Recognitions:
Gold Member
Science Advisor

## YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis

 Quote by Astronuc An increase of 3 gal/mile in fuel efficiency could save the US on the order of $25 billion and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 155 million tons. Mmmm, I like the way that you have described fuel economy figures in terms of "gallons per mile", rather than the more traditional 'miles per gallon'. I'm not sure if you intended this or not, but it's a good point well made. There is absolutely no excuse for the use of SUVs (or as they're known in the UK, 'Chelsea Tractors') in urban environments. Anyone who owns one without just cause (and no, having 3 kids is NOT an excuse, nor is favouring the driving position) should be truly ashamed of themselves. I realise that they are by no means the largest producer of the gases we are trying to curb, but I think it has to be the first step to turning peoples' attitudes around. /rant Admin brewnog, thanks for pointing out the error. The ratio has been corrected to an increase of 3 miles/gal rather than 3 gal/mile. As for  Three-foot-thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls might provide similar shading and wind-breaking capacity. it is much less expensive to plant trees than to erect a reinforced concrete wall three feet think. Imagine the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that one would have to to. I maintain that trees are part of the solution. I had an oak tree that was growing at a phenomenal rate of about 1 foot/yr. After 10 years, it was putting on some mass, growing laterally as well as vertically. If that were multiplied by 2E9 trees over an area of 72,000 sq miles, that could handle perhaps anywhere from 10 million to 100 million tons of CO2/yr depending on growth rates. I am also being generous with 1000 sq ft/tree. The dryland area of the US about 3,537,438.44 sq miles, but perhaps 1/2 is mountainous or urban/suburban so its use for trees would be limited. The Sahel and Sahara areas have much larger areas that could be reforested. Assuming that increases rainfall those areas, then crops would be more successfully grown. Use of trees for fuel is not necessary. Solar power (PV or solar dynamic systems) can be used for energy in the Sahel and Sahara, so inhabitants do not need to burn wood. Clearly Africa needs substantial improvements in energy sources and distribution.  Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Aw, I thought it made quite a good point Astronuc, even if it was an error...  Quote by Astronuc it is much less expensive to plant trees than to erect a reinforced concrete wall three feet think. Trees are dangerous and destroy property. Like other live pets, they require constant supervision and frequent health check-ups. The property damage and the health maintenance of trees are expenses that might make the total ownership costs of concrete walls seem inexpensive in comparison.  I had an oak tree that was growing at a phenomenal rate of about 1 foot/yr. The average American produces 20 tons of CO2 per year. Was your oak tree putting on 20 tons of dry weight per year?  multiplied by 2E9 trees over an area of 72,000 sq miles, that could handle perhaps anywhere from 10 million to 100 million tons of CO2/yr And, meanwhile, America produces 5,480 million metric tons of CO2 per year. One reason ocean seeding is being explored is that trees are notoriously pathetic at soaking up atmospheric carbon. [edit: Keep that filth out of my forum, hitssquad. I won't tolerate it. -Russ] Admin Regarding trees, I was actually thinking about areas outside of those with high population density. I have flown over the country numerous times, and there seems to be a lot of open areas that could be reforested.  they [tree] require constant supervision and frequent health check-ups. Most trees that I see appear to have no human intervention at all. Some trees certainly do become diseased and that is why property owners need to inspect trees, as much as they need to be aware of the condition of the house. Most of my trees are at a distance from my house that exceeds the height. I have one maple tree that did drop one of is side trunks just behind the house, so I watch is more carefully - it will probably be removed soon. I also had a large spruce tree removed because it overwhelmed the neighbor's driveway. But it seems high winds or stormy weather is the culprit. If trees were not around, the storm winds would directly affect the house, and high winds can do significant damage to a house. If one was going to the expense of a 3-foot (1 meter) thick concrete wall, then it would be worthwhile to build the exterior wall structure of the house in this manner. Then surround the house with trees to shade it and provide a wind break. We have a lot of birds around our property, and it is very nice to listen to them and watch them. Sitting by the window looking out, I thought today, that it would not be much of a view staring at a concrete wall. BTW, a concrete wall would get quite hot in the summer. Metropolitan areas are usually 4-5°C (so-called urban or metropolitan heat island effect). Based on the stats that you provided, certainly trees are not the total solution, only part of it. Clearly energy conservation is a necessary part. Reduction of fossil fuel (coal and oil) is necessary. Part of that should be a significant improvement in vehicular mileage. hittsquad - Thanks for the links on ocean seeding. I will definitely look into that. But is it practical (even if feasible) to put 5.5 billion tons of CO2 into the oceans each year? Is that something in which you are involved? I just started researching "carbon sequestration" area, so I am still learning about it. Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus  Energy efforts close to starting State program will help fund solar, wind farm projects By JOHN G. EDWARDS REVIEW-JOURNAL Two developers said Friday they are getting closer to beginning construction on separate alternate energy projects that will take advantage of a new state program. Developers of Solargenix Energy, a planned 50-megawatt solar thermal project in the Eldorado Valley, and Ely Wind, a proposed 50-megawatt wind farm in Northern Nevada, have applied for approval under a new state program that makes it easier for them to get financing. Solargenix hopes to obtain financing by March and start construction of the solar thermal plant, said Gary Bailey, a local executive with the company. The facility will use troughs that reflect sunlight and heat on to a fluid-filled pipe that will spin a turbine to generate power. [continued with more information and listed projects] http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../25354555.html  Here is another very interesting new technology. If it works out as planned, if will produce oil from almost all sorts of wastes containing hydrocarbons, like sewage, plastics or paper. And at the same time also reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored and also degrading many dangerous substances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus  Turkey droppings fuel power plant NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Turkey leftovers will take on a whole new use after a Minnesota company finishes construction of a power plant fired by the birds' droppings. [continued] http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science...eut/index.html  Two interesting articles. Do we need nuclear power? http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/14/6/2/1 Order of Magnitude Morality http://www.aims.ac.za/~mackay/oomm.html Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor Staff Emeritus  ... The fuel cost the Tabbs'$4.02 per gallon, but the business will be able to take advantage of a federal tax credit beginning Jan. 1. The tax credit may not necessarily make the fuel cheaper than petroleum-based diesel, according to National Biodiesel Board communications director Jenna Higgins. "We do know it will do a lot to close the gap," she said. The tax credit was included in job-creation legislation signed into law in October. Higgins could not offer how prevalent Biodiesel had become nationwide, but cited statistics by the U.S. Department of Energy that indicate the alternative fuel was among the fastest growing. "We estimate that 31 percent of soybean farmers use biodiesel and that number continues to go up," Higgins sad. "Enthusiasm for biodiesel fuel is contagious," [continued]
http://www.journal-news.net/news/sto...l_121804_n.asp

 Quote by Astronuc If trees were not around, the storm winds would directly affect the house, and high winds can do significant damage to a house.
If a house cannot withstand predictable wind speeds, it might seem there is something wrong with the design of, or the construction technique used in the building of, the house:
http://www.garylukens.com/steel_frame_homes.htm
• More structurally stable and stronger than wood framed homes and safer in high winds and other natural disasters.

The steel framed wall panel used in our construction is the strongest design engineered. This design withstands racking of the structure in winds of excess of 150 mph.

 If one was going to the expense of a 3-foot (1 meter) thick concrete wall, then it would be worthwhile to build the exterior wall structure of the house in this manner.
Agreed. A concrete dome capping a concrete-lined subterranian space might be just the ticket for blast protection in case of nuclear attack.

 Then surround the house with trees to shade it and provide a wind break.
?

The proposed house is made out of thick, steel-reinforced concrete.

 it would not be much of a view staring at a concrete wall.
Computer monitors can be used for viewing. Audio speakers can be used for listening. Birds and trees can be computer-simulated, or live video cameras feeding back to the house can be set up where there are live birds and trees. If you would like to add a babbling brook to the scene, it is merely a few keystrokes or mouse-clicks away.

 BTW, a concrete wall would get quite hot in the summer.
Perhaps it would not be hot on the inside. This concrete is pretty thick. It might be like living inside a cave (except this cave has as many windows as you are willing to add video monitors.)

 solution.... Clearly energy conservation is a necessary part.
It would seem that qualification and quantification might be needed in order to be able to reach conclusions.

 Reduction of fossil fuel (coal and oil) is necessary. Part of that should be a significant improvement in vehicular mileage.
Again, adequate qualification and quantification seems to be lacking.
 I just built a house with a full dug out basement lined with 12 inch cinder block. I estimate that the basement if 1000 square feet added $100,000 to the cost of the house. I don't think too many folks have an extra$100,000 to waste. Economically it was a mistake. But it is a fine engineering test bed.

Economics in action, Charles:
http://www.aero-data.com/anaglyphs/h...mage_fixed.jpg

How much is a blown-down house worth? How much is a house with a car embedded in its livingroom worth?
http://www.google.com/search?q=car+livingroom+crash

 Quote by CharlesP I don't think too many folks have an extra $100,000 to waste. The average American male makes 2.5 million year-2000 dollars in his lifetime and wastes much of that on luxuries such as cars that can go three times the maximum speed limit, low-brow entertainment, jewelry, dysfunctional clothing, mountains of poisonous "food", glorified 18th-century "health care", preventable "accidents", low-brow weddings, divorces from spouses that simple psychological tests would have told them they should not have married, low-brow funerals, etc. On a$2.5 million lifetime income, I think a person can cut back on a few of those things and afford to build a \$500,000 high-security home.

And if it's dug into the ground, you can save a little on energy costs, too. An underground house is passively geothermal.
http://www.kettler.com/geot.html

 The Heat Beneath Your Feet Geothermal energy, the heat beneath your feet, is the most stable renewable energy source. Three feet below most of the eartth's surface, the ground temperature is always at least a mild 50 degrees F., and this temperature increases with depth to several hundred degrees.

