How can we consume energy more wisely?  What are the most promising
technologies for minimizing use of nonrenewable fuels?  What different
renewable energy sources are currently available, or expected to be available
in our lifetimes?

61 responses total.

Renewable energy sources will never *substitute* for the level of
consumption we now have of non-renewable resources. Eventually, the
whole world will have to adapt to a less energy-intensive economy. We
can, of course, use non-renewable resources more wisely, with an eye
to the future, by using less, and developing and using more energy
efficient devices. But the American public seems hardly to care. The
latest manifestation of this is the production of inefficient trucks
for ordinary family transportation. 

It is the exploitation of our environment that allows us to purchase
such trucks / cars.

Correct. And, because our ability and economy in extracting resources
has increased, we are able to 'afford' more - and since when will the
majority of people want less when they can get more? It has been
suggested that, looking toward the future, that an 'energy tax' be
implemented, to replace the earlier 'difficulty' in wasting resources
with a 'penalty' for wasting resources....but this is not very popular. 
The phenomenon is the same as any species breeding to consume the available
resources...and then comes scarcity, forcing what we cannot do intelligently.

Detroit Edison just informed us, in the latest bill, that they will have a
seminar on geothermal heating in Ann Arbor, April 14 (call 1800-833-2786 or
www.detroitedison.com to register).  We visited two houses with geothermal
heating, one on a river and one with a private pond to accept the cooled
water.  I have heard of a system where you keep recirculating the water
underground, which requires a lot of ground.  Does not sound promising for
use on a small city lot.
        Forget the energy tax, just stop subsidizing energy-wastage by charging
actual users of these vehicles a gasoline tax that represents reality.  At
a recent lecure on land use and public transport, we heard about some cities
in Sweden and Germany where public transportation is back up to about 50% of
trips, possibly because gasoline costs several times as much there.

I do strongly support an increase in gasoline taxes. Preferably a hefty 
one, while our economy can afford it. It will help motivate people to 
waste this precious resource less. It is not the only remedy, but it is 
one that will help a lot.

A gasoline tax is an energy tax. Taxes on gasoline can't represent any
kind of "reality". Reality is the commodity price. Taxes can be used to
raise money and/or regulate use of a commodity.

It is rather a misnomer to call what can be done around here "geothermal
heating". That term is mostly reserved for sources of really hot water
from buried lava flows or near magnma bodies. There is only one geothermal
electric-power field operating in the USA, and that is at Geysers, CA.

What Detroit Edison is offering is properly called the use of a "heat pump".
This is the reverse of a refrigeration unit, with thermal energy being
abstracted from ground water and released in the home (it can work in
reverse in summer for air conditioning). I don't think a heat pump is
cheaper than gas, because it must run off electricity.

I have mixed feelings about an increase in the gasoline tax.  I know that gas
is cheaper here than almost anywhere else in the world.  I know that cars do
bad things to the environment.  I would like to see some more powerful
disincentives for using large amounts of gas, if nothing else to keep those
rediculous Lincoln Navigators off the road.  Probably when I was living and
working in Ann Arbor and didn't have to drive much, I would have been all for
it.

I feel a bit differently now.  I drive a lot, and if gas prices were going
to quadruple to get up to the level they're at in Europe, I would feel a bit
of a pinch (around $180 per month).  I suppose I could move closer to work,
but I'm not sure that would help.  The area around my office is set up such
that nothing is in walking distance (it's made up of subdivisions and strip
malls on a mile grid), so if I moved close to work I would no longer be able
to walk places as I do now when I'm in Ann Arbor.  The other alternative would
eb to quit my job, but I like my job and don't want to do that.

The reason high gas prices are able to work well in Europe is because they
have workable public transportation.  In Europe, when gas prices get too high,
people can stop driving as much but still get around.  In much of the US, the
most it could do is cause people to not get out as much.  If there were public
transportation that would take me from home to work in 45 minutes or less
(driving takes 30 minutes), I would gladly use it.  I haven't researched the
issue much, but as far as I can tell the only way to get from here to work
would be to take an Ann Arbor bus to the train station or walk there, take
a train to Detroit (runs maybe three times per day, or less), and then take
a Detroit bus back out to Livonia and walk a while.  It may be possible to
substitute a Greyhound bus for the train, but that doesn't make it an more
practical.

I do drive a fairly fuel efficient car.  My little Saturn sports car gets
around 30 mpg in my usual mix of city and freeway driving, and around 40 mpg
in pure freeway trips.  I figure having a fuel efficient car is about the best
I cna do given the circumstances.  I would love be able to drive less, but
making driving more expensive without providing alternatives will just make
me spend more money.  Perhaps it would be better to put a high tax on fuel
going into non-efficient vehicles to get people to buy smaller cars, but other
than that I'm not sure raising taxes will do any good.  After we build a good
public transit system, it will make sense to try to get people to stop
driving.

