March 28, 2024, 11:55:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Oil - Pickens Goes For The Grass Roots  (Read 13748 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A's Fever
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 806



« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2008, 02:15:21 AM »

Let's stop all coal production in the USA.  Oh, that's a brilliant idea since that would eliminate all electricity in the area in which I live, not to mention the fact that thousands would loose their income.  I have seen first hand what the environmentalists have done to areas that offend their sensibilities.  Wind power in my area would be a limited thing since there are few areas of flat land and enough wind to produce the enormous amounts of energy needed.  So I guess then we buy from all those in Texas and beyond and what happens then?  My own power bill jumps from $300 to $600?? What happens when a tornado rips through that area and levels all those windmills? Do you think that could not happen? Texas has storms also. Yes, that's a brilliant idea.  Nuclear is in this area, yet, still not as efficient as using the natural resources around you.  I know this is not a popular idea on this thread, but how can the average person afford that new electric car?  It's too expensive and if you can't drive it farther than a hundred miles without a recharge it is useless around here.  The average person in this area drives that far to work everyday.  Do you think the employers are going to let them use their own electricity to recharge before they go home at night?  Would someone please explain that to me. How does the existing power grid handle the increased demand for electricity? What happens if your power is out and you can't recharge?  Do you call in to work and say you can't get there because of a power failure?  Also while we are at it, please explain to me how making smaller trucks will help those that use large pickups and such for their work?  How does a family of 6 get into a compact car and travel?  Who decides what is an appropriate exception and what are the punishments for using too much energy or having too many children?  Pickens is a socialistic opportunist and nothing more.  I need to clean off my rose-colored glasses now as I have spit so much in this post that they are a mess.

The "alternative energy" hucksters will never stoop to answer your questions, because they can't.  The fact of the matter is that alternative energy represents no solution at all, and most modalities (e.g. wind power) are provably incapable of EVER providing a solution.  Yet, many, many people delude themselves into believe otherwise.  They prefer, it seems, to cling to some vague dream that somehow, someone will "discover" some as yet completely unknown energy source that will magically solve all the world's problems.  This simply isn't going to happen.  No one is ever going to dig up the likes of "dilithium crystals" from which humankind will produce unlimited energy at no cost to power the Starship Enterprise across the galaxy on its mission of discovery.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant, and are therefore easily deceived by those who seek to profit from the confusion and inefficiency built-in to the political process.  Take careful note of all the articles posted by WhiskeyGirl.   Not one of them is from a legitimate scientific journal.  Each one is either: 

A)  A propaganda piece written by or on behalf of one party or another seeking to profit from certain proposed Government policies,

B)  An article from a lay journal (i.e. a newspaper or magazine) predictably written as a consequence of A, or

C)  The recorded blatherings of those (politicians and their surrogates) who know nothing about the subject at all, yet wish to use it to advance their political agendas. 

They therefore have absolutely ZERO information content, which, by the way, is what you get from nearly 100% of the public discourse on the topic. 

But surely just because there have not been any scholarly articles posted does not mean there are none!  All one has to do is Google the topic along with “research on . . .” or “academic papers on . . .” to get to the good stuff.  Looking at the websites of leading universities is also a good way to find out what kind of research is being done, and you can do further internet searching on those ideas.  There is plenty of real information out there for those who wish to look.
California has long been a leader in developing alternate forms of energy.  California law mandates that 20% of the state’s power has to come from clean renewable sources by 2017.  For many years the wind farm at Altamont Pass has been a familiar sight along Highway 580.  Currently wind power produces 1.5% of all the state’s electricity.  Not much, but enough to power San Francisco.  This has nothing to do with Pickens’ ideas; it is already in place and producing here.
While nuclear power may be something we have to consider, currently the construction of new nuclear plants is prohibited here.  There is concern about the inability to dispose of radioactive waste.  I would think that in this post-911 world security would be a major concern as well. California currently has two nuclear plants online, one near Cal State San Luis Obispo and one in SoCal.
Solar power is gaining popularity.  The community college in my city has installed solar panels over the parking lot.  The panels provide shade to the cars while generating enough electricity to sustain the college.  Excess electricity is sold back to PG&E.  Solar panels are becoming more popular and I see them popping up frequently in both residential and commercial properties.  I assume that they are becoming more cost effective as they gain momentum and as the cost of electricity continues to escalate.
 The website of the California Energy Commission discusses all this and more, including the development of other alternative energy sources such as ocean power, which I have not seen discussed in the MSM.  http://www.energy.ca.gov/
My only objective is to point out that not all discussion about alternative energy sources should be relegated to futuristic nonsense or hucksters.  Personally, I believe that with our current global situation and lives being lost every day in the Mid-East, that we have an obligation to do whatever we can to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and develop energy independence through any and all means.  And although I sympathize with environmental concerns, they must take a back seat to our national security and our ability to be self-sufficient as a nation. As a taxpayer, I am happy to foot the bill for the research and development of alternative energy sources.
 
Logged
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2008, 02:58:20 AM »

Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and other renewable sources of energy may not work for everyone.  I believe they may be the best solution for some people.  Real people need to find the solutions that work for their purposes and make good use of available resources.  Sometimes, people just aren't practical.

Is nuclear for everyone?  Probably not.

No energy solution will work in all situations.  jmho  I do believe there is a solution for everyone.  It will take time and effort to get started with any solution.  Every journey begins with the first steps - regardless of the destination.

Is nuclear for everyone?  Well, it's eventually going to HAVE to be for at least 90% of the people, otherwise there's going to be mass starvation.  You can count on that.  Please understand; you can't displace an energy source (fossil fuels) upon which over 98% of the world's energy needs depend with "alternatives" that combined would never approach satisfying even 5% of those same needs when developed to their maximum potential.  You can't "diversify" away from something with nothing.  You can't; period. 

