Saving Energy

Residential Wind Turbines

Marcus — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Energy costs getting you down? Looking to cut down on bills, and get a little greener in the process? With energy bills rising by as much as fifty percent in recent years, chances are you’re eager for some alternatives. Which is where wind power comes in. Wind is a clean, efficient, sustainable and cost-effective source of energy, and it’s rapidly growing in popularity. A growing number of homes in the U.S. are opting to have residential wind turbines installed, and as a result are seeing dramatic reductions in their energy costs. Think wind power might be right for you? Keep reading to find out more.

Why wind?

First off, wind power will save you money—as much as 50-90 percent on your electric bill! Although wind turbines can cost from $6,000- $22,000, it’s an investment that usually pays for itself in around six to fifteen years. Once the cost of the turbine has been recouped, it’s not uncommon to see electric bills of $8- $15 dollars for up to nine months of the year! In addition, wind power is good for the environment—it produces zero pollution, and every kilowatt hour that is powered by wind will offset pollution that would have been generated by your utility company.

What kinds of residences are eligible for wind power?

Since a wind turbine is a relatively large structure, this type of power isn’t really suitable for small-lot suburban homes or anything in an urban setting. Usually, a house on an acre or more of land is desirable. It’s also important to consider wind speed in your area—in order for a turbine to be efficient, wind speed should be at an average of at least 10 miles per hour.

Where can I buy a residential wind turbine?

Take a look at this list of small wind turbine equipment providers.

Is there any way to benefit from wind power if I live in a small and/or urban location?

Why, yes, there is. In most areas, you can contact your energy company and switch to green power—that is, your energy company will purchase your power from sustainable energy sources in lieu of coal or oil. There is a minor charge, but it usually only amounts to a few extra dollars per month. This is a great alternative for city dwellers who wish they could install a massive wind tower on the top of their high rise.

Want to learn more about wind power?

Wind Turbine Power: Farmers Turning the Wind Into Gold

Inexpensive Residential Wind Turbine—Wind Power—Alternative Energy For Your Home

Can You Harness Wind Power or Not?

Home Wind-Power Turbines Going Mainstream

What YOU Should Know About Wind Power!

Can You Use Wind Turbines to Power Your Home?

T. Boone Pickens: Building Wind Power in America

kbutler — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

When T. Boone Pickens founded Mesa Petroleum in the 1950s, he took $2500 and turned it into a three billion dollar oil empire. This guy is about as old-school oil man as you can get. But Pickens is a business man above all else – and considering the state of the world’s oil, he’s planning accordingly. According to Pickens, “At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war. Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.”

So what’s Pickens doing about it? This guy is going from Big Oil to Big Wind, investing in a tremendous wind turbine project, starting in the Texas Panhandle. In fact, he’s recently announced plans to expand into Oklahoma. This is all part of the Pickens Plan, an extensive blueprint to promote oil alternatives. The plan is to replace natural gas resources with wind energy, which would then free up to 38% more natural gas resources to replace the current need for transportation -- and therefore our dependece on oil. Yep, Pickens also owns an extensive natural gas monopoly -- but hey, it's clean energy. And people aren't being killed in the Middle East over. All sounds good in my book.

Pickens is promising more than just pulling back on our foreign oil dependence. His wind turbine investments are also turning around the local economies, transforming declining Midwestern Dustbowl towns into revitalized communities. Until recently, the small Texas town of Sweetwater was landsliding towards a depression. Now, with Pickens bringing in the wind industry, it is called “a 21st-century equivalent of the Wild West. German wind technicians who have poured into the area have coined a name for it - the Wind West.”

And for a Texas oil man who has been one of the biggest backers of both President Bushes and the mastermind of the Swift Boat incident of the last election – this ain’t bad politics.

Selling Carbon Credits on eBay—Solution or Scam?

Marcus — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Buying and selling carbon emissions as a means to lower your carbon footprint is a trend that has significantly grown in popularity in recent years. Corporations frequently purchase carbon credits in order to offset high emissions levels, helping the carbon trade blossom into a multimillion-dollar industry. For the environmentally conscious individual, however, for whom trading carbon on the corporate level is not a feasible option, there is another alternative: eBay.

