Seriously, let's talk energy
Via Susie, comes this article by Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post; it's nominally about an "intentional community" in Western North Carolina whose goal is energy "sustainability", but Achenback does an excellent job of pulling in a whole slew of information and ideas regarding the current energy "crisis" and how Americans can and/or should adjust.
The article has my neurons spinning - we also live in an environment where our energy is highly rationed. Unlike most Americans, we not only know how much we take out, but how much we take in, as the former is dependent on the latter. Unlike our brick-and-mortar peers, who generally think nothing of plugging into the wall circuit, thoroughly expecting, short of natural disaster or rolling black-outs, pure 110 v. A/C power, for us, running any electric appliance has very real consequences.
This was not always the case; in fact, up until I started planning our escape nearly two years ago, I knew nothing of the mystery of electrical power. I'd never even done one of those "potato-as-battery" science experiments most ten year olds undertake at one time or another.
But I have some serious issues with this particular "eco-community", which I'll try and synthesize and address in an update. But I'd love to have a real conversation regarding what Americans can, should or will do to address the impending global warming/fossil energy crisis.
To start off, what do see as the flaws in the Earthaven model?
A few questions to start:
1) Why are they (Earthaven residents) overly dependent on solar, particularly in a heavily wooded environment? I'll have to check the average wind speed, but new tubine tech seems to be appropriate on the down slope of the Great Smokies. How about biodiesel? Switchgrass ethanol?
2) It's taken them how many years to determine they need to develop sustainable agricultural processes as well? It rather makes all your personal energy sacrifices moot if you have to rely on food trucked hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, because you don't want to chop down a few trees to plant sustainable agriculture crops.
I've been thinking that carbon taxes may be a good idea, as well as rationed amperage: Everyone gets a basic amount of energy for a set, relatively low price. If you need more, you either pay a premium, or offset with alternative energy (wind, solar, etc.) use or sell-backs. Or you purchase unused credits from your neighbors who are better at conservation than you.
Thoughts? Suggestions? How would you save the world? Should we be kicking off our own sustainable energy coop right here and now?
Comments
i have had many thoughts coalescing around these ideas... i am not done thinking, but am paying attention and taking notes.
your particular situation has not escaped my attention. i give little feedback on it. but i do have interest.
Posted by: nezua limon xolagrafik-jonez | November 25, 2006 04:30 PM
I can't imagine rational bureaucracy ever getting us anywhere. If you have a good idea or better way of living, just do it, and then prepare to fight in defense of your sane choice. It's bound to get in some propertarian's way.
Posted by: Spartacus O'Neal | November 25, 2006 05:25 PM
'because you don't want to chop down a few trees to plant sustainable agriculture crops.'
You can also plant a few trees for a sustainable agricultural crop. Chestnuts were used for centuries as a viable protein rich food source. You had to plant for the next generation but each tree would produce enough food for one person for a year. A stand of trees was able to provide fuel, building materials and food. Add other nut and fruit trees and you have a low work, high yeild source of food, fuel and shelter.
Chestnuts were only phased out in France because wheat is a cash crop and is therefore much more commercial.
Posted by: Hawise | November 25, 2006 11:05 PM
MB, are you familiar with the Chicago Climate Exchange?
Posted by: tom | November 27, 2006 03:47 PM
There are several issues related to energy use that need to be addressed. 1) The best position to be in as a manufacturing country is to have all the ingredients for power production. The US base in generator manufactures has dwindled substantially. Also, the US oil needs alot more refining that makes it more expensive than the Saudi oil.
And, we aren't sure that it will last much longer. 2) The power source should be located close to where it will be consumed since there are line losses that increase with the distance the power is sent. 3) Peak power is what sizes the power production. If US consumers put a radio or satellite sensor on the washing machine, the dishwasher, the dryer and other high energy users (pumps and other motors too), and automatically set up a system to allow only a certain amount of users at a time (in order of course), it would save electricity and cut down on pollution.
Tracy
Posted by: tracyj | November 29, 2006 02:58 PM
... a radio or satellite sensor on the washing machine, the dishwasher, the dryer and other high energy users (pumps and other motors too), and automatically set up a system to allow only a certain amount of users at a time ...
An interoperable, scalable, ad-hoc electric load admission control protocol, with transport mappings to SCADA, TCP, UDP, ..., with link mappings to 802.x, POTS ...
That's an interesting idea. I write interoperable, scalable, ad-hoc ... admission control protocols, and you write ... electric load control ..., so lets get our controls together and write this up.
If we don't some bozo is bound to write a business methods patent on the idea and try to turn it into a shopping-cart or single-click patent to get rich, which isn't quite the same thing as saving electricity and cutting down on pollution.
Posted by: ebw | November 30, 2006 10:36 AM