Question: Your Energy Lifestyle and Backpacking

I have not driven a car to work in 6 years, ride a bike (recumbent trike) instead. We have 2 cars and four drivers in the house, with the cars being a Toyota and a Subaru. LED bulbs throughout the house. 1800 square foot house, minimal lawn but a lot of flowers and shrubs.

That being said, the Chicago area used to be covered by ice 2 miles thick. It melted, was gone for a long time, then reformed, and melted again. All this was before man had any impact. If climate change happens, I'm glad its warming and not cooling!

The glaciers I saw on the Ptarmigan traverse in the North Cascades of Washington are smaller now than then. I have pictures from 1973 of pretty decent sized glaciers, that now are much smaller.

IMHO, all environmental problems start with too much human population and too much habitat conversion to housing, roads, and agriculture. All proposed fixes don't do anything for population growth.

My personal soapbox: the sooner we run out of oil (in the world) the better. Gas will get more expensive, cars will get smaller, public transportation will get better. When I am elected King (president would not have enough power to do this) gas will never cost less than $4 a gallon. Every city will have its own nuclear power plant. Nevada will host hundreds or thousands of them. Every house will have solar panels. Golf courses will be taxed heavily on water usage. Cooper Minis will be the largest car on the road. But backpackers will be allowed to have a small SUV to get to the trailhead.

"It always amazes me when people who claim to "embrace green-ness" get on an airplance and fly thousands of miles and then rent a car to go backpacking, as if the whole carbon-intensive exercise is permissible because of their otherwise good intentions."

This sounds a bit too much like the purity argument – you can't profess belief in something, advocate for it and criticize others unless you're completely pure in your actions.

I don't buy that. None of us is perfect, there's always something else anyone can do to be more 'pure' in their belief in something. But that doesn't mean you can't speak out on something. I will agree that the more hypocritical you appear to be, the less effective your message will be.

Jerry,
Your data is a bit misleading. It is for new plants entering service in 2016. It is levelized (whatever that means).

1. You are looking at estimates not current reality
2. You numbers include the increased regulatory costs that environmentalist have put into the system that tilt things in green energy's favor.

But whatever. You can go look at tons of other sources that show solar is way up there in costs and wind is only slightly cheaper than nuclear. But there are tradeoffs with all. I am fine with windmills ugly thought they may be. Coupled with natural gas is a good choice. I am not opposed to coal as it is much cleaner now then before and we have a ton of it too.

What I do:

Turn off lights
Use windows
smart thermostats
turn off water when brushing
low flow shower head
pee off the porch
don't bathe

Ok at least one of those isn't true.

I have found that some of the vocal advocates for cutting coal and oil use waste a ton of energy at home. My parents always raised me to be frugal in my use because of the COST to me.

:)

"My personal soapbox: the sooner we run out of oil (in the world) the better. Gas will get more expensive, cars will get smaller, public transportation will get better."

One problem with this is that there's a lot of fossil fuels in the ground – we can make large increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We've only begun.

And there's a time delay from putting the CO2 in the atmosphere to when it affects the climate. Like there's a time delay for the seasons – most sunlight is on June 21, but it doesn't get warmest until end of July. We have little idea what the effect of CO2 is. Like if it warms up some, and the methane hydrates melt and release methane into the atmosphere, that is a much stronger greenhouse gas so it will warm things up even more. It could be 100s or 1000s of years before we see full effect.

It takes a long time to get rid of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Trees and ocean absorption will remove a little, but you have to disolve silicate rocks to get rid of most, which takes 1000s of years. Or make a bunch of plants and cover them with volcanic ash to form fossil fuels like happened millions of years ago, but that also takes a long time.

Bottom line – we are performing a huge science experiment with unknown results. We should at least take easy actions that don't cost very much, like efficiency improvements, use more wind power, switch from coal to natural gas,…

And yeah – duhhhh… – population exacerbates many problems – we should discourage people from having more than 2 kids.