Raise the gas tax by something like 2 cents per month and put all the 
extra money into alternative transportation (only good if it's spent
intelligently, but that's another issue).  It would give people time
to adapt, and new development would in time reflect the new reality
(just as the post-WWII suburban sprawl did).

Rane, I did not mean to imply that a gasoline tax had anything to do 
with reality. I merely think it would be good public policy. 

Scg, an important reason that we lag the Europeans in mass transit - 
that we do not have decent mass transportation in high population areas  
- is that our gas is too cheap.

A lot of people will feel the pinch. It will drive up food prices, too.
it will have compensating benefits, and it will cause you to worry about 
how much gas (energy) you are spending to get to and from work. these 
are all good things (IMO).

Our part of the world was built the way it is based on many decades of
cheap fuel.  We have jobs far away from where live because we can
afford to drive between the two.  We shop far from where we work for the
same reason.  Cheap fuel allows as to build all over and what we build
does not consider energy efficiency a very high priority.  After all,
energy is pretty cheap.  The doomsayers have been telling us of an
impending fuel shortage for the last several decades, but nothing
significant has materialized.

I can't imagine what would happen, here in the US, if fuel prices suddenly
tripled...  It would tear apart this countries very foundations.

I doubt that. People are adaptable (even if they don't like changing their
ways). But I do forsee some serious problems in just changing our ways.
If people became more economical, how would all the money be used? There
would have to be fewer goods to be more economical, so all the money now
circulating would chase fewer goods, and inflation would result. Now if
producing excessive goods just to soak up all the money is a "foundation"
of this country - which it sort of seems to be true - Klaus has a point. 
It would require a real plan to scale back the whole economy without
serious disruption of it - and when has a serious plan of even a fraction
of the magnitude ever come out of our political system? 

I like Walter's idea of gradually increasing fuel taxes, using the money to
improve public transport (rathere than improve roads), which more people would
then use, and their fares could contribute to further improvements.  It will
have to happen some time soon, better now than in a hurry later.

I know that cheap gas has been a big cause of the problems which now make
cheap gas necessary.  However, the way a lot of the US (the Detroit subburbs,
for example) have been layed out makes public transit extremely impractical
now.  If the idea is that raising the gas tax at this point is going to cause
people to tear everything down and start over, it's going to be a very long
painful process.

The gas tax is a public policy issue.  So is urban sprawl.  If politicians
have to change the gas tax to give politicians an incentive to change the
zoning laws or to give politicians an incentive to put in public transit,
there's something wrong.

I would be happy with an idea tha would involve getting the public transit
infrastructure in place first, and then giving people big incentives to use
it.

You have to do them both together though. Otherwise people will see it 
as a huge waste of money and vote out of office any politician who backs 
it.

As we use up our cheaply producible  oil, the price will eventually go 
up and this will have the same effect as the gas tax, only it won't be 
optional. Once the price gets high enough, there will be plentiful 
energy for at least another generation from shale and sands, and maybe 
even from methane if the technology to convert it to a room temp liquid 
fuel comes along. It's quite possible. 

We should get used to higher priced energy right now. We can do it 
slowly if we do. The economy can handle it now. If we wait until later, 
it will be a shock.

        The problem with financing alt. trans. with increased taxes is the
money never goes where it was intended.
        Sindi, the most efficient geothermal (ground loop heat pump) goes
straight down. It is fine on a small lot, the drawback is the cost of a well
digger. These systems can circulate by syphonage and the high efficiency
compressors can be powered by 1 or 2 P.V. panels.

I had expected economical - and environmentally friendly - fuels to run
out first, but now global warming is a threat that may dominate the
choice of future fuels economies. 

I somehow doubt that a public which would vote out any politician who backed
public transit would suddenly start supporting that same politician when that
politician raised their gas taxes to justify the public transit.

The only thing that tends to get everyone to agree is a crisis. Maybe
OPEC will come to our rescue with one? 

If all road-building were paid for out of gasoline taxes rather than income
taxes, it would discourage so much driving, or at least the use of such
wasteful fuel burners.  This is similar to cities where you are charged for
water by the number of sinks, rather than the metered amount of water, or
apartment buildings were everyone pays the same for heat, and people open the
window if they are too warm, rather than turn down the thermostat.  There is
far less incentive to reduce consumption if you are not paying for all of what
you use directly.

My apartment includes heat.  The heat control is broken and it won't turn
down, so I regulate it by opening the windows.  The management company has
been aware of the problem for months, but has refused to do anything about
it.  Don't always blame the renter for that sort of thing.  I would much
rather be able to turn the heat down (especially on days like today, when
opening the windows doesn't let in air that's all that cold).