What about the other "alternatives?"  Lets take a look at so-called "bio-fuels."  Now that's a real environment-friendly term, isn't it?  BIO-FUELS.  It sounds very green, but what does the term actually mean?  Simply put, it means BURNING FOOD.  This, I'm afraid, is a terrible idea.  Increasing demand for foodstuffs as a source of energy is guaranteed to cause food prices to skyrocket.  This will predictably lead to mass starvation, perhaps not in the U.S. at first, but certainly elsewhere.  Moreover, if civilization increasingly shifts from fossil to bio-fuels,  starvation will likewise increase, eventually reaching our own shores.  This is because it's impossible to grow anywhere near enough food to satisfy more than a small percentage of our enegy needs.  Government policies favorable to bio-fuel development are being pushed hard by agri-business as a way to artificially inflate commodity prices and, by extension, profits.  These policies are good for ADM (the Archer Daniels Midland Company), but terrible for humanity. 

There are over 300 million people in this country, and there's not enough space on the planet for windmills and/or solar panels, nor enough to grow crops to ferment/burn to satisfy their energy needs.  That's not even considering the other 6 billion people who live elsewhere in the world.  So, if we're going to stop using fossil fuels, either we need to start generating a whole bunch of energy or we need to consider reducing the population by at least 75%, because that's what it's going to take, and it won't be pretty, but at least we'll be able to burn the corpses, I suppose. 

Not all bio-fuel is about "burning food".  A relative of my ex is part of a team at a major midwestern university that is working on genetically modifying poplar trees to produce ethanol.  Their cell walls are rich in sugars but the sugars can't be accessed because of the presence of the polymer lignin.  So they genetically modify poplar so that lignan does not interfere and sugars can be extracted in a cost efficinet manner.  No corn or other food source is used.  That is just one example; multiply this by the research being done by thousands of universities across the country, as well as the private sector. 

Not saying that any one of these ideas is the magic answer that will solve all problems.  But let us not underestimate the value of research, or dismiss it all as phony science.  Who knows what contributions these fine minds will come up with.

Make no mistake; I'm a big fan of serious research, and I'm sure the poplar tree research you mention will yield some useful information.  That information, however, might not be what the researchers originally intended.  It might have some completely unexpected benefits, which might not be realized until many years after the research in concluded. 

Before giving "poplar fuels" serious consideration, a number of fundamental questions must first be answered, which I imagine should be the ultimate product of the research.  How much sugar can be produced in what volume of wood?  How much space is required to grow the trees?  How long will they take to grow?  How much energy will be consumed tending the trees, harvesting and processing them?  Bascially, the net energy potential of the whole system needs to be carefully assessed before proclaiming it an energy "solution."  As a matter of first impression, I'm surprised that the researchers are focusing on ethanol production from wood, but perhaps biochemists have a superior insight into this apparent novelty.  A more obvious approach would be to focus on methanol, traditionally fermented from wood. 

Personally, I'm skeptical about the large scale viability of any so-called bio-fuel, poplar trees included.  Methanol is most cost effectively produced from natural gas (methanol), and ethanol from the petrochemical ethylene, which is powerful evidence that bio-fuels of any type are uneconomical and therefore unviable.  I nevertheless readily concede that a "bio-fuel economy" is possible -- such was the history of humankind prior to the 20th Century.  I hasten to point out, however, that the current human population cannot be sustained on this basis.  Unless the fundamental, natural constraints on biological systems can be radically altered, transformation to a bio-fuel economy will necessarily entail the loss of ~75% of the population, which will be a very unpleasant process. 

Rather than science or research, what I condemn is the promotion of sweeping political programs based on but scant technical and economic understanding.  The existence of people, nations, and civilization itself are at stake, yet there are vocal political advocates agitating for wholesale societal transformations, promoting their agenda with heedless haste.  Sadly, many in the public at large have been taken in, victims of propaganda and ignorance.  To the extent their ballots are influenced by defective reasoning, we will all suffer. 
Logged
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2008, 03:17:17 AM »

Let's stop all coal production in the USA.  Oh, that's a brilliant idea since that would eliminate all electricity in the area in which I live, not to mention the fact that thousands would loose their income.  I have seen first hand what the environmentalists have done to areas that offend their sensibilities.  Wind power in my area would be a limited thing since there are few areas of flat land and enough wind to produce the enormous amounts of energy needed.  So I guess then we buy from all those in Texas and beyond and what happens then?  My own power bill jumps from $300 to $600?? What happens when a tornado rips through that area and levels all those windmills? Do you think that could not happen? Texas has storms also. Yes, that's a brilliant idea.  Nuclear is in this area, yet, still not as efficient as using the natural resources around you.  I know this is not a popular idea on this thread, but how can the average person afford that new electric car?  It's too expensive and if you can't drive it farther than a hundred miles without a recharge it is useless around here.  The average person in this area drives that far to work everyday.  Do you think the employers are going to let them use their own electricity to recharge before they go home at night?  Would someone please explain that to me. How does the existing power grid handle the increased demand for electricity? What happens if your power is out and you can't recharge?  Do you call in to work and say you can't get there because of a power failure?  Also while we are at it, please explain to me how making smaller trucks will help those that use large pickups and such for their work?  How does a family of 6 get into a compact car and travel?  Who decides what is an appropriate exception and what are the punishments for using too much energy or having too many children?  Pickens is a socialistic opportunist and nothing more.  I need to clean off my rose-colored glasses now as I have spit so much in this post that they are a mess.

