axed the solar credits. I have worked on some of the active solar systems around DC but have pretty much forgotten a lot. There's only so much that can be held in my leaky hard drive of a brain. I'm going to the Solar Decathalon being held in DC in early October. I'm also taking a class in DC, called "Solar assisted Radiant Floors", put on by RPA member Peter Biondi on Oct 8th. If anyone is interested I'll dig up the thread on it. I recently read "The Long Emergency." by Kuntsler. It's a brain squirming dose of reality concerning energy and the related geopolitical and economic ramifications. It has moved me to be activating on saving the planet and my kids future. I see big things for ground source Heat Pumps and solar. Put in your radiant floors now, cuz plastic tubing is made out of oil, and oil is getting hard to get out of the ground. Keep your stock in rubber tubing companys. WW

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Dave Yates (PAH)

Solar Decathalon

Wayne,

Isn't that going on as RadFest ends? If so,
I'd like to pop over and take a tour too.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Glen

enjoyable thread

Thanks to eBay I picked up a forgotten text book from California - Biomass as a Fuel Source. It addressed the energy issue from a completely different tangent - essentially that a complete recycling program - recovering everything possible and then composting the organics to produce methane could solve several issues at once. And if I recall it was economy of scale and the NIMBY syndrome that would ulitmately control this avenue of energy reduction. Given world events of the past months and specifically the tragedies in the golf states - economic feasibility now may be closer to reality. In our area (canadian rockies) we enjoy huge amounts of sunlight - consistently throughout the year. Over the winter I will be installing a vitosol system for dhw and for supplemental heat in an otherwise poorly heated basement. Just 200 km east of us in southwest Alberta - wind energy is harnessed to assist the folks in Calgary. Alberta is about 75% coal fired electricity - a diminishing resource too. Is wind/solar the wave of the future? It can be - it depends on geography, and on personal incentive to reduce fossil fuel utilization. We have been lulled to sleep with cheap cheap power for too long - the old Fram filter add comes to mind - "pay me now or pay me later". Later has arrived with a vengence.
For our businesses this can be a good thing - the need (economic) to wring every last btu out of a resource can actually spark increased high end appliance sales, reset controls and other cost saving items for our clients. All the participants on the Wall have already bought into this opportunity - where the prevailing attitude seems to be - "do it better - do it best".

Plumdog_2

gray water recycling

I pondered the idea of building gray water recycling devices for household use; i.e. flushing toilets with used shower water. This concept is allowed by the IPC that most areas have adopted as Code; but the logistics make it difficult to accomplish, what with filtering and disinfection and coloring and overflow and auto refill and a host of other requiments. Someone markets such devices on the internet, but they don't meet code for new construction.
By the way, have you read Cadillac Desert?

hr

Dave

I am going to head over to the solar village on Friday if you are still in town. we have board meetings on Thursday.

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

bob_50

Tony

you have the units mixed. You are comparing one pound of hydrogen to one cubic foot of natural gas. One cubic foot of hydrogen contains 323 BTU. One pound of natural gas contains approximatly 24,000 BTU.

leo g_13

Conservation

I remember reading in an old Harrowsmith that if just the lighting needs of Ontario were taken care of by flourescents, that would decrease the energy need of that province by about 15%.

With these modern flourescents, why are there still incadescents left on store shelves?

Leo G

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Unknown

Have they made a fluorescent whose light quality doesn't suck yet? Man, I can't stand the light the ones I've seen throw. Feels like living in a warehouse. We have the tube fluorescents here at work, and we've had to go out and get desk lamps cause none of us can stand to work under them.

Toddj_2

another piece of the energy pie

I was talking to a friend today about this topic. He mentioned two impt things.

1. They can create tanks that will hold hydrogen safely for quite some time. So this is really only a minor issue and hydrogen could again be possible. After all it is the most abundant element in the universe.

2. He also mentioned a device that uses wave action on a magnet like device that creates energy. Much like those shakeable flashlights that dont ever need a battery...but of course producing significant amounts of power and without the significant environmental effects of hydro.