What sort of heat do you have?  There may be some way to turn off a valve,
or close off a flap.  One place I lived I stuffed old cloths in the register.
If you can describe the thermostat, we may be able to describe an easy way
to at least turn it off, if not fix it.  (Try posting this question in the
DIY conference, item 2 I think it is, to get suggestions.)  I remember my
brother complaining about one landlord because his doorknobs were falling off.
Two minutes with a screwdriver by the tenants would have fixed this.

Is anybody planning to go to the alternative energy fair in Lansing that
Patrick mentioned (I can't recall which conf and item) on April 18?  Do you
know the schedule and times?  Can we go together?  Our rarely-used car
gets close to 40 mgp and can hold five, but not much luggage.  Please respond
ASAP, we may plan something else for that date otherwise.  I refuse to go that
far in a half-empty car to learn about how not to pollute.

Oh, in case anyone did not notice, there is a Spring 98 agora item on cleaner
motor vehicles - fuel cells, methane, methanol, batteries, solar.....
(someone there proposed burning tires).

I seem to remember a story a few years ago about someone inventing a clean
and (sorta, if you could get the capital to do it on a grand scale)
economical way to burn tires as fuel to generate electricity.  Anyone
recall?  Has anything been done?

Some tire burning furnaces have been built for industrial power. I
looked into this some time ago, and there was one in Michigan - around
Battle Creek I vaguely recall - that burned whole tires. I have not
kept up with the field, so do not know what is being used today. The
economics are bad mostly because of the handling problems. Also, one
must have an elaborate stack gas cleaning system for sulfurous gases,
which are higher than for any other fuel.

What normally happens to thrown-out tires, if they are not burned?  It may
eventually be cheaper to burn them than to store there eternally.

They are ground up, the metal fragments separated for making more steel,
and the rubber used in making road asphalt. At least, this is being done
somewhere. I suspect that a lot of them are chopped up and landfilled
(and a lot more are thrown in the woods, or in big piles that burn now
and then).

What happens to the road asphalt after it is scraped off and replaced?

I once tried to make soles for sandals out of a rubber tire, but all that
metal made it impossible.  I wonder how the Mexican sandal makers manage.
Maybe slices of bike tire side by side would work?

There is only metal in the *bead* of the tire - the edge that fits against
the rim. The rest of the tire is reinforced with corded fabric - nylon
and rayon are common for the fabric. Did you find metal under the tread
of tires? I didn't realize they used metal fabric, at least for auto tires.

Steel belted radials do indeed have metal under the tread.  It's woven
like coax braid.

I too curious about what they do with the asphalt they scrape up during  
repaving prjects. it seems to me there would be a lot of this used 
asphalt.

s/I too/I, too, am/

I looked up tires in my CD-ROM encyclo, but it did not mention steel in
the tire fabric. However my 1955 paper encyclo mentioned it in passing.
Shows what upgrading might do to you. 

I don't know why they could not reprocess the asphalt they remove with
those grinding machines. It has all the good stuff in it. It would
probably be mixed in some proportions with fresh ingredients. However
I am inclined to think that asphalt they dig up in slabs is just landfilled.

        The asphalt can be ground and reusud. There is a machine invented about
10 years ago that would dig up, grade the road surface, grind the old asphalt,
mix with new tar or whatever they used and relaid the road all in one pass.
The drawback was it only did 1 mile a day. After about a year it dropped from
sight. I don't know if it is still around or not.

The grinders are still used for repaving asphalt roadbeds, when they
do not have to be totally dug up. I think it is more economic to do the
bulk reprocessing elsewhere. 

During the I-96 repaving on some sections a couple years ago, they were
apparently reusing some of the old stuff in the new mix.

You can often see a thing that looks like multiple silos by the road in
repaving projects (involving concrete roads).  I think that at the volumes
of material needed, on-site processing of local materials could be cheaper
than trucking in from elsewhere.

Why aren't all roads made of concrete, which lasts longer than asphalt? 
Wouldn't this be cheaper in the long run?

I found on a web an interesting site on Japan's government measures to
supporess greenhouse gas generation, at
www2.nttca.com:8110/infomofa/global/japan/chap1.html
which discusses many methods of recovering what used to be considered waste
heat from industry, and using it to heat residences.  This is a long document.
Japan imports 80% of its energy, and is considering, also to reduce pollution,
importing hydrogen or methanol generated cheaply in Canada.  They are
utilizing the heat discharged from subway trains, among other things.  I heard
that Detroit had a cogeneration plant that used its waste heat to heat
buildings in Detroit.  Anyone want to read this website and discuss it?

        Waste heat has been a source of steam heat in many cities for years.
Its pumped in underground pipes to sopply heat to apartments, businesses, etc.

Yes. You often see the steam from leaks coming up through personholes.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss