Comments thollandpe has made
- I've recently visited two windmills in Massachusetts, both at schools and at the edge of ball fields. The whistle of wind through the backstop was louder than the blades. Yes the blade noise is intermittent, but not unlike a car going by at a distance. And speaking of that, I live off a secondary road with 50 mph traffic. That noise is intermittent and unpredictable, and even has a strong low-frequency component (especially when the milk tanker goes by, 3 or 4 times a day). How's that significantly different than a wind turbine? Besides louder and affecting WAY more people . . . Oh, and some yahoo just started a two-cycle leaf blower, argh. I wish the doctor luck in finding the cause of these people's ills, but the wind machines seem a very unlikely suspect. She'd better be looking for other causes. A note to Eric R, do you really expect to pin the varying coal ton per kWh ratio on the relatively tiny wind component to the US grid? It's absurd. Don't forget about the variable Btu per ton energy value of coal and the changing share of natural gas generation, two much stronger factors.On One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’ posted 1 week, 4 days ago 60 Responses
- You can get line-dried towels soft . . . by using them once!On A surprising sneak peek at the clothesline revolution posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 33 Responses
- I think you're selectively revealing facts to be deliberately misleading. The top 3 trade-ins were Ford Explorer, Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee, and Ford Windstar. Oink. The top 3 new cars were Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, and Honda Civic. Tada! The edumunds.com story tries to say the "real" cost was $24,000 per car because many of those purchases would have happened anyway. But it does not account for the stimulus effect that cash then had elsewhere, so it's a shoddy analysis. The program was not perfect, but it worked. I'd rather my tax dollars do this than pay bonuses in the bloat-and-gloat financial sector.On Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers! posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 29 Responses
- His hair is in a league w/ Lou Dobbs, Bill Frist, and Tom DeLay (but without the dye). There's a litmus test for you.On Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) [UPDATED] posted 4 weeks, 1 day ago 2 Responses
- Dear Rep. Hutchinson, how much has our inaction on climate change & energy security cost us already? That inaction has not only adversely affected the economy, it helped tank it. Don't feed us the party line about farmers, ranchers, workers and small businesses . . . we've already been squeezed and it's time for you to act. Sorry I don't have the Texas numbers but you can find them. Between 2000 and 2008, the average Massachusetts family paid $4000 a year more for energy. Electricity went from 10.5¢ to 16.1¢ per kWh, $600 a year more. Heating oil went from $1.31 to $3.21 a gallon, $1520 a year more. Gasoline went from $1.22 to $2.89 a gallon, $1850 a year more. That's about $4000 a year, THE COST OF DOING NOTHING. We need a framework that puts a price on the environmental, political, and national security penalties inherent in fossil fuels like oil and coal. Cap & trade may not be perfect but it's way better than business as usual. Enough of using us farmers and workers as pawns, the only ones with something to lose are the big energy companies, please stop listening to them and listen to us.On Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 5 Responses
- What's all this about carbon neutral and why the climate fundamentalism? The question was whether the green tags offered by NC utilities were legit, and the answer was yes (I think). No, you may not be able to go legitimately carbon neutral by only buying offsets. But how many of us can take a serious bite out of our carbon footprints without using offsets or RECs as part of the strategy? Part of, not the only strategy. One of many weapons in the anti-climate-change arsenal. My worry is that by tarring some sketchy offsets is that you contribute to the de-legitimization of all offsets, and by extension legitimate products like Green-e certified RECs. From an institutional perspective that enables the "all offsets are crap" dodge away from supporting any green energy product. I've seen it used, often. Yes, there is diligence due but there are plenty of valid products out there. Sheesh, it’s like saying that because one charity has a Lear jet and palatial offices, that no thanks I won’t support the Jimmy Fund this year.On Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses
- Thanks Umbra for clarifying. I was alarmed at how quickly the commentary on your last post devolved into "offset your guilt, not your emissions". They seemed to roll right by your discussion of additionality. The fact is that there are legitimate offsets and they can have a legitimate function. And of course their function, effect will gel when a mandatory national framework is in place (and choosing among them will be simplified too). It's high time we had that framework and we should support making it. But in the meantime there are valid offsets and we should support them too, like the REC's offered by North Carolina utilities.On Ask Umbra on climate weapons posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 4 Responses
- Well done Umbra, another bright response. Can I add a few caveats? First order of business should be reducing the load. 1.5 gallon-per-minute (GPM) shower heads and 0.5-GPM aerators in the bathrooms will save significantly. My family likes Bricor and Oxygenics shower heads. Your solar hot water system will require a backup heater, and tankless is a good option for that. And another option, a heat pump water heater. Lotza folks run a dehumidifier in the basement and these use an alarming amount of energy. A heat pump water heater can dehumidify while heating your water, a good choice if you have a damp basement and heat water with electricity.On Ask Umbra on replacing hot-water heaters posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 21 Responses
- Right! Uncontrolled infiltration could cause condensation, or air quality issues – that draft might be coming in over a dead squirrel in the attic, mouse droppings in the walls, or radon from under the slab. You're much better off bringing air in through a heat exchanger or air handler where it can be filtered and controlled. And energy audits won't save you a penny . . . until you implement the recommendations.On Ask Umbra on drafty houses posted 2 months ago 3 Responses
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
Well said!
Our electric energy system is only 32% efficient, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf
That's not just fossil fuel, it also includes nuke, hydro, and wind . . . all the fuels.
Just as you say, we throw away twice as much energy as we get out of the process. So for every unit of electricity you don't use, three units of energy are saved. That's one helluva return and that's why conservation and efficiency are so dang effective.
You will no doubt get some pseudo-engineer boobs posting that there's a limiting Carnot efficiency and referencing the laws of thermodynamics. True that you can't get 100% of the energy out as work but the waste energy is heat, and we do need to heat up a lot of stuff in this country. 32% efficiency is abysmal and we need to improve that.
FYI, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs says the transportation sector's efficiency is 25%, see https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.html. Is this what's called a target-rich environment?
On How much energy does the U.S. waste? posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 14 ResponsesThis article is superbly written! Photos are good too, great Grist.
My guess is that your investment will be even better than you think. My boiler replacement project paid back in four years because the actual, real-world efficiency of the old unit (propane-fired w/ indirect domestic hot water) was way lower than I estimated.
Best of luck, and please keep us updated. Oh, and can somebody track the return of investments like this against something more conventionsal, like a 401k?
On Two homeowners, one monster, and a cutting-edge power source posted 6 months, 2 weeks ago 6 ResponsesEfficiency first!
Glad to see efficiency put first. When are we going to get around to that? It's time we recognized it as not only an effective, but vital, strategy.
I love the ants vs. dogs metaphor posted by Pangolin. Because efficiency, cogeneration, and small-scale renewables are highly decentralized. That's why they are so difficult to marshal and promote, and all-too-easy to discount.
Let's march.
Toad the 12 sprocket
On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 11 months ago 48 ResponsesMustache?
Um, isn't he more like the Nostrils of Justice?
Toad the 12 sprocket
On Waxman talks to NYT Magazine about unseating Dingell posted 11 months, 1 week ago 1 ResponseBig bore badness
Keep your eye on the ball, y'all. Boot soles vs knobby tires isn't the real debate on trail damage, it's all about the power. More power means more damage and a human engine does not have that much.
If you know any cyclists that train with power meters, 250 watts is riding hard. That's about 1/3 horsepower.
To put that in perspective, a 700cc quad ATV will have over 40 hp on tap.
I've seen a quad do more damage in a single ride than a decade of non-motorized access. Of course it's possible to ride them responsibly too, but my point is that this hiker vs biker thing is a distraction. The rule change also allows motors, right?
On Rule change would allow more mountain biking in national parks posted 11 months, 1 week ago 11 ResponsesDon't be a sucker . . .
This is just a ruse and we've taken the bait.
It's not about the mountain bikes, it's about the four-wheel drives, ATV's and snowmobiles . . . motorized access. They've invited the mountain bikers to the party in hopes that we'll draw some of the fire.
Personally, I am fine with keeping the National Parks off limits. Why ride in Yosemite when the Sierra National Forest is open and right next door?
This is crazy, we cyclists should say "no thanks" and back away from the impact/access canard to emphasize the point that motorized access is wrong.
Preserve and protect our pristine National Parks, ride elsewhere. On Rule change would allow more mountain biking in national parks posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses
My aim is true
Mr. Bozzio, even though you're coming a little unglued I'll try another reply. Regardless of whether those 45 new nukes deliver 3 QBtu or 1 QBtu, why concentrate on that?
The nuclear component of our 2007 power picture was only 8.4 QBtu. That sounds significant when you consider that end use accounts for only 13.3 QBtu, but not when you compare it to the massive 27.2 QBtu conversion losses.
Not to be confused with transmission & distribution losses, those are only 1.3 QBtu. You let your hand show with that Prius comment. But this is a lot of numbers so I'll recap. Where's the biggest target:
Energy used to generate electricity = 42.1 QBtu
Conversion Losses = 27.2 QBtu = 64%
End Use = 13.3 QBtu = 31%
Nuclear Energy Input = 8.4 QBtu = 20%
T&D Losses = 1.3 QBtu = 3%And let's not bluff with the crap card that Carnot efficiency limits how much we can get out of the process, much of those conversion losses can be recovered as useful heat.
Just tell me why conservation and efficiency don't blow nukes out of the water when it comes to potential capacity, time to market, cost effectiveness, and environmental benefit. You may want to watch this first:
http://tinyurl.com/3c8vpfToad the 12 sprocket
On Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 ResponsesNew math?
Mr. Borzio, can we check your calculations another way?
You object to Architecture 2030's calculation that 45 new nukes = 3.0 QBtu per year, about 3% of the projected 118 QBtu total energy needs of the US in 2030. I approached that from a different direction . . .
Let's say those 45 new nuke plants average 2500 MW output. 2500 WM is pretty big, larger than the current fleet's average, yes? That's four times larger than the nuke nearest to me.
Assume 90% availability = 7884 hours per year at full-load output.
2500 MW * 7884 hours = 886,950,000 MWh
Converting to Btu's that's 3.0 * 10^15 = 3.0 Quadrillion Btu per year.
That checks their numbers, and it looks like old math to me. Unless I've made a mistake, so please point it out if I have. Otherwise the numbers seem to make "basic sense".
Toad the 12 sprocket
On Architecture 2030's challenge targets would provide five times the energy as offshore and nuclear posted 1 year, 1 month ago 31 ResponsesSee, oh two!
Well done, Umbra. I relish the rodent references.
I also appreciate the equation CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H20
CH4 is a hydrocarbon. We buy the hydrocarbons, which are mostly carbon (75 to 90%) because hydrogen is light. But CO2 is only 27% carbon by weight.
So for each pound of fuel you buy, you make about 3 pounds of CO2! Save a little hydrocarbon, save a lot of greenhouse gas.
On Umbra on calculating CO2 weight posted 1 year, 3 months ago 19 ResponsesNo mellow yellow
At our house we just installed a Sterling dual-flush toilet. Two buttons - a smaller 0.8-gallon flush (for #1, you get the idea) - and #2 is the standard 1.6 gallon flush.
Works great, less filling!
TH in MAOn Umbra on replacing toilets posted 2 years, 4 months ago 8 Responses
Diesel fitter
Oops, in checking my Btu/gallon numbers I forgot that gasoline today has 10% ethanol. That drops the Btu content to 15% less than diesel. So if the diesel got 44 mpg a comparable number for gas is 37 mpg.
Same conclusion, one additional comment. How about hybrid synergy drive for my bicycle?
Toad the 12 sprocket
On You may be surprised posted 2 years, 10 months ago 56 ResponsesMore Btu's in a gallon of diesel
OK, first off you need to consider that diesel fuel has a higher energy content per gallon (about 11% more Btu's) than gasoline. So if a diesel Jetta gets 44 mpg, the comparable number for a gasoline-powered car is 39. Efficiency is energy output divided by energy input.
Next, consider that the GENIUS of hybrid drive is recovering the braking energy and using it for propulsion. Now wouldn't that be great to do with a VW TDI? How about NASCAR or Formula 1? To capture and use a significant source of energy that is currently being wasted (as heat) is the real advance, and for that Toyota should be applauded.
I also have access to a Honda Civic Hybrid fleet car, and have gotten 49-51 mpg. That feels great, certainly as much fun as 4WD or heated seats, and nobody asks what the payback is for those trinkets.
Who cares if a VW TDI gets better mileage . . . they're both great cars with efficiency that should embarrass most others on the road. The vee-dub diesel may take the cake with mileage and range, but the hybrid's trick is tapping a free and heretofore wasted energy source.
Toad the 12 sprocket
On You may be surprised posted 2 years, 10 months ago 56 ResponsesThrow off your chains!
Here are a few antidotes for those excuses not to ride. Chief among these is to realize that this, like most undertakings, is not a change in your routine that will be invisible or instantly adopted. Give it time to take root and reap the benefits as they accrue.
> I'm too lazy/it's too far/too hard:
Try the one-way commute. Drive to work with the bike and ride home, then ride in the next day. Having the car already at work is a great motivator for Day 2.> There's no place to carry my stuff:
On the days you drive to work, bring and store your clothes (especially shoes, they're hardest to carry) for the bike commute days.> Bikes are too expensive and hard to maintain:
This requires that you step outside the box. If you look at every mile you drive as saving 45¢, it's cheap. And that's only the IRS-approved personal car mileage rate. The benefits to your mental and physical health . . . priceless.> There's not enough time:
Drive time is unproductive and usually frustrating. Commuting by bike reclaims that lost time. When you get to work you've already crossed something off your to-do list, and the time you've had to think (on the way in) or decompress (on the way home) is well spent. You may not need that trip to the climbing gym, acupuncturist, liquor store, etc. anymore.> It's too dangerous:
Yes it is. But it beats being killed by poor diet, lack of exercise, and job-related stress. Learning how to ride well is one way to minimize the risk . . . I mean look at the video . . . those riders are taking insane chances but combine that skill and concentration with more common sense and basic road manners and you have dramatically reduced the risk. Lean to ride and ride well. And put it in perspective: 1) How many people do you know that have been hurt in car accidents? 2) A pretzel almost killed a US President, once upon a time.> There's no shower:
I shower in the AM, get dressed in my riding clothes, ride to work, wash my face in the sink and change into work clothes. On hot days I'm forced to ride easy, but I think a difficult meeting registers higher on the BO meter than a 10-mile commute.
Toad the 12 sprocket
On Bicycling highs posted 3 years, 3 months ago 22 Responses