No exactly sexy reading.
I found this site http://www.toptenusa.org/, which gives the top ten energy saving appliances in the US. I also found this site http://www.topten.info/, which gives the top ten energy saving appliances in Europe. What a difference.
1. The ranking is based on energy use per unit of volume. This is not necessarily the best ranking. The least consuming refrigerators should be placed first, regardless of size. A very large refrigerator might out perform a smaller one based on the kWh/volume ranking, but a smaller fridge uses less energy overall. The former ranking encourages a larger-than-needed appliance.
2. The best US refrigerators use 335 kWh/year. The best performing EU refrigerators use at most 211 kWh/year for their largest units. They determine that fridges that use more than 296 kWh/year are inefficient.
Why don't we see European models being mimicked here in the US?
In general, EU fridges are smaller than US fridges. There are also much higher performing units at the smaller end of the size range. Unit efficiency in the US declines with size; rather than remaining equivalent total energy use often increases.
It is hard to make specific comparisons because the EU uses a different method of calculating volume than the US. Overall exterior dimensions that are comparable have a significantly different interior volume - the US interior volume apparently far larger. I need to do more research on this disparity.
Long and short of it: our appliances are as fat as our population and consume typically twice as much as our EU cousins.
05 February 2011
03 February 2011
Carbon Tax
I just read a piece on Grist.org (http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-28-investment-is-win-win-for-global-economy-and-climate-stiglitz) about Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz regarding combating climate change and improving the economy. He feels that the investment in a societal good, instead of simply trying to stimulate spending on consumption, will help the world out of the current recession. I tend to agree. He thinks ultimately that a price on carbon emissions needs to be instituted to create the incentive to invest in clean energy and a disincentive for the consumption of fossil fuels. His figure was $80/ton of CO2.
To put this into perspective, I looked at the CO2 emissions of a variety of fossil fuels:
Gasoline: 19.4 lbs/gal = a $0.78/gal tax, or a little over a 25% price increase.
Diesel: 22.2 lbs/gal = a $0.88/gal tax
Natural gas: 11 lbs/therm = a $0.44/therm tax. Current US average price per therm = $1.07, so this is about a 41% increase. This is tougher on the poor to pay this. It also puts a hit on business. Then phase it in over 5 years. Use the tax generated to give a tax credit for efficiency upgrades.
Coal: For the generation of electricity, coal produces 1.3 lbs/kWh = $0.05/kWh tax. The national average price for electricity is $0.11.2/kWh, so this is also a 45% cost increase. Again, phase it in, subsidize upgrades, reduce taxes in other areas.
This is not drastic. Europe has gas taxes that are roughly double the cost of the fuel. The sooner we start, the sooner we send a price signal to invest in new technologies, in our homes and businesses to improve their efficiency. So if any of my elected representatives reads my blog, please tax my carbon.
To put this into perspective, I looked at the CO2 emissions of a variety of fossil fuels:
Gasoline: 19.4 lbs/gal = a $0.78/gal tax, or a little over a 25% price increase.
Diesel: 22.2 lbs/gal = a $0.88/gal tax
Natural gas: 11 lbs/therm = a $0.44/therm tax. Current US average price per therm = $1.07, so this is about a 41% increase. This is tougher on the poor to pay this. It also puts a hit on business. Then phase it in over 5 years. Use the tax generated to give a tax credit for efficiency upgrades.
Coal: For the generation of electricity, coal produces 1.3 lbs/kWh = $0.05/kWh tax. The national average price for electricity is $0.11.2/kWh, so this is also a 45% cost increase. Again, phase it in, subsidize upgrades, reduce taxes in other areas.
This is not drastic. Europe has gas taxes that are roughly double the cost of the fuel. The sooner we start, the sooner we send a price signal to invest in new technologies, in our homes and businesses to improve their efficiency. So if any of my elected representatives reads my blog, please tax my carbon.
02 February 2011
Drying Clothes
This is a work in progress. I am going to try the approach that a blog is a kind of notebook. Rather than present fully baked ideas, perhaps the evidence of thinking is an appropriate approach.
I have been doing a weekly guest post on Annie Coggan's blog, www.chairsandbuildings.wordpress.com. I have long been interested in how we use energy in our culture. I have been trying to find a merge between my drawings, which have been primarily about form, and my political interests, tied up with climate change. I have started to keep more complete notes on the background facts. This one is about drying clothes.
Clothes drying
In 2001 average annual household electrical consumption for dryer use was 1079 kWh, representing 5.8% of household electricity consumption overall. That’s an average annual expense of $162. This does not include the cost of heating the hot water. Average US carbon emissions per kWh are 1.3 pounds of CO2. Thus 1402 lbs for electric drying. [this seems low]
Natural gas use for dryers is harder to determine. The DOE does not have specific appliance energy data for anything but electricity, so one has to extrapolate. Total natural gas consumption for appliances was .43 quads, or 43,000,000,000,000 btus. This is probably a combination of cooking and dryer operation. This represents 111 million households. Therefore natural gas use is about 387,000 btus per household. I cannot make a clear educated guess of the dryer’s use, but let’s say half, or 190,000 btu. LP use is fairly small by comparison – 5 trillion btu, 45,000 btu/household, perhaps 22,000 btu for clothes drying.
This website has actually looked deeply at this issue.
http://www.laundrylist.org/index.php/faq/35-general-laundry-questions/51--how-much-energy-is-actually-used-by-the-electric-clothes-dryer
Am I a luddite? No. No I’m not. The modern clothes dryer is a useful appliance. It takes an hour to complete a job that previously would take a day. It saves the time and labor required to hang clothing and take it down. The more sophisticated units remove wrinkles and have moisture and temperature sensors to avoid over-drying. Why would I want to hang clothes? This convenience comes at a cost, as do all of our modern conveniences. This cost is typically paid for with fossil fuels. All of us Americans have our own personal slaves in fossil fuels that make these machines work. But it is clear that our addiction to this equipment is costing us. This labor saving seems somehow to further cement the loss of jobs in our economy, and the flight of dollars overseas to support oil addiction. It is not just about the convenience of the dryer, it is about all of our "conveniences," such as the automobile. I find this chart quite fascinating. While 79% of US households have a dryer, the highest rate in the EU is about 61%, and Italy has a mere 2%. Clearly this is a cultural issue rather than economic.
There are devices out there that make drying easier that do not rely upon large quantities of energy to achieve, and that make the task easier.
This thing is a spin dryer. It spins most of the water out of clothes prior to line drying.
This is a basic clothes drying rack (this one on ecohousekeeping.com).
I have been doing a weekly guest post on Annie Coggan's blog, www.chairsandbuildings.wordpress.com. I have long been interested in how we use energy in our culture. I have been trying to find a merge between my drawings, which have been primarily about form, and my political interests, tied up with climate change. I have started to keep more complete notes on the background facts. This one is about drying clothes.
Clothes drying
In 2001 average annual household electrical consumption for dryer use was 1079 kWh, representing 5.8% of household electricity consumption overall. That’s an average annual expense of $162. This does not include the cost of heating the hot water. Average US carbon emissions per kWh are 1.3 pounds of CO2. Thus 1402 lbs for electric drying. [this seems low]
Natural gas use for dryers is harder to determine. The DOE does not have specific appliance energy data for anything but electricity, so one has to extrapolate. Total natural gas consumption for appliances was .43 quads, or 43,000,000,000,000 btus. This is probably a combination of cooking and dryer operation. This represents 111 million households. Therefore natural gas use is about 387,000 btus per household. I cannot make a clear educated guess of the dryer’s use, but let’s say half, or 190,000 btu. LP use is fairly small by comparison – 5 trillion btu, 45,000 btu/household, perhaps 22,000 btu for clothes drying.
This website has actually looked deeply at this issue.
http://www.laundrylist.org/index.php/faq/35-general-laundry-questions/51--how-much-energy-is-actually-used-by-the-electric-clothes-dryer
Am I a luddite? No. No I’m not. The modern clothes dryer is a useful appliance. It takes an hour to complete a job that previously would take a day. It saves the time and labor required to hang clothing and take it down. The more sophisticated units remove wrinkles and have moisture and temperature sensors to avoid over-drying. Why would I want to hang clothes? This convenience comes at a cost, as do all of our modern conveniences. This cost is typically paid for with fossil fuels. All of us Americans have our own personal slaves in fossil fuels that make these machines work. But it is clear that our addiction to this equipment is costing us. This labor saving seems somehow to further cement the loss of jobs in our economy, and the flight of dollars overseas to support oil addiction. It is not just about the convenience of the dryer, it is about all of our "conveniences," such as the automobile. I find this chart quite fascinating. While 79% of US households have a dryer, the highest rate in the EU is about 61%, and Italy has a mere 2%. Clearly this is a cultural issue rather than economic.
