dasani feel-good nonsense

With great fanfare Dasani, a Coca-Cola company, has introduced the PlantBottle™. In case you didn't know PlantBottle™ -yes it is a trademark- is "an important innovation in the ongoing efforts of Dasani® to reduce environmental impact and advance towards the goal of 100% renewable and recyclable bottles."

It is with great pride and broohaha that the folks of Dasani have now reached 30% (or just short of 1/3 of their stated goal). Not that it matters much of course, because it is truly besides the point.

The environmental damage done by bottled water is not due to bottles alone. Far from it. The bottle is actually a minuscule part of the problem. Even if the folks at Dasani manage to achieve their technological wunderkind, it won't make much of a difference. The key issue in bottled water is with the water itself.

Water is a very heavy substance. Bottling water in small containers and moving those around is the problem. Transporting water is an energy intensive business. Water also has a very high heat capacity. That means it takes a lot of heat to change its temperature. Cooling water and keeping it cool is another very energy intensive business. It is highly polluting in case you did not know. Especially since the same or better quality water is available right from your tap.

Don't fall for Coke's tricks. The only green thing to do is to avoid bottled water like the plague that it is.

earth hour

Apparently Vegas dimmed its lights Saturday for Earth hour. Dimmed is what the paper said. One cannot expect Las Vegas to go dark. Although some notorious items apparently did go without illumination. For one hour the sign, "Welcome to fabulous Las Vegas" was dark. And so were the Luxor's space beams. How is that for progress?

The soon to be renamed Sears Tower, the Golden Gate bridge, the Sydney opera house, the Eiffel Tower, all these landmarks went dark and stayed dark for one full hour.

I hope you didn't feel the urge to pull out the good-old SUV from your garage to go and watch it happen. Or that you were one of the guests at the Bank of America tower drinking cocktails with battery-operated "ice" cubes, served by waiters who carried flash lights and wore battery operated head lights? Because if you did that, it pretty much defeated the purpose.

Then again, millions of people no doubt turned on their TV sets to watch these famous landmarks go dark. Courtesy of hundreds of TV camera crews, who pulled out all the stops to capture the scenes. Never mind the miles driven, the generators that ran, and the elaborate energy wasting toys that were needed to ensure we could all witness this historic event in real time.

I have an idea. Why don't we turn off all those lights every single night? And then once a year, we can celebrate earth hour and turn everything on for 60 minutes. How is that for a nice twist? WWF where are you?

Saving energy

Much of the country is affected by a serious cold spell. That always has people scrambling for solutions to reduce their heating bills. Often very expensive and fancy remedies come to mind first. Things like replacing a good furnace with a newer "more energy efficient" model. Blame it on residual effects of media advertising. Unfortunately these remedies rarely accomplish anything other than drive more consumption.

The easiest way to reduce your energy bills is to lower your thermostat and wear some extra clothing around the house. If your house feels chilly despite a working furnace and a generous temperature setting, chances are it is leaking copious amounts of air somewhere. Better check to see if all the doors and windows are closed. If they are and the chills persist, you probably have to patch some holes.

Air leaks are the most common problem in any home. You should fix them before you invest in additional insulation, double and triple paned windows and other gimmicks. Leaks cause serious heat loss that is orders of magnitude greater than any losses through ceilings or windows or walls.

You don't need fancy equipment to find air leaks. All you need is your hands and some common sense. Leaks most often occur at or near existing openings, such as doors, windows, flues, hoods. They are rather rare in the middle of a solid wall, although in some outside-facing walls, significant air leaks may occur around electric and other in-wall outlets.

Start with the doors. Close the door and run your hand around the "seams." If you feel cold air intruding, you have a serious leak. You can also check when it is dark inside. Shine a light on the other side of the door and look for light spilling into the room. Make sure to lie down and check the bottom. If you can see light, cold air can get in easily. The fix is as simple as some weather-stripping carefully applied around the edges.

While inside doors often hang a bit above the floor (so as to clear carpet for example), doors that lead to the outside should not allow any air flow under (or around) the door. Carefully check sliding doors as they are a frequent source of air intrusion.

Next check the windows and around the window frames. Lastly, make sure all vents and flues (fire-place, stove hoods, etc.) are closed when not in use.

