Energy conservation has to have a rational goal with a reasonable and honest rate of return

There is a period in which emerging technologies will have a lower rate of return. Think of it as an implementation and adoption period.

Sighting CO2 as a global threat, they lost me.

I guess you haven't heard that atmospheric CO2 is on the rise and it represents a clear threat to life as we know it.

Literally the last place that look, if at all, is in the mechanical room.

I think education will help that.

Comparing a country like Britain (zero natural resources) to the US, with a 500 year supply, stretches credibility and validity

The UK has 0.3% of the world's oil reserves. The US has 1.5% with 5X more population. You can do the math. The UK is the largest oil producer and the second largest gas producer in the European Union.

market forces devoid of "special interests"

Market forces and fuel prices do not yet take into account the issue of carbon, but that is coming soon.

"I guess you haven't heard that atmospheric CO2 is on the rise and it represents a clear threat to life as we know it."

Of course I've heard this hysteria and followed the junk science that purports to support this obtuse argument. I have no interest in "carbon credits" rather, support common sense conservation and realistic innovation.

I stand corrected on British oil - forgetting their off-shore holds (ours are supposed to be much greater, but we will not know for some time). I wonder how many committed preservationists would still be standing when they have lost their jobs and find electricity has tripled.

Man is nothing if not arrogant.

Of course I've heard this hysteria and followed the junk science that purports to support this obtuse argument. I have no interest in "carbon credits" rather, support common sense conservation and realistic innovation.

Unfortunately for your "common sense" theory, the overwhelming majority of both climate scientists and others who are able to follow the science support it fully.

Posted By Lbear on 24 Jul 2012 04:58 PM

I believe that in some peoples haste to build a energy efficient home they overlook aesthetics as being an important factor in getting people to consider efficient homes. In the auto industry this was seen when engineers & scientists who were merely focused on efficiency SHOULD NOT be allowed to design what the vehicle will look like. Leave that to the designers who have a creative flare, not the boring scientists.

Yep, just look at those poor executives at Toyota who believed the scientists and engineers when they had the idea for a boring old Camry that was going to be well built, extremely reliable, and hardly changed in design over the years.  Those executives are probably crying in their beer and commiserating with those poor Honda executives who believed their engineers when they said they could sell Accords based on reliability rather than design. 

Then to add insult to injury, the foolish, boring scientists at Toyota said that they might be able to dominate the hybrid vehicle market with a vehicle designed for aerodynamic efficiency rather than sexy looks, and they have failed to update the design significantly through three generations of the vehicle.  Where has that approach gotten them? 

I am quite sure I understand the politics involved (I hold a BS in Political Science) and I might have a faint grasp of meteorology and a few technical matters, as I am also hold several Master Class mechanical licenses. In this case, I deduce that the my political science back ground serves me better than any advanced degree in climatology ever could. There is clearly more at stake hear than saving the planet.

Don't get me wrong, I have been recycling, shutting off lights and installed condensing low NOx, low SOx boilers, that passed California's emission standards, before they had them. But going off the deep end leaves the majority still standing on the bottom. Clearly, I am not alone, though this may not be the forum for healthy skepticism.

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

But Lovelock really says it best and got it right...the second time around.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

When politics (self interest) gets in the way of real science, the truth is hard to find. It discredits the science and slow progress toward mutually achievable goals. In any case, the Chinese and the Indians have not heard your call to arms. Several billion people who suffer without the "Word" and most certainly negate any effort we make here in the States.

No amount of scurrilous innuendo or spin doctoring can change the underlying science. You seem to have a hard time understanding that which makes your proclamations to the contrary rather suspect. Same goes for your presentation of typical denier claptrap.

BTW, Lovelock is as kooky as the greeners he laughs at. When he says he has changed his theories, he is talking about his goofy, unsupported alarmist blather. That in no way implies that serious scientists need to change theirs.

Lee, it is a stretch to compare the decisions involved in buying cars vs. buying houses. In the latter, you look at school districts, commutes, appreciation potential, neighbors, views, recreation outlets, proximity of friends and family and on and on. That's the upshot of the British study I linked. Even when buyers know they're buying an energy hog, they proceed. And it's hard to fault them if, for example, they want their children in the beby st school districts they can afford.

Style also matters. Judged by how badly Click and Clack are outnumbered by home improvement shows, there are more house nuts in the world than car nuts, and think we can count most of the visitors here in the former category. Of course, my thing is building a small house with enough panache to appeal to McMansion buyers. Downsizing is green that also saves green (dollars)_.

