I'm from a town like many across the Midwest. Our metro area is over one million people, but we are spread along a sixty mile corridor about ten miles wide. The heart of our urban area is the Fox River, which flows North to Green Bay, a bay of Lake Michigan. The Fox has been called the hardest working river in the world and has nearly a dozen dams and associated power generating stations in just the last thirty miles of river. The closest dam to my house, when it was built, backed up enough water to cover a mile-long rapids at De Pere, just seven miles upstream from where I live. These million people or so are turning over a new leaf. Even some of the most staunch supporters of commerce, the ones who just a few years ago fought tooth and nail to be allowed to squander resources, destroy the water quality and amass fortunes at the expense of human health and environmental quality are coming to realize that their waste costs them money. Now that a few of the most powerful players in our economy are coming out of their energy/money induced psychosis, it is leading to more opportunities to speak about the devastating changes that have been unleashed on the air, water and soils of Northeast Wisconsin. We continue to spew toxic chemicals, but there has been a tiny blip in the data that points to the fact that in tough times, efficient use of resources becomes a hot topic.
One thing that is rarely covered in history classes is the fact that the largest number and highest percentage of passive solar homes ever built in our nation were in the years following the Great Depression. When times were tough, people wanted to spend the smallest amount of money on energy. When our economy is doing well, people just expect to make enough to offset their increasing use of resources. As incomes spiral down, running a tight ship becomes crucial.
One of the facilities that I work in, the PAC in Appleton, Wisconsin, just had an energy audit of their facility done. For them, their income is relatively fixed. They have a certain number of seats to fill, they have over ten years of fund-raising under their belts and they know just how much alcohol their patrons consume, so those three things, along with ticket prices, determine their maximum income stream. The only way to get more out of the facility is to cut costs and increasing efficiency of energy use is now seen as an income "generator". Last night, you could feel the air conditioning shut off almost with the last note of the band that played. On the one hand, I am impressed that they are finally coming to understand the futility of throughput. On the other, I wonder why the best places to save energy (and money) seem to be overlooked. Turning up the thermostat in the summer and turning it down in winter are helpful, but only work at the margins and can only save by reducing short term spikes in energy use. The methods of saving that do the most good might save an even smaller percentage, but they work for you day in and day out, hour by hour, reducing waste and inefficiency. This is a bit like the story problem that often gets used in math class...Would you rather have a dime for every day of your entire life with 10% interest per year, or one thousand dollars right now?
The "interest" in the example above is the certain knowledge that every BTU that we wrest from the Earth will be more expensive than the ones we have dug up or drilled for in the past. The timeline in the story problem supposes that we will live at least another twenty years or so, but the outcome is sobering for those who understand how numbers work. However, there is one glaring difference between the story problem and the energy budget of our planet. With money, you could always print more. When we run out of fossilized carbon, there will be no more. What we need then are ways to wrest solar energy more effectively. Production of solar thermal seems to be the best approach to saving energy on space heating. Wind, which converts solar energy to motive force might be the best way to produce electricity and bio-gas from agricultural and forestry wastes might help as well, but barring the development of these sensible approaches to meeting energy needs, we are left with only conservation to reduce our dependence on fossil energy sources.
If we learn to mimic nature, changing our energy mix as well as how we conserve what we do have access to will both need to be part of our civilization in the future if we are to maintain quality of life without compromising the ability of the planet to support us. Replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) can reduce consumption of energy by up to 75% Replacing them with LED bulbs can save up to 90%. Some have used the fact that CFL bulbs contain mercury as a reason to hate them, but the coal that is not burned through conservation has even more mercury in it than the bulbs, so the choice becomes, do you want your mercury to be spread widely over the planet where we all get dosed with it regularly, or do you want to have it inside glass tubes where it can be reclaimed and recycled? Human beings are not unlike nature. We are tenacious and seek to continue life in the face of daunting odds. Turning over a new leaf requires hope. One of the most hopeful things we can do is to share what we have learned with others. Barring that, the most hopeful thing to do is to plant a tree.
One thing that is rarely covered in history classes is the fact that the largest number and highest percentage of passive solar homes ever built in our nation were in the years following the Great Depression. When times were tough, people wanted to spend the smallest amount of money on energy. When our economy is doing well, people just expect to make enough to offset their increasing use of resources. As incomes spiral down, running a tight ship becomes crucial.
One of the facilities that I work in, the PAC in Appleton, Wisconsin, just had an energy audit of their facility done. For them, their income is relatively fixed. They have a certain number of seats to fill, they have over ten years of fund-raising under their belts and they know just how much alcohol their patrons consume, so those three things, along with ticket prices, determine their maximum income stream. The only way to get more out of the facility is to cut costs and increasing efficiency of energy use is now seen as an income "generator". Last night, you could feel the air conditioning shut off almost with the last note of the band that played. On the one hand, I am impressed that they are finally coming to understand the futility of throughput. On the other, I wonder why the best places to save energy (and money) seem to be overlooked. Turning up the thermostat in the summer and turning it down in winter are helpful, but only work at the margins and can only save by reducing short term spikes in energy use. The methods of saving that do the most good might save an even smaller percentage, but they work for you day in and day out, hour by hour, reducing waste and inefficiency. This is a bit like the story problem that often gets used in math class...Would you rather have a dime for every day of your entire life with 10% interest per year, or one thousand dollars right now?
The "interest" in the example above is the certain knowledge that every BTU that we wrest from the Earth will be more expensive than the ones we have dug up or drilled for in the past. The timeline in the story problem supposes that we will live at least another twenty years or so, but the outcome is sobering for those who understand how numbers work. However, there is one glaring difference between the story problem and the energy budget of our planet. With money, you could always print more. When we run out of fossilized carbon, there will be no more. What we need then are ways to wrest solar energy more effectively. Production of solar thermal seems to be the best approach to saving energy on space heating. Wind, which converts solar energy to motive force might be the best way to produce electricity and bio-gas from agricultural and forestry wastes might help as well, but barring the development of these sensible approaches to meeting energy needs, we are left with only conservation to reduce our dependence on fossil energy sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment