Two Years Later -- "Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Floods and Drought"

Two years ago, on May 24th, I posted the blog "Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Floods and Drought." This blog was posted just after F5 tornadoes cut the cities of Joplin Missouri and Tuscaloosa Alabama in half and destroyed thousands of homes in wide swaths across the Midwest and Southeast causing incredible hardship for many families and billions of dollars of damage. For your referral and convenience, go to http://stittenergy.blogspot.com/2011/05/tornadoes-hurricanes-floods-and-drought.html to read this 2011 blog post.

Since then, the threat of climatic mayhems has not gotten better. The city of Moore Oklahoma just experienced the third severe tornado in 14 years (1999, 2003 and 2013)! And, Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast including New York City and New Jersey shores like never before. Further, last summer was the driest and hottest summer in history with extreme temperatures throughout the country causing unsurpassed drought across the Midwest and South. Because of the extended record-high temperatures and lack of rain, forest fires took thousands of homes, trees and animals and threatened entire cities like Colorado Springs. The added energy on Earth doesn't spread itself out evenly and predictably--instead it tends to clump up and is then released as extreme weather events and conditions.

I again ask the question, "How many tornadoes, hurricanes, extraordinary rain storms, atypical snows or blizzards, drought, fires and floods, must we experience before we all admit that climate change is real and caused by the burning of fossil fuels. And when are we going to break through the fossil fuel denial and greed-driven fossil-fuel lobbies and propaganda to join together in bipartisan cooperation and take aggressive action to increase the ENERGY EFFICIENCY of our lifestyles--cars, trucks, homes, businesses, commercial buildings, appliances, factories, planes, trains--and as individuals, families and as a nation, join forces to GENERATE more CLEAN, ECONOMICAL, RENEWABLE POWER from wind, solar, and geothermal energy?

What do you think? I would like to receive your comments.

 

Orlo Stitt

Order my book at http://www.stittenergy.com/order-holistically-green-homes

 

 

 

 

It's Blowing in the Wind . . . .

It's Blowing in the Wind

Clean Energy in Iowa

 

Recently, my daughter Jennifer McCoy who lives in Des Moines, emailed me a link about what's blowing in the wind in Iowa--yes you guessed it--energy!  Soon, 38% of their energy will be generated by the wind! MidAmerica Energy will install 656 new wind turbines at a cost of $1.9 billion--you may read and see the story by clicking on the following link: 

http://whotv.com/2013/05/08/wind-energy-1-9-billion-expansion-for-midamerican/ 

 

The new turbines will actually reduce utility rates and therefore help rate payers. The projected rate reductions and the image and philosophy of clean generation are also expected to attract new industry to Iowa. The 350' tall turbines will also help the farmers each month. Further, these units are being installed without any subsidies or tax incentives from governments.

 

To be most efficient, however, focus and priority should begin with the design and operation of buildings, cars and trucks, tractors, manufacturing processes and our own lifestyles. I often say in seminars, "If you want to improve the efficiency of a car, one of the first things to do is to make the wheels  as perfectly round as possible." And then I go on to say, "Many of the houses and buildings we are still designing and building have square wheels."  Then, the renewable energy from the wind, solar and the earth will go further . . . .

 

 

 

 

 



“Clean Coal” There is No Such Thing!

Lately, I’ve noticed an increase in TV ads promoting “Clean Coal.” Because I have a background in chemistry and energy efficiency, I know there is no such thing.

Coal is dirty and polluting from beginning to end. Huge diesel-powered machines exhaust black particulates and carbon dioxide as they move tremendous amounts of dirt and rock from mountain tops and deep earthen mines. They extract and load the dusty coal onto rail cars leaving behind mining waste that fills valleys and streams or is turned into mountains of toxic waste. Then hundreds of diesel-powered locomotives haul hundreds of coal-filled cars over thousands of miles of tracks to power plants nationwide.

Power plants produce still more pollution when they combust this high-grade coal to generate the heat that turns turbines to generate electricity. Just how dirty is coal when it’s combusted? Based on carbon combustion stoichiometry, for each ton of anthracite coal burned (83% carbon), approximately three tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) are released into the air [(12 lb. C)+(32 lb. O2) → (44 lb. CO2 or 3.04 lb. CO2 / lb.of coal]. Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

Plus, mercury, arsenic and other toxic heavy metals are released as vapor or as particulates which pollute the air, soil and water wherever they condense or fall.

It is common for a coal generation plant to burn 100 rail cars of coal (115 tons per rail car) every day, generating about 69,000,000 pounds (34,500 tons) of CO2. It is just not practical or economical to compress, bury, sequester or haul away this amount of pollution! And this is only the waste for one coal generation plant – there are thousands of such plants around the world.