I agree that data isn't perfect

New plants entering service in 2016 probably isn't bad, because we're talking about energy lifestyle choices (which will affect what plants to build)

That data is electricity production, doesn't include transportation

I agree, solar is expensive, doesn't make sense. We should keep working on it though to see if it can become cost effective. Maybe solar thermal where you melt salt, then you store it and use the heat when needed, in the evening, to produce electricity. I wonder if those tax credits make sense – but if we avoid CO2 production there might be enough long term benefit to justify.

I pee on my plants because it fertilizes them – multi-purpose

I have an RV that gets 8 MPG – I bet it's half Nick's SUV

"Turn off lights
Use windows
smart thermostats
turn off water when brushing
low flow shower head
pee off the porch
don't bathe

Ok at least one of those isn't true."

Then I would encourage you to start turning off the water when brushing….

>>"It always amazes me when people who claim to "embrace green-ness" get on an airplance and fly thousands of miles and then rent a car to go backpacking, as if the whole carbon-intensive exercise is permissible because of their otherwise good intentions."

>This sounds a bit too much like the purity argument – you can't profess belief in something, advocate for it and criticize others unless you're completely pure in your actions.

>I don't buy that. None of us is perfect, there's always something else anyone can do to be more 'pure' in their belief in something. But that doesn't mean you can't speak out on something. I will agree that the more hypocritical you appear to be, the less effective your message will be.

+1!
I agree 100% Doug.

+ .75 to Doug's post, why not a full 1 or more, well conservation duh–no one really needs to add or have a full 1 really.

More seriously, i do really agree with Doug's post.

It's a balance thing. An online calculator helps to determine if it's cheaper/more convenient to fly/bus (normally in conjunction with the holidays) vs. take my mid-size 4WD SUV, which I use as a trailhead sleeper in the remote stretches of desert Southwest USA /southern Rockies. Don't forget to include maintenance. Not really energy but driving is just becoming more of a pain, … plus I always worried about something happening to my vehicle while I am away. OTOH driving can give more independence, as I just finished a trip which required a "rally-worthy" 4WD (ironically to get deep access into a severely burned national forest). Depends on the trip. At my abode, sunshading helps to keep temps a little more constant so my new A/C doesn't break down, … seems cheaper so far. Last thing one needs in the US "Sunbelt" is to be on a waiting list for A/C repair or replacement. My obese neighbors couldn't get their A/C replaced for 2 weeks and just vacated due to the misery of 100F heat in a sun-exposed structure. Man, we are talking about a couple 300 pound humans slowly cooking…

Globally speaking, think the economics dictates energy usage the most. Most US metro areas started improving their mass transit when gasoline prices first spiked during the Iraq War, … so for almost 10 years now trains and busses have improved. Even the Greater Dallas Texas area – I can take light rail all the way out to Denton to visit relatives for the holidays if needed. So there are more options but there's better tech on the horizon including privately owned vehicles …

Same with beef. First Texas, now California cattle need to be trucked away from the drought zones to greener pastures but it's not free. Thus the price of beef in the US has skyrocketed. Problem that seems to be solving itself economically (not to mention with new "Ag-gag" laws, how can one be certain of what their beef really is, but I digress …). Still having my once a month rare grass-fed sirloin though (doctors orders, you understand).

Kind of reminds me of a recent mental health commentary = one persons' opinion online will not going to change the course of history. Most do not have the financial resources to buck the emergent trends (i.e. if the price of gasoline …. or "beef" goes up and personal wages do not, eventually those affected need to do something different).

"I will agree that the more hypocritical you appear to be, the less effective your message will be."

To rail against something with religious zeal and encourage others not to do that which you yourself are doing is pure, unalloyed hypocrisy.

Rationalize as you will to make yourself feel better, but the fact remains.

For someone who professes concern about his/her carbon footprint, traveling by air is not one of those dinky, hair-splitting distinctions. We're talking TONS of carbon footprint that negate by a factor of 100 all the piddling things one can do to one's home to reduce carbon emissions.

Of course, leading (and living) by example has always been the hardest thing to do.

– Deleted –

Doug can answer for himself :-)

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-meat-consumer-countries.html

No! Denmark is number 2! I thought we were no. 1!

