DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Renewables
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 4, 2014, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
::)
Okay Surly, I'll bite. ;D
Here's a contrarian view to the half baked, cherry picking
"contrarian view" article JDwheeler (e.g. another Doomer in the
"caloric intake is IT" box canyon) which equates corrupt rich
apples to sustainable building architecture oranges.
QUESTION FOR DOOMERS: But what if the opposite is true? What if
the issue is NOT what the corrupt rich DO and have DONE in human
power structures from day one but what the rest of us have done
to make the planet livable? What if the continual buck passing
rhetoric and hand wringing about how powerful the rich are and
how we are truly forked unless a giant collapse pulls the rug
out from these entrenched parasites ( because they allegedly
will coopt any and all new technologies for their own private
piggery)?
It's pretty G O D D A M N E D transparent how the motive of
the article is to establish a basic (but entirely false) premise
that ALL new technology that can solve our energy and
sustainability issues will not reach the common man because the
rich are
(A) suicidal,
(B) want a huge population cull so they must ensure that the
environment is thoroughly trashed until 9/10 of the "ZOMBIES"
die off AND/OR
(C) Profit over planet is too much fun for these evil pigs to
give up and they just ain't gonna do it!
SO, the "question" of "But what if the opposite is true?" is
framed TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT with regard to the issue of
sustainability, energy and the laws of thermodynamics in order
to cleverly disguise the FACT that ANY technology can be used
for good or evil by ASSUMING INCORRECTLY that ALL new
technologies are "pie in the sky techno fixes" that WON'T WORK
because RE and Doomer friends SAY SO, are wishful thinking out
of the descending colons of Cornucopians and, in case we
"idealistic, impractical dreamers hadn't noticed", the rich are
incorrigible meanies that we cannot reform that must be OFFED
(cue to RE's guillotine
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6348.gif<br
/>
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg<br
/>or some other bloody graphic splashed with blood thirsty,
vengeance filled joy). It's just FORKING amazing how the Doomer
mentality rotates around offing the rich because they are an
obstacle to all human progress while completely ignoring the
facts about how MUCH technology HAS reached the common man and
continues to do so for the betterment of the biosphere and our
species (despite the huge amount of negative impact from
wasteful and poisonous technologies). They just don't want to
go there. And it seems, Surly, neither do you.
So, even though I am convinced that YOU are convinced that the
"contrarian" view has so much merit that it should be given
equal time with a hope filled scenario based on hard science and
real technology, I present to you a properly framed QUESTION:
But what if the opposite is true? What if, despite all the
coopting by the rich to accumulate more and more power with the
use of the new technologies, said technologies result in the
elimination of the use of fossil fuels, the elimination of the
production and use in our products of chemicals that alter our
endochrine system, cause immunes system disorders and cancer
and, the elimination of chemical fertilizers in food production,
the elimination of high thermal heat engines like nuclear power
plants and internal combustion engines and a gradual healing of
the biosphere?
WHY would those rich meanies allow such an outcome that might
ruin a bit of their power trip parade because they then have to
share a healthy planet with so many other humans?
BECAUSE they do not have any other choice. See Guy Mcpherson.
;) Yes, I know Guy has his 30 positive feedback loops wiping out
Homo sap in a few decades but the POINT is that the 1% are not
going to sit on their hands with the hard data that serious
people like Guy Mcpherson present. He doesn't believe in a
viable outcome for us but ADMITS that he may be wrong. That
said, I disavow EVERYTHING that Guy's website pals say about
people suiciding themselves for the "good" of humanity. That's
REALLY EVIL!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
And
by the way, your pal RE has NO PROBLEM with people commiting
suicide because he has NO MORALITY beyond caloric intake for
survival of the "fittest". NOT a fun guy to be around if he is
hungry and you are the only food around. :P
Ask JDwheeler WHY, if you CAN grow bananas and heat a house in
the Rockies WITHOUT a fossil fuel furnace or any other heat
source but the sun SINCE 1983 (See Amory Lovins), most people
aren't doing it? He will say because the rich prevented it or
it's not really cost effective. Both are incorrect, but BASIC
premises of the Doomer box canyon mindset.