There are devices out there that make drying easier that do not rely upon large quantities of energy to achieve, and that make the task easier.
This thing is a spin dryer. It spins most of the water out of clothes prior to line drying.
This is a basic clothes drying rack (this one on ecohousekeeping.com).
25 January 2011
The Nation (magazine)
http://www.thenation.com/article/157727/green-energy-opponents-are-real-job-killers#comment-858417
Mr. Fenton’s article could use some work – a researcher and stronger facts and figures in particular. But his central argument is sound – the current debate is not a debate. Little fact underlies the discussion. There’s a lot of claim of belief rather than logical assessment.
I have a general understanding of the technologies and economics involved, and I have been studying the issues for a quarter century. Here’s a few facts I do know: $250 billion a year leaves the US for oil from countries that don’t like us much. Our technological developments (our engineers and scientists developed the first deployed photovoltaic panels) are being brought to scale by other countries (China in particular, followed by the EU and Japan). Add to this the specter of climate change and the potentially devastating economic (to say nothing of the environmental) effects and it is a nasty brew.
Some of his facts are in essence correct. According to the DOE, buildings account for approximately 37% of US energy consumption. For each $1 billion spent in building energy reductions, we avoid approximately $2.5 billion to build new coal plants. Reducing building energy consumption can be achieved at a net overall economic benefit. The building sector is largely a domestic industry. Most materials and equipment are manufactured here (though many of the high value and high efficiency/high tech components are now being manufactured elsewhere). Construction and renovation jobs cannot be outsourced.
But what is most startling in the comments to Fenton’s commentary is the notion that clean energy technologies require massive subsidies to be competitive. I am going to leave out of this discussion the external costs of fossil fuels, like acid rain, particulate pollution, elevated asthma rates, climate change, two wars, the list goes on. The fossil fuel industry receives massive subsidies and has for decades consistently. Nuclear power is the beneficiary of some of the largest in the energy sector relative to production, and a new plant hasn’t been completed in 20 years. Clean energy subsidies are sporadic, limiting investment because there is an inability to plan. Washington politicians like to talk about removing entitlements and balancing the budget, but when it comes to pork, there is no restraint. There is no free market, merely corporate socialism. Let’s start by removing all subsidies to energy and putting all the players on a level field. Maybe then we can discuss a carbon tax, which would be particularly advantageous to get us off of foreign oil. Use that tax money to reduce corporate taxes, especially on small businesses.
Or we can continue to dither while the Chinese, Indians, and EU plan, which alas, I fear, is the probably scenario. It looks like it’s got to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Mr. Fenton’s article could use some work – a researcher and stronger facts and figures in particular. But his central argument is sound – the current debate is not a debate. Little fact underlies the discussion. There’s a lot of claim of belief rather than logical assessment.
I have a general understanding of the technologies and economics involved, and I have been studying the issues for a quarter century. Here’s a few facts I do know: $250 billion a year leaves the US for oil from countries that don’t like us much. Our technological developments (our engineers and scientists developed the first deployed photovoltaic panels) are being brought to scale by other countries (China in particular, followed by the EU and Japan). Add to this the specter of climate change and the potentially devastating economic (to say nothing of the environmental) effects and it is a nasty brew.
Some of his facts are in essence correct. According to the DOE, buildings account for approximately 37% of US energy consumption. For each $1 billion spent in building energy reductions, we avoid approximately $2.5 billion to build new coal plants. Reducing building energy consumption can be achieved at a net overall economic benefit. The building sector is largely a domestic industry. Most materials and equipment are manufactured here (though many of the high value and high efficiency/high tech components are now being manufactured elsewhere). Construction and renovation jobs cannot be outsourced.
But what is most startling in the comments to Fenton’s commentary is the notion that clean energy technologies require massive subsidies to be competitive. I am going to leave out of this discussion the external costs of fossil fuels, like acid rain, particulate pollution, elevated asthma rates, climate change, two wars, the list goes on. The fossil fuel industry receives massive subsidies and has for decades consistently. Nuclear power is the beneficiary of some of the largest in the energy sector relative to production, and a new plant hasn’t been completed in 20 years. Clean energy subsidies are sporadic, limiting investment because there is an inability to plan. Washington politicians like to talk about removing entitlements and balancing the budget, but when it comes to pork, there is no restraint. There is no free market, merely corporate socialism. Let’s start by removing all subsidies to energy and putting all the players on a level field. Maybe then we can discuss a carbon tax, which would be particularly advantageous to get us off of foreign oil. Use that tax money to reduce corporate taxes, especially on small businesses.