Here’s how it works: small farms and, essentially, anyone who takes the initiative to plant trees can sell carbon offsets equivalent to the amount of metric tons of CO2 consumed by the number of trees that have been planted (typically, one tree will consume between 3 and 4 metric tons over the course of its lifetime). So, let’s say you sell one tree’s CO2 consumption for twenty bucks. If each tree costs about fifty cents to plant, plus about another fifty or so cents to mail some sort of carbon certificate to your buyer, you’re making about a $19 profit before eBay and PayPal fees. That’s an enormous gain. So, by just planting some trees and advertising on eBay, you can conceivably make some serious bank, and help combat global warming in the process. Sounds great, right?

Well, not exactly. With so many people eager to join the emissions trading frenzy (and hopefully make a quick buck in the process), quality control is difficult to monitor. eBay posts promise certificates guaranteeing the authenticity of the carbon sale, but who can definitively verify whether offsets from the same tree have been sold multiple times, or that trees are being planted in proportion to sold credits at all? Further, carbon credit vending on the corporate scale is easier to regulate due to its magnitude and relative uniformity on a global level. In the private sector, however, things get more complicated. Carbon credits can be sold for as much as any SUV-driving, gas-guzzling citizen with a desire to green their life is willing to pay. Since carbon trading is a relatively new phenomenon, there is no standard in place to prevent people from getting ripped off.

In short, while buying and selling carbon credits online is certainly a novel idea, if you’re going to try it out, do so with caution. You’re probably better off just planting some trees in your backyard.

Want to learn more about carbon credits?

How to Measure and Price Carbon Credits

Carbon Footprints

The Quest for the Perfect Carbon Calculator

How Much Do Carbon Credits Cost?

What YOU should know about wind power!

Julia — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:00:00 -0400

There is a small town, very close to where I live, that is in the process of converting entirely to wind power. This isn’t the only place where wind energy is taking off either. Between 1996 and 2004 wind power production has increased four fold, and goals are currently in place to boost wind to 20 percent of American energy.

This is huge! The fact that there is a very feasible way to create and power electricity by natural means, and we are not using it on a large scale basis, is insane. Thankfully, people are starting to catch on to the craze and are no longer skeptical about its quality or performance. Renewable energy IS the answer, and yet there are certain myths that still persist, despite the truths about wind energy that are out there. Here are some of the myths to be aware of that may float your way…

Wind is sporadic and impractical- This is false. In reality, the overall decline in pollution emissions makes up two fold for the financial losses that could potentially occur when the wind is not blowing to strong capacities.
Wind power is too expensive- There was a time in the early 1980’s when wind energy was really expensive, but these days, production costs are under five cents per kilowatt-hour.
Wind turbines endanger wildlife- Loads of research has been done in this are, because it obviously would be a big concern for all environmentalists. The prospect of wind energy would be a lose-lose situation if this were the case, but wind farm experts believe that, when carefully place, turbines pose minimal danger to birds. The death rates of birds hitting buildings and cars are actually much higher- in the billions.
Wind farms undermine local economy- No one can say that they really want a wind turbine in their backyards. Studies show, however, that there is no evidence of wind energy hurting tourism or undermining local business. They also produce hardly any noise, which is another common assumption.
Wind farms are ugly- Okay, so they aren’t the prettiest of features, but that’s a poor excuse for denouncing them. Besides, the consequences of global warming already look a lot worse!

So be wary of the skeptics who may throw these myths your way. Now you have the evidence to back up all of the benefits that wind energy can produce. Spread all of the good news in environmentalism!

Want to learn more about wind power?

Wind Turbine Power: Farmers Turning the Wind Into Gold

Inexpensive Residential Wind Turbine—Wind Power—Alternative Energy For Your Home

Can You Harness Wind Power or Not?

Home Wind-Power Turbines Going Mainstream

Can You Use Wind Turbines to Power Your Home?

Residential Wind Power

Let's talk about compact flourescents

ellen — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:18:27 -0400

You must have heard it a million times: The only sure-fire way to save energy with very little trade-off is to replace your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. Let's talk about it.

My living room has unfortunately become a graveyard of CFL experimentation. Last summer, we bought 6 very expensive ($24 each!) dimmable CFL's (2700˚, 8,000 hour rated) for the recessed fixtures in our living room. They looked great and there was very little noticeable difference between the previous incandescents and these. Unqualified success right?

Fast forward 10 months and 2 are burned out already (by my calculations, they have been on fewer than 2,000 hours (6 hours/day x 7 days x week x 42 weeks). We replaced them with less expensive (but non-dimmable) CFL's from Lowe's but they buzz when my toddler dims them and the quality of the light is not as good.

So now my husband is on the hunt for the perfect CFL's for our house. One very interesting fact he uncovered is that the spiral kind doesn't distribute heat very well in recessed fixtures and we'd be better off with the reflector kind . The always helpful folks at Energy Star also recommend special Energy Star rated 3-way or dimmable bulbs for those applications.

The color of the bulb is also very important. 2700˚K is slightly yellower than incandescent and 3000˚K is slightly whiter. If you want a halogen-type white, choose 3500˚K.

One gripe I have though, is that the stores where I shop for bulbs carry ones without the color listed so I generally have to buy online. I tried to take a pictures of the bulbs to show the color but it didn't work so here is a good rendition by our friends at Energy Star.

Here are some useful tools I found while searching for bulbs online:

Color rendition chart (1000bulbs.com): Beware, while "full spectrum" may sound appealing, we installed a 5100˚K bulb by mistake and my Living Room instantly looked like a morgue....just one architect's opinion.

Incandescent replacement bulb selector (topbulb.com): This can get you started if you have absolutely no idea what to get. One caveat - this is the company that sent use the deathmask 5100˚ bulbs instead of the lovely residential 2700˚ bulbs I requested. They did, however, send us the right bulbs after we requested an exchange.

Next we'll look at LED fixtures. We found (we think) a great LED undercabinet light but we have to purchase one to check the quality of the light.

Stay tuned.

Light Bulb Day

akronheim — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:48:48 -0400

The town of Caroline, NY has 1,400 households, a population of about 2,910 and no cell phone service. But, they are leading New York in sustainable initiatives. Myself and nearby students from Ithaca College and Cornell are branching off from Energy Independent Caroline to head up a project to hand out CFL’s to each home in Caroline. On April 19, 2008 the bulbs will be distributed in canvass bags with information and hopefully coupons to buy more. Imagine doing this in one day with no cell phones and getting around on mostly bikes.

In 2005, Caroline became the second municipality in New York to purchase 100% of their electricity from wind power. Because of these initial and proactive steps, Energy Independent Caroline received a $5,000 grant to continue the sustainability movement in Caroline and these funds are going towards the students' project to hand out the CFL's. The Resource and Environmental Management Program (REMP) on Ithaca College's campus went to every dorm and asked to switch their incandescent with one of REMP's CFL's. It happens all over the place like Waterville, NY, and Kenyon College. Most of these are light bulb exchange programs, but in our case, we are giving away the light bulbs.

In 2004 the Town of Caroline became the 8th municipality in New York to purchase wind power to provide part of the municipal electrical needs. They obviously improved this in 2005 and the governor of New York recognized these efforts and presented them with a plaque in their Town Hall. Then Energy Independent Caroline was founded and they began meeting in December 2005. Aside from wind power, they are investigating micro-hydro and solar power and that can be used in a residential setting like Caroline. They are promoting ways to save energy and money by using efficient light bulbs, stopping air leaks, and other things that can help people now. This effort will be encouraged with the April 19, 2008 distribution of CFL light bulbs and hopefully it is well received. If you're in the Ithaca area, you should help out! We can use all the help we can get handing out these bulbs and promoting the event. Let me know. Or, you can start your own light bulb exchange in your campus or community. I'll help you out.

Flocking to Care for the Earth

jchatraw — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:00:00 -0400

In the modern era, churches are the last place you would expect to find green crusaders. However, the best ready-made group of volunteers might just be found these days at your local church or synagogue. NBC's Today Show recently ran a feature on churches and synagogues going green that shares what some are doing to address the global environmental concerns.

Winning the award for the most hard core environmentalists in the piece were Janet Ryan and the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart, who have turned their 280-acre property into an example of "sustainable living." While many churches are interested in letting the young people take the charge in this area, the sisters, whose median age is 86, have decided they will lead the way. The sisters dug deep enough to install a geothermal unit for heating and cooling, developed wetlands and added prairies.

Rabbi Warren Stone of the Temple Emanuel in Kensington, Md., shared his passion for the issue and concluded with this comment: "More and more people have become aware that this is perhaps the most central more and spiritual issue facing our world today."

The final part of the segment came with a profile on Prestonwood Baptist Church, highlighting what Dr. Jack Graham has done for his church on the topic. The most impressive stat? The church saved more than $1.5 million over the past 18 months with their church on energy issues. Said Dr. Graham, "I believe that many evangelicals, especially young evangelicals, are waking up to the need and looking forward to the future."

If you want to get your local church involved in this issue, the Interfaith Power & Light commission would be a great place to start. This organization offers free energy audits to faith-based organizations, giving a list of recommendations and action points to take to make this a reality in your congregation. Or if your pastor or rabbi is a cynic, give him or her a copy of Saving God's Green Earth, which is a book by Tri Robinson, a pastor who is helping others learn how to implement this value in a local church through his example.

Don't miss out on an opportunity to help your church or synagogue become leaders on this issue by challenging the community and congregants to care for the earth.

Which Solar Energy System Saves the Most Money?

ellen — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Solar Energy - this seems to be a pretty hot topic on the street right now.

The question over what's best to use; a solar thermal system which
uses the sun's heat to provide domestic hot for use in the house or a
solar PV (photovoltaic) system which converts the sun's light to
electricity? For this discussion, we'll stick to talking about
residential projects.

There is very limited data available on this matter as far as costs
go - so this past summer, while doing our Seminar series 'Greening your
home: Live Sustainably in Brooklyn', I did a cost comparison between
the two energy systems, based on the energy use & consumption of a
typical Brooklyn Brownstone.

These numbers looked at the type of solar system, cost, and the
return on investment to install each of these systems. The results?
Solar PV panels was about a 10-14 year payback time versus a 4-6 year
payback time for the solar thermal system (depending on the type of
fuel used for backup domestic hot water - oil, electric or gas). Note
that both of these payback periods include reductions for tax credits
and rebates. Of course as the cost of electricity increases, you'll
reach the payback period faster.

Since doing these calculations, we've come across some more data and
have spoken to contractors who have performed both types of
installations, and we've found that these numbers are right on. You can
download our calculations here.
These are based on a typical Brooklyn-sized brownstone. Remember,
you'll need approximate 100 square feet per kilowatt and they add up in
size quickly on a small brownstone's roof when you consider that you
also need a hatch, at least one skylight, maybe some mechanical
equipment etc...

This interesting article in treehugger, The Economist misses the point on Going Solar,
argues that solar PV panels, albeit expensive, can be justified if the
energy usage of the house has been well managed and is low enough so
that you don't need to spend a mint to afford them.

We're by no means opposing Solar PV panels - we're strong advocates
for any system that reduces the amount of fossil fuels being used.
However, when budget is a concern, as it often is in residential
projects, a solar thermal system may be a better alternative for its
value and function.

The other concern I have about solar PV installations is that they
seem to fairly delicate and I worry that they won't last out the
payback period. A solar thermal system, on the other hand, is
constructed of durable pipe and seems much hardier. I also think that
in a few years, there will be many more options for solar PV given the
heavy amount of research currently being done and the promises of the
presidential candidates to fund even more.

