What are you doing to be more energy efficient?
October is Energy Awareness Month! Share your thoughts and stories on efforts you or people you know have made to improve energy efficiency.
Tags: efficiency, energy
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Geoff Bailey on -
Hello Army!
Welcome to the newly launched Energy Efficiency group here on Pickensplan.com. Ending our dependence on foreign oil is going to take all of us working together. Wind power and natural gas as a transportation fuel will help get the job done at the national level, but there are also things we can do in our own daily lives.
October is Energy Awareness Month, and I want to hear from you. Post an article on energy conservation and efficiency efforts that are important to you. Or, feel free to share what you are doing to help conserve energy? What steps are you taking to make your home, car or work space more energy efficient?
Talk to you soon!
Geoff
-
Permalink Reply by Melvin C Green on -
I have increased my miles per gallon from 23 to 34 by adding hydrogen gas (HHO) developed from water by electrolysis and hope to convince others to do the same. My emissions have reduced to nearly nothing.
I have reduced my home electricity by 25% by installing a power factor corrector.
I have contacted a web site that compiles my carbon reductions and sells them to other companies and pays me for my work.
-
Permalink Reply by Raymond Fontanes on -
Melvin Green,
why are so good at not giving us more info. We are here to share, not brag. Not that 34 MPgs is anything to brag about.
Strike two for you. Come clean and prove to us what you are doing.
Thanks,
Ray
-
Permalink Reply by John Purvis on
-
Why do you sound like you're just "full of it"? A "power factor corrector"? Who sold you that? Do you even know what power factor is? You just don't sound right to me.
-
Permalink Reply by Jerry Jaynes on -
Tell me more on this! I'll dig around, but would love to know more. Will it work on diesels?
-
Permalink Reply by Anachronism on -
Look at the pictures on Anachronism site under (Photo) In Vancouver Wash. I created a totally passive solar heating system and it also cools the complete building using my Passive solar cooling system. Consider this idea to create solar heat in your residence. To create the "cooling side of Passive solar Heating" is automatic and has functioned for 20 years with NO changes. This building interior volume is close to the volume of 14-2000 Sq. Ft. homes. The first 12 months of operation for the complete building was less then $1 per day. I have applied this for 25 years and it painless to keep my money in my pocket heating my business for NOTHING for 25 years.
I’m constantly reading about the need to consider the “application of Solar Panels to create electricity”, so the following information maybe irrelevant, BUT it makes sense to consider the actual fact that “IF” you have an “ATTIC” in your home “YOU OWN A PERSONAL SOLAR HEATING SYSTEM” and it sure makes sense to use it to “HEAT YOUR LIVING QUARTERS” AND THE MONEY SAVED, which “Anachronism” has proven for “25 Years” will help you save and “Purchase” your new SOLAR ARRAY!
“SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR BASEBOARD ELECTRIC HEATING”
WITHOUT FURANCE UNIT AND OR “WITH FORCED AIR SYSTEM’S!”
1-When and before you enter your attic space, make sure you have proper light to observe all elements of your attic and the area where you will work.
2-You must use safe working planks to safely span the work area (Your attic is probably the structure that contains the insulation, wiring, heat ducts and other elements of the ceiling structure) so that you “DO NOT DAMAGE ANY OF YOUR FINISHED INTERIOR STRUCTURE”.
3-If you have a “Downdraft” furnace system with the return air piping going to your current heating system, you want to enter this duct air return as close to the furnace as possible.
4-The closer to the main suction point, more Passive Heat is “Pulled into” your house.
5-Start your upper suction position of the intake pipe at least 24” to 30” to draw from the “Hottest” collection point in the typical pitched roof area inside.
6-If needed, insert a short piece of metal ductwork into the new suction pipe to keep the flexible unit from sucking in and blocking the entering position in your attic.
7-Carefully attach to furnace “Suction pipe” and keep it straight and proceed to the position where you enter the “return air line”, use suitable adaptor when attaching into the furnace “return air ducting” of your existing furnace system.