You see, that was a trick question. 8) If you take several
hours over a week and watch the 5 video multi hour conference on
energy efficiency in various human endeavors from construction
to transportation, you will learn something that Doomers hate to
admit and probably refuse to believe. That is, that GIANT steps
in energy reduction through efficiency HAVE been made in many
areas since the 1980s. We HAVE, without lowering comfort levels,
managed to use about 20% (OR LESS) of the energy we "needed" in
1980 NOW to do EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS for heating, cooling,
refrigeration, construction, communication and transportation.
8)
WATCH THE VIDEOS, Surly. It's ALL THERE! We are saving energy
(NEGAWATTS) hand over fist! RE is pushing a bill of DOOMER
goods. You don't have to believe a word I say. But please, watch
the videos. Every ENERGY issue is dealt with as well as HOW the
energy can be obtained and distributed SUSTAINABLY.
All that said, I admit and agree with you, RE and JDwheeler that
the meanies in the 1% are evil forks. So what else is new? Tell
me when this was not the case?
So they have, like, technology and computers to herd us more
thoroughly now. And? The abysmal ignorance that people like RE
show about human history is testament to the grave error of
assuming that we are far more oppressed now than any other time
in history. That is TOTAL BS. But I'm NOt going to sit here and
argue quixotically about history to those who believe we were
better ,nicer and more decent when we wielded swords or bows and
arrows or whatever.
I have been researching LAW for the past three months. LAW is
the application of cultural mores to a societal framework that
ALWAYS favors the powerful but MUST pay tribute to the common
man in order to provide a framework for a stable society
(revolutions happen when you oppress the rubes too much). Most
LAW in Western Civilization comes from Roman and Germanic codes.
You DO NOT want to know what "freedom" you had under those
codes, Surly. :P They have evolved over the centuries with the
Magna Carta and French contributions to a more equitable system.
Inheritance laws, tort, and penal codes are horribly distorted
in earlier centuries so the rich can do whatever the fork they
want and have you imprisoned or killed for a trifle.
It is HYPERBOLE, the DD's specialty, to claim that things are
WORSE now for the average citizen than they were in more
primitive times. BUT, it is NECESSARY for RE and the like to
push this false meme in order to justify their inability to
countenance the possibility of human progress through
technology. I accuse the DD of being in THAT box canyon. And
they CAN'T GET OUT OF IT because the instant they admit there is
hope, the sine qua non for the DD mindset VANISHES!
So they will ALWAYS GRASP at the "contrarian" STRAW that no
progress is possible because the rich have us by the short
hairs. It's quite logical. Re is running a scary movie scenario
that is lots of fun for him. You (and I, for a while) fell for
it. Get real Surly. The DD is like the Cults that keep pushing
the date when Christ returns to earth into the future when the
one that didn't pan out comes and goes (after people have sold
their houses and given the money to the top dog "spiritual"
leader ;) ). It's fun for a while but it is not reality based,
period.
Now you can smirk, huff and puff, laugh at me or you can do what
a serious inquiry of the validity of my allegations requires and
watch these videos. Take a week, take a month but YOU have a
responsibility to tell people with a Master's Degree in
Agriculture (I think) like JDwheeler that they do not know what
they are talking about for their own good.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/129fs238648.gif
Energy efficiency 1 Amory Lovins
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O5txQlEI7bc
The meat of the matter:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O5txQlEI7bc#t=4075
Energy efficiency 2
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8kUih_t9aCs
Energy efficiency 3
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RjcWx7U1sjQ
Energy efficiency 4
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zW6gWZD4394
Energy efficiency 5
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x-9jd2OMwJQ
The next industrial revolution
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1zfO3HW6xCw
#Post#: 1055--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 4, 2014, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Most Present Day Engineering is based on Ideology, NOT FACTS
and the practical application of the laws of physics. :o :P
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFWXMmmiihk&feature=player_embedded
Negawatts and air (cold or hot) movement in buildings with a
view to duct design, air filters, pump design and placement and
pressure drop air handling fun and games: 80 to 90% LESS energy
use for MORE efficient air movement! MASSIVE savings potential
for buildings all over the world!
#Post#: 1056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: Surly1
Date: May 4, 2014, 8:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
AG, do you really think I posted this here to mess with you?
You are the only individual I k ow knowledgeable enough about
these issues to form a useful counter-perspective to what I
found to be a disturbing article.
[quote=AG] But what if the opposite is true? What if, despite
all the coopting by the rich to accumulate more and more power
with the use of the new technologies, said technologies result
in the elimination of the use of fossil fuels, the elimination
of the production and use in our products of chemicals that
alter our endochrine system, cause immunes system disorders and
cancer and, the elimination of chemical fertilizers in food
production, the elimination of high thermal heat engines like
nuclear power plants and internal combustion engines and a
gradual healing of the biosphere?
[/quote]
An excellent question. I considered the thrust of the article in
the context of the wholesale retreat from any notion of a
"commons" and E Pluribus Unum iin the political sphere. Seen the
movie Elysium? Depicts a likely end-game scenario.
[quote=AG]
WHY would those rich meanies allow such an outcome that might
ruin a bit of their power trip parade because they then have to
share a healthy planet with so many other humans?
[/quote]
Because now they have the means to do so, in a way they have
never really possessed that means before. You DO know that they
don't serve GMO foods in the Monsanto cafeterias, don't you?
[quote=AG]
BECAUSE they do not have any other choice. See Guy Mcpherson.
;) Yes, I know Guy has his 30 positive feedback loops wiping out
Homo sap in a few decades but the POINT is that the 1% are not
going to sit on their hands with the hard data that serious
people like Guy Mcpherson present. He doesn't believe in a
viable outcome for us but ADMITS that he may be wrong. That
said, I disavow EVERYTHING that Guy's website pals say about
people suiciding themselves for the "good" of humanity. That's
REALLY EVIL! And by the way, your pal RE has NO PROBLEM with
people commiting suicide because he has NO MORALITY beyond
caloric intake for survival of the "fittest". NOT a fun guy to
be around if he is hungry and you are the only food around. :P
[/quote]
This goes into the list of nominees for the all time greatest
non-sequiturs of all time. You have a serious bone to pick with
RE; I suggest you pick it with him. I represent my own ideas,
which I have articulated as carefully as I know how. On some
things, I agree within him; on others, not. You have not
forgotten the Orkin Man/guillotine/Pol Pot/this way lies madness
debates, have you?
[quote=AG]
Ask JDwheeler WHY, if you CAN grow bananas and heat a house in
the Rockies WITHOUT a fossil fuel furnace or any other heat
source but the sun SINCE 1983 (See Amory Lovins), most people
aren't doing it? He will say because the rich prevented it or
it's not really cost effective. Both are incorrect, but BASIC
premises of the Doomer box canyon mindset.
You see, that was a trick question. 8) If you take several
hours over a week and watch the 5 video multi hour conference on
energy efficiency in various human endeavors from construction
to transportation, you will learn something that Doomers hate to
admit and probably refuse to believe. That is, that GIANT steps
in energy reduction through efficiency HAVE been made in many
areas since the 1980s. We HAVE, without lowering comfort levels,
managed to use about 20% (OR LESS) of the energy we "needed" in
1980 NOW to do EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS for heating, cooling,
refrigeration, construction, communication and transportation.
8)
//
All that said, I admit and agree with you, RE and JDwheeler that
the meanies in the 1% are evil forks. So what else is new? Tell
me when this was not the case?
So they have, like, technology and computers to herd us more
thoroughly now. And? The abysmal ignorance that people like RE
show about human history is testament to the grave error of
assuming that we are far more oppressed now than any other time
in history. That is TOTAL BS. But I'm NOt going to sit here and
argue quixotically about history to those who believe we were
better ,nicer and more decent when we wielded swords or bows and
arrows or whatever.
I have been researching LAW for the past three months. LAW is
the application of cultural mores to a societal framework that
ALWAYS favors the powerful but MUST pay tribute to the common
man in order to provide a framework for a stable society
(revolutions happen when you oppress the rubes too much). Most
LAW in Western Civilization comes from Roman and Germanic codes.
You DO NOT want to know what "freedom" you had under those
codes, Surly. :P They have evolved over the centuries with the
Magna Carta and French contributions to a more equitable system.
Inheritance laws, tort, and penal codes are horribly distorted
in earlier centuries so the rich can do whatever the fork they
want and have you imprisoned or killed for a trifle.
It is HYPERBOLE, the DD's specialty, to claim that things are
WORSE now for the average citizen than they were in more
primitive times. BUT, it is NECESSARY for RE and the like to
push this false meme in order to justify their inability to
countenance the possibility of human progress through
technology. I accuse the DD of being in THAT box canyon. And
they CAN'T GET OUT OF IT because the instant they admit there is
hope, the sine qua non for the DD mindset VANISHES!