Top Ten Meat Consumer Countries

Est. Comsumption Per Capita(2000)(KG)

USA 122.3
Denmark 114.8
Spain 113.8
Australia 110.4
New Zealand 106.8
Austria 106.6
Cyprus 106.2
Mongolia 103.7
France 99.9
Canada 99.8

We need more pigs…

Hike locally but the plane is flying in any case. Not like they are going to cancel the flight if I decide to cancel, so that fuel is getting burned regardless. The news reported a pilots shortage may make flying in the US more expensive anyways, but maybe just like most states are approving computer-driven cars, .. maybe they will start flying drone passenger jets in the near future? Who knows what new tech will change the way we get to the TH?

"Rationalize as you will to make yourself feel better, but the fact remains."

Gosh Bob, I didn't realize we were talking about me, since I haven't railed against anything with religious zeal, or did I touch a nerve and therefore cause you to get personal?

"To rail against something with religious zeal and encourage others not to do that which you yourself are doing is pure, unalloyed hypocrisy."

I agree. And I didn't say, anywhere, that it wasn't. My point, which you seem to have missed in your irritation with my disagreement, is that hypocrisy isn't a reason to mandate silence, since we're all hypocrites to one extent or another. And I further said, and you copied, that the more hypocritical you seem to be, the less effective your 'railing' will be. I think we agree on that one. Not sure how I'm rationalizing anything with that statement.

"I've traveled like that to go backpacking, but I'm not a hypocrite about it. I want to see and walk through what is left of the mostly unspoiled natural environment while acknowledging that it simply cannot be done with zero environmental impact, whether I arrive at the trailhead by bicycle or by Boeing 747."

From your other statements, added with this one, I assume you don't, then, advocate for reducing your carbon footprint at all. Nothing wrong with that.

"Of course, leading (and living) by example has always been the hardest thing to do."

We certainly agree on this.

"Bob, that's a matter of opinion. Not a fact."

No, its a fact that my name is Bob. Everything on this board is opinion, so your comment is meaningless.

Bob, i have no idea if that post is 100 % funny or only 50 % funny…

The irony in that animal flesh is touted as having a high carbon footprint, well…most food does. Be it animal or veggie.

If anything, palm oils are worse in many ways than beef. Deforestation, animal killing and shipped half way around the world.

Being pious is easy, but being realistic isn't.

Doug,

I actually don't brush.

But you did make a good point about the purity argument and hypocrisy. But I think you will agree that there are people that are hypocrites or just foolish. They remodel a home with green products…when the greenest option was to keep the laminate counters that were perfectly acceptable. They want to cut carbon emissions but keep the heater/ac on.

I myself try to be efficient, but I see no problem on flying for a trip. We don't have to be perfect, but there are tons of opportunities to be more efficient without actually impacting our lives that much.

Oh sure, plenty of hypocrites to go around. And some outlandishly, ridiculously hypocritical. It's why I don't much care for Al Gore, most (if not all) politicians, most prominent religious 'leaders' and people who rail against lawyers (but are quick to enlist a lawyer's assistance to sue their neighbor for some minor sleight), among others.

Love Sarah's line: Being pious is easy, but being realistic isn't.

That about sums it up! :-)

"are you comparing Nick to Don Quixote?"

No, Nick beat me to it.

> gas will never cost less than $4 a gallon
Many parts of the world, gas is already dearer than that. Try a minimum of $8/gallon.

> Every city will have its own nuclear power plant.
Only 1% of which will fail each year …
They will you know. History shows this, and building to minimum cost by private enterprise ensures it. After all, if the plant fails, you just leave it to the government to pay for the clean-up.

Cheers

"Every city will have its own nuclear power plant."

Why does each city need its own?

Still, there is the little problem of developing nations to consider. Do we have the moral right to tell a few billion people that they can't have electricity because it will kill the planet, and that they're just going to have to stay quietly in their mud huts? I doubt that will work, and what meager sacrifices individuals make here are easily erased by the needs of the teeming masses overseas.

So, what then are we to do? If one believes some of the worst case outcomes from a rise in global temperature (cf. "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas), a concerted global effort will be needed. Certainly a global nuclear conflict might achieve that goal; the right targeting could eliminate much of the surplus population. I'm guessing that's not the preferred option.

