Conservation

ABC News recently carried a story on its website about how Celine Dion’s estate-under-construction in Florida consumed 6.5 million gallons of water last year, despite a drought in the southeast, despite the strain South Florida’s freshwater supply, and despite the fact that Celine doesn’t even live there.

Included in the article was this bit of trivia:

Experts estimate that at least 50 percent of Florida’s water is used for landscaping.

Fifty percent?!

I’m not a fan of seeking regulatory or legislative involvement to govern personal behavior or the enjoyment of one’s private property…but I’m finding hard not to think that some folks up in Tallahassee might want to start looking into what could be done in that regard.

Seen in the Courant:

Although monthly customer bills don’t show it, 5 percent of electricity delivered by Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating this year must be generated from renewable sources such as wind, water or the sun. The requirement is set to go up every year until 2020, when it reaches 20 percent.

The aggressive policy in Connecticut, combined with similar requirements in neighboring states, is sparking an unprecedented demand for renewable power in the region. The idea is to prod alternative sources of electricity to spring up as all consumers pay more for the extra benefits of clean generation.

But even with a rush of proposals and widespread political support, there is a growing debate over whether the fledgling and disparate alternative energy industry can meet the rising requirements. Even at this year’s level, some say it’s a struggle.

The article goes on to mention that if the utilities fail to meet those goals, there are fines (passed on to electrical customers) which are supposed to fund the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund. The CCEF is supposed to develop alternative power sources, but so far hasn’t broken ground on any significant project. The odor of scandal wafts around the entity, and efforts are hindered by NIMBYism, apparently.

Hmmm… perhaps the CCEF is under orders to bite off more than it can realistically chew. Subsidizing residential or commercial PV installations could be considered (assuming there’s enough PV cell manufacturing capacity). Perhaps Citizenrē would entertain being approached by a potential franchisee?

Anyway, this problem of the apparent impossibility for utility companies to meet legislated hurdles, of money earmarked for green purposes failing to produce any green results…well those are elements fueling my interest in a publicly-owned green-oriented venture capital entity.

I realize I may sound like a broken record on this theme, but repetition is one way to teach.

Readers may be aware that I’ve been frustrated in the incredible level of polarization in discussions of global warming and climate change. Personally, I’m willing to accept that there is likely to be some adverse human-generated impact on the global climate, but most of the recent climatological weirdness being hyped is more a result of long-term climate cycles (and random noise), than any slow, underlying human-driven trend.

Some of the changes being sought by climate change activists are ones that I am at least somewhat in favor of. Reduction of polluting emissions, increased efficiency, and a transition to renewable, sustainable fuel sources are good ideas from my point of view, on general principle, even without the threat of climate change.

Thus, I become concerned about the potential backlash should the public react badly to hype turning out to be just that.

For example, a story in The Australian discusses a plateauing in global temperature trends, and how Mother Nature seems to be behaving more resiliently than models predict. The story includes the following comment:

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

That would be exactly what I’m afraid of. Even if changes aren’t necessary to forestall impending climatological disaster, conservation and more environmentally-friendly tech are good things in their own right. It’d be a shame to see them fall out of favor due to a backlash.

Now here’s an idea that needs to come stateside. From Lifehacker Gina’s travelogue of her Thai vacation:

The one electricity issue that surprised me was this: At two of the three moderate to high-priced hotels I stayed at (between $26 and $80/night), the power was only on in your room when you were there. You’d have to place your room key in a slot to enable it. This is a pretty ingenious savings measure on the part of the hotel—electricity is expensive in Thailand, especially on the islands—but it means you can’t leave on the A/C, or charge your gadgets while you’re not in the room.

Wednesday was Ash Wednesday, the start of Lent, a period of penitence, reflection, and preparation for Easter observed by some flavors of Christianity.

In those denominations, it’s traditional to for that penitence and reflection to be demonstrated, in part, by “giving up” something for Lent.

A common theme on some of the Episcopal-themed blogs I follow this year is the idea of a “carbon fast” for Lent….an idea that strikes me as a pretty good one.

In case you’re wondering, behind the page break, I’ve taken the liberty of sharing a suggested schedule of a carbon fast as presented by James Jones at the Episcopal Cafe:

Read the rest of this page →

Just when lower prices were starting to cause my wife and I to start thinking about upgrading our SDTV to newer technology, the EPA (via a Wall Street Journal article) releases this reality-check:

Prices for big-screen television sets are dropping, but the cost of home entertainment may still be headed up. That is because the fancy screens shoppers are lugging home this holiday season consume far more electricity than their old-school predecessors.

Consider that a 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator—even when that TV is used only a few hours a day. Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system—with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders—can add nearly $200 to a family’s annual energy bill.[...]

A 28-inch conventional television set containing a cathode-ray picture tube, or CRT, for example, often uses about 100 watts of electricity. A 42-inch LCD set, a typical upgrade item, requires about twice that amount of electricity. But the real beast is the plasma set. A 42-inch model often sucks up 200 to 500 watts, and a 60-plus-inch plasma screen can consume 500 to 600 watts, depending on the model and programming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

In the past year, I’ve swapped in CFL’s in just about every non-rheostat controlled light fixture in the house, and I finally succeeded in tracking down a power strip with individually switched outlets, something I have been wanting for a while to combat electrical vampirism from wall warts that I don’t want to (and my wife can’t always) fuss around with.

I don’t really want to undo all that progress for a prettier picture on TV.

Can we get some more efficient HDTV’s on the market, please?

I also wouldn’t mind seeing some standardized energy consumption labeling to get others to start thinking about hidden downsides such as this.

Seen on the AP wire:

An agreement among congressional Democrats — including those from auto industry states — to support a 40 percent increase in vehicle fuel efficiency is likely to be the tonic needed to push energy legislation through Congress before Christmas.[...]

Automakers would be required to meet an industrywide average of 35 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks, including SUVs, by 2020, the first increase by Congress in car fuel efficiency in 32 years.[...]

Dingell said the tougher standards are “both aggressive and attainable” and include provisions that give manufacturers the needed flexibility to bring SUVs and small trucks under compliance and to avoid job losses.

I’m kind of curious and skeptical about singling out SUVs and small trucks for special treatment, but I suppose that at this point, any progress on the matter is good progress.

The wire story mentions that the bill includes a significant mandate to use ethanol, suggesting that some farm belt politicians are doing a very good job of playing the “see/hear/speak no evil” routine when it comes to concerns raised about the sustainability of ethanol production.

And, there’s naturally some partisan squabbling to be expected in the Senate.

But, at least it’s some progress.

As Atlantans continue to ponder their dwindling supply of water, the AJC is attempting to educate readers about the link between water and electricity:

Electric utilities are the single largest users of the region’s freshwater. A family of four can use three times more water to power their home than they use to drink, bathe and water their lawn.[...]

The average Georgia household burns 1,100 kilowatt hours of electricity a month. That translates to about 27,000 gallons of water.

By comparison, a family of four goes through about 9,000 gallons a month for household uses such as washing clothes, flushing toilets and showering.

The article, for understandable reasons, focuses on the types of power plants that are common in the Atlanta metro area, and so your mileage may vary when it comes to electricity generation in general.

At least for those types of plants, the water consumption comes from the evaporation of water/steam used to drive power plant turbines.

Recently it’s become trendy to promote switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs, in the name of reducing CO₂ emissions via reduced power consumption. Perhaps in the southeast, they ought to revise that message to changing to CFL’s (or better yet, turning out lights, etc.) to conserve water.