So they will ALWAYS GRASP at the "contrarian" STRAW that no
progress is possible because the rich have us by the short
hairs. It's quite logical. Re is running a scary movie scenario
that is lots of fun for him. You (and I, for a while) fell for
it. Get real Surly. The DD is like the Cults that keep pushing
the date when Christ returns to earth into the future when the
one that didn't pan out comes and goes (after people have sold
their houses and given the money to the top dog "spiritual"
leader ;) ). It's fun for a while but it is not reality based,
period.
Now you can smirk, huff and puff, laugh at me or you can do what
a serious inquiry of the validity of my allegations requires and
watch these videos. Take a week, take a month but YOU have a
responsibility to tell people with a Master's Degree in
Agriculture (I think) like JDwheeler [/quote]
You really work up quite a head of steam, doncha?
Believe it or not, I did not post this here to tweak you or mock
you. I was seriously interested in your response. Not smirking,
huffing and puffing. You don't see DD anymore, but you seem to
have an encyclopedic of view of what goes on there. I can tell
you that we've been combating trolls for weeks; and I am sick to
death of arguing with people.
And now I have hours of videos to view.
And PS-- you were oh-so-right about the effete Golden Oxen.
#Post#: 1060--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 5, 2014, 1:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
I know that I can be a royal pain in the ass on this renewable
energy thing. I am not saying you aren't an independent thinker.
I AM saying the DD SUCKS. I will say it over and over because RE
is an ego fortress of hyperbole that dominates the majority view
there.
All that said, I don't think you are "messing" with me. I am
just angry as hell about what is going on with my court case and
I guess I took it out on you. Sorry. :-[
Well, tomorrow is another day... We'll see what the latest court
order directed at me because the bank lawyer lied through her
teeth (and I can't prove it!) says to me. When it's all over and
I am totally defeated, I'll give a synopsis of it if I can get
up the energy.
You see, I, like you, just get tired of this whole renewable
energy thing versus what the 1% want to do and are stupid enough
to do it might happen. To me, renewable energy is like gravity.
It's a no-brainer and every creature on earth, including mankind
for most of his existence, has used it in a multifaceted way. I
am no longer really trying to convince anyone of the wisdom of
the renewable energy path. IT's the material cure for our
"disease". I do admit that without spiritual progress, it will
be another postponement like the fossil fuel age. I just don't
give the importance that you do to political systems. Perhaps
you can post some of your political posts here. I'll read them.
I just don't like politics. I have a section on power and
politics here but I put stuff there because it has to be
addressed as a thorn in man's side. That is why I do the knee
jerk reaction thing when renewable energy is challenged as a
REAL aid to humanity versus political solutions that never
amount to more than another Potemkin circus for the rubes. Think
about it. Maybe I am the one in denial but I just will not
concede that it is over because the rich have all the technology
marbles. Time will tell.
I read a piece by RE on Mike Ruppert at Guy Mcpherson's web site
and read the comments too. It was refreshing to watch him get
spanked in a place he couldn't pull that Godfader BS. ;D It was
sad to watch him try to put a guilt trip on Guy for allowing the
advocacy of suicide (particularly for geezers like myself!) when
RE advocates violence against TPTB on a regular basis. That's
why I mentioned him. I know you do NOT share his preoccupation
with offing the piggies. I'll try to leave him out of the
conversation from now on.
If you don't mind, please fill me in on GO's latest antics. A
little gossip might improve my mood. ;D
#Post#: 1061--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 5, 2014, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
This is one more giant step being taken in renewable energy (the
avoidance and eventual ELIMINATION OF MINING for raw materials -
a MAJOR source of pollution that has NOTHING to do with the
successes or failures of LEEDs certification in "green"
buildings - see cherry picking) that the 1% are not inhibiting
in any way. As a matter of fract, the 1% that own all these
processes are backing closed loop recycling.
Closed Loop Recycling
By Martin Murray
Introduction
Closed loop recycling is the process where post-consumer waste
is collected, recycled and used to make new products. But in the
closed loop all participants should work together to make sure
that the flow continues. In the example of recycling aluminum
cans, the consumer purchases beverage cans that are made from
recycled material, and they consume the contents. The can is
then collected from the consumer as part of their normal
recycling pickup, and then combined with other aluminum cans to
create raw materials which are sold to the manufacturer, who in
turn produces new cans, made from recycled materials.