Again explore all alternatives and chip away a percentage or two (or much more) of energy consumption from each source and hey you suddenly arent burning nearly as much fossil fuels..or much at all for that matter.

toddj

RadPro

SOLAR

for you plumbing guys the offtake into solar domestic hot water is a natural...and it works great if you get the sun. Back to the flouresants ...agin here some applications they just dont fit.newer ones are much better and they are cheaper so payback is in less than 4 months. Out of my 60 plus compacts I've only lost 5 inthe last 12 years and they saved me a pile of money in my quest for 10 to 15 KWH per day ....Paul

Toddj_2

Doesn't it make sense that we explore the alternative fuel sources first before we try nuclear or coal. In comparing costs/economic feasability we need to look at environmental costs as well. As I said in an earlier post..while the current level of energy prices is painful..indeed it is what prompted this topic anyway..if we can find alternative renewables that actually work and keep the cost increases down..then why not. Eventually economic growth will make the current price levels of alternatives seem cheaper. We just have to accept an initial cost outlay for capital equipment.

Tony Conner_2

There Are...

... a couple of problems. One is that the alternative power sources really don't generate very much juice. The other is that it takes SO LONG to build central generating stations. From the time it's decided that a plant needs to be built, until it's up and running, you can be looking at 10 years. There's all the engineering, permitting, equipment has to be selected and ordered, construction & commissioning, etc. And that's a conventional plant - nuclear stations take longer. You can build smaller conventional generating plants in shorter timeframes, but the economy of scale is often lost. To imagine that wind techology, along with the storage of power for when the wind drops will replace the decades old coal and nuke stations here in Ontario is just fantasy.

Get the peak megawatt requirements for where ever it is that you live. Figure out how many windmills and square feet of solar panels it would take to equal that, even assuming the wind blew all the time, or it was never night or cloudy, and the panels always stayed clean. Actually sit down and do the math for yourself. Be careful of just assuming that the statistics that are thrown around in the media are accurate. The currently level of the alternative techologies just isn't capable of even coming close to meeting the power requirements of an industrial society. Industrial operations need reliable power - and that's just a fact. Even agriculture is highly automated with a big power requirement. I know of a good sized dairy farm near here that simply CANNOT be without power. He's got a big standby generator that he can back one of his tractors (and this is a SERIOUS tractor...) to keep his operation going. And that's just the farm - the dairy operations have HUGE power needs, not the least of which is the refrigeration equipment. Then there's the refrigeration equipment at the store, and in you house. Just add up the power required for food production, processing and handling - never mind AC. That's a LOT of juice.

When the current crop of wind turbines showed up, I thought they sounded really intersting, so I did some reading. It was pretty disappointing - not much bang for your buck.

Tony Conner_2

We're...

... not just considering trying coal or nuke power - it's here (and has been for decades) big-time. The vast bulk of the power generated in the industrialized world comes from steam turbines. The steam to drive the turbines comes from either fossil fuel (predominantly coal) boilers or nuclear reactors - heating boilers. When most people think of "steam power", they imagine railway lococmotives, and quaint old techology - like conductors with pocket watches. The fact is, we still live in the age of "steam power". You just don't see it chuffing through town several times a day - it's sitting behind the walls at the power stations - even the nukes.

It takes years to get a plant engineered, built and on line. Much of the generating capacity in North America has a lot of miles on it, and should have been replaced a decade ago. The reality is, we can't wait any longer to build some new plants. It's literally going to be "lights out".

Do the math about how much power you can get out of a wind turbine. (Look at actual power output, not the "we can power 10,000 homes" nonsense in the media) and compare it to the actual power demand for where ever it is that you live. Unless you live a rural agrarian society, you'll never get enough wind turbines up to come close to making it supply the power requirements, even if the wind blows (hard) all of the time. Which it won't. Give the wind turbine a better edge in the calculation - cut the power demand by 25%, assuming conservation kicks-in, and see if you can do it then. Not happening.

At the end of the 1800's steam engine techology had gone as far as it could go, efficiency-wise. Something new had to come along. It was Mr. Parsons, and his steam turbine. If that's going to be replaced, then something new again will have to show up. And I don't think anything in the currently available line of techology is it. But we should keep looking - I don't know what it is, but it will be out there.

Constantin

Combined-cycle fuel-cells...

... I happen to think that in the generating business SOFCs combined with turbines will become increasingly popular.

In general, it'll be a great challenge to see what can be done with waste heat or cooling in general. For example, the LNG facility in Boston has to gasify a lot of LNG every day to feed it into the local gas network. Imagine all the "free" BTUs you could extract from your facility that way...

However, also allow me to add this tidbit. Our house in its present form is projected to use ¼ of the energy it did before the renovation with no loss in comfort. I wish the government incentivized people to conserve rather than subsizing the producers as they have in the latest energy bill.

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Why Not the \"Original\" Alternative?

Proposed by the man who nearly single-handedly developed our current system of electrical generation, transmission and utilization.

The upper atmosphere of our planet contains what we would consider boundless energy. Yes, it's solar in nature but the quantity is so high that it's still boundless at night when powered by other suns.

Open a pathway of slightly increased conductance to the upper atmosphere, resonate it into the earth itself via a tuned atmospheric output of incredibly high frequency. The atmosphere becomes the "brain" and the earth the "mother".

Tesla understood "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared" LONG before it was postulated.

I ask this simple question:

If energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, where is the mass times speed of light squared component of a cast iron radiator's radiant (pure energy) output?

Tony Conner

It'll...

... need to be something like one of Tesla's ideas, I think.

For those who aren't familiar with Nicola Tesla - he was a contemporary & competitor of Edison. Edison was a genius, Tesla was at least his equal.

Steve Ebels_3

Common sense or Social Engineering (again)

Mr Yates, who is a deep thinker from what I know and have seen, brought up the issue of water supply to arid regions of good old Mother earth. It made me recall a post regarding the rebuilding of New Orleans a couple weeks ago. Most of you will recollect that the main issue of the thread was how far we should go in subsidizing people in their desire to live in inhospitable locations. Or maybe a better way to put it would be; To what extent should taxpayer dollars be spent to allow lifestyles which do not lend themselves to sustainable use of a given habitat? I refer to Mr Yates' point above regarding green lawns in the Arizona desert. Or how about agricultural use of land in areas which are poorly suited for that purpose.

Just because we can, is it the right thing to do? Let me put that statement in a context that most of the contractors here deal with every day. We all know that more times than not an HVAC system which is maybe good but not the best it can be efficiency-wise is installed in the majority of new homes. Most often this is due to matters of budget. Is this not however, a false economy? When a "standard" type boiler is installed instead of a modulating/condensing boiler is the cause of overall economy actually served? When a regular 90% furnace is installed instead of a GSHP, sure the owner saves some dough up front but what price is paid in terms of long term efficiency for not only that home but the power grid as a whole.

I see acre after acre of good ag land being swallowed up by developement and urban sprawl. What price do we pay in having to make marginal ag areas produce more per acre through irrigation and over fertilization? Many here probably don't realize the amount of petrol required in the production of fertilizer but I can assure you all that the local farmers around here are painfully aware of it due to the escalation of their fertilizer costs this past year.

Who's going to raise their hand and say enough? What politician has the b***s to stand up and say, "We can't build houses like that anymore". "Even if the housing market slows to a crawl, it's just not going to work if we don't use the best available technology". The Home Builders Associations in the USA would probably drag him into the street collectively and stone him on the spot. I'm picking on housing here as an example but what a difference it would have made if even 10 years ago someone had had the fortitude to call for the best possible building envelope, heated and cooled by the best available system along with mandated flourescent lights. As an example, I just did a heat loss for a house where the lighting load ran 16,000 btu's for cooling. There are 109 incandescent bulbs in the place. what if they were all flourescent? Housing is a major area for improvement, but it is just one area. How many can you think of?

leo g_13

The big Laugh to me

is that I read in an article about 2 months ago, that yes, maybe the tar sands of Alberta contain more oil then all of Saudi Arabia, but to get the stuff to flow, they use NATURAL GAS to "heat" it out! Supposedly, up to 30% of all the NG that Alberta produces! The Albertan Gov. gives these Tar Sands companies, HUGE tax breaks or they still would not be able to make a profit up to about 40 bucks a barrel!

Talk about a false economy. Maybe the tar sands are the place for nuclear......

Leo G

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

hr

Actually, the Canadian

Weyburn Project sounds interesting. Check out this link for some reading on global warming.


http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/3afd8ca927d05010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mike T., Swampeast MO

This IS Tesla's idea. He saw it as clearly as he invisioned reversing an alternating current motor in his mind. Such is beyond genius...

Tony Conner_2

I May...

...not have worded my post very well - I realize that this is Tesla's idea. I meant that it would be one of his concepts, or some similar type of what is/would be considered off-the-wall idea that will break us through into a new techology. I don't see the existing crop as being capable of doing that. The fact remains, at the present time if you need vast amounts of power at anything approaching a reasonable cost, you're pretty much looking at steam turbines.

[Deleted User]

Well said Dave...

If you thinnk life would be tough without gasoline, try living without water...

This last summer, I saw something I never thought I would see in my life time. The reservoir where I spend most of my free time, has become polluted with algae blooms.

It is my opinion that this is a direct connection to the urban sprawl occuring upstream, from too many golf courses and homeowners dumping fertilizers on their precious lawns. The resultant runoff bypasses the sewage treatment plant and ends up in the river that feeds our reservoir, and feeds the algae blooms to the point that the lakes oxygen levels drop, and fishing sucks. Especially when you have to stop reeling in your fishing line to clear the moss from the eyelets of your rod.

It makes me want to cry...

ME

Dave Yates (PAH)

While resting in the Rockies this past summer

Well, resting might be the wrong word as we were quite active!

After we visited and a few days later, we floated on the Mighty Colorado and fly-fished for a full day. Stunning scenery and great fishing too(G). But, the most interesting thing was the conversation with our guides who were all natives and fit the cowboy image to a T. As we passed a lake on our way to fishing, they expressed outrage that the rights to that body of water belong to Denver and their conversation left little doubt as to how they viewed city-slickers who waste water. In true cowboy-spirit, they spoke in very plain terms about what they'd do if drought conditions and a distant city's thirst for water threatened their lifestyle and it left no doubt that bloodshed was something they're already resigned to using. So - the water wars of our future really aren't that far removed from becoming a reality. Cities vs rural folk vs farming vs cowpokes. I let my grass go dormant and brown every year. My uphill neighbors, on the other hand, water theirs every day & hire co's to give their lawns the weed & feed treatment. Water runs down the roadway most mornings from excess runoff. That's potable drinking water! Maybe they're simply generating "free" radiant A/C? In turn, the watering causes their lawn care specialists to mow while my mower sits unused in the shed. We're one nutty country.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Tony Conner_2

The Actual Water Use...

...is only part of the issue, too. It's one thing to be sucking water of a lake or river to water crops or whatever. Once you get into potable water, the electrical power required for that is just astronomical. Most people have no idea whatsoever how many tanks & pumps are required between the stages of the water treatment process. It's far, far more than just sucking water out of a lake or river and pushing it through the pipe to your house. When water is wasted, that's bad enough. When treated drinking water is wasted...wow. Then add on the sewage treatment end - more huge pumps. There's a multiplier effect at work - and not in a good way. If people want conserve electricity, a really good place to start, is to cut the amount of potable water that they use.

Toddj_2

Why bother putting so much into fossil fuels

I get so tired of hearing people talk about drilling into Anwar. It seems like we need to accept reality and limit the amount of investment into fossil fuels. At gas almost $3 gallon...alternative fuel sources are no more expensive and probably less expensive correct?

Also if you stop importing oil then it helps erase the trade deficit (aka current account deficit).

So again I say lets be open to other fuel sources. There is no one magic bullet that will do the job but enough to put a huge dent into fossil fuel consumption. If Katrina and Rita didnt convince enough people that something significant is occuring with the environment then I dont know what will.

Todd

Constantin

That's one way to tackle the problem...

... after discussions with the experts at BNL, I came away with the notion that alternate fuel sources (outside of fusion power, if feasible) is not the answer. There simply aren't enough BTUs around to power all the things we want to power, globally. For example, one of the researchers at BNL claimed that biodiesel could cover domestic (USA) heating needs or transportation, but not both, even if all the arable land in the USA was dedicated to growing rapseed/sunflowers/whatever.

The simple truth is that we have to learn to use our energy more efficiently. Great strides were made in the late 1970's as consumers forced car companies to consider fuel efficiency in their designs. the same thing is starting to happen now, as the fuel prices are starting to hurt people. I hope that as energy becomes more expensive that more people will insulate, conserve, and otherwise reduce their energy footprint.

Our house, for example, is projected to use ¼ the energy it needed before it was renovated. Such is the difference of envelope upgrades, infiltration reduction, and other measures. Currently, it doesn't pay for most consumers to get their homes in order but as energy prices rise, it will. I predict busy seasons for all the folk in the home energy business ahead.

Bob W._3

Constantin, will you describe what kind of upgrades you are making to your home that will result in a 75% reduction in energy usage? Sounds like you are doing a superinsulation project. Thanks.