|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 16
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: The Solar Imperative, do you agree? |
    |
|
The Solar Imperative
This document is based upon a speech prepared for Earth day 2000 by Dennis Hayes of Sun21. Revised and updated by Walker Architects February 2008.
This is the argument in support of Solar energy and Photo-voltaic rooftop power plant.
The human organism needs to build shelter in order to survive. Human beings survive by manipulating the natural world. Humanity has a long and enduring history of major impacts on their local environments. These impacts have touched every continent and every nation. The Mesopotamian agricultural revolution converted the Fertile Crescent often called “the cradle of civilization” into the desert wastes of Iraq. We have long practiced the flooding of river valleys and the cut and burn conversion of forests into cropland.
We stand today in a new millennium and upon the threshold of great opportunities and greater challenges. We now have the power to communicate globally, build consensus across political boundaries and language barriers. We can now define with increasing accuracy the problems we face currently and in the future on a global scale. We have the power to reshape not just our cities, regions or countries but the entire planet.
There currently exist three related tracks to global disaster running in parallel. They can be defined as; Global Warming, Nuclear proliferation and the Population explosion. The consensus of the global scientific community is that human activity is a significant contribution to a rapidly changing global climate and other environmental changes. To complicate matters we simultaneously have an increasing number of nation states with nuclear weapons. Finally and just as serious we have a significant population explosion of global significance.
Human beings are at the core of global warming caused by greenhouse gasses accumulating in the atmosphere. Human activity of a different nature has inadvertently drilled two holes through the ozone layer. This is a separate effect with different causation from the global warming problem. Human activities of a wide variety have also triggered a catastrophic epidemic of extinctions – conservatively estimated at 25,000 species per year.
There are currently nine nation states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the (NPT) to be "nuclear weapons states". This conveys an internationally recognized status conferred by the NPT and in order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and China.
Since the NPT entered into force in 1970; three states that were not parties to the treaty have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but withdrew in 2003. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this. The status of these nations is not formally recognized by international bodies as none of them are currently parties to the NPT. South Africa has the unique status of a nation which developed nuclear weapons but has since disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT. We have built an arsenal of powerful bombs capable of causing more destruction than an asteroid collision, with more coming.
The human population has expanded beyond the world\'s carrying capacity. We have a global population currently of at least 6.6 BILLION. We have not planned ahead for a population of this size. We anticipate continued rapid increases in the global population and the associated problems.
In short, our species recently has taken on the attributes of a planetary geophysical force.
ENERGY
Few human activities produce a wider range of impacts than our use of energy. Climate change – with its implications for agriculture, disease vectors, collapsing ecosystems, and (in the longer run) the possible collapse of the West Antarctic ice shelf – is an energy- driven phenomenon. So are creating acid rain, urban air pollution, hydroelectric flooding of river valleys, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are in trouble and running out of time.
Two billion people — 70 percent of the population in the developing world — still rely on fuel wood, animal dung, and kerosene for energy. These fuels can have profoundly negative consequences for economic development and the environment. In these 400 million Third World households, noxious fumes from interior fires are a serious health risk.
My here is to sketch the contemporary energy issue in a global context. Others have examined these issues in greater detail and the potential solutions. We need everyone to help. My overview will strive to provide a sense of perspective. My discussion is a bit different because it is a broadband view.
THE REAL ENERGY ISSUE
The world today uses commercial energy at a rate of about 12 Terawatts according to Denis Hayes of Sun21.
DEFINITION: (One Terawatt-Year equals the electrical energy output of about 1 billion tons of High Quality Coal, so each year we use the energy equivalent of about 12 billion tons of coal.)
Notice the term I used: \"commercial energy.\" This consciously excludes much energy that is vital to life and civilization, but is never bought or sold. The hydrological cycle that purifies our water and grows our crops is not counted. The sunlight that drives all photosynthesis is not counted.
If the sun did not shine, your home would be a few hundred degrees below zero when you turn on your furnace. Solar-designed buildings collect and store more of this solar energy than standard buildings, but all buildings get most of their energy from the sun. That is the source of almost all the energy on earth including fossil fuel.
The flow of energy from the sun is so huge that it dwarfs all commercial energy sources. Moreover, it is so dependable that we can take it for granted. The amount of sunlight is not at issue; the only real question is how well we will harness it. Is it economical? The answer is that if not now affordable it definitely had better become very economical very quickly!
ANALYSIS:
This is an analysis of the current design problem. Again, we currently use about 12 terawatts of commercial energy. How much energy will we need in 2050 a half-century from now?
Today, the average American uses energy at a rate of about 12 kilowatts. (That is all commercial energy for all uses by all sectors of the economy, divided by all the people in the country.) (year 2000 data) Comparatively the average Swiss uses about 6 kilowatts.