The "alternative energy" hucksters will never stoop to answer your questions, because they can't.  The fact of the matter is that alternative energy represents no solution at all, and most modalities (e.g. wind power) are provably incapable of EVER providing a solution.  Yet, many, many people delude themselves into believe otherwise.  They prefer, it seems, to cling to some vague dream that somehow, someone will "discover" some as yet completely unknown energy source that will magically solve all the world's problems.  This simply isn't going to happen.  No one is ever going to dig up the likes of "dilithium crystals" from which humankind will produce unlimited energy at no cost to power the Starship Enterprise across the galaxy on its mission of discovery.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant, and are therefore easily deceived by those who seek to profit from the confusion and inefficiency built-in to the political process.  Take careful note of all the articles posted by WhiskeyGirl.   Not one of them is from a legitimate scientific journal.  Each one is either: 

A)  A propaganda piece written by or on behalf of one party or another seeking to profit from certain proposed Government policies,

B)  An article from a lay journal (i.e. a newspaper or magazine) predictably written as a consequence of A, or

C)  The recorded blatherings of those (politicians and their surrogates) who know nothing about the subject at all, yet wish to use it to advance their political agendas. 

They therefore have absolutely ZERO information content, which, by the way, is what you get from nearly 100% of the public discourse on the topic. 

But surely just because there have not been any scholarly articles posted does not mean there are none!  All one has to do is Google the topic along with “research on . . .” or “academic papers on . . .” to get to the good stuff.  Looking at the websites of leading universities is also a good way to find out what kind of research is being done, and you can do further internet searching on those ideas.  There is plenty of real information out there for those who wish to look.
California has long been a leader in developing alternate forms of energy.  California law mandates that 20% of the state’s power has to come from clean renewable sources by 2017.  For many years the wind farm at Altamont Pass has been a familiar sight along Highway 580.  Currently wind power produces 1.5% of all the state’s electricity.  Not much, but enough to power San Francisco.  This has nothing to do with Pickens’ ideas; it is already in place and producing here.
While nuclear power may be something we have to consider, currently the construction of new nuclear plants is prohibited here.  There is concern about the inability to dispose of radioactive waste.  I would think that in this post-911 world security would be a major concern as well. California currently has two nuclear plants online, one near Cal State San Luis Obispo and one in SoCal.
Solar power is gaining popularity.  The community college in my city has installed solar panels over the parking lot.  The panels provide shade to the cars while generating enough electricity to sustain the college.  Excess electricity is sold back to PG&E.  Solar panels are becoming more popular and I see them popping up frequently in both residential and commercial properties.  I assume that they are becoming more cost effective as they gain momentum and as the cost of electricity continues to escalate.
 The website of the California Energy Commission discusses all this and more, including the development of other alternative energy sources such as ocean power, which I have not seen discussed in the MSM.  http://www.energy.ca.gov/
My only objective is to point out that not all discussion about alternative energy sources should be relegated to futuristic nonsense or hucksters.  Personally, I believe that with our current global situation and lives being lost every day in the Mid-East, that we have an obligation to do whatever we can to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and develop energy independence through any and all means.  And although I sympathize with environmental concerns, they must take a back seat to our national security and our ability to be self-sufficient as a nation. As a taxpayer, I am happy to foot the bill for the research and development of alternative energy sources.
 


I am completely unimpressed with "California Law" and with the California Energy Commission -- a political entity -- which are both subject to the foolish whims and misjudgements of the ignorant electorate.  If public discourse regarding "alternative" energy were scientifically based, it would shed real light on the issues and be thorougly constructive.  Alas, this is not the case.  Yes, there has been a great deal of relevant research, but it tells a story that many don't want to hear.  The reason why one sees little by way of legitimate research cited by those advocating alternative energy is because the research and underlying data do not support their recommended program.  Yes, lets support genuine research, but let us also widely publicize the results. 
Logged
Lala'sMom
Monkey All Star
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13812


« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2008, 10:16:07 AM »

Let us examine solar power for just a minute.   I have long thought our ability to harness the largest energy source in our solar system would be a great idea.  Alas, the cost of the equipment is prohibitive to any average Joe on the street.  I researched the possibility where I live thinking I could make efficient use of all the sunshine we receive around here. Needless to say, I would still be paying for the cost of my solar panels and the rest of the equipment needed to produce electricity.  After much research I discovered that only my local electric company could afford to employ solar power to operate vehicles and cool their building.  Again, a very reliable and clean source of energy is out of the reach of the average citizen.
Logged
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2008, 11:05:45 AM »

Let us examine solar power for just a minute.   I have long thought our ability to harness the largest energy source in our solar system would be a great idea.  Alas, the cost of the equipment is prohibitive to any average Joe on the street.  I researched the possibility where I live thinking I could make efficient use of all the sunshine we receive around here. Needless to say, I would still be paying for the cost of my solar panels and the rest of the equipment needed to produce electricity.  After much research I discovered that only my local electric company could afford to employ solar power to operate vehicles and cool their building.  Again, a very reliable and clean source of energy is out of the reach of the average citizen.

Lala'sMom: 

It would seem that you've stumbled across the truth.  The simple fact that the media will not tell you is that most solar power technologies exhibit overall NEGATIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY.  That is, systems upon which they are based consume more energy in their manufacture, construction, and operation than they are capable of producing over their working lives.  This is the antithesis of "energy independence."  If it takes an up-front investment of 11 kilowatt-hours of energy to produce a system that will eventually yield a total of 10 kilowatt-hours useful energy output, that system is, effectively, contributing a net REDUCTION in fuel resource utilization efficiency, thus exacerbating the problem.  The clue pointing to this truth is the cost of implementation, as you've discovered.  The technology is by and large uneconomical absent Government subsidies, i.e. without the Government paying people to throw energy away in the interest of energy "divesification" and "independence." 