[b]How to Make Closed Loop Recycling Work[/b]
The easiest way to make a closed loop system to work is to
recycle every item that can be recycled, ensure that the
manufacturers want to purchase post-consumer recycled material,
and that the customer wants to buy products made from recycled
material. These assumptions are not always possible to achieve
and the closed loop is difficult to attain. However some
materials, such as aluminum and glass, can be recycled
indefinitely and these materials offer the best chance of closed
loop recycling.
Glass recycling has been working for decades. Bottles were used
where there was a deposit paid on the bottle so that it was
returned, or milk bottles that were picked up daily by the
milkman. An estimated eighty percent of collected glass is
recycled and used to make more glass containers. The Glass
Packaging Institute estimates that in California, almost eighty
percent of glass containers are recycled, whereas nationally the
figure is closer to fifty percent, but that glass bottles and
jars are totally recyclable and can be recycled endlessly
without any loss in purity or quality. Glass container
manufacturers set a goal that by 2013 there would have fifty
percent recycled content in the products they produce.
Aluminum recycling has been as successful as glass recycling,
with an estimated 68 percent of each aluminum can sold in the US
is made from recycled materials. Two thirds of the aluminum ever
produced is still in the processing cycle today. However still a
large amount of aluminum is placed in landfills which recyclers
calculate is as much as $600 million each year. For the closed
loop system to work those items need to be collected not
disposed of.
Other Closed Loop Recycling
Companies are trying to make closed loop systems of more
specific items. The car manufacturer, Mazda, has developed a
process where they can recycle the fenders from vehicles that
are being scrapped and make them into new fenders for new
vehicles. The company has been designing their vehicles with
recycling in mind, and since the 1990's the company had designed
its fenders to be more recyclable. Mazda developed technology
where they can recycle used fenders from vehicles, into raw
plastic resin for use in new vehicle fenders. Their technology
allows the plastic from any age of vehicle to be combined to
produce new items.
Another car manufacturers, Ford, has plans to use a polyester
seat fabric in its vehicles that is created from a blend of
recycled materials, including post-industrial fiber waste and
post-consumer PET plastic bottles. By using this fabric used
from recycled plastic bottles, the company says it can divert 2
million plastic bottles from going to landfills.
Shaw Industries, the leading floor covering manufacturer, is an
example of a company that saw that consumers wanted a greener
product and delivered it. In 2003 they introduced a recyclable
carpet tile that can be recycled into new carpet tiles at its
end of life, thus saving carpet from being sent to landfills.
Even small companies are creating a closed loop. A small dog toy
manufacturer called West Paw encourages consumers to return used
dog toys, dog beds, apparel and other items to the company so
that they can be reprocessed into making new items.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-062.gif
Suggested Reading
•Recycling Waste
•Green Supply Chain
•Green Supply Chain Best Practices
Related Articles
•Closed Loop Logistics and Recycling
•Glass Recycling - Benefits of Glass Recycling - Why Recycle
Glass?
•How Recycling Creates New Jobs
•What Can Be Recycled? Confusion About Recycling Addressed by
New Initiative
•Asphalt Shingle Recycling Overview
HTML http://logistics.about.com/od/greensupplychain/a/Closed-Loop-Recycling.htm
#Post#: 1102--------------------------------------------------
US Building Efficiency Was Worth More Than Clean Electricity in
2013
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 12, 2014, 12:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Thank Amory Lovins, who coined the term
NEGAWATTS, for energy NON-use applications in building and
powerplant design for efficiency. ;D
US Building Efficiency Was Worth More Than Clean Electricity in
2013
Buildings are becoming a big part of the advanced energy
economy.
Stephen Lacey
February 20, 2014
America's building sector often gets criticized for being an
inefficient drain on the country's electricity system. At the
same time, the natural gas industry gets held up as an economic
miracle for the grid. But does that perception match reality?
A new analysis suggests that those assessments may be a little
skewed -- at least when it comes to yearly revenues in those
sectors.
Advanced Energy Economy, a clean energy business advocacy group
co-founded by billionaire activist Tom Steyer, has released a
report valuing the global advanced energy sector using data from
Navigant Research. The report found that the global advanced
energy economy -- which includes efficient transport, biofuels,
commercial and industrial efficiency, and clean electricity
generation -- was valued at $1.1 trillion in 2013.
The U.S. made up 15 percent of the global total across that wide
range of sectors, with a $169 billion market.
Looking deeper into the numbers, a counterintuitive trend
emerges: building efficiency revenues actually outpaced revenues
in the clean electricity sector in 2013.
The report breaks down building efficiency subsectors into the
categories of environmental design, HVAC upgrades, lighting,
water heating, district heating, demand response and building
energy management software. Taken together, these subsectors
represented $43.9 billion in U.S. revenues and $150 billion
worldwide.
The analysis focused on clean electricity factors in the solar,
wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas turbine and fuel
cell subsectors. Combined, those technologies brought in $31.3
billion in revenues within the U.S. and $384 billion worldwide,
according to the report.
Globally, revenues in clean electricity generation were more
than twice those in the building efficiency space. But in the
U.S., the building efficiency sector brought in roughly
one-third more revenue last year, according to the report.
That's a significant gap, and it illustrates the steady (and
sometimes hidden) investment underway in the built environment.
Wind and natural gas are often hailed as the dominant forces in
the clean energy sector. In 2013, however, wind investments
plummeted due to uncertainty about the federal production tax
credit. Orders for natural gas turbines have also also declined
over the last two years as older plants are utilized more
efficiently and flattening electricity sales slow investment in
new infrastructure. Meanwhile, investment in building efficiency
is increasing steadily, rivaling the top generation
technologies.
Even with a strong showing for wind and gas in 2012, the clean
electricity sector only brought in about $6 billion more revenue
than the building efficiency space.
These figures back up a couple of recent studies on the value of
efficiency.
In April 2013, sustainable architecture expert Ed Mazria
analyzed EIA data and concluded that theoretically, no new power
plants need to be constructed to service America's 60 billion
square feet of new buildings by 2030. That's because new
construction is becoming so efficient that building energy
consumption will see a steep decline even under a
business-as-usual scenario, according to the EIA.
Also last year, ACEEE energy economist Skip Laitner compared
economy-wide investments in efficiency to energy production for
the year 2010, finding that America spent three and a half times
the amount of money on efficiency upgrades that it spent on
energy supply.
"One immediate conclusion from this assessment is that the
productivity of our economy may be more directly tied to greater
levels of energy efficiency rather than a continued mining and
drilling for new energy resources," wrote Laitner.
It would be premature to draw any definitive conclusions from
the data in this latest AEE report. But the analysis does
suggest once again that building efficiency is a much bigger
force that people assume.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
And if
investment keeps its current pace, it will likely continue to
rival the more visible clean electricity sector.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
Tags: building efficiency, building energy management
HTML http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Building-Efficiency-Was-Worth-More-Than-Clean-Electricity-Generation
#Post#: 1177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 21, 2014, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://elqahera-trading.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dollar-sign-thumbnail1.jpg<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
[move]Better Buildings Neighborhood Initiative Upgrades 100,000
Buildings, Saves $730 Million on Energy Bills[/move]
May 21, 2014 - 4:06pm
CONTACT
•(202) 586-4940
Building on President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and the
Administration’s Better Buildings Initiative, the Energy
Department announced today that the Department’s Better
Buildings Neighborhood Program has helped more than 40 state and
local governments upgrade more than 100,000 buildings and save
families and businesses over $730 million on utility bills.
Supported by the Recovery Act, the Energy Department’s Better
Buildings Neighborhood Program worked with 41 competitively
selected state and local governments and their partners to
upgrade the energy efficiency of homes and local buildings and
leverage early federal funds to launch sustainable
community-based programs.
“In the United States, residential and commercial buildings
account for about 40 percent of all energy use,” said Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz. “Upgrading the energy efficiency of our
homes and other buildings will save families and businesses
money on utility bills and reduce pollution in our communities,
moving the nation closer to our clean energy future.”
Over the last four years, these state and local governments have
partnered with utilities, nonprofit organizations, financial
institutions and building efficiency experts to upgrade more
than 100,000 homes and other buildings. The initial $508 million
federal investment leveraged another $1 billion in other public
and private sector funding and supported more than $740 million
in direct invoices to local workers for energy assessments and
upgrades they performed. Local direct investments and savings
will continue to grow as leveraged funds are used to finance
future energy efficiency project upgrades.
All in all, more than 1,400 home improvement contractors
completed upgrades for homeowners. Approximately 30 programs out
of the original 40 are continuing without federal support,
including programs in Oregon, Maine, Virginia and Florida.