The important question is; How much will we need in 2050 42 years from now?
I want to be robustly optimistic here so I can defend the analysis. Let us assume that within 42 years, all the buildings in the world have been replaced by new, much more efficient buildings using passive solar design and smart energy-saving devices. I am assuming that the 2030 challenge is totally successful.
Let us assume the transportation systems have been entirely replaced globally by much more efficient new systems, and there is no longer any dependency on gasoline anywhere.
Let us assume that the world's industries are employing new super-efficient technologies that have not yet even been dreamed of, powering businesses as foreign as Microsoft or - abuse alert - would have seemed in 1950.
If we achieve the sort of energy efficiency revolution that will be described in detail by others speakers at this conference, the average person throughout the world could be prosperous, comfortable, and productive a half century from now using about 25 percent as much energy as the average person uses wastefully in the United States today -- or roughly half as much as is used by the average Swiss. These are huge assumptions but there is a point to it.
If we accept these assumptions, and do the math the answer for the year 2050 is 3 kilowatts/person -- worldwide.
We need to look at the population impact on the energy problem. Meanwhile, what is likely to happen to population? Let us continue to be optimistic, and assume that the world's population levels out at 10 billion people. Note: This requires lowering the fertility rate down to replacement values (2.1 children per woman) for the whole world by 2025.
This means overcoming fanatical religious, cultural, nationalistic, and probably racial opposition. However, if we fail to solve the population problem – and in the long run that means reducing the human population to within the long-term carrying capacity of the planet -- we cannot hope to solve the energy problem.
THE MATH
OK, Let\'s do some simple mathematics.
(Population) X (kW/Person Total Terawatts)
10 billion X 3.00
In this scenario, which probably errors on the side of radical optimism on all counts, we will need 30 Terawatts, worldwide 50 years from now.
The question that counts is; Where can we get it?
OIL
About two-thirds of all unrecovered oil is now in the Middle East. There has long been something approaching a consensus that world oil production will peak sometime between 2005 and 2015 and then decline. Oil will be a minor contributor by 2050.
CONVENTIONAL GAS
Similarly, conventional natural gas will be a minor contributor by 2050.
UNCONVENTIONAL GAS
This is a very limited potential. There is a lot of methane stored in unconventional deposits, as \"deep" gas or \"tight" gas or in “geopressurized” brines. Such gas will be neither inexpensive or environmentally clean, and its many problems will probably limit it to a minor role in 2050 as well.
COAL
Although the earth has ample coal for coal to remain a major energy source in 2050 it is very dirty and environmentally damaging, we should not burn it. Let me explain; Thirty terawatts would require the combustion of 30 billion metric tons of coal a year, increasing atmospheric CO2 over today's base by about 3 percent per year -- enough to alarm even those who deny global warming and other climate changes are caused by human activity.
The other issue is that coal is even more unevenly distributed geographically than oil, so a heavy global dependence or a “coal age” would imply political difficulties and balance-of-trade problems for much of the world.
NUCLEAR
There is nowhere near enough Uranium-235 to meet a 30 terawatt demand, so a global nuclear power strategy would require a substantial commitment to breeder reactors the far-more-abundant U-238 into Plutonium-239.
Beyond the safety problems with breeders, they produce fissionable isotopes that can be easily separated by chemical means to make bombs. This much nuclear energy would require enough plutonium to produce several million nuclear bombs per year.
As India and Pakistan have demonstrated, and Iran and North Korea demonstrated recently, nuclear power, sooner or later, leads to nuclear weapons research, testing and possible manufacture & use. A nuclear armed & powered world would be a terrifying world where error or hostility could result in massive loss of life.
HYDROPOWER
Hydropower now yields the thermal equivalent of 0.8 Terawatts. Ultimately, hydropower is unlikely to yield more than 1 to 1.5 Terawatts. We should build additional hydropower plants with great care to safeguard the natural environment.
WIND
We could and should Harness wind at acceptable locations and such energy sources will probably grow to 1 to 1.5 TW -- the same order of magnitude as hydropower.
Incidentally, in 1997, more new wind power capacity was installed around the world than new nuclear capacity. Germany is now the world leader but more will be built in the US.
FUSION
Fusion reactors will not make a significant contribution to a 30-terawatt world energy budget within 50 years -- if ever. Currently this technology is beyond our reach. The first generation will be deuterium-tritium reactors with many of the same problems as conventional light water reactors -- and they are likely to run into the same opposition for the same reasons: radioactive waste plutonium breeding, etc.
Moreover, it is impossible to imagine ways such awesomely complicated devices could be made economically affordable.