 Quote by hitssquad Is saving money by building wood houses really saving money
--------------------------------------------------
I think that you might find it interesting that steel framed and concrete structures, when built serially (not one-off) and by well qualified personnel, are generally more economical than the general 'stick-built' wood framed houses. The materials for steel or masonry houses generally cost more, but the labor costs are generally considerably lower. Cutting, recutting, measuring, force-fitting, etc. are greatly reduced, for example. Cost of construction isn't the big problem. That problem is:

Tradition! - - - Tradition!

More in general, a certain very influential segment of the American populace wants nothing other than a home that buys into the perceived American (sometimes European) tradition of what a proper house should be. That segment, in particular is heavily represented in the lower middle-class WASP female populace. (This has been borne-out in studies in the past.) This preference is basically a way of buying into this perceived tradition. Convince this very large group that the 'stick-built' house isn't preferable and you can quickly and at no extra cost, start to improve America's energy consumption picture. Fail to convince this group, and we muddle on.

 Quote by hitssquad And if it's dug into the ground, you can save a little on energy costs, too. An underground house is passively geothermal.

Actually, we can save a lot this way. The average temperature a few feet below ground surface, in most climates, averages near sixty degrees year-round. (This is what makes underground homes so attractive to some people.) Masonry houses (brick, block and especially concrete), however also have other properties that make them attractive in this situation (and a few problems). The main advantages, other than structural strength, are those of thermal 'flywheel' and thermal 'wick'. It is well known that masonry tends to hold onto temperature values much better than most building materials. What is less well known is a little discovery made a few years ago by a builder in the US Southwest, that by anchoring a masonry foundation well into the ground, and then insulating this masonry structure on the 'outside', temperatures on the inside can be easily and economically stabilized and maintained year-round. (And, the house itself doesn't have to be underground.)

The drawback to this is the fact that, because masonry is generally cooler than the hot outside air (in summer); when this outside air comes in contact, it tends to dump a lot of its absorbed moisture onto the colder masonry walls. As result, basements are often wet and moldy, especially in the more humid areas.

KM

 Quote by hitssquad Quote: BTW, a concrete wall would get quite hot in the summer. ------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps it would not be hot on the inside. This concrete is pretty thick. It might be like living inside a cave (except this cave has as many windows as you are willing to add video monitors.)
There's no reason to assume that concrete will be hotter in Summer than other materials. Actually, it tends to be cooler in Summer and warmer in Winter (thermal, Flywheeling - very similar to water, and the wicking effect). This is why basement walls tend to be cool (and thus damp) in the Summer.

KM
 [QUOTE+Astronuc] The Sahel and Sahara areas have much larger areas that could be reforested. Assuming that increases rainfall those areas, then crops would be more successfully grown. [/QUOTE] It must be borne in mind that the Sahara, at least, was once somewhere between fairly lush, and a savannah area (I believe, as recently as about seven or eight thousand years ago). If so, then before trying to change it from what it is Today, we must ask, "what changed it to this state?" If the cause was in nature, then just maybe we can determine and implement what will be required to restore it, and maybe not. If we find out what is required, maybe it will be economically and politically feasible, and maybe not. The frightening thought, though is - - "What if we caused it in some way?". I suspect that the cause was natural but we could have been the culprit, and if so, we'll probably never be able to bring ourselves to correct it (even if we can). We apparently did cause the heavily forested areas of Lebanon to vanish, and we don't have the faintest idea what we must do to correct the situation there. In like manner, much of Michigan was once heavily forested, and we destroyed most of that. (Will that some day become a desert?) We definitely seem to know how to destroy forests, but not necessarily how to rebuild them (especially the old growth types). Now we are working to destroy the rainforests of the Equatorial regions and this will probably influence the world's rainfall patterns in catastrophic ways. (The reason that this isn't raising great alarms around the world, may possibly be the fact that it isn't predominantly the evil Americans that are doing it, but who rather stand to suffer the consequences if it continues, especially in the Western Pacific. Destruction of the South American rain forests will have similar effects on Europe.) I, personally have little faith in our will or abilities to create forests. I just hope that we don't destroy more of them. [QUOTE+Astronuc] Regarding trees, I was actually thinking about areas outside of those with high population density. I have flown over the country numerous times, and there seems to be a lot of open areas that could be reforested.[/QUOTE] Good luck! [QUOTE+Astronuc] If one was going to the expense of a 3-foot (1 meter) thick concrete wall, then it would be worthwhile to build the exterior wall structure of the house in this manner. Then surround the house with trees to shade it and provide a wind break. We have a lot of birds around our property, and it is very nice to listen to them and watch them.[/QUOTE] One added suggestion here. Where possible, plant evergreens (softwoods) to the North and West. This will help to block out the winds and snow in the Winter. On the other hand, put the deciduous trees (hardwoods) to the South. In this way you can help to block out direct sunlight in the Summer, while allowing it to come through in Winter. KM
 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads for: YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis Thread Forum Replies Earth 10 Biology 4 Current Events 42