8-Pick a location for your “Remote” sensor control inside your home and connect the wiring to the sensor inside your attic located at a distance of 36” to the side of your new intake pipe and level with the pipe opening located in the attic.
9-Follow instruction with the sensor and connect your wiring from the attic remote sensor to the “Sensor” unit.
10-Attach low voltage (dual wire) from the sensor to the connection block of furnace in the same positions your house or current interior thermostat is currently connected.
11-CONSULATE LOCAL ELECTRICAN IF NEEDED TO HOOK UP THESE LOW-VOLTAGE WIRES IF NECESSARY OR ANY WIRING!
12- Make sure to support the new pipe with suitable material and DON’T crush ANY of your air pipes.
13-Make sure the connection into your current intake pipe is airtight and don’t damage either piping.
14-NOW you need to close any current ATTIC venting openings in the gable ends to “CREATE YOUR PASSIVE SOLAR HEATER”. Understand that this is legal as you have now “CREATED A POSTIVE ATTIC REMOVEAL SYSTEM OF HEATED AIR”
15-Go to the, “10”, photo’s on Anachronism page and notice my designed “Intake” opening are located at the topside of the “attic ceiling structure”. This allows the “COMPLETE ATTIC AREA” serve as the solar collector unit.
16-NANCY,”ATTENTION, ELECTRICAL BASRBOARD METHOD”
Follow steps# 1,2,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,
(IF you don’t have a forced air furnace and currently use electric baseboard heaters you need to pick a location in your ceiling of the room that allows the most “equalized” location to bring your attic heat into your home or a specific room?
If needed, add a SECOND PIPE AND ANOTHER SUCTION MOTOR “OR” USE A CIRCULATION FAN FROM THE ROOM (to spread the heat) WHERE YOUR PASSIVE SYSTEM DELIVERS YOUR ATTIC HEAT INTO YOUR LIVING SPACE. (YOU WANT "VOLUME" OF AIR INTO YOUR HOME SO DO NOT USE SMALLER INTAKE PIPE.) OPTION--Control volume flow with a “Speed Control” switch.
Understand that you could remove “all the solar heat from your attic”, if temperature are cooler and no sun on your roof. "SUN CREATES YOUR HEAT", subject to the conditions that occurred in “BURLINGTON”.
“No sun/no heat????” (Read what actually occurred in Burlington on 12/23/1984 on the occasion of first operation, it was snowing with a 3” accumulation of SNOW on roof, cloudy and 22 deg. outside and “SIMPLY” “produced FREE” 65 degree heat!
Look up on Internet (http://push.pickensplan.com/profile/Anachronism)
17-Your pick of a location that equalizes the distribution within the room and, “if needed” use a metal or plastic pipe with holes around the pipe to cause the air to disperse and direct downward to the floor area. You figure out this problem to fit your house. (You can simply direct airflow to floor, you decide)
18. Use the defined “Inline Suction Motor” and consult your local electrician to make the electrical connections to this motor and use a suitable electrical switch to the “Remote Sensor” to make automatic or simply use a wall switch to operate this “Inline Suction Motor” by hand.
“You decide whether you want automatic or manual control of the passive Solar Heating system?”
19-Trim out the inside “exhaust opening” to a neat and clean appearance to finish the job.
20-You have created “YOUR OWN” Passive Solar Heating System!
Remember you “MUST” have outside air movement into the attic space from either the eaves or at the bottom of the gable ends or the vents under the eaves to allow “OUTSIDE” air to enter the attic space to allow your system to function. (NOTICE the specific location on each of my project’s “Attic Air intakes” as I designed, built and controlled every aspect to create workable Passive solar projects.)