Here is a photo of a typical Solar PV Panel installation:

This is a photo of a Solar Thermal System we saw while surveying a project in Harlem

What Exactly is a Carbon Footprint?

ellen — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

This is a really interesting article by Michael Specter in a recent New Yorker about how difficult it is to really quantify the actual carbon footprint of products because there is no current standard for this kind of analysis. Regarding foods, there are so many variables such as packaging, fertilizers used, shipping methods, amount of sunlight available during the growing season, time of year etc… that make it seemingly impossible to compare apples to apples…so to speak. So many seemingly obvious decisions are called into question when more far-reaching criteria are considered such as “should you buy that bottle of wine from France that is brought here via ship or from California which is trucked to the store? [answer: if you live East of Ohio, choose the Bordeaux].

Another interesting aspect of this article is an interview with Richard Sandor at the Chicago Climate Exchange who argues that putting a price on reduced greenhouse gas emissions will be the most effective way to reduce global warming. I wasn’t a big believer in carbon offsets but Sandor makes a good case. He compares the current climate crisis to the acid rain problem of the 1980’s.

“When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, in 1990, the law included a section that mandated annual acid-rain reductions of ten million tons below 1980 levels. Each large smokestack was fitted with a device to measure sulfur-dioxide emissions. As a way to help meet the goals, the act enabled the creation of the market. “Industry lobbyists said it would cost ten billion dollars in electricity increases a year. It cost one billion,” Sandor told me. It soon became less expensive to reduce emissions than it was to pollute. Consequently, companies throughout the country suddenly discovered the value of investing millions of dollars in scrubbers, which capture and sequester sulfur dioxide before it can reach the atmosphere.

He also argues that putting a value on carbon emissions will enable poorer countries to obtain financing for maintaining their forests and oceans that will prevent deforestation and pollution on a global scale.

The article is definitely worth a read.

Personally, one thing I worry about is a possible backlash when consumers realize that they can’t really quantify how “green” their practices are because they can’t measure any advances they make. Maybe the next Nobel prize will go to the person who figures out an accessible system to quantify all this.

Apple Farmer Uses Pigs Instead of Pesticides

scleaver — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Jim Koan is doing something revolutionary on his Flushing, MI farm. Or, is he? Instead of using pesticides to rid his orchard of a pest, Koan is going old school and using pigs.

Koan’s 120-acre apple farm in has been plagued by the Plum Curculio Beetle that lays its eggs in apples and makes the fruit drop too early from trees. He could have used frequent sprays of pesticides for years to get rid of the beetles, or he could use pigs. (He tried chickens and guineas, but they weren’t hard enough workers and the guineas were taken away by hawks. He contemplated sheep, too, but in the end hard-working pigs, too big for any hawk or coyote to steal, were the best bet.) Now he has a group of pigs who shuffle through the orchards when the apples infected with beetles start to fall. They eat the apples and the eggs that would have spelled disaster for next year’s crop, and clear the ground and eat weeds in the process. The pigs make short work of an apple orchard, eating every last contaminated apple. And, bonus: once the pigs have solved the beetle problem, Koan plans to sell them as organic pork.

The Detroit Free Press reported on Koan’s farm on January 28, 2008. I like this story for a few reasons. First, I like the image of pigs rooting around apple trees in Michigan, especially when juxtaposed with the image of tractors driving through the same field spraying pesticides on low-hanging Golden Delicious fruit. And, I like the idea of using pigs when it comes to my own health and the nutrition in my food.

To give you an idea of where pesticides fit into life today: in a 2005 report, the Centers for Disease Control found that toxins used in pesticides (neurotoxic pyrethroids) were found in people’s blood and the Environmental Working Group discovered that developing fetuses are born with an average 200 toxic chemicals inside them (taken from The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved by Sandor Katz). Some of theses toxins ended up in bloodstreams, not because anyone was chugging chemical waste, but because they were eating apples, pears, lettuce, and other fruits and vegetables that had been coated with pesticides as part of the ‘growing process.’

So, revolutionary or not, pigs are a refreshing idea.