Ideally you should compartmentalize your home. If you do, don't heat rooms you don't use, and don't heat all rooms equally. Bedrooms don't need to be as hot as living rooms for example. Neither do toilets. And it is better if you can isolate the kitchen, as you will often want to open windows to get rid of smells.

If you do compartmentalize you need to make sure that the openings between the various rooms (usually doors) are sealed too. Otherwise you are back to square one.

While so-called "open floor plans" are in vogue, they are incredibly wasteful and should not be considered unless you live in a very mild climate. If you are stuck with an open floor-plan, try to see if you can't subdivide the space in winter. Heavy drapes can make a huge difference and they are easy to install and take down.

Also try to gather everyone together in the evening. Apart from saving on heating bills (you don't need to heat the whole house), it also strengthens the family bonds. Too many households have members hiding in their rooms at night. A good way to combat this tendency -and save energy in the process- is to limit the number of TV sets you own to no more than one.

The latter will also remove the need for fancy spyware to make sure your kids aren't watching inappropriate stuff on TV or on the web. Gather the family together in the living room. That is what a living room is for.

solar misconception

Today's WSJ has a special section on Energy. It starts with an article on our addiction to oil and what, if anything we should do about it. Then some about better batteries, and so on. Not much new there. However, what caught my eye was an article entitled:"Consumers as Producers." It discusses solar energy and whether people who install solar cells and supply power to the grid should be paid, and if so, at what rate.

Various arguments can be made in favor of, or against reimbursing customers. The article goes through all of them, highlighting the various pros and cons. It has no conclusion, other than to say, it is too early to tell. Because, in true WSJ fashion, the free market has to decide what works best. What "works best" means who gets to install the most solar cells. I.e. who consumes the most.

I am sorry but the article totally misses the point. The point being that people should use less energy. They should conserve energy. That should be the primary motivation: to use less of whatever energy it is they use. Instead we are once again seeing the opposite knee jerk reaction. Homeowners who want to produce energy to get paid, others who want solar so they can use more energy without having to pay, still others who go on use more to spite the utility that won't pay them for the extra juice they produce, etc. etc.

Earlier I told a story of a neighbor who installed solar panels so he could run the AC and the heater simultaneously. He wanted to use more power but did not want to pay the high rates. On top of it, he sincerely believed he was doing something good for the planet and even wrote an essay in a Segway contest on how he was environmentally aware. Guess what, he won the Segway too. So now he can use solar energy to drive his Segway instead of walking!

What we need to realize is that we use too much energy. We Americans use twice as much energy as rich Europeans -and they use too much to begin with. We need to use less. All energy use is polluting and there is no such thing as clean energy.

Unfortunately, the only remedy appears to be high prices. It is a solution nobody likes but it is the only one that works. We will need to tax ourselves heavily lest we pollute ourselves out of existence.

energy

A great quote from Vaclav Smil in a NYT blog: 

The new president needs to "Explain to the nation that the Americans, who consume twice as much energy per capita as rich Europeans (and have nothing to show for it, as they are not richer, do not live longer, are not better educated and do not work less) should embark on a long road of trying to live within some sensible limits, which means less and not more."

A great truth that does not just apply to energy and the environment, but also to our financial crisis. We are living without limits and it is not a happy life. It is an isolated life where our well being is constantly threatened by outside forces. We may lose our job, our health care, our status. Our neighbors may outdo us and make us feel inadequate by having a bigger house, a wider TV screen, a greener lawn, a bulkier car, or what have you. They unsettle us by going on longer and more expensive trips, making us feel small and irrelevant.

It is a life-style driven by inane consumerism that does nobody any good. Endlessly churning through stuff, we need more oil, more water, more materials than any other country in the world. 

Our endless pursuit for more stuff leaves us constantly in need of more. As soon as we get something we quickly trash it (up to 90% of the items bought end up in the trash within 6 months) and go look for other -even better- stuff. We want to be movers-and-shakers, having access to the latest must-have gadget, only to replace it by another must-have gadget within 6 months, like rats endlessly pressing levers to get more drug.

We isolate ourselves in ever bigger houses, with our own bedrooms, bathrooms, living spaces,TV sets, stereos, etc. Constantly putting up barriers and removing ourselves from others. We are addicted to cell phones, iPods, and other devices that interrupt our social lives, isolate us acoustically, and attention-wise from the world around us. Nothing like going to lunch with someone who spends the entire time talking to others on their cell phone. And why? To show us how indispensable they really are? Is that the idea? To invite us so they can show us how important they are?