Sincerely, Anachronism
Part #’s from Lowe’s—Dated as 08/19/08 (Parts & Pricing)
ITEM DESCRIPTION Vendor QTY. Price
82361 8” x 60”, GALV Pipe 1-08050 1 9.94
185010 8” Duct Fan (Sun court) DB208 1 29.93
36441 8”x 25’ Black Ins Duct (R4.2) BPC825 1 38.69
77405 6”x 25 Black Ins Duct (R-6) BPC625R6 1 25.98
USE THE SIZE PIPE OR MOTOR YOU WANT TO USE
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Schneider on -
When was the last time you drove 795 miles in 1 day? To top that feat, I drove 795 miles in 1 day on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).
I enjoy these rare opportunites to go to a public refueling system. It gives me a chance to see & experience new locations with new or different CNG refueling equipment. It also gives me a chance to accurately measure my fuel efficiency and the results were astounding.
Let's start this story in La Crosse, Wi with an 8 gallon tank full of CNG. Imagine driving 273.1 miles to the north side of O 'Hare Airport along Interstate 90 at 65 mph and refuel 5.429 gallons of gasoline equivalent (GG). A simple calculation 273.1/5.429=50.3 MPG! Astounding. And Ryan assisted me in the refueling process very professionally. But, since this is one of the few public refuleing systems in Chicagoland, I was charged $2.19 per GGE resulting in a charge of $11.88. Now, I know what you're thinking, how can you not be elated about driving 273.1 miles on $11.88. For instance, if your neighbor gets 48 mpg in their Toyota Prius, it would have cost them $15.30 or 29% more. But wait, this is just the 1st part of this astounding story.
Now, let's continue our journey east on I90 to my alma mater, Notre Dame to see none other than T. Boone Pickens! He engaged an audience of approximately 500 people about CNG as a transportation "bridge" to return to American fuel that is 50% more clean than diesel that we import from our enemies. He predicts that oil will reach $300 per barrel in 10 years. I get to shake his hand and give him a copy of our video, Journey to the Zone that is posted on my Pickens Plan page. It is a small example of our regional efforts that are dwarfed by the $62 million that he has spent inthe last 16 months across America.
Let's pop back into my 2006 Honda Civic GX (3rd generation of CNG Civics produced in America) and drive through the rain, road repair and speeds of downtown Chicago traffic to Racine. The rain and speeds reduce my mileage to 48.54 MPG but I refule for $1.109 for CNG! In total I have travelled 562.2 miles on $18.49 giving me an average of 30.4 MILES PER DOLLAR (MP$). Going back to your neighbors Prius getting 48 mpg, with gasoline at $2.69/ gallon, they would have gotten 17.84 MP$. I have completed my measured portion of the days adventure getting 70.4% better MP$ than a Prius. And that includes nearly half the trip calculations at fuel prices that are approximately double what you could refuel in your home with natural gas.
The third leg included more road construction, rain and finally fog but the Honda Civic GX slogged through 795 miles.
273.1 miles@50.3mpg@$1.109gge=$6.02
289.1 miles@48.54mpg@$2.109=$13.04
232.8 miles@48.54mpg@$1.109gge=$5.32
TOTAL 795 miles $24.38
If your vehicle gets 25 mpg, it would have cost you $85.54 to make the same trip. Saving $61.16 feels great but using clean American fuel is the part that T. Boone Pickens would appreciate for his grandchildren.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on -
Is there an online resource that allows people to determine the true cost of energy in terms of carbon content and financial cost? For example, is it better to ride public transportation powered by coal-fired electricity or to drive to work in a NG powered car?
Much of the debate is focused on cute polar bears, scenic windmills, etc. --- not focused where it should be: determining the most cost efficient manner to meet our energy needs.
-
Permalink Reply by neil cox on -
I suppose there is such a resource, but it may not be accurate. There are too many variables to be correct in all cases. Typically the public transportation produces less polution than even CNG cars with one passenger, but that is not true if the public transportation is at less than 10% of it's capacity. Also true cost is evasive, and depends somewhat on how you evaluate the terrorist threat, the drowning polar bears, the spotted owls, oxides of nitrogen and dozens of other factors.
If the public transportation is over crowed when you ride, driving your car may prevent adding another electric bus which will jump the polution a bigger step than driving the car you already own. Neil
-
Permalink Reply by George Johnson on -
GT Energy, a private Texas “green energy” company and Pearson Technology, Inc (PTI) a privately held company are working together to promote PTI's technology. PTI's “demonstration plant” in Livingston, AL is currently producing ethanol from wood waste to be used by the City of Hoover, AL in their police Hybrid vehciles. The ethanol E-85 produced from the demonstration plant received a letter from Mississippi State University and GM stating the the ethanol made from the city's wood waste met ANSI standards for E85. (visit www.gulfcoastenery.net for more on PTI's demonstration plant)
The process consists of a “syn-gas” producing front-end with a Fischer-Tropsch back-end. Syn-gas is produced using a multi-stage steam patented reformer (gasifier) with a “cold gas” efficiency of 81%. The number of stages and operating conditions are dependent upon the end-use of the gas. The second stage is a fairly straightforward Fischer-Tropsch synthesis loop, using a proprietary catalyst developed by Pearson Technologies, Inc. (PTI). Single-pass conversion to ethanol is from 15% to 60% with a total conversion of 99+% with recycle.
The gasifier has converted a wide range of feedstock to synthetic gas (“syn-gas”) including wood waste (whole tree), bagasse, rice hulls, animal manure, lignite, coal and creosote at our pilot plant in AL. The catalysts are patented. The syn-gas is produced at a cost of approximately $ 1.20 per million BTU’s (mm BTU’s), at a concentration by volume of approximately 50% that of natural gas. Further, the process produces no emissions, as there is no oxidation. The omission of oxygen from the process also results in a very low capital cost for the manufacturing facilities. The syn-gas can be used either for electricity generation (by driving a gas turbine) or for commercial production of alcohols and other chemicals.
The Pearson process’ low cost of producing syn-gas and absence of greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with the urgent economic need for biomass-driven energy (“green energy”) suggests that a primary use of the process should be to fuel power plants in areas where biomass is plentiful. However, the need for fuel ethanol to replace MTBE is becoming a priority for a growing number of jurisdictions. The flexibility of the Pearson process in using a wide variety of feed stocks enables the thermo-chemical production of fuel ethanol while simultaneously solving the problem of incineration of biomass wastes. We must achieve a balanced and have developed a “Pro-generation” model that generates the production of electrical power and ethanol from local biomass. It is also a useful feature of the Pearson process that Fischer-Tropsch facilities made idle by the high cost of natural gas can be converted to ethanol production with the increase in supply necessary for continued observance of clean air regulations following a U.S.-wide ban on MTBE. The technology is licensed to ensure that the maximum benefit is conveyed to the economy and the global environment.
Our goal is to become an effective "technical partner" with green energy investors, investment groups, and/or local government wanting to generate electrical power and ethanol from local biomass.
Contact George Johnson, President, GT Energy, LLC at GTEnergyllc.net or 817-296-4710
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Steinhaus on -
Is there anyone out there that would not favor more efficient energy use?
Is there anyone wrong headed enough to favor energy waste instead of improved energy efficiency and using less energy to get a certain amount of work done?
Surely this is one area where fans of all energy segments can unite and make common cause. . . or is it?
I do not think you will find many folks that favor energy waste (unless perhaps you are an energy supplier that gets paid by the amount of energy supplied and effective efficiency which reduces energy demand may cut into sales and reduce prices which impacts revenues). I also do not favor energy waste but I do favor
INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY coupled with INCREASED NON-GHG ENERGY USE.
To preserve middle class jobs and American quality of life we should simultaneously pursue efficiency in energy use while increasing the use of energy while producing American industrial products. American workers are the most productive on the planet while using the highest amounts of energy per worker. This is not a coincidence.