Out here on the West Coast of North America we get a decent chunk of power from renewables and hydropower (I guess that's a renewable too, no?). Unfortunately back East it's largely coal. Only a decade ago that meant about 24,000 deaths a year attributable to fine particle pollution, although it's now down to about 7,500/year with better control over emissions. Of course since those deaths are nicely spread out and don't sell newspapers, nobody notices. The irony is unavoidable; Americans endure on an annual basis more deaths than Chernobyl, thanks largely to our fear of radiation.

History is also a bit depressing; we abandoned research into interesting technologies like LFTR because other routes were more suited to weapons development. Fortunately we knew the dangers of designs like the RBMK, wouldn't allow them to be built here, and built containment structures over the reactors we did build. Even so, the end result is fear (fear of the Soviets, fear of radiation) driving us to continue practices that may have already doomed the planet as we know it.

As the old saying goes, one must keep one's enemies closest. Could environmental groups have pushed a regulatory partnership that would ensure a safe nuclear environment? I certainly think so, but an uncompromising fundamentalist approach to environmentalism closed that route. Instead the population and energy demands of developing nations are likely to drive the next nuclear renaissance, with all the safety shortcomings that entails. Even so, perhaps it will be in time to save the planet. I think the race will be very close.

"gas will never cost less than $4 a gallon"

+1 w/Roger Those days are here for years already in Humboldt County.

Low wages, long commutes for some, and the highest fuel prices anywhere are a fantastic combination that stimulates the growing economy.

Seen new led street lights going up.

"we abandoned research into interesting technologies like LFTR…"

Conventional reactors have to have continuous cooling water, even if you turn them off, for at least 10 more years, or they blow up, like in Fukushima. I just don't trust human engineers to get this perfect on 100s of nuclear plants.

New reactors should be designed so they don't need this. I think Pebble Bed Reactors are like this.

Another thing would be to have fast breeder reactors that convert U238 to Plutonium and then burn that. We currently burn only U235 which is only 5% of the Uranium ore and the other 95% is waste.

(I think maybe that's what you just said)

And all the other nuclear waste – filter out and burn all the long lived elements. The remaining waste becomes safe in like 100 years or less, which would be manageable. Don't store it underground where it could leak without noticeing it, store it above ground so we can better keep an eye on it, not to mention it might become commercially useful.

But just building more reactors like we have now – forget about it – risky and creating problems for future generations…

Re: food and carbon footprint, while i wouldn't disagree too much, there is the pollution factor which there is a significant difference between the mass raising of animals and say organically grown plant based foods. Plants don't defecate, urinate, fart, etc and in fact, their waste by products are mostly only good for us and the environment.

That alone could be a good reason to at least cut down consumption of especially factory raised beef, pork, chicken, eggs, dairy, etc if environmental issues are a concern. If one wants more meat etc than is necessary for body survival, either raise your own or go out and hunt same to take the load off the factory farms.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach. As mama use to say, something is better than nothing. I think there is something like 60 billion or so animals slaughtered on average a year and ever increasing… that's a lot of animals solely existing to be food. Then there are a lot of animals raised for dairy purposes. I do partake a little in the latter, mostly goat and sheep for various reasons though if there was a local small dairy farm, i wouldn't be adverse to getting some cow milk for yogurt or butter purposes (neither of which i currently consume much at all of).

Cutting that down might not help climate change a lot, but it will keep our streams, rivers, etc cleaner for an example.

If we make it all about "carbon", we could still pollute ourselves and the environment towards ill health.

Simple fact is that unless something big and outside our control happens to reduce human population (quite possible, some might say probable), otherwise it's only going to go up and up and up, and at some point in the near future, this will become a HUGE problem for everyone unless the majority of people really realize it's important to make certain important changes sooner than later.

And while we can point our fingers at China, India, and other large populous and developing nations and say, what about them, what about them, the US by far still has the highest general consumption to population ratio in the world (in animal foods, in energy, in a lot of important areas). We are the consumption pigs of the world. If a nation like a US doesn't seriously step up and lead by example, i have concerns about how things will go globally in the long term. And yes, i would be willing to go without some for that to happen.