There exist, however, solar power technologies that make sense in a variety of limited applications.  The problem is that they don't scale well.  That is, they are unviable outside the narrow confines of their targeted applications and are therefore incapable of materially contributing to the energy needs of modern civilization.  I will not completely discount the potential for technological progress to eventually alter the situation, but that day is in all likelihood far, far off, if it is to come at all.  Decisions today must be made on the basis of what we know NOW, not on the basis of what we MIGHT (or might not) know at some indefinite point in the future.  It is irrational to do otherwise. 
Logged
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2008, 05:05:02 PM »

One way to save energy and therefore use less is to build and make homes that just 'sip' energy. 

There is one homebuilder (I've through his models for over 20 years) that guarantees that it won't cost more than $400 to heat (in the north) or $400 to cool (in the south) the home for a year.  Some loft homes are $200/year.  Beautiful, have lots of neat features, and are at a popular price.

http://www.bigelowhomes.com

It costs many people more than $500/month to heat their homes in the winter.  I think more and more people will be looking for options that are friendlier to the pocketbook.  The recent rise in energy costs may make alternatives attractive.

jmho

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2008, 05:19:04 PM »

Lots of good ideas at this site. 

Quote
Zero Energy Home Design
A Zero Energy Home (ZEH) combines state-of-the-art, energy-efficient construction and appliances with commercially available renewable energy systems, such as solar water heating and solar electricity. The combination results in a home that produces its own energy—as much or more than it needs. Even though the home might be connected to a utility grid, it has net zero energy consumption from the utility provider.

Zero Energy Homes optimize and include the following design features:

Climate-specific design
Passive solar heating and cooling
Energy-efficient construction
Energy-efficient appliances and lighting
Solar water heating system
Small solar electric system.
These homes have a number of advantages:

Improved comfort—an energy-efficient building envelope reduces temperature fluctuations
Reliability—a Zero Energy Home can be designed to continue functioning even during blackouts
Energy security—a home that produces energy protects its owner from fluctuations in energy prices
Environmental sustainability—a Zero Energy Home saves energy and reduces pollution
The U.S. Department of Energy has partnered with building professionals and organizations to further develop the Zero Energy Homes concept. To date, only a few prototype Zero Energy Homes have been constructed and researched.


U.S. Department of Energy
Energy, Efficiency and Renewable Energy

http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/your_home/


Quote
What is Green Power?
The term "green power" generally refers to electricity supplied in whole or in part from renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, geothermal, hydropower, and various forms of biomass. Increasingly, electricity customers are being given electricity supply options, either as retail power markets open to competition or when their regulated utilities develop green pricing programs. More than 50% of retail customers in the United States now have an option of purchasing a green power product directly from their electricity supplier. In addition, consumers can support renewable energy development through the purchase of green energy certificates.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/


Welcome to the 2008 National Renewable Energy Marketing Conference
http://www.renewableenergymarketing.net/

Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2008, 05:53:20 PM »

Quote
ELECTRIC CARS

Chip legend Grove sees an electric future for cars
By Adam Satariano, Alan Ohnsman


BLOOMBERG NEWS


Monday, July 28, 2008

LOS ALTOS, Calif — Andy Grove, the former head of Intel Corp., asked students in his Stanford University business school seminar last year to determine whether an electric car market could thrive in the U.S.

Their conclusion: It can't.

That propelled the 1997 Time Man of the Year, now retired, on a personal crusade to reshape U.S. energy policy, take on the auto industry and attack America's leaders for, in his view, risking the nation's security.

Grove, 71, who revolutionized production of the devices at the heart of computers, is exploiting his name and ties to investors and politicians to jump-start a similar advance in battery-run vehicles. His idea is to refit millions of gas-hungry autos to run on electricity part-time and persuade carmakers to adopt so-called open-source rules on advanced technology so that Americans can convert their cars.

"I came to a few conclusions that I was stunned by because they were so obvious and people don't seem to get it," Grove said in an interview in his office in Los Altos, Calif. U.S. dependence on oil might bring economic calamity and eventual conflict with China, he said.

Grove, who joined Intel in 1968 and built it into the world's biggest chip maker, says electrifying cars is the fastest way to ease international competition for energy because passenger autos account for nearly half the U.S. use of oil.

Grove's students said a failure of political leadership is what is keeping electric cars from the market, but automakers and analysts say the challenges include high costs, a lack of batteries sturdy enough for daily use, no recharging infrastructure and environmental damage if coal-fired plants are the main energy source.

"All these objections are absolutely valid in a peace state,'' said Grove, who titled his 1996 book on management "Only the Paranoid Survive." "What if we are approaching a state of war, whether it is literally shooting or just starving to death economically?"


In four years, Grove wants 10 million vehicles to be equipped with battery packs capable of powering at least 40 miles of all-electric driving before the gasoline engine engages. They'd be recharged with power from domestic sources instead of oil, 58 percent of which is imported.

Grove says he is unimpressed with the energy policies of the presumptive presidential nominees, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, calling them "investment plans with no strategy."

Grove is encouraged by conversions of pickups and other autos that have been done by individuals and small shops for years. (snip)

"I would love to give a lot of light and limelight to these people who have been doing this in their garages, because there are a lot of them," Grove said. "This is how the computer industry became a very large industry."

