³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Orange County is not the place to be spending money on weatherizing, given that the climate in that area is fairly moderate. The worst offenders are the late 1940s/early 1950s suburban houses built in places like New York/New Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia, Chicago, etc. Some of the older 'manufactured homes' (pre 1990) are also quite porous. Michegan is where you have the most people out of work and a lot of miserable hosues.

Read these...





The times they are a changin' - as this other article shows..

[obamas to 'grow their own'..]

In your note on the picture where you're wearing a breathing mask: it is a necessary precaution if you're doing any work with certain kinds of insulation. If there's any asbestos in the house you need a full body cover... period. There shouldn't be any asbestos insulation left in private residences, all of them are supposed to have been torn down.

Does it occur to anyone, that even if there were suddenly enough solar panels and wind turbines, to shut down every nuclear, coal and gas power plant on the planet, and still have enough extra power to run every motor, electric cars still might not be a good idea?

There are obviously good reasons to shut down all those power plants, but that is still a very difficult if to achieve, and reason enough to avoid electric cars.

But even if there was some magic way, that we would not have to worry about, to power them, they would still be a bad idea.

Is not one million deaths a year enough? Seat-belts have not reduced that number much, nor air-bags nor anti-lock brakes. Grid-lock has reduced crash deaths more than anything (must be hard to get in a smash-up when you are not moving), but this only causes more lung ailment deaths. What will the streets be like when all the motors are almost silent?

I realize that most people will have a hard time understanding that their freedom of movement can be improved by banning private motor vehicles, but it just may be necessary. Not everyone owns a car, if they did, the gridlock would be 24/7. Providing adequate train service and making the streets safe for pedestrians and bicyclists, would improve things for everyone.

Yes, transportation may account for less than 20% of all co2 emissions, but I’m certain that the co2 emitted in the manufacturing of motor vehicles is hidden in the industry and power generation slices of the pie.

It is good to hear about the Obama weatherization plan though. Hopefully they will also consider installing heat-pumps (to store heat underground) where appropriate (any building with enough solar-gain). If it works in Canada…

Justin:
I think that the government is wasting the money on weatherizing homes in California....Spend the money in the places were the weather is cold most of the year!!

~Dennis Junior~

Both you and the Obama Administration are correct and coherent about energy efficiency, which you are calling "Weatherizing" but in most people's lives means properly insulating your home. In terms of power consumption we use heaters in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. Proper insulation reduces the need for both dramatically. Properly insulated homes are so rare that in most homes around half the power used to heat or cool the home is immediately wasted.

Were this not so, everyone paying heating and cooling bills would save half of their annual home power expenditure. In many cases this would be half of six months at $250 pm in winter, and half of six months of $200 pm in summer - for example. Not spending this money from now on because proper insulation has been installed would save upwards of $1000 per year, as so much less power must be purchased to live in comfort. Furthermore many states offer tax incentives to insulate, so spending $1000 dollars on insulating has added benefits available immediately.

Therefore, notwithstanding switching off the polluting power stations and ceasing driving cars, in what way is energy efficiency not the most cost effective way of cutting carbon emissions? Ethical man is encouraged to modify his position. Not only on this, but also that wearing a mask and other appropriate protection is not a flippant issue with some forms of insulation, fiberglass for example. Insulating is not difficult, but care must be taken and corners not cut, the job not rushed.

If each home could be insulated properly to reduce the power bills by half, the figures showing the need for new power stations - which are based on the assumption that homes are not properly insulated - would be redundant. Investing to reduce electricity demand instead of investing to increase electricity generation capacity is in what way not sensible? "Negawatt power" is a term introduced in a 1989 speech by Amory Lovins of RMI, the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado.

This power saving (and the money saved left in the pockets of consumers) is so significant as a resource, being the money we are already spending on our power (and then wasting half of it and therefore half of our money spent on power as well) that this is where we must "Drill Baby Drill"

Such a vast resource for saving is more that equivalent to building new power stations, and ample resource to supply the growth in supply. Interestingly, the "Negawatt" was a typo in a Colorado Public Utilities Commission report being read through by Mr. Lovins (it was meant to read megawatt) and he saw it as a way to describe a watt of electricity that didn't need to be created thanks to energy efficiency" - look it up!

The McKinsey Report released early last year addressing their findings on the most polluting and least efficient human made creations on this small planet concluded that in first place, Chinese Industries, but in second place, American housing. Not easy to accept! Look it up.