On top of that, the entire process of generating and using electricity from coal—from mining to delivering it to your home—is very inefficient. How inefficient depends on how far the coal is hauled, its quality, the efficiency of the power plant, how far electricity travels over high-voltage power lines, and how efficiently it is used by consumers for lights or air conditioning and manufacturing. Estimates suggest the process is from 25 to 40 percent efficient, but when all sources of energy used to generate power from coal are considered – from mining to the lights and comfort of your home -- these numbers are likely exaggerated on the high side.

Why does it matter that ads are promoting Clean Coal? Because it’s a misrepresentation of the characteristics of a product—the basis of false advertising—that misleads the public into thinking burning coal has no damaging effects. Prominent atmospheric scientists and ecologists have confirmed otherwise: increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere are the cause of global warming and climate change on Earth. And because CO2 is chemically stable, it will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

So the next time you hear the words “Clean Coal” broadcast publicly, recognize it for what it is: irresponsible and greedy false advertising whose sponsors should be prosecuted for their crimes.

Energy Improvement Loans

I believe many more home owners would make energy improvements for their home if:
     *  The immediate savings in utility costs were sufficient to pay for most of the principal and interest to repay the loan, and secondly,
     *  They could borrow the funds needed with no money down.

A relatively new loan product, called an “Energy Improvement Loan” could finance energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy installations. Yes, the savings in utility bills would pay for most – maybe all -- of the principal and interest, and the tax credits and applicable utility incentives would go directly to you as the home owner. These loans could be used for a geothermal or new high efficiency heating and air conditioning system; house and duct air sealing, more insulation, new windows, a solar water heater or solar electric generation system that runs your meter backwards! And with a relatively high credit score, a bank may loan you the amount you need with no down payment.

Unlike a car, pickup, boat, or motor home loan, these consumer loans would actually have a positive return on investment (ROI) with immediate positive cash flow. What may be most significant in the future is that the homeowner will lock-in on the increasing tax-free savings for many years to come.

The focused marketing of such loans by banks could be a unique way for them to serve their customers. They would make it possible for their customers to realize utility and energy savings, increased equity or the real estate value of their homes and improve their level of comfort. In addition, these loans would stimulate immediate growth in the local and national economy, and employ a variety of workers.

Also, chances are the best type of people – the ones banks will want to do business with – will be applying for these loans. The related risks for the consumer or the bank will be very low. I believe it would be most effective to market them as “consumer loans” rather than “home equity loans” that require more documentation and an appraisal.

Similar loan and lease programs are now being offered by a few banks, credit unions, utilities and leasing companies in scattered locations around the country.

Please ask your banker or utility company if they offer energy improvement loans. If they do not, ask them why, and then encourage them to begin offering them. I would like to have feedback on what they say, what is being offered, and by whom? I will look forward to reading your comments.

A Personal Lifestyle Choice

Over the past 45 years, I slowly gained weight – lost a little now and then – but the trend was upward. In fact over these years, I added about 57 pounds – didn’t seem bad – just 1.22 pounds per year!

During the past eight months I have completely reversed this gain and have now lost 55 pounds and am diligently working to lose at least two or three more! I am back to the weight that I carried when I played football and was in the Marine Corps!

I was like toting around all the time a fifty-pound bag of cement mix, or three large concrete blocks – no wonder I now have more physical and mental energy! And, my cholesterol has dropped from 197 to 143; my blood pressure is down too, but most importantly my self esteem is up and I look and feel better.

So, how did I do it? I was strongly motivated to just look better, and to “buy some additional good years” in my life. I had tried fad diets like Sugar Busters, and Adkins’ and more exercise, but I soon gained back the relative few pounds I had lost. I did cut out sugar – particularly nearly daily doses of ice cream – but I was looking for a life-style change for greater longevity and healthier happier living.

One of my associates suggested reading the book, The China Study, by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II. I read it cover to cover and have re-read some parts of it. The information in it has made a real difference for me! I have changed my eating simply said, to fibrous vegetables and fruits which contain natural protein and carbohydrates. I do not eat meat or dairy products. I try to exercise daily and walk two to six miles each day. I snack on good foods, but do not now crave sweets.

This is the vegan diet that former President Bill Clinton has practiced since having multiple heart and vascular surgeries and related problems, and as publicized by Sanjay Gupta on CNN Television (http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/18/bill.clinton.diet.vegan/index.html ) .

Interestingly, if people eat more vegetables and less meat, particularly beef, it will have a favorable effect on the environment too.

To quantify my exercise and walking, I wear a FitBit (http://www.fitbit.com/ ) to count or measure my activities. It is somewhat like a pedometer, but the data is electronically synchronized with my computer to keep continuous records – by the day, or month – by the steps, or miles or calories! It is motivating for me to know accurately how I am doing.

I am now confident that I will live longer and enjoy life more!

Justifying Going Green – 3rd of 3 Posts in this Series

This series of three posts are excerpts from my book, Holistically Green Homes, Eighteen Principles for Designing, Building, and Retrofitting Your Energy Efficient Home.

Here’s a quick way to determine how much you can spend on energy efficiency upgrades and still stay within your overall budget. Assume that the energy upgrades will reduce your utility bills by $100 per month. Yes, savings of $100 or $200 for energy-planned homes are realistic, as confirmed by multiple case studies in my book.

Now go to http://www.amortization-calc.com/  and enter the amount you intend to mortgage at today’s rate (today it was 4.5%) and for a length of 30 years. I used a $300,000 mortgage and came up with a $1,520 monthly payment. Next enter $320,000 for your mortgage amount. Your monthly payment comes out to $1,621 – that’s about $100 more per month. So a $20,000 difference in principle equates to about $100 in mortgage payments. That means you can invest $20,000 in energy upgrades, and assuming those upgrades actually reduce your average utility bills by at least $100 per month, you will break even!

If you can save $200 per month, then you can spend $40,000 more for energy upgrades and still break even on monthly payments.

Now remember, unlike utility bills, the interest you pay on your mortgage is currently tax deductible. In effect, your utility bill savings pay for the added principal and interest! Assuming you DO pay federal income taxes, and because interest is tax deductible, the amount you can spend to break even is not just $20,000, but $25,000 -- assuming you are in a 22 to 25% marginal tax bracket.

And remember that the utility bill savings are income tax free – as compared to other investment income that must be reported to the IRS. Further, as electric, gas and water rates increase, families who consume less will benefit more and more as the years pass – locking in on these savings may be the biggest incentive of all!

Justifying Going Green – 2nd of 3 Posts

This series of three posts are excerpts from my book, Holistically Green Homes, Eighteen Principles for Designing, Building, and Retrofitting Your Energy Efficient Home.

I’m often asked, “How much will it cost to build a new home?” Well, that’s like asking how much a cart of groceries will cost. If you fill your cart with baloney, hamburger, bread, and potatoes, it will cost a lot less than if you fill it with lobster tail, exotic fruits, and gourmet coffees. Cost depends on contents

If you have never lived in a truly energy efficient, passive solar home, questioning whether investing the additional money up front for efficiency will be worth it is understandable. So what are the facts? Let’s look at how much you pay every month to live in your home. If you’re like many of us, you have a mortgage that requires monthly payments on principal and interest. Some mortgage companies also require a monthly payment (often escrowed) for insurance and tax payment. Then you have monthly utility or energy bills. I refer to that total as PITIE: Principle, Interest, Taxes, Insurance, and Energy.

Look at these examples: The monthly payment (PITI) for a standard home is $1,298. The PITI payment for an energy efficient home is $1,450 – yes, the energy efficient home is more. Now add in your energy costs (E). The standard home averages $250 a month, and the energy efficient home averages $75. Add your costs together to get your total payments (PITIE), and voila! The energy efficient home costs $23.26 less per month than a standard home of the same size.

Your overall savings are $279.12 per year, and they’re locked in for as long as the house stands. Your energy savings actually allow you to pay more up front for energy saving features, and still have equal or lower monthly bills. In effect, the energy savings offset the higher mortgage payment. As utility and energy prices increase, your savings increase. Plus, you can currently deduct your mortgage interest off your federal taxes to reduce your tax liability. Further, the now and future energy savings are never taxed as income – in contrast to an investment or interest on a cash deposit. What a bonus!

So what’s the rub? Why isn’t everyone taking advantage of these savings? Unfortunately, most bankers and mortgage underwriters consider only the principal, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI) in their mortgage calculations. You can avoid that trap by completing the “Uniform Residential Appraisal Report 1004” (www.efanniemae.com/sf/formsdocs/forms/pdf/sellingtrans/1004.pdf), and shopping for a lender that recognizes the value and accepts the information on this form. To best complete the above form, a pre-construction home energy rating (HERS Index) based on the blueprints should be completed by a certified home energy auditor, and the appraiser should have education and knowledge related to recognizing and documenting energy efficiency in housing.

Simply put, when you build an energy efficient home, you pay more to the bank, less to the utility company, and less in taxes. Plus, you’ve protected yourself against future energy cost increases—a huge savings over time.

And what happens when you sell your home? It is worth more than others because buyers usually ask what the utility bills are before they decide which house to buy. The efficiency of the house may again be documented by a HERS Index. It is all about confirming what is really efficient and green!