(snip)

"Battery technology is not anywhere near the level it needs to be for us to create a vehicle that delivers performance and range for a price people are willing to pay," Hanson said.

Other technology leaders interested in electrifying transportation include Larry Page and Sergey Brin, founders of Google Inc.; Sun Microsystems Inc. founder Vinod Khosla; and PayPal Inc. founder and Tesla Motors Inc. Chairman Elon Musk.

Rock musician Neil Young is using his fame to fuel a similar campaign. He has gotten a Kansas mechanic to retrofit a 1959 Lincoln Continental convertible to run on batteries as a way to spur electric car conversions.

Grove has reached out to conversion experts such as Andrew Frank, a professor of engineering at the University of California, Davis, to learn about their research and what they need to grow.

Frank is trying to raise at least $10 million to finance a company to convert pickups to run on electricity for the first 40 miles before switching to gasoline. His startup, Efficient Drivetrains Inc., would train mechanics to perform conversions costing customers about $10,000, he said.

"I grew up in the days of hot-rodding, and fundamentally what we did was take conventional cars and added widgets to it to improve its performance," Frank said. "That's what we are doing here."


read the rest of the story here -

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/technology/07/28/0728grove.html
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
A's Fever
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 806



« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2008, 05:57:23 PM »

How about smaller homes, rather than the gargantuan ones that are being built now?  It's strange, but the size of new homes has steadily increased, while the size of families has decreased.   
Logged
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2008, 07:50:51 PM »

How about smaller homes, rather than the gargantuan ones that are being built now?  It's strange, but the size of new homes has steadily increased, while the size of families has decreased.   

That's a good idea.  I'd imagine people will have to change some of their ideas about space.  I also know quite a few boomers that have downsized.  Overall, they've tended to leave the single family home behind and move into a condo or townhouse of some sort.

It's - "You take care of the outside, I'll take care of the inside."
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2008, 10:31:00 PM »

One way to save energy and therefore use less is to build and make homes that just 'sip' energy. 

There is one homebuilder (I've through his models for over 20 years) that guarantees that it won't cost more than $400 to heat (in the north) or $400 to cool (in the south) the home for a year.  Some loft homes are $200/year.  Beautiful, have lots of neat features, and are at a popular price.

http://www.bigelowhomes.com

It costs many people more than $500/month to heat their homes in the winter.  I think more and more people will be looking for options that are friendlier to the pocketbook.  The recent rise in energy costs may make alternatives attractive. 

jmho



I looked over the website, and I couldn't find a single, solitary, unique thing that the builder is doing to radically improve the homes' energy efficiency.  What little they specifically mention I would deem sound practice rather than earth shaking innovation.  As to their being popularly priced, I did some research on Zillow and found that Bigelow's specified home prices are somewhat less than the median for the relevant ZIP codes in Aurora, Illinois.  The Bigelow homes, however, are generally smaller at around (I'm guessing) 1500 square feet or under for their less expensive models, and they're situated on tiny parcels, judging from the photos.  Moreover, Bigelow's stated prices on their website would seem to be for base level elevations and interior appointments, with upgrades adding expense.  Rather than creating unique value, Bigelow appears to simply be giving people less for less, which is Ok.  There's nothing wrong with that business model.  I prefer, however, that people not represent it as being something other than what it is.  Now, I'm not knocking the homes; I've never inspected any.  They might be quite nice, and I'm sure the Bigelow format works for their targeted segment of the marketplace.  I just don't see where they're gaining any extraordinary energy efficiency or producing any uncommon value. 

Now consider their heating cost "guarantee" as follows: 

Bigelow includes a three-year $400 heating guarantee with all its single-family homes. This means that if a buyer's heating bills exceed $400 per year in any of the first three years, Bigelow will pay the difference. For the developer's loft-style homes, the terms are the same except the guarantee covers anything over $200.color] 

Read it carefully.  Does this so-called guarantee mean that it will actually cost no more than $400.00 to heat any of these homes for a year?  No, it doesn't mean that at all.  All it means is that if it actually costs, say, $1000.00 per year to heat one's house, Bigelow will reimburse the buyer $600.00 per year for three years, after which the buyer is on his own.  On a $200,000.00 home it amounts to a 0.90% rebate spread over 3 years.  Big deal.  Almost any builder will throw in $5,000.00 in free upgrades right off the bat these days.  I'm sure the Bigelow homes are more energy efficient than the vast majority of existing homes.  Their $400.00 guarantee, though, would seem to be a gimmick, pure hype, much like Chrysler's recent $2.99 per gallon gasoline "guarantee."  In Bigelow's case, absent additional information, I find their gimmick to be particularly misleading, bordering on a deceptive business practice.  Then again, we should expect nothing less from the "sustainability" hucksters.  It's all in a day's work for them. 

Logged
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2008, 10:33:21 PM »

Darn.  I meant to turn off the red color after quoting the Bigelow guarantee from their website. 

Sorry.
Logged
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2008, 08:06:48 AM »

Darn.  I meant to turn off the red color after quoting the Bigelow guarantee from their website. 

Sorry.

Bigelow has always been one of my favorite home builders to point people to.  They have had their heating guarantee for over 25 years, that I know of.

That's 25 years during which someone could have raised the  "deceptive practices" flag.

Here is a recent article about living in the homes, this one built in 1988 -

Quote
Eco-friendly homes not hard to find

July 22, 2008

The sign stood like a sentinel on Butterfield Road for many years: "$200.00 guaranteed annual heating bill!" (snip)

For years I had driven past the sign referring to the low heating bills that stood on the corner of Butterfield and DuPage Parkway and was always somewhat curious as to what was different about these homes and what they were all about. I had already experienced living in a custom "energy efficient home," and the reality that I experienced was that energy efficiency was not cheap and sometimes took years to justify the cost.

In 1996, I found myself downsizing and looking for a smaller home.  (snip) Tucked away in the country, adjacent to the barely traveled roads called Bilter and Eola, I found these mysterious "energy efficient" single-family homes and townhomes.

I bought my serendipitous bit of real estate, and to this day I still get looks of disbelief when I share with people that I do not have a furnace, that my warm and cozy home is heated with only my hot water heater. Most of the time they ask, "You mean you have a boiler instead?" No -- just my hot water heater!

A quick mechanical description: These homes were constructed in 1988 following the second energy crisis and were built using 2-by-6 construction instead of the traditional 2-by-4's. The heating system consists of only a hot water heater, a small air handler/heat exchanger, and an air distribution system in the flooring between the lower and upper levels. Windows have six inches of insulating airspace instead of the traditional four, with window-insulating thermal shades installed between the storm window and inside window. By diligently using the windows and thermal shades appropriately on days of temperature extremes, one can be comfortable almost all winter and summer. Because the homes are tightly built, there is no need during the winter for a humidifier as indoor humidity is relatively high. There is, however, a downside; these buildings are not easy to heat or cool quickly, and gas-fired appliances that do not have sealed combustion and direct venting are not recommended as they are unsafe in these tightly constructed homes.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to speak to Perry Bigelow, the developer of this subdivision, just to tell him that living in my cozy retreat has been a very positive experience. He was a very kind person who struck me as a combination between a visionary and a wise old sage. He told me the story of how our homes came to be and that the heating system was designed by a man in Canada. I also learned that our homes had been featured on the television program This Old House . I in turn thanked him for being brave enough in the early years to take the green risk before it was popular and shared with him that I so enjoy the fact that I have not been forced beyond my budget to dole out my hard-earned dollars to the utility companies. He still continues today as an expert in residential energy conservation and sustainable development.

As we enter into the end of the second decade for these homes, it is my hope that what 20 years ago was a new and unusual concept will become commonplace in the very near future. Call it an Eco Home, Green Building, or just a house -- out of respect for our fragile planet, the need for our buildings to be ecologically responsible while remaining economical is of the utmost importance. Perry made a difference -- you can too!

terri@voitik.net


read the whole article here -
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/lifestyles/1067122,2_5_AU22_VVVOITIK_S1.article
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2008, 08:23:57 AM »

This is an older article that explains the guarantee.

Home Energy Magazine Online March/April 1994

Quote
Perry Bigelow: Energy Efficiency Maestro

---------------------------------
by Steve Andrews
Steve Andrews is a residential energy consultant and freelance writer, based in Denver, Colorado.

(snip)

Perry Bigelow combines production house-building with high-quality energy packages at competitive prices. Last year, well-known building researchers Joe Lstiburek and Gary Nelson were invited to troubleshoot Bigelow's homes for concerns about tightness, indoor air quality, durability of the shell, and heating distribution system defects. They found no major flaws.

(snip)The foundation for this success lies in Perry Bigelow's ability to design both neighborhoods and floor plans that appeal to buyers, while maintaining an appreciation for building engineering, attention to small building detail, and a commitment to housing affordability, energy conservation, and resource sustainability.

The guaranteed annual heating bill provided with every home has gained Bigelow notoriety--plus a host of awards--from Professional Builder magazine's Special Achievement Award to the only twice-named Chicago Sun-Times Builder-of-the-Year. The guarantee also spurs potential buyers to stop by his model homes to see what the gimmick is.

Guaranteed Annual Heating Bills

(snip)

You can guarantee the house, they say, but you can't guarantee the homeowner.

From the 1978 Twin Rivers report to utility data studies of more recent times, the skeptics have a point: In relatively cold climates, energy use for space heating can vary by a factor of two or more among families living in identical homes. Given the huge lifestyle variables--thermostat setpoints, ages of occupants, personal values, comfort requirements, and more--builders often ask: Why doesn't Bigelow lose his shirt on that offer? Most don't realize that if you build in enough efficiency, even a large variation in an otherwise low heating bill still leads to a relatively low bill. Furthermore, the variations may be smaller in more-efficient homes.

When Bigelow began his guaranteed heating bill campaign back in the mid-1980s, he started with a $100 per year threshhold for homes heated with natural gas. There was some incredulity among buyers; a common response was "that's $100 per month, right?" To get an early read on how the bills were totaling--and to obtain some documentation for marketing purposes--he sponsored heating-bill contests: the lowest annual heating bills won prizes, from a free dinner on the town to an all-expenses-paid weekend. One time the winner had a $24 per year heating bill while the disappointed runner-up came in with $26.

Although a lot of space heating bills averaged $130 to $140 per year, most homeowners were so pleased that only $470 was paid out in claims. However, since the average heating bill was slightly higher than expected, Bigelow shifted his guarantee up to $200 annually in the late 1980s. Since that time, he hasn't had to pay out a dime in claims.

How it works

Bigelow uses a simple subtraction method--subtracting 12 times the average summer load from the annual gas bill--to determine the customer's annual space-heating bill. If the homeowner uses gas just for water heating, Bigelow may simply subtract one therm per day, the amount that Northern Illinois Gas says the average family uses to heat water.

The guarantee's wording doesn't hide any fine print or loopholes (see Figure 1). All Bigelow asks is that "Purchaser agrees to manage the home efficiently." For a three-year period of time, the company will pay any amount which the calculation method shows in excess of $200 per heating season.

Every year two or three households call to have their bill examined for possibly exceeding the guarantee. In every case, the homeowners have merely forgotten to subtract their hot water usage from their annual gas bill. Once this is brought to their attention, they are satisfied.

Marketing hook.

(snip)

"The guaranteed bill is the value that sets us apart," says Bigelow. "Home shoppers who notice the guarantee in our ads say `I can't afford to not go look at what that guy is doing.' If they come, and they like what they see, they buy. If they like what they see, our guarantee and the benefits from our energy package give them rational reasons to make their emotional buying decision."

Bigelow still sponsors annual heating-bill contests, largely for their marketing benefit--participating homebuyers provide him with heating bills he can post on the wall as evidence of the company's success. During the winter of 1992-93, eight people submitted their heating bills for the contest. The winner came in at $62 for the winter, with an average of $85 for all eight.

An Evolution

(snip)

Current Building System

With Bigelow's approach to energy efficiency, the only constant is change. He used to install a twin set of single-glazed, metal-framed windows with movable insulation between them, but that's gone. He used to install a heat-recovery ventilator, but no longer. Listed below are the key components of his insulated building shell:

Framing:

With 226-inch studs, Bigelow makes selective use of Optimized Value Engineering (OVE) techniques: 24-inch on-center framing, single top plates, 2-stud corners, and so forth. This reduces lumber consumption, increases the percentage of wall area filled with insulation and costs Bigelow no more than the standard 16-inch on-center (with 224s) framing method, while meeting all structural code requirements.

Insulation

Metal corner bracing allows for a one-inch layer of polyisocyanurate foam sheathing over the entire building, which is finished with vinyl siding. When combined with unfaced 6-inch fiberglass batts, the wall system rates R-25. Both the attic and the floor over the garage are insulated to R-38.

Windows

Vinyl windows with low-E coating and argon gas-filled airspace are installed.

Foundations

R-13 interior batts are used in the foundations. For inner-city homes, a frost-protected shallow foundation design dramatically reduces hauling of excavated dirt and debris from these rebuild sites, along with backfill hauling, and dumping fees. The crawlspace foundation is a heavily reinforced, 12215-inch concrete-grade beam combination wall and footing, with rigid foam on the exterior allowing a shallow (less expensive) footing. Total construction savings are typically $6,000 to $10,000 per site.

Lighting

This package includes kitchen, hall and bath fluorescent fixtures. Exterior lights on photocells are also fluorescent.

Tested Tightness

Bigelow has featured tight construction for a decade. Without it, the guaranteed heating bill wouldn't be possible. As with most production builders, Bigelow's homes are built by subcontractors whose work is overseen by job superintendents working directly for his firm. Construction adhesives such as Liquid Nails used by subcontractors at the rim joists and to adhere floors to floor joists during the framing process, provide some tightness. But since air sealing requires a systems awareness and multiple steps, the bulk of that job rests in the hands of one on-staff specialist and a laborer. For the last five years, Nolan Swift has done all of Bigelow's air sealing. Swift is Bigelow's only permanent field employee, apart from supervisors. Bigelow sees the tightness job as too critical to leave in the hands of subcontractors.

For an average townhome, Swift spends 25-30 hours applying three different types of sealing products. He attaches a sticky-backed Swiss foam gasketing product (BG32, from Resource Conservation Technologies) against some studs or plates--a modification of the Airtight Drywall System. For example, all top plates on upper floors are gasketed before drywalling, in order to prevent air leakage into the attic. This process consumes roughly 350 linear feet of gasketing.

Then Swift uses approximately two 16-ounce cans of Hilti foam per unit, sealing all electrical and plumbing penetrations plus the heating distribution system. In a number of locations, siliconized latex (AC20 from Pecora) goes in more effectively and less expensively than foam caulk; Swift orders it in 5-gallon buckets and applies it with a pump gun.

Some sealing details stand out. For example, when a bathtub is to be installed against an exterior wall, Bigelow installs a layer of full height Durarock (by U.S. Gypsum). Once taped, covered with joint compound, and sealed to the floor, this detail prevents warm moist air from leaking into the wall behind the bathtub, a problem that often leads to tile damage in bathrooms. A second example: since vinyl windows are attached from the outside and come without deep jambs, the drywallers use gasketed corner bead around all the windows where the drywall wraps to the window; after trim, the wooden sill is caulked to the window and adjacent drywall.

In order to obtain feedback on the houses, Bigelow schedules a third party--usually his insulator--to randomly blower-door test as many homes as possible in a day. Last year, instead of scheduling his insulator for one day, Bigelow substituted with the two-day tests by Joe Lstiburek and Gary Nelson.

Simple Ventilation

In place of his earlier heat-recovery ventilators, Bigelow installs a simple and less expensive exhaust-only system. A quiet Kanalflakht fan, mounted in the attic, exhausts about 80 cubic feet per minute (CFM) of air from the bathroom. In order to guarantee buyers some background ventilation, the fan runs continuously; the only switch is located in the attic, which inhibits homeowners from turning it off.

What about possible problems with radon and backdrafting of combustion appliances? Bigelow is not concerned about the slight negative pressure caused by an exhaust-only fan. Since he builds his townhomes over garages, with crawlspaces or slab-on-grade foundations, few units have much connection with the soil. Thus in most cases, operation of the homes in a slight negative pressure mode does not pose a radon problem. All space- and water-heating appliances are direct-vent, sealed-combustion models. The only remaining issue is kitchen ventilation; like many production builders, Bigelow uses a non-venting charcoal filter range hood--a less-than-ideal strategy.