Wake up America, ditch your car, your TV, your iPod, your cell phone, and all that other isolating, energy wasting junk that clutters up your lives. Go on a walk and talk to your friends.

it isn't over

You probably already knew that. Or you've come to expect "pessimistic views" from this blog. Let me assure you though that I am not a pessimist. I am very optimistic by nature and I really do enjoy life. I find it a pity and a shame that many are so destructive towards our habitat and so inconsiderate with precious resources. Others mean well but they are so spoiled they don't even see how much pollution and trash they generate.

America would do well if everyone cut everything in half. Half the size house, half the size car, half the miles driven, and in a lot of cases, half the body weight. You may find such a view frightening and horrible, but believe me, people would be better off and they would feel better too. They would be healthier and happier.

As for the economy. Don't let wishful thinking cloud your judgement. It isn't over yet. It will get (much) worse before it gets better. But that is only from the perspective of the current Western economy, where good means wasteful over-consumption. From an "environmental" perspective, things maybe getting a bit better. If people spend less, buy less, and drive less that may go a long way towards preserving our livelihood for generations to come.

Also, congratulations to Paul Krugman for his Nobel Prize. I always enjoy reading Paul's column in the New York Times. I know it has nothing to do with his Nobel-winning work, but it is a well written column that is a joy to read. No, I don't always agree with Paul but his viewpoints are always worth considering. He has been an outspoken critic of the current administration, but then again, who isn't? With an approval rating in the low 20s, not many people agree with George W. and his administration.

The war was a really dumb idea. Unfortunately, those driving SUVs, those calling for offshore drilling, and those crying foul for $4 gas, implicitly support the war. They are either ignorant or hypocritical if they don't want to live up to it. If you are really against the war, write your representative asking for a $5 a gallon minimum price. I did.

calories explained

Most people in the Western world know or think they know what calories are. Yet it appears that few connect calories and energy. Witness to that the success of foods and drinks that promise to deliver energy without calories. Another common example of disconnect are the ubiquitous zero-calorie energy drinks. In case you wonder, the calorie is a unit of energy. There is no such thing as energy without calories and the expression makes about as much sense as saying length without meters (or feet) or weight without kilograms (or pounds).

The word calorie contains the root "calor" or heat and calories were originally defined as the energy required to heat a certain quantity of water (a gram) by a certain amount (a degree centigrade). The definition does not limit the calorie to heating however, and calories are a universal unit for energy. You can calculate the energy content of food, gasoline, natural gas, heating oil, and even nuclear materials, and express it in calories. Since the calorie is a rather small unit, it is not used all that often for gasoline or heating oil. Even the food calorie is in reality a kilo-calorie (or 1,000 calories).

Nutritionists will tell you that the average adult needs about 2,500,000 calories, or 2,500 "food calories" to stay healthy. Most of us consume quite a bit more and these excess calories are stored away as fat. Today, over half the population in the civilized world has excess calories stored away. The mantra in the West is how to loose weight, not how to stay properly fed.

The calorie is an older unit, and the official SI unit of energy is the joule. You may have noticed that some food packages express energy as both calories (Kcal to be exact) and KJ or kilo-joules. When you bought a portable heater or installed an air-conditioner, you may have noticed its rating in BTU or British thermal units. A BTU is approximately 252.5 calories. When you look at your gas bill, you may see yet another unit, called a Therm. A therm is 100,000 BTU or 25.25 million calories.

A kilogram of fat contains 9,000,000 calories or almost 36,000 BTU. A cubic foot of natural gas has approximately 1030 BTU or 260,000 calories. That is equivalent to 260 food calories, and you would need 10 cubic feet of gas per day to stay healthy (provided you could utilize the energy in natural gas).

Why go through this physics lesson?

The reason is to get a better understanding of how we stay alive. We stay alive because farmers produce excess calories that they do not need to feed their families. These excess calories can be traded (sold) to keep non-farmers alive. The non-farmers in turn mine and produce the other goodies we all use. That includes many items that farmers can use to make their yields go higher. And farm yields have increased significantly over the last 100 years. In the 1930's one farmer could sustain 10 people. These days, one farmer sustains 80 or more individuals. In a primitive economy, farmers could only produce enough food for 3-4 individuals. We have come a long way you might say. Yet there is no such thing as a free lunch.

