NYT on conservation and solar energy
on
January 7, 2007
NYT on conservation and solar energy
This was an interesting week in the New York Times. Thursday's House and Home featured a cover story about home solar (photo voltaic) installations mostly in NY and California where tax incentives encourage home owners to add solar panels.
Saturday's business section featured a front page article about Japan's energy conservation. In Japan the average household uses half of what the average American house hold uses anualy in electricity measured in KW hours. They have electricity meters that help them actually guage how much energy they are using. Imagine if you could log in to your home energy system and see the fluctuations in your energy uses? Or if that spinning meter was in your kitchen rather than outside in the back of the house... I am sure it would modify behavior.
Then there were a handful of articles about Gerald Ford, apparently he was the first conservation president. Even before Carter put solar panels on the white house, Ford instituted a $3 per barrel oil import tax (oil was about $11 a barrel back then) and called for greater energy independence.
But then today, on the front page of the Sunday Week In Review there was an article about fluorescent light bulbs and Wal-Marts big push on CFLs for home use. I was just talking to my father about it, he is committed to replacing at least 3 bulbs in his house with CFLs. Last month, I replaced nearly every bulb in my Seattle apartment with CFLs. But this article sent exactly the wrong message which was "Fluorescent lighting is ugly and not as nice as incandescent bulbs." And "Humans are drawn to incadescence like moths to a flame, it is primordial." Well just like those moths, if we don't kick the incandescent habit and learn to like fluorescence we might be consumed in "the flame" of catastrophic climate change.
ADDENDUM:
I almost forgot, there was also an article about the wacky weather we have been experiencing in the United States (you know 70 degrees in NYC on Jan 6...). The article asks if the disparate impace of climate change and the wacky weather on the United States has an effect on our committment to "do something" about it.
yjdmd1 January 9, 2007
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R5
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy." We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (this will also creat a substantial amount of new jobs) It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-9-2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs)the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.