SUNLIGHT
We choose to ignore the sun as the potential major source of electrical energy in the future. However, in 2050 commercial solar energy will almost certainly be our brightest energy source. There exists right now a solar imperative embodied in the basic logic of the design problem.
26,000 TW of sunlight falls on land. If we convert 1/2 of only one percent of that at 20 percent efficiency, we can harness 26 TW -- almost enough to meet our optimistic projections.
It is the only source available likely to be able to make a contribution of this magnitude.
Solar energy can be harnessed in many ways. I need to say a few words about what I consider the most promising solar prospect – a technology to which I have devoted much of my research and design effort as an architect: solar photovoltaic cells.
Solar cells are an astonishingly attractive energy source. They consume no fuel; produce no pollution; generate no radioactive waste or bomb-grade materials; have long lifetimes; have no moving parts to break; require little maintenance; and produce zero carbon dioxide – the principle greenhouse gas.
But solar cells are expensive. How do we make them affordable soon enough to complete such a massive, global transition within 50 years?
The model to follow is that of the integrated circuit.
In 1961, a company named Texas Instruments began producing integrated circuits for very small, specialized applications. The private sector heaped scorn on those early efforts. Referring to an early integrated circuit, a director of Philips Electronics commented, "This thing only replaces two transistors and three resistors and costs $100. That is just crazy!"
But the American military recognized the potential importance of small, lightweight, low-power integrated circuits. It proceeded to purchase them in such quantities that the price fell dramatically. From $50 dollars a unit in 1962 to $2.33 a unit in 1968.
By 1971, The year I graduated from high school, a substantial commercial market had been built for microelectronics; Intel introduced the first central processing unit; and the personal computer revolution was born. I watched this amazing transformation take place, and it can happen again.
Today, millions of people have more computational power sitting on their desks than NASA had available for the entire space program in the 1960s. This was possible only because the government purchased truckloads of expensive integrated circuits in the 1960s until economies of mass production began to drive their costs down.
The same basic strategy -- government and private sector procurement pulling the prices down the learning curve -- would work for solar cells (which coincidentally are made of the same semiconductor materials as computer chips).
A well-designed program to spend $8 billion on cost-effective solar cells over the next presidential term could make solar cells commercially viable for a significant fraction of all new electrical applications worldwide. Every US military base globally should retrofit for photovoltaic back-up electrical power generation. Every federal facility in the US should meet the same standard and operate on 100% renewable energy. This is a critical strategic advantage which we must acquire and the cornerstone of an enduring military capacity to defend democracy.
For pocket change – literally $1 per person on Earth – we could fundamentally alter the human prospect.
The world's governments should commit to buy $1 billion worth in 2009 at $3/watt or less; $1.5 billion worth in 2010 at $2/watt or less; $1.5 billion worth in 2011 at $1.50/watt or less; and $2 billion worth in 2012 at $1.00/watt or less.
Such a program would do for solar cells what Defense Department procurement did for integrated circuits. We are running out of time. We need a design solution. We must transform the American city into the sustainable city of tomorrow. Now is the time to empower solar rooftop power plant nationwide. We must drive the implementation cost down. I urge the AIA to support a bill to the congress of the United States to build the technological bridge to a sustainable future.
When large-scale purchases lower the price of a product, the change is permanent. Unlike tax credits and other legislated loopholes, economies of mass production cannot be repealed. We need an enduring change.
Part of the beauty of this "computer chip" solar strategy is that, after a few years, no additional government action would be needed. We have constructed a new industry around the capacity of the integrated computer chip and our technology is transforming the world.
But this initial governmental action will require a vast outpouring of intense public support. The oil energy industry is fiercely competitive and incredibly powerful.
Twenty Eight years ago, conventional fuel companies successfully crushed government programs that were aimed at dramatically accelerating the solar transition. Ten years ago in a talk with an oil industry trade association, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate dismissed solar energy as the "hippie energy source." Now we must overcome this opposition because there is a clear solar imperative.
ELECTION DAY
One important instrument could be Election day. The presidential debates will focus on a variety of global issues – and energy must be included among the most vital and critical imperatives of the new administration.
The election campaign of both parties must empower positive change, must advocate and deliver a new energy policy for Americans. Built environment must be transformed to meet the zero carbon challenge and with it we must replace fossil fuel energy sources with photovoltaic power plan with-in the next ten years.
Let us work together to make election day 2008 the largest event in history to change the course of this nations destiny and to demand that this millennium be a true turning point in our stewardship of the Earth.
We would be gratified if Western Europe were to make a similar commitment to create a balanced, healthy, sustainable future.
If you are interested, get out a pen, write your congressman and the candidates of choice. Take action.