One key reason why farmers have become so successful is because they put in a lot more energy to produce food. Whereas farmers were once limited to manual labor, supported by domesticated animals, today's farmers rely heavily on oil-powered machinery. They also depend on artificial irrigation systems, and heavy doses of fertilizers and pesticides. All in all, they are not just using more energy to produce food, they are using more energy per unit of food produced. What that means is that they are putting in more calories than they get out. And not just by a small margin. Estimates are that we consume 9-10 calories to produce one calorie worth of food. We are definitely entering a region of diminished returns.

All that excess food has had some serious consequences. Not only did we all get fatter, we also reproduced more. A lot more. The population boom of the last century was largely a result of the earlier "green revolution" in farming. Suddenly we could sustain a lot more people, and guess what, a lot more people quickly appeared. Now it seems, we are entering an era of more limited resources. Unfortunately, all those extra people are still with us. And they will be with us for a while to come. Not only that, but those people have already started reproducing too.

And therein lies our key problem.

difficult choices

According to the experts, asking people to do something hard repeatedly is much less likely to yield good results than asking them to make a more difficult decision once. You would think these experts were talking about life-or-death decisions. However, the quote was part of a story on energy conservation published in the Washington Post. In it various experts gave their opinions as to the effectiveness of measures and incentives for energy conservation. And what a stellar panel of experts it was. All the big ivy league names were there to put in their 2c's worth.

The hard choice it turns out was to turn off the lights every time you stop using them. That was considered difficult enough so as to have a very low likelihood of success. The "more difficult" one-time decision was to buy energy efficient light bulbs or CFL's. So, the experts concluded it is better to have people change their bulbs than ask them to turn off the lights. The story then went on to take us through various calculations showing how CFL's would save the planet. Those calculations included assumptions as to the life-time of CFL's versus regular bulbs. They also ignored the environmental cost of producing CFL's and the waste generated by throwing out perfectly good incandescent bulbs only to replace them with the latest gadgets.

It is the type of "green thinking" that companies like as it forces the public to buy more goodies. Just imagine the economic bounty generated by changing out all existing bulbs with more energy efficient CFL's. And it won't stop there of course. Long before these CFL's reach their estimated seven year life-span, we will see more ads to replace them with even more efficient bulbs, or bulbs that provide "more natural" light, or whatever other trick the industry will come up with to keep the dollars flowing. A seven year life-span is a great selling point, except that we really do not want people to buy bulbs on such an infrequent basis. We all realize that this is not good for the economy. But let's get back to the difficult decisions you need to make on a daily basis.

I agree that turning off lights may present a challenge to people. It is something you have to think about each and every time you use a light. Much like closing the door of your car each and every time you enter or exit the vehicle. I am surprised not more people drive around with their car doors left open. Or not more cars are parked with the doors wide open. Surely that is what the "experts" would predict. These experts by the way were at MIT, not some second-rate school in nowhere land, or some political think-thank where "experts" are paid to say things that make no sense whatsoever but do advance an agenda. No these were bona-fide academic experts. People in the know.

Surely turning off your lights is a habit you have to learn. At first, it may be necessary to pay extra attention to what you are doing. It does require some effort. But after a very short time period it should be largely automatic, much like closing your car door. I use the car door example, because my children, much like other children had the unfortunate habit of stepping out of the car and leaving the doors wide open. They too had to learn. But like most people, they succeeded in this difficult challenge. These days, they rarely step out of the car leaving the doors open. And I am proud to say, they rarely leave their room without turning off the appliances and the lights.

I also want to offer you real life evidence that these difficult actions do generate some payoff. Some data to counter expert opinion. Despite living in an above average sized house, with all the accoutrements of modern life -a house where most of the bulbs are good old-fashioned incandescent ones- our monthly electric bill rarely goes over $30 a month. I also need to tell you that we live in California, where energy prices are among the highest in the country. In reality $30 is a rarity and we usually stay well below $25.

No ostentatious solar panels, windmills, or other exotic alternative energy sources here. Just plain old PG&E power and 21st century living that includes big screen TV's, DVR's, computers, and the like. All are used extensively, but all are turned off as soon as we stop using them. Even if we are just taking a 5 minute break. I know it is hard, and I commiserate with all of you each and every time I close my car doors. Wouldn't it be easier to buy a car with doors that close automatically?

Now, there is a green thought for you entrepreneurs!