The green challenge this week dealt with saving energy at home. I said that they couldn't come up with anything major that we weren't already doing, and I was wrong. There were actually three things: insulating the attic, reglazing the windows, and double-hung windows. The first one we had already been talking about doing, and I've known for years we needed to do the second, but the third is just too expensive. Besides, I love the old-fashioned windows in this house. The top part of the window has three narrow vertical panes, it looks kind of "arts and crafts" I think. At least we have storm windows.
I have an underlying problem with the challenge: there's no accomodation for people who already take measures to waste less energy. For instance, this week one of the challenges is to reduce your home temperature by 2° during the day and another 8° at night. We already keep our winter thermostat at 64° when we're home and 60° when we're out or asleep. Following their recommendation would bring it down to 62° and 54°. And that is just too damned cold.
And they don't even mention some of the improvements we've made, like a tankless water heater. Which costs less than new windows, by the way, saves lots of money, and rewards you with wonderful hot water that never runs out. Then again, there are probably dozens of things they could have put in that we didn't do.
3 Comments
"I have an underlying problem with the challenge: there's no accomodation for people who already take measures to waste less energy."
since they have you report a baseline when you first sign up for the quiz, i am guessing that at the end, they will say, "your total emissions are now xxx, which is 1/4 the national average". so in the end, you should get credit for what you're already doing.
that said-- if i went down 8 degrees at night (to 57 or 58) i would not sleep well, no matter how much i bundled up. i know this from vast personal experience. i wish they would instead make reccomendations like Jimmy Carter did! Like, turn it down to 72 in winter if you don't already.
Another thing I have heard is that it costs extra to make the heating/cooling system make more than a few degrees change in temperature.
Also, i replaced my system with a much more efficient system (93% efficient as opposed to 85% efficient), plus replaced the un-insulated ductwork with new insulated ducts. so like your water heater, it saves me lots of money and rewards me with a perfectly warm and cool house, and was much cheaper than new windows which, like in your house, would not look as nice as the ones i have now.
and, as always, i resent the implication that the only way i can improve my car's fuel efficiency is by buying an f-ing hybrid. i mean, i still think a lot about getting a honda insight, but am bothered by the fact that biofuels are never mentioned in the transportation quiz. and they call the fuel my car runs on "diesel gasoline". AFAIK, there's no such thing.
I noticed the focus on hybrids and exclusion of biodiesel too. Maybe they did that because the particular focus of this challenge is on reducing carbon emissions, and from what (little) I know hybrids are much cleaner.
But then again, if that was their reason, they should have said something to the effect of "you can also greatly improve fuel efficiency by driving biodiesel, but there's a tradeoff in carbon emissions."
I was also thinking about the issue of burning wood. In this week's challenge they suggest an enclosed wood stove rather than an open fireplace, for improved efficiency. I have a wood stove, and I love it, but I do sometimes think about the air pollution pumped out by burning wood. I've heard that's not considered a problem by environmentalists because the carbon from trees has such a short life cycle compared to burning coal or gas. But still, I wonder which is truly worse: using a wood stove and releasing a lot of carbon with a short life cycle, or a gas fireplace which releases much less carbon, with a vastly longer life cycle.
The only thing I really understand about environmental issues is that whenever the answer seems obvious, it's actually really complicated.
the thing about burning biofuels in comparison to burning petro-fuels is that biofuels don't release carbon that has been trapped for millions of years. biofuel proponents refer to this as a "closed carbon cycle".
my simplistic understanding of global warming is that it's due to the rapid release of huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere-- the carbon that has been trapped underground that we access in the form of oil and coal.
so the theory goes that biofuels put out carbon that will be completely re-absorbed by plants, which can then be turned into more biofuels-- they introduce no *additional* carbon.
so, while diesel engines typically get better fuel mileage than gas engines, but don't burn as clean, that's actually a different issue from that of bio vs. petro fuels.
the really important distinction is between any engine burning a biofuel (such as biodiesel, straight vegetable oil, or ethanol) and an engine burning petro-fuel (be it gasoline or diesel), and it makes me crazy when some entity like Slate purports to be educating people about global warming (and stopping it), and then fail to clarify this distinction.