To support continued public-private partnerships on residential
energy efficiency, the Energy Department has launched the Better
Buildings Residential Network, which currently includes 70
organizations. The network provides technical assistance and
facilitates peer sharing for a wide range of stakeholders,
including contractors, financial institutions, nonprofits, state
and local governments, and utilities, who share best practices
on home energy efficiency program strategies. Membership is open
to all organizations interested in expanding the market for
residential energy efficiency.
HTML http://elqahera-trading.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/dollar-sign-thumbnail1.jpg<br
/>
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png<br
/>
Find more information on how the Better Buildings Initiative is
saving communities throughout the country energy and money at
www.energy.gov/better-buildings.
HTML http://energy.gov/articles/better-buildings-neighborhood-initiative-upgrades-100000-buildings-saves-730-million-energy
#Post#: 1220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: May 25, 2014, 6:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Methodist Church In North Carolina Celebrating Energy From The
Sun ;D
Read more at
HTML http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/25/methodist-church-north-carolina-celebrating-energy-sun/#8r3kAIyU3Q30pC2Y.99
#Post#: 1410--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: June 18, 2014, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can You Build A Safe, Sustainable Skyscraper Out Of Wood?
By Andrew Breiner
June 18, 2014 at 9:43 am
North America’s tallest modern all-wood building is nearing
completion in Prince George, British Columbia, but it might not
hold that high rank for long. Other wood buildings are in the
works across the world as it gains a reputation for climate
friendliness, beauty, and yes, even fire safety. ;D
The Wood Innovation Design Centre will be a six-story building,
the maximum for a wood building under British Columbia’s
building code, but the Centre’s high ceilings mean it will be
about as tall as the average 10-floor building. It’ll join the
current highest and second-highest modern wood buildings,
respectively, a ten-story Melbourne residential building and a
nine-story London apartment building.
But no new wood building yet has surpassed the world’s tallest,
built in the 18th century. The Kizhi Pogost is a UNESCO World
Heritage Site located on an island in northern Russia, and has a
central cupola 37 meters high, a few meters above the tops of
the new wood high-rises. But it likely won’t hold onto the title
of tallest wood building for long.
[IMG width=640
height=480]
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aRAkheGeuEA/UqjG-_U7qhI/AAAAAAAARs4/yC8zWwAxx4M/s1600/RUSSIA+-+Kizhi+3.jpg[/img]
The Kizhi Pogost
One all-wood building in northern Norway will be 17 stories
high, and there’s also talk of a more theoretical 34-story
wooden skyscraper in Sweden.
A lot of wood’s appeal is counter-intuitive. :o It’s not a
bigger fire risk — in fact, thick wood planks stay strong in a
fire, forming a protective char that keeps the integrity of the
material intact. Steel can lose its strength when it burns,
becoming “like spaghetti,” according to B.J. Yeh of the
Engineered Wood Association.
This new interest in wood is driven in part by the rise of
cross-laminated timber (CLT), essentially a highly advanced form
of plywood that can rival steel in strength. It works,
basically, by gluing and pressing small beams together into
giant boards that can be up to six inches thick, and are
custom-sized for their part of a construction project.
Though the Lorax turned a generation off to logging, cutting
down trees is actually a sustainable way to build. Trees collect
CO2 from the air as they grow, storing it in their wood. If the
tree is cut down and its wood used to build, that carbon is
sequestered, unable to contribute to warming. That’s especially
notable in comparison to the amount of carbon emitted in the
manufacture of steel and concrete. The benefit of carbon storage
is so great that Stadthaus, the wood high-rise in London, will
actually be carbon negative for the first 20 years of operation
due to its construction materials. And of course, trees are a
renewable resource when farmed sustainably.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/treeswing.gif
And lumber construction could help out with another
climate-related problem. Pine beetles, in a population explosion
fueled by climate change, have killed tens of thousands of
square miles of forests across the country. But trees killed by
pine beetles are still suitable for use in construction. And
when communities afflicted by pine beetles are paying just to
get rid of huge areas of dead trees, a booming lumber market
could make sure they’re put to good use, with their carbon
stored in buildings rather than burned into the atmosphere.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Building codes in cities and countries around the world limit
the height of new wood buildings, reflecting safety concerns
that new technologies have solved. So the wood boom will depend,
at least in part, on getting the new reality: wood high-rises
are safer, and more sustainable, than ever.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif
HTML http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/18/3449440/wood-skyscrapers-sustainable-building/
[i]Agelbert NOTE: The following is an example of extremely high
tech Renewable Energy biotechnology AND spectacular form with
function beauty that Homo sap has not been able to figure out,
let alone duplicate in efficiency, strength and
sustainablility.[/I] To be watched while listening to a certain
Vivaldi piece.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180614133106.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185047.png
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-180614134929.gif
Only a person ignorant of the factorial function in the science
of probability and statistics could claim that the above
biotechnology happened by "random mutations".
