Re: [DarwinsTavern] Future Energy Sources

From: Ellery C.
Sent on: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:43 PM
My research into tankless give me enough skepticism to avoid personally - solid bet is a good well insulated tank - get the cutoff valve shower head to turn off watercolor except for limited time to rinse.  Best thing if you can afford is solar hot water but pricey and impractical - geothermal is pricey but I hear is great - I think solar is getting cheaper but I'm holding out in hopes of better battery technology otherwise you end up still sucking power overnight plenty

I've read that (like it or not) fracking  will make the US a net exporter of fossil fuels by like 2025.  Positive is giving the middle finger to the middle east - negative may be our water is toxic and or explosive :)

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:02 PM, Jenny Brengelman <[address removed]> wrote:

Picking brains: the natural gas issue reminds me  that my husband wanted me to research getting a tankless water heater. I think that is what you call them. Heat at the source. No water tank to heat all day. Has anyone already done some research on them that can point me in a direction to look?

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Aulton Smith <[address removed]> wrote:
I replaced my old incandescants with CFLs when the CFLs 1st came out (as the incandescants burned out, I still have a few left). I'll definitely be replacing the CFLs with LEDs as they burn out. Mercury is a problem, but modern lined landfills help to mitigate that. As a previous poster already said, burning coal releases much more mercury, and don't get me started on natural gas! Fracking is a DISASTER!!!

“Whoever ceases to be a student…has never been a student.”
George Iles

 

Aulton Craig Smith
1730 Cullom Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
(205)[masked]
[address removed]



--- On Tue, 2/26/13, Mario <[address removed]> wrote:

From: Mario <[address removed]>
Subject: Re: [DarwinsTavern] Future Energy Sources
To: [address removed]
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 4:01 PM

I second Jenny's statement.
I also did some research and decided to go with CFL, even with the possibility of mercury sipping into the water supply. The reason I took this route is because there are many other sources of mercury, that needs to be addressed first before we begin with CFL (coal plants emit 33 tons a year contributing to more than half of the mercury pollution). Also I could not afford the LEDs. I change all my lighting on my house to CFLs  which saved me more than 35% of my electricity bill.

In a slightly different topic, I also recycle condensed water from my AC unit to wash my clothes. Which actually saves me some money (not a lot, but some). And have shower heads with atomizers that save water (down to 1.25 gallons/minute).

I think the topic of energy and environment conservation, even if it is a different topic than energy sources, should be taken into consideration, because it is something that anyone can do in some degree regardless the financial circumstances.

Mario
PS: for more information about mercury:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/emissions.htm

--- On Tue, 2/26/13, Jenny Brengelman <[address removed]> wrote:

From: Jenny Brengelman <[address removed]>
Subject: Re: [DarwinsTavern] Future Energy Sources
To: [address removed]
Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013, 11:01 AM

I originally started researching CFLs when trying to decide on what direction to take my home lighting 2 years ago.
The CFLs last a very, very long time (unless you accidentally break one - and if you break one - be sure you have read the package for proper disposal LOL). 
From my research to date, I see repercussions many years from now, in the hazardous waste. 
There are other problems (the heat from the ballasts, degradation of furniture, etc) but to me the mercury getting into the water shed from improper disposal when they finally wear out is a serious health risk.
We are already facing problems with mercury ( ah - I see a great new topic :)
It appears that the current stance is that the packaging provides adequate instructions for "proper" disposal and that by the time the number being disposed annually becomes a concern there "will be" sufficient hazardous waste disposal areas (like people are really going to go to the trouble to use them if they existed!) 
Prevention is a better stance, in my opinion.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Lucinamarie <[address removed]> wrote:
Can you elaborate more on the CFLs? There is now a dizzying array of choices and they appear to use substantially less electricity (though they take a while to reach their brightness). Why are you mistrustful?
(need to program the brain to take shorter showers...) Lucina

On 2/26/[masked]:54 AM, Jenny Brengelman wrote:
Thanks, Jim, for sharing. 
I agree most of us, me included, are in a lifestyle of over consumption. 
After I spent 3 weeks in Ireland in 2009, with concepts like pushing a button to get 3 minutes of water in the shower, I came home with renewed desire to be more conservative. 
If I had my way, my husband and I would sell and get a smaller house, smaller footprint, but he is set against it. In the meantime I've made small changes with the effects now really beginning to show with some significant results. Don't really know that I am making any impact on the world but am on my wallet. The biggest difference is how much lower our gas and electric bills are. 
And, no, I don't trust or use CFLs.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Jim High <[address removed]> wrote:
Hello everyone, I live in Tupelo, MS, but attended Darwin's Tavern once and would all the time except for the two hour drive, but I do like being in on these email threads. I wanted to agree with my friend Tim Cook about our American lifestyle which as he said is the real problem. Tim could have gone on to say that besides being addicted to oil, our economy is owned and controlled by the big oil companies who pay only lip service to alternate sources of energy. 

I live in a small apt. having moved out of my 4,100 sq. ft. family home 12 years ago at age 61. I was the only one left and didn't want or need all that space, nor the acre of yard to mow. I have a small cabin on Pickwick Lake which suits me just fine and I drive my VW Beetle between my two residences. 

Tim is correct that being in a lifestyle of over consumption, causes most not even to see the problem. There is where the discussion needs to be. 

Thanks for letting me chime in. 

Oh, and one more thing. The way out is to decide on the end result first. We can't properly change without knowing the end result that we as a people, or individually for that matter, want. Establishing a well thought out end result, makes getting there much easier. 

Jim High, President 
SPAFER / South Points Assoc. for Exploring Religion 

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Tim Cook <[address removed]> wrote:

Greetings, everyone.

 

I’m a friend of Wade’s and so far I’ve only shown up for a beer in Avondale a few weeks ago. Was particularly interested in the Future Energy Sources discussion and really wanted to show up for that, but unfortunately, I have a conflict Wednesday night and can’t attend, so allow me to make a contribution this way.

 

What I would have tried to say if I were able to attend is that I think the focus on energy sources is great, but it can also be misdirected. All the conventional solutions don’t require any fundamental change to the conventional American way of life, but it seems to me that it’s that way of life that’s the problem. Having lived in countries with lower energy consumption, I am always amazed upon my return to this country how wasteful we are, and how unsatisfying it is to live that way. I’m not talking about recycling or fuel-efficient cars, I’m talking about the lifestyle that requires cars and the generation of stuff to recycle in the first place. Even W came around to saying “America is addicted to oil,” but what we’re really addicted to is energy. From what I’ve seen of the evidence, no combination of solar, wind, switch grass, used French fry oil, or any other fantastical solution could possibly scale up to meet the demand, but even if it could, that doesn’t take away from the fact that we’re in the grip of an addiction. Even if we found a miracle energy source that allows us to continue tearing down, ripping up, and paving over our surroundings so we can push two tons of steel around just to go through our daily routines, do we really need to

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy