Local Cooling has a great concept. Download and install their power management software to maximize power conservation on your installed Windows XP computers (note: we wish they had Linux and Apple versions too…but Windows is a good start.)

More than 30 billion kilowatt-hours of energy is wasted because many of us simply forget to shut down our computers when we’re not using them. If we could just improve the efficiency of how we use our PCs, the savings in energy costs would be over $3 billion dollars! The CO2 emissions from just 15 computers are equivalent in energy terms to the gas consumption used by one car. Learn More About PC Power Consumption…

It’s free, it creates impact, why not join and contribute to the energy savings?

Little things can add up, and add up quickly. Target stores recently ran a television advertisement that was instructive: If each one of their customers replaced one incandescent lightbulb with a compact fluorescent bulb, it would have the same impact as removing 1,000,000 cars from the road.

As I write this, I’m looking at a package of four Philips Marathon 100 compact fluorescent lightbulbs acquired from Costco for $10 (there was a special program from PG&E that gave an instant rebate to get that price – what a great program.)

Why should you invest in making the change to compact fluorescent? Here is some data to show the benefit of a 23 watt compact fluorescent vs. a standard 100 watt incandescent bulb over the life time of the product.



Reason #1, for each bulb you replace, you’re going to get a $93.25 benefit over the lifetime of the bulb. That’s real, tangible money in your pocket.

Reason #2, for each bulb you replace, you’ll reduce your energy demand by 770 kilowatt hours. Assuming that 50% of that electricity is provided by coal fired plants (as is the case in the US on average,) that will displace 350kg of carbon dioxide emission and 5.8 kg of (SO2 and NOX) per bulb.

Now, walk around your home and count the number of incandescent light bulbs…As a test I counted for one floor of my house, 33 bulbs. The cold hard math on this is that by replacing the 33 incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs it puts $3,077.25 in my pocket, displaces 10,725 kg of carbon dioxide, and displaces 191 kg of SO2 and NOX. Here’s the question, can you afford not to make the change?

Earlier this week, Boeing introduced a prototype “blended wing” aircraft that consumes 30% less fuel than the most fuel efficient aircraft in service today.

Boeing’s X48B Prototype


Reports indicate that the military will first benefit from this advance by 2022 with a commercial variant arriving in 2030. That’s a long way out there, but it’s still interesting to see where things might be headed.

Al Gore can’t win – even when he does win as evidenced by the 2000 US Presidential Election and now the Oscars, he seems to somehow lose in the court of public opinion.

I’m no Al Gore lover, I thought he was the lesser of two evils in the 2000 election (I’m still steamed about Gore “inventing the Internet” and the music ratings advanced by his spousal unit in the 1980s.) The attention given to “An Inconvenient Truth” is annoying, but helpful in raising awareness about climate change.

Now Tennessee Center for Policy Research alleges Gore is an energy pig, reporting the consumption of 221,000 kilowatt hours in the past year. OK, it turns out that it was really 191,000 kilowatt hours (there’s that new math instruction hitting home again,) that the Center didn’t ever contact the utility for the information, and that the Center declines to state their electric power consumption for their executive leadership. Let’s just stipulate that Gore is a rich guy with a big house, 10,000 square feet. He’s got a heated pool, an electric gate, and gas lamps lining his driveway (though I fail to see the electric connection on the latter issue.)

Could he conserve more? Undoubtably. We all could – I suspect the Tennessee Center for Policy Research could as well. What is he doing? He’s paying a premium for “green energy” adding $432/month to his power bill. The house is in the process of solar panel installation. Because Gore is a rich guy with a big house that consumes lots of energy, does that mean climate change is a myth? Does that mean he’s a hypocrite given that he’s offsetting his consumption with available green options?

Rather than spending time and resource attacking an admittedly easy target in Gore, why not actually advance a policy that advocates the replacement of coal powered electric generation with renewables. Nah. That’s boring, no one would blog about it, there wouldn’t be any press releases. That sounds like work…..and there we have it. Work. We’ve all got to conserve as we can (I’d like to see Gore make a little progress on that but people in glass houses….) and work to use the renewable technologies available to start closing the gap now as well as work to improve and invent new technologies to make it happen.

Here’s your challenge Tennessee Center for Policy Research: Advance a policy that solves the problem. When you can do that, even if it’s a stupid policy, you’ll earn some airtime. Until and unless you do that, you’re part of the problem.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Al Gore | Electricity Consumption

The Oil Drum published this long and detailed entry from the Engineer Poet on how to replace our dependence on fossil fuel and get to carbon neutrality using an enhanced biomass system coupled with electricity generation, fuel cells, and battery transport power. If you don’t have time for a long read, are data averse, or have attention deficit, the referenced post might not be for you…

This is an old post by net standards, published at the end of November of last year, but certainly is filled with interesting data. Now I don’t subscribe to the “solve the energy crisis in one fell swoop” approach, but this post did make me think that perhaps more is possible in big hunks than I’ve been allowing. Even so, this is is a grandiose proposal that would require 20 years or more to implement, if it even could be implemented. But the ideas are worth exploring as realizing even 10% of the benefit would make a difference.

The thesis of the post is: “The US can replace our fossil fuel dependence with sustainable fuel and positively impact our carbon footprint – but, not with our current approach, assumptions, or reward system.” The author then goes on to outline at length why our current situation and approach is flawed, current consumption and conversion of energy to work, outlines an improvement using biomass with several outputs including charcoal, ethanol, and electricity, tackles the issue of carbon capture from the atmosphere, then outlines plans for electricity and transportation, and finally ties it all together.

If you’re at all interested in this subject area, this is must-read content. Thanks to Bruce for passing this along.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Biomass | Carbon Capture | Comprehensive Plan