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/12962/noway.gif
#Post#: 1637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carbon Neutral Buildings
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: July 31, 2014, 10:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Amory Lovins’ high-tech home skimps on energy but not on comfort
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/treeswing.gif
SNIPPET 1:
For most of its history, environmentalism has been associated
with a back-to-the-land lifestyle: being one with nature, living
in the woods, wearing sandals, maybe driving a Volkswagen. Over
the last decade, a counter-narrative has taken over. Cities are
in. As climate change has become the dominant environmental
issue, a low-carbon lifestyle has become the priority. Denser
living is heralded for its energy efficiency, as are walking,
biking and taking transit instead of driving.
All other things being equal, walkable urbanism beats sprawl.
But one house in Old Snowmass, Colo., demonstrates that, with
the right design, rural living can be about as low-carbon as
possible. And it turns out those hippies were on to something:
the secrets to low-impact rural housing lie in embracing nature
instead of combatting it. Plus it helps to have some
bleeding-edge technology.
Amory Lovins, the owner of the house, is exactly the guy you’d
expect to live here. A bespectacled physicist and world-renowned
energy-efficiency expert, he cofounded the Rocky Mountain
Institute in 1982 with his then-wife L. Hunter Lovins. They
chose this location, nestled up in the mountains 14 miles from
Aspen, for RMI’s first headquarters, which they built as a model
of energy efficiency. The original structure was completed in
1984. Today, RMI has expanded into other buildings, but Lovins
still lives in the original house, which got a high-tech
makeover in 2009.
Snippet 2:
Many suburbanites have rejected the housing styles best suited
to their specific environments
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif,
instead embracing a
generic image of the American Dream that is often ;D ;)
regionally inappropriate.
Snippet 3:
In an arid mountainous area, the sun is strong during the day.
So the 16-inch thick walls — made of concrete, locally harvested
sandstone, and a middle four inches of polyurethane — are adept
at storing heat throughout the day and retaining it overnight.
Typically, an architect would recommend increasing the wall
thickness until the point where the marginal savings on heating
are passed by the increased costs of building. But Lovins went
twice as thick, thereby eliminating the need to build a heating
system at all. ;D “We saved $1,100, and that’s just on the
building, never mind operating the heating,” Lovins boasts.
Windows are a major source of air leakage, so the building has
“super-windows,” which have microscopically thin layers of gases
such as krypton and xenon that let in light but prevent heat
exchange. “It’s equal to 16 layers of glass but it uses only two
layers and costs less than three,” :o
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif
says Lovins.
Keeping rooms warm is not the only purpose for which most houses
require oil or natural gas. To make a “combustion-free” house,
Lovins had to solve a few other problems such as drying clothes
and heating water. The answer is to harness the sun’s natural
heating power. Although they have a dryer, Lovins and his
current wife Judy usually hang their clothes on a line that can
be raised by pulley up into a skylight and dried in the
sunlight. They heat water through eight thermal solar panels and
send it around the house through pipes that are extra wide and
turn at gentle angles to minimize the electricity needed to move
it.
Snippet 4:
The house’s electricity is all renewable. Massive solar panels
adorn the roof, carport, and grounds alongside the building. The
panels produce far more solar power during the day than the
Lovinses use, so they sell electricity to the grid during the
day and buy wind energy from the grid at night. They also store
the solar power in batteries so that they could be fully
self-sufficient in a blackout. The batteries would run down at
night but be recharged during the day. “In February 2013, there
were five power failures [in the area], and we never lost
power,” says Lovins.
FULL ARTICLE AND BANANAS IN THE ROCKIES PICTURES HERE:
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Banane21.gif
HTML http://grist.org/climate-energy/amory-lovins-high-tech-home-skimps-on-energy-but-not-on-comfort/
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 10
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page