Or we can continue to dither while the Chinese, Indians, and EU plan, which alas, I fear, is the probably scenario. It looks like it’s got to get a lot worse before it gets better.
13 January 2011
Citizen Crawford
I found a journal that my parents started sometime after I was born. It is entitled:
Caleb Charles Crawford [yes, "Charles"]
Life and Public Services of a Citizen
July 30, 1960-
First word: "see"
October 1963
"Caleb is very sensitive, and impatient with things that don't work."
May 4, 1964
"He wants to be a working man, plays with tools a great deal and will only wear dungarees (workingmen pants)."
Well, I guess I was in motion even back then.
Caleb Charles Crawford [yes, "Charles"]
Life and Public Services of a Citizen
July 30, 1960-
First word: "see"
October 1963
"Caleb is very sensitive, and impatient with things that don't work."
May 4, 1964
"He wants to be a working man, plays with tools a great deal and will only wear dungarees (workingmen pants)."
Well, I guess I was in motion even back then.
16 December 2010
Poetry and Pragmatism
I am contemplating the next iteration in describing my two themes. When I started talking about my work, it was Form and Narrative, an attempt to describe my interest in the language of form, and how form and material is read, how it is a record of our relationships and cultural values.
Next was Ethics and Aesthetics, which was the formulation of my long-term engagement with environmental issues. The term "aesthetics," however, troubled me. Although I liked the alliteration, the term feels too superficial and systematic. Thus was born Poetry and Politics. The poetry stems from my drawings. Long ago, I described myself as a "form poet," which returns to the interest in form and narrative. "Poetry" condenses that. The problem now is with "politics." The science behind environmental issues is incontrovertable. However, the issues that surround climate science have become polarly politicized. This has become a debilitating condition in which no action is being taken. Contemporary pragmatic approaches to architecture have yeilded provocative results, creatively straddling practicability and invention. A pragmatic approach needs to come to bear in the climate change debate. If even a fraction of the current predictions comes true, humanity is in for a rough ride indeed.
Thus, as an optimist, I would prefer to frame the issue as an opportunity. Not an opportunity for proposing a nostalgic vision of the US in its glory, or the "good old days," but a vision of a better life in this world of ours. We can feed, house and clothe the planet if we so choose - we have the technology. Art, music, literature, dance, theater, film - we have a rich culture. If we allow for a base level of planning, we can achieve all of these things. If we continue the divided debate controlled by a few who resist change because of individual loss, we all stand to lose all.
Next was Ethics and Aesthetics, which was the formulation of my long-term engagement with environmental issues. The term "aesthetics," however, troubled me. Although I liked the alliteration, the term feels too superficial and systematic. Thus was born Poetry and Politics. The poetry stems from my drawings. Long ago, I described myself as a "form poet," which returns to the interest in form and narrative. "Poetry" condenses that. The problem now is with "politics." The science behind environmental issues is incontrovertable. However, the issues that surround climate science have become polarly politicized. This has become a debilitating condition in which no action is being taken. Contemporary pragmatic approaches to architecture have yeilded provocative results, creatively straddling practicability and invention. A pragmatic approach needs to come to bear in the climate change debate. If even a fraction of the current predictions comes true, humanity is in for a rough ride indeed.
Thus, as an optimist, I would prefer to frame the issue as an opportunity. Not an opportunity for proposing a nostalgic vision of the US in its glory, or the "good old days," but a vision of a better life in this world of ours. We can feed, house and clothe the planet if we so choose - we have the technology. Art, music, literature, dance, theater, film - we have a rich culture. If we allow for a base level of planning, we can achieve all of these things. If we continue the divided debate controlled by a few who resist change because of individual loss, we all stand to lose all.
07 December 2010
Fellow traveler
http://kazanjian.net/pg_fortification.html
Kazanjian is clearly influenced by Jerry Uelsmann. Some might describe it as derivative. However, I see a different impulse behind the work. Pieces like this are more abstract, which appeals to my architectural sense. The representational work has a dark and somewhat pessimistic origin to the imagery.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)