Scaling-down the

HVAC/Distribution System

Three aspects of each townhome's heating system stand out: reliance on a gas-fired combo heater, the lack of conventional ductwork in the heat distribution system, and Bigelow's ability to save money on this part of his package (see Table 1).

Although Chicago's relatively cold climate (6,125 annual heating degree-days) can be harsh, all space heating in these homes is supplied by the water heater. Eliminating the need to hook up a separate furnace saves $150 per townhome, which covers the cost of installing a higher-efficiency water heater. Two additional bonuses are achieved with this approach: when used as a space heater, the water heater's life expectancy increases somewhat, and when it comes time for replacement, replacing a water heater is less expensive than replacing a furnace. Bigelow locates the sealed-combustion 40,000-50,000 Btu water heater against an outside wall for easy direct venting of the appliance. Hot water circulates to the water-to-air heat exchanger in an Apollo air-handler unit (combo heater), located in the dropped ceiling of the centrally located main floor powder room or utility room.

Bigelow's low heating loads allow him to use a small air-handler blower (600-1000 CFM) to circulate heated air. Metal ductwork has been eliminated in favor of a dropped soffit/plenum and floor distribution system. Air moves through selected floor joist spaces that are sealed from adjacent floor spaces with caulk, foam, and blocking. Warm air enters each room through holes cut in the second story floor or first level's ceiling for registers; a piece of caulked blocking is placed to deflect heat from the floor space into the room.

Given Chicago's summertime humidity and its 923 cooling degree-days, more than half of Bigelow's buyers have air conditioning installed when they buy their homes. However, their system size typically rates at 1.5 tons, shaving a full ton of capacity (and demand) compared to normal sizing for similar conventionally built homes.

A Rigorous Two-Day Exam

A year ago, Bigelow invited building researchers Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corporation in Boston, and Gary Nelson of The Energy Conservatory in Minneapolis, to test, probe, and pry into his townhomes. They spent two days making visual inspections and testing both finished and in-progress homes for tightness, duct leakage, and potential moisture. Bigelow and eight to ten of his staff (plus the author) followed the testing process.

Blower-door tests confirmed the tightness of the homes. Of the three-bedroom, 1500-ft2 units tested, the tightest came in at 650 CFM of leakage (at 50 Pa of air pressure). In a summary communication, Lstiburek wrote the following:

After inspecting hundreds of houses in all regions of North America (constructed by all the major builders), the units I inspected and tested which were built by your company are the first production houses tested in North America which both meet and exceed (to a surprising margin) ASHRAE Standard 62-1989--Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality--and the air leakage standard of the Swedish National Building Code (3 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals). Furthermore, none of the units exceeded the pressurization/depressurization limit of 5 Pascals of the National Building Code of Canada.

Bigelow's distribution system seemed considerably tighter than the average production builder's home. Nelson found that the amounts of house leakage linked to the distribution system ranged from about 120 CFM--an acceptable figure--to a less-than-desirable 300 CFM. He suggested a bit more duct sealing, which Swift has partially incorporated in his air sealing work. Both Lstiburek and Nelson appreciated the ventilation system's simplicity, though Lstiburek thought 80 CFM of constant ventilation might be a little high.

The Bottom Line

Bigelow builds homes which, in another three to five decades, should definitely not be candidates for the weatherization services provided by many readers of Home Energy.

Many builders who have heard about Bigelow are interested in borrowing a bit here and a bit there from what he does but this casual approach may not work effectively. For example, a builder might not be able to heat a home with a combo heater in a cold climate like Chicago's without significantly reducing the heating load through insulation, tightness, and good windows. Builders wanting to learn from Bigelow's success will have to take a systems approach and do their homework.
(snip)

read the rest of the story here -
http://www.homeenergy.org/archive/hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/94/940308.html
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2008, 08:35:17 AM »

Here is another Bigelow article that explains things -
(my last post was way to long, so I'll just post this bit)

Why Bigelow is Builder of the Year

Staff

December 1, 2004

Professional Builder

Links 
Additional Information
 Town Founders
 Selling Value
 How to Create Community

Charts and Graphs
 Bigelow Financial Analysis: 2003
 Bigelow Net Profit Trending Up
 High Revenue Per Employee
 Outstanding Warranty Items
 Willingness to Refer
 
When the editors of this magazine look at candidates for the most historic and prestigious award in the American housing industry, PB's Builder of the Year, we search for a company with ideas our readers can use to grow the profitability of home building businesses across the country. We look for a business model that fits market conditions emerging in today's national economy, but with broad applicability to every region and locale. After all, housing is a local business. To be Builder of the Year, a company must have a certain something builders everywhere can use to improve. We also ask, if this is the right company, why is this the right year?

read the rest here and click on links -
http://www.housingzone.com/article/CA485623.html
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2008, 03:52:47 PM »

Quote
A century-old technology is about to re-emerge as a petroleum-free solution to our dependence on oil.

Just when you thought there was no help on the horizon to ease your pain at the gas pump, a century-old technology is about to re-emerge as a petroleum-free solution that will be inexpensive to operate, literally for pennies a day.

A new and improved era of practical, reliable electric cars is about to begin. Although costs will be high and some models will initially appear in limited numbers and regions while the technology continues to evolve, nothing may be able to kill the electric car this time. Here’s some of what to watch for in 2009 and soon thereafter.

Quote
Subaru has been testing small numbers of its R1e electric car with Japanese utilities and says it will soon launch similar initiatives in the United States. The R1e’s batteries can be recharged to 80 percent capacity in just 15 minutes.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/New-Electric-Cars.aspx?utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

There is even an electric truck from a start-up company in California, luxury cars, and pay for miles as you go schemes...
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: « 1 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.27 seconds with 19 queries.