Who does not have housing issue fatigue here in the US following the domestic and global economic meltdown based on deregulation and mutually deceiving fraudulently profitable subprime - and every subsequent consequence of rotten business malpractice?

Adding to the problem by stating that much construction quality is so poor that life expectancy may be no more than forty years will not rest well with Ethical Man, as most of the houses constructed where he comes on will last for hundreds of years and that many of the thirty year mortgages people have may be on houses that are already hundreds of years old.

To create jobs that are needed as well as being work worth doing, and addressing climate change, waste and pollution in ways that are real things we can actually do and swiftly, we have to deal with issues common to or desired by all, are issues involving money made or money saved, and that can be agreed on as proved to work - and in no way suggesting that all of the other vital ideas generated all over, and now even by a US Administration and even in ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ blogs and comments - we have to single out homes, and energy efficiency as not just one of the but the biggest urgent crisis where we can actually interest the largest number of people who either own a home or want one to see why this is so.

Calling for "Drill Baby Drill" without the most vigilant and thorough investments into energy efficiency isn't only raw ignorance, it is the smiling face of an original raw and base corruption. There is no such thing as ample resources of cheap energy, but there is energy efficiency, or there is carelessness and mindless waste. As one manufacturer of an extremely hot lurid and barely edible yellow mustard used to put it, their profit was what was left uneaten on the side of the plate. We have never needed to be stupid about this, but can see how very much it is in the interest of the mustard maker that we are and remain so.

Homes have to be better built and properly insulated. Existing homes have to be properly insulated. And in very warm regions, if you have never been into a home which keeps cool without massive air conditioning expenditure, do so, find out how and why, and request that your city council and your local builders supply yard s make every effort to have manufacturers of quality construction and insulation performance and method come and educate those working in construction and those wanting construction done.

Old habits die hard and our ignorances hide with our help; and when the fish are biting the five day quoted job gets done in three and everybody loses - except the fish, which gets caught. Can we consciously choose to overcome the habits of human nature, or must we insist on enduring our heads in buckets of sand?

Funny I was wondering about the capacitor thing a while ago, might work well with the following technology in for example regenerative breaking:

lordBeddGelert:

I see the Obama's won't be growing there own but will be getting school children to grow for them! But hey i guess they are busy running the county and all!

You should know better! "Weatherizing is ... about draft (draught-)proofing, putting in insulation" - Yes. But "new boilers, efficient fridges, low-energy lights" have nothing to do with weather.

"An energy efficient fridge-freezer could save you £350..." - Yes, that helps your wallet, but not the environment very much.

What is so often forgotten - especially with things like low-energy lights and standby-power is that whatever electrical energy you 'waste', you save in far less environment-friendly oil-fired (or whatever) heating energy. Fridges are in the grey area, because they are used more in the hot weather, when you're less likely to be heating.

Oops that should be Their and Country - Doh!

So GraueEule, are you saying you switch your fridge off in winter, I know this is common practice in some Eastern European countries where the temp drops below zero. In fact often the fridge is left outside in order to prevent the food from freezing!
Here in the UK it's not an option, it doesn't get that cold.

On the subject of Weatherizing, it's nice to know all your light bulbs are energy efficient when the apocalypse comes.

What is so often forgotten - especially with things like low-energy lights and standby-power is that whatever electrical energy you 'waste', you save in far less environment-friendly oil-fired (or whatever) heating energy.

Which is why incandescent light bulb bans are shortsighted. I’ve had the gas disconnected from my house, because in British Columbia, electrical BTUs cost less than gas ones. So I now heat my house with small space heaters and incandescent bulbs. Yes turning off the lights or switching to more efficient bulbs could save me a little money, but it would also make my house colder, because the small heaters wouldn’t be able to keep up without the aid of the heat from the incandescents.

In rural areas cold-cellars and chicken coops are often kept above freezing by incandescent bulbs.

Of course in (at least southern) California, where most houses don’t have a furnace and the greatest energy hog is the air-conditioner, light bulb bans might make sense. Insulating these furnace free homes, is also a good idea, as that would mean the air-conditioner would run less.

the reason it is starting in california is because we are the only ones who actually cared before gas got expensive. everyone thought everybody in california was just a bunch of tree hugging hippies, but now everyone wants to follow our lead.