It is fine to reduce energy waste but we should strive to INCREASE (not decrease) energy use per worker in manufacturing. Use of advanced manufacturing equipment and energy amplify worker's efforts. Misguided efforts to reduce energy use per worker will only cause middle class America workers to directly compete in real wages with foreign workers who have similar use of energy and use similar manufacturing equipment. Do you really want to get in a world-wide wage competition with Chinese and Indian workers who offer their labor for 1/4 or less the real wages of American workers?
Poor energy policies and goals to reduce the energy used per worker in manufacturing will cause real American wages to sink back into the pack of wages paid by our foreign Asian competition. Do you really want to bring home a paycheck 1/4 the real value of the paycheck that you brought home a few short years ago?
We currently live in a competitive world economy where goods are made where they can be manufactured for the lowest overall cost when all factors that comprise the cost of manufacturing are considered. This includes the costs of labor, energy, office space, materials, shop space, and the costs of transporting finished products to market. America can pay its workers more money in wages than the Asian industrial competition if the other costs of manufacturing, including the cost of energy, are lower. If all costs, including wages, are higher than the industrial competition you will not be able to sustainably manufacture in America.
We should strive to produce more, not less, clean, low cost, non-GHG producing energy and use it to build innovative world class products. Cutting back on energy use per worker will decimate American middle class wages on a long term basis and force more and more manufacturing to go offshore.
The highest quality energy produced at the lowest cost and with the highest availability is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can produce electrical energy at a cost less than coal fired power plants [1]. As a culture, America has to find a way to reduce the largely regulation and litigation driven factors which price up American nuclear power. At the dawn of the nuclear age the US built the very first commercial power reactor at Shippingport, PA in just over 4 years from ground breaking to power out on the electrical grid. Today it takes about three times that amount of time largely due to regulatory burden. To compete in the world and to preserve American quality of life we need to find a way to reduce the regulatory burden imposed by the NRC on new reactors while not sacrificing safety.
[1] Cost of electricity from Molten Salt Reactors (MSR), Moir, Nuclear Technology 138 93-95 (2002)
http://www.geocities.com/rmoir2003/coe_10_2_2001.pdf
-
Permalink Reply by Lou De Frog on -
Something that needs to be considered when choosing an alternate energy system, is the amount of energy used to create the system compared to the amount of energy you get out of the system.
The Photovoltaic cells that we use at present require so much energy in to manufacture them that it takes 30 years to get that same amount of energy out. Since this is the expected life of a PV, we actually finish up with a net gain of zero.
Similar problem with nuclear power plants. The amount of energy used to make them gets paid back with everything they produce over a ten year period. Consider the time to build them and you get no gain for 14 years. Next problem is that a central plant that distributes the power over a great distance results in power losses of up to 66%. - step up/step down transformers and heat loss from wires, waste heat from generators is unusable. Do we have to mention the costs of distribution maintenance and disposal of radioactive waste. Factor that in and nuclear is a non starter. The waste disposal problem and hazard have never been calculated in actual $ because we do not have a waste disposal program (it is still sitting around waiting for a solution) and we have never tabulated the total costs related to the few nuclear accidents that we have recorded - because we are still paying for them in agricultural losses and health costs associated with victims.
Even ethanol is a loser because it takes 20 calories of energy to produce 1.3 calories of corn which gets turned into 1 calorie of ethanol which, if used in a gasoline engine reduces the power of the engine. An engine designed to run on pure ethanol is something different.
The cheap fossil fuel oil we have been using has an energy return on energy invested of about 15 to 1. In the beginning we used 1 barrel of oil to recover 100, but the only oil now available is much harder to access. The tar sands require the equivalent input in natural gas of 1 barrel of oil to get 1.5 barrels of dirty oil out.
That leaves us with solar/thermal, wind and biogas and they all have a return on energy invested of less than 5 to 1 - so when we rely on alternate fuel alone we will have to reduce our consumption by 2/3
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2010 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