Posted By toddm on 26 Jul 2012 06:36 PM
Lee, it is a stretch to compare the decisions involved in buying cars vs. buying houses.
...snip...

I agree.  It was Lbear that was drawing the analogy between buying a house and buying a car, and I was only agreeing with him (with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek). 

Yes, the decision on buying a house is influenced very much by location, which influences the climate, quality of education, commuting distances to work and distances to visit friends and family, etc.  There is no similar aspect to buying an automobile, so any comparison between the two is a stretch.

Edited to add the following:
However, as people get more mature, there is often an interest in buying cars that minimize maintenance and maximize reliability.  Those same type of people are often interested in buying houses that minimize utility bills and minimize maintenance.  People should be free to pick whatever style for either cars or houses that fits their individual liking.  But I don't agree with people looking down their snobby noses to say that people should buy houses that are not rectangles or geodesic domes or whatever they want to buy.  

Just as your interest is building small houses with the style that you think will appeal to buyers, my interest is providing people with actual data for heating energy requirements for a modern, energy-efficient home, for performance of solar PV systems (both mine and others), and construction costs versus operating costs for energy improvements.  I have never suggested an "appropriate style," because I consider that a personal decision.   

"Downsizing is green". I like it.

Many of our designs use condensing waters for both space and domestic hot water as the DHW load exceeds the space heating loads. This will be the trend as we Baby Boomers retire.

There is also the practical matter of capital investment, which has its own "carbon" footprint.

I have no interest in dictating styles either. The disconnect on this site is putting form in front of function. If you want a timber frame house, SIPs are for you. If you want a stucco house with chamfers, chair rails and pilasters, AAC is for you. Sacrificing style and finish for technology is a serious mistake.

So is choosing Belle Woods Pkg 3. G-d help us, architecture is turning faddish. Sales prospects will like or hate my house (20 years from now, one hopes) but no one will walk in and say the equivalent of "Oh, man. This is so '90s."

"The disconnect on this site is putting form in front of function." Yes, indeed!

I consult on Frank Lloyd Wright homes on occasion, as many of them sport some of the earliest residential radiant floor systems. Love his Unsonians for form but "every man" could not afford even the most modest FLW home. FLW did have one thing right; if you build a home with field stone, sans insulation, with glass floor to ceiling, you best have a powerful heat source.

Matching architecture to practical mechanical systems takes more effort and money than most possess. Thus the rectangle, stacked story on story.

"Lovelock is as kooky as the greeners he laughs at."

There is nothing Greener than nuclear power, if left to industrialist and engineers, where it belongs.

If you think Man is affecting the environment and fear CO2, and we have the means, if not the will, to correct our egregious errors, then the benefits of nuclear power should be self evident, unless of course you follow the politically motivated mantra of the left.

Love his Unsonians for form but "every man" could not afford even the most modest FLW home.

The word is "Usonian" as anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the art would recognize. Fact is that the Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian homes were very middle class, despite what you, personally, think the definition of "every man" is. Since these homes were designed more than 70 years ago, it would be ludicrous to apply today's standards for materials and energy efficiency. Nevertheless, the concepts that FLW pioneered have endured in quite a bit of residential construction and architecture.

the benefits of nuclear power should be self evident, unless of course you follow the politically motivated mantra of the left.

There are very real engineering, health and safety issues involved in transport, handling and disposal of nuclear materials. They are by no means solved. To term them 'politically motivated' shows a real disregard for the issue.

There is nothing Greener than nuclear power, if left to industrialist and engineers, where it belongs.

Because that sort of an attitude has worked so well in the past, right?

ICF;

Thank you for correcting my typo.

You obviously missed my point...try not to duck.

I grew up next to (3/4 of a mile) one of the first nuclear power plants, which my father help build. The US nuclear program has been spectacular from a technical point of view. Note: 3-Mile did not "blow up" or "melt down". Nuclear power is still produced at the lowest cost (in spite of ridiculous government over-regulation) and has an unmatched safety record per kilowatt power production.

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/economicgrowth/

If you are afraid of split atoms, give the job to our fearless Dept. of the Navy...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

I would invest my personal funds (as apposed to lobbying for a larger deficit) in an honest nuclear program with honest achievable goals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/05/23/small-modular-reactors-by-2022-but-no-market-for-them/

The last time we undeniably had to "same the world", a few fellas in New Mexico came up with a plan and managed to pull it off with brains and courage and little else. Perhaps we could learn by example.

If all else fails...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

Zero energy will not be free of cost nor gained without some risk and much cooperation. Few can afford you Green world regardless of their intent.

Oh yes, since we are being petty, I just looked at a home designed by FLW in 1951. I count 61 years.

Posted By BadgerBoilerMN on 27 Jul 2012 12:00 PM
ICF;

...snip...

Nuclear power is still produced at the lowest cost (in spite of ridiculous government over-regulation) and has an unmatched safety record per kilowatt power production.

...snip...

It would be nice if we knew the price of electricity from nuclear power, but we do not.  In order to know the price we need to include the cost of at least three things:

(1) What is the cost for liability insurance that is currently subsized in the U.S. by taxpayers through the Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnities Act?  This insurance would need to cover the cost for the occasional loss of the use of land and loss of life through accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima.    

(2) What is the cost for long term disposal and safekeeping of high-level nuclear waste?  This must include the cost for maintenance and upkeep (including guards) for however many half-lives of the material that is deemed appropriate.

(3)  What is the cost for the loss of land where nuclear power plants are constructed and then abandoned, but still guarded?  If we could solve item 2, then this loss would be minimized, but currently we have not reached a solution for item 2, so this loss will be substantial if we have to abandon a large site every 40 years or so.   

"this loss will be substantial if we have to abandon a large site every 40 years or so."
the good news is that we won't have to worry about abandoned plants (except for the ones that self destruct) since the NRC keeps recommissioning them. good example is in Vermont where that pesky "local control" idea is causing no end of pain for the plant owner who says the broken underground pipes with the associated releases of toxic material into the river and land and the resultant lies about them are nothing to worry about. Just think of the money we'll save on guards!

I'm getting confused - what is the problem with building houses so they don't use lots of energy?

First,

Actuaries decide on the cost of insurance. Fortunately they rely on facts rather than emotion, as is the case for most of the anti-nuke crowd.

Chernobyl was built by Russians. Fukushima was built on a fault line. Enough said.

Now, for a modern relevant example of nuclear power success using mainly American technology.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Price-Anderson was constructed in a time when few understood the potential of peaceful nuclear energy - the evidence leads to the same conclusion today - but that was then and this is 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries, later. Here is an interesting take on how Price-Anderson can be used to "subsidize" other "clean energy" efforts.

http://insurancejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Meehan.pdf

My house is foamed, my fuel off-peak, my air-to-air perking away using a third of the energy of my neighbors, but they suffer from a lack of jobs, funds and interest in our mutual goal...a greener peaceful existence. Man made it, man can fix it, if it's broken. Aiming at the wrong target is a waste of time and - dare I say - energy.

I have noticed that purists, read zealots, get little cooperation from the main stream and the backlash against wasted resources (money is a stored value) can go counter to otherwise common goals.

"Man made it, man can fix it, if it's broken."
If only...

"our mutual goal...a greener peaceful existence"

I agree that Lee's questions need to be answered. But then all energy sources have questions. How many people has coal killed? Way way more than all nuclear power incidents combined (and all were easily preventable). How many have died as everyone fights over oil? Again, way way more.

Insurance - it makes sense to me to move nuc plants away from populated areas. Power transmission isn't that expensive and "free" insurance discourages that.

Good point jonr. But I would like to know how many people has coal saved? In fact the industrial revolution was based on the power created by coal. Without it we would likely be living in huts today.

Next to the nuclear power plant by the home I grew up in, is a still operating super-critical coal fired plant that my brother "operated" for the past 25 years. As he points out, if you don't believe in clean coal, you should have seen the snow on the ridge above the winters before precipitators were installed.

The problem with progress is it is never enough for the ungrateful.

I find that just one day without a hot shower focuses the mind of the most radical preservationist.

I find that just one day without a hot shower focuses the mind of the most radical preservationist.

Great little snappy snippet, but not much sense there. First, we are not talking about doing without hot water, we are talking about choices; making better choices which will start to remove our dependence on fossil fuels like coal. For example, quite a bit of the world already uses solar to heat domestic hot water. That accounts for a fifth of all residential energy use in the US.

BTW, I don't know what you are calling a "radical preservationist", but most of the people I know who are interested in preserving the environment are avid outdoorspeople who are quite aware of what it is like to go without a hot shower.

Fukushima was built on a fault line. Enough said.

Ha, ha. So are US nuclear plants. In fact, the one most at risk is the Indian Point facility about 25 miles outside of New York City. Maybe you didn't realize that the earthquake didn't cause the Fukushima Daiichi breach. It was the tsunami that took out the backup generators. What are the odds of that, huh? Of course, it probably wasn't the industrialists and engineers who sited the plant in the first place, right?