crazypat
The Basics
- Name: crazypat
crazypat’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
I can't believe you posted this...
I couldn't even get through the first 3 paragraphs. We know these guys are looney tunes. They have no concept of ecological systems. Most everone here on Gristmill understands that destroying the natural environment means destroying humans' ability to survive. These guys (and the libertarians) should take a lesson from the (now-extinct) Easter Islanders. On The ghost of Ayn Rand reminds us that environmentalists want to KILL US ALL [cue music from Psycho] posted 3 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Distributed Energy Supports Democracy
You've hit the head on the nail. Distributed energy generation like solar PV provides a framework that is very resistant to monopolistic corporate and governmental control.
I HIGHLY recommend Hermann Scheer's book [em]Solar Economy[/em]. In it, he discusses this idea in detail. There is a chart that compares the various forms of energy and how susceptible they are to corporate monopolies and centralized power. READ THIS BOOK!!! It is far and away the best out there on the subject of renewable energy and policy.
In case you haven't heard of him, Hermann Scheer is a member of the German parliment who has made Germany one of the best prepared nations on earth for the end of fossil fuels.
About Scheer:
President of EUROSOLAR;
General Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy (WCRE);
President of the International Parliamentary Forum on Renewable Energies;
Member of the German Bundestag; Publicist and author;Honoured with the Right Livelihood Award 1999, with the Solar World Prize 1998, the World Prize on Bioenergy 2000 and the World Wind Energy Award 2004
http://www.hermann-scheer.de/On Nuclear energy and power devolution posted 3 years, 6 months ago 4 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Yes it is, and here's an example...
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
My college has recently thrown up two new concrete monstrosities, and somehow both are LEED certified. I was extremely perturbed by the school's thoughtlessness and the lack of student input. These are two high-energy, high-water consumption buildings--one a dining hall, the other an 80-person dorm. Neither addressed the fundamental design considerations of a "green building" and instead opted for the credit-mongering approach.
Key items that were given lip-service only
- passive heating/cooling design
- grey water recycling
- solar photovoltaics
- construction materials
Here's an excerpt from the college's website boasting of the LEED certification items:
- More than 75 percent of the construction waste was diverted away from landfills.
- More than 50 percent of the building materials were manufactured less then 500 miles from campus.
- More than 10 percent of the building materials is from recycled content.
- Most of the site's storm water is infiltrated into the landscape and not sent into city storm drains.
- Water-efficient drip irrigation systems reduce landscape water use by more than 50 percent compared to standard practice.
- Energy-efficient systems reduce the building's energy use by more than 18 percent compared to standard practice.
- The wood ceiling in the lounge comes from a certified sustainably managed forest.
- A white "cool roof" helps to minimize the urban heat island effect.
A short rebuttal (as I have spent time in this new building):
- Considering that both buildings are 90% (by mass) cinderblock and steel girders, the 10% recycled construction material is pathetic.
- The "energy-efficient systems" ignored the whole-systems design approach in favor of the "light-bulb here, light-bulb-there" approach.
- The building uses a lot more wood (including bed frames, desks, and chairs) than contained "in the ceiling of the lounge".
- passive heating/cooling design
Click here to view comment in original post
Yes it is, and here's an example...
Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA
My college has recently thrown up two new concrete monstrosities, and somehow both are LEED certified. I was extremely perturbed by the school's thoughtlessness and the lack of student input. These are two high-energy, high-water consumption buildings--one a dining hall, the other an 80-person dorm. Neither addressed the fundamental design considerations of a "green building" and instead opted for the credit-mongering approach.
Key items that were given lip-service only
- passive heating/cooling design
- grey water recycling
- solar photovoltaics
- construction materials
Here's an excerpt from the college's website boasting of the LEED certification items:
- More than 75 percent of the construction waste was diverted away from landfills.
- More than 50 percent of the building materials were manufactured less then 500 miles from campus.
- More than 10 percent of the building materials is from recycled content.
- Most of the site's storm water is infiltrated into the landscape and not sent into city storm drains.
- Water-efficient drip irrigation systems reduce landscape water use by more than 50 percent compared to standard practice.
- Energy-efficient systems reduce the building's energy use by more than 18 percent compared to standard practice.
- The wood ceiling in the lounge comes from a certified sustainably managed forest.
- A white "cool roof" helps to minimize the urban heat island effect.
A short rebuttal (as I have spent time in this new building):
- Considering that both buildings are 90% (by mass) cinderblock and steel girders, the 10% recycled construction material is pathetic.
- The "energy-efficient systems" ignored the whole-systems design approach in favor of the "light-bulb here, light-bulb-there" approach.
- The building uses a lot more wood (including bed frames, desks, and chairs) than contained "in the ceiling of the lounge".
- passive heating/cooling design