CONCLUSION
The world is entering a time of unparalleled opportunity. The East-West conflict that shaped and defined the last half-century is now over. It is possible now to dare to dream of replacing the Cold War with a Golden Age. It is time to design a new future.
One can envision an attractive world in which:
- all energy is derived from renewable sources powered directly or indirectly by the sun;
- the recycling of basic metals approaches 100 percent;
- paper is routinely recycled several times before being consumed as fuel;
- a stable human population eats healthy, low-meat diets that are within the biological carrying capacity of the planet;
- information-dense, super-efficient, pollution-free technologies guide commerce, transportation, and residential living;
That is not the direction we currently are heading. But Election The future of the city belongs to us. We are the change agents who can usher a sustainable Solar Age into a global reality.
The only prayer that can change the world is what we do every day.
ELECT YOURSELF! ACT LOCALLY - ACT GLOBALLY.
TLW
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JWmHarmon
Joined: 15 Apr 2004
Posts: 105
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: Is your vision solar or is it more than that? |
|
|
Questions:
Why do we use so much energy? Suppose we stated a goal of decreasing energy usage by increasing the efficiency of all of our energy consuming devices. Example: My refrigerator compressor is running. It’s 32 degrees Fahrenheit (Zero degrees Celsius) outside. Why can’t we use the low outside temperature to cool the contents of my refrigerator? Why can we not invent a computerized refrigerator that uses that cold outside air temperature instead of using energy to run the compressor? Increase the efficiency and you decrease the need for energy.
Why do we use so much energy? Why must a house be heated and air conditioned in its entirety, when most of one’s time is spent in very limited areas of the house? Why not adopt some of Sarah Susanka’s ideas for the “not so big house.” http://www.susanka.com/ Suppose we applied these principles to ALL buildings. How much energy would not be needed?
Why do we not recycle EVERYTHING? Why limit the recycling effort to metals? What would happen if we set a goal to change the way we use materials? What if we set a goal to require that all goods manufactured must be designed in such a way as to assure that all of the component parts would be recycled? Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Tell me your vision of how we would accomplish this.
Why are we still using paper? If we didn’t use paper we would not have to recycle it, would we? I didn’t write this message on paper (although I have used a considerable amount of energy to send it out over the Internet).
What would happen if we had to consider the lifetime energy use of our buildings and state that as the purchase price? This cost would include the energy used to produce the materials used for constructing the building, the energy used to maintain the building, the energy used to heat and cool the building, and the energy to recycle all of the materials when the building has reached the end of its useful life in five hundred or a thousand years. (Oh, come on now, you didn’t expect me to think of building a structure that only lasts for 50-75 years, did you?)
All of these costs combined equal the actual cost of the building. Suppose we put some of the cost to heat and cool the building over its lifetime into better insulation or better design to take advantage of the solar heat gain when desired and to avoid that same heat gain when it is undesirable. We could save future expenditures for energy consumption if we designed our buildings up front to require less energy usage.
What would happen if we miniaturized and localized all manufacturing to eliminate excessive use of energy for transportation? Example: Why should my aluminum cans be sent miles away to be recycled? Why can’t we build an efficient aluminum can recycling machine that also heats my house while at the same time generating electricity for my house?
What would happen if we used super-efficient, highly insulating, foamed terra cotta gathered directly from the building site to make an inner and an outer wall for my house with rammed earth in between? The two walls and rammed earth would create the same effect as earth-sheltering. (I haven’t invented foamed terra cotta yet, but all you engineers out there can start working on the idea and make your fortune.)
Who is going to ask the philosophical questions about why we do things the way we do? Who will ask whether we SHOULD be doing them? Who will ask, “How must we change what we are doing?”
I live in a climate that has freezing temperatures at night and sometimes during the day for three or four month out of the year. Why have I not invented an automatic freezer unit that lets the air temperature freeze water all winter. This ice could be placed in a storage unit connected to my house, not unlike the ice houses of the 19th century? The stored ice could then be used to cool my house in the summer months when the temperatures soar above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius)? Even the termites use the cool air from underground to cool their mounds in the desert climate. Are we not smarter than termites?
I have read that the late R. Buckminster Fuller once asked the late Frank Lloyd Wright how much one of Wright’s houses weighed. Mr. Fuller was interested in the efficient use of materials. Mr. Wright thought the question was irrelevant.
In 2008, we are just beginning to catch up with Mr. Fuller’s ideas from the mid-1900’s about efficient use of resources when we ask about decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and increasing our reliance on solar power. Perhaps we should be paraphrasing Fuller by asking every time, “How much energy does that use throughout its life-cycle?” We could also ask, “Is that the best we can do?”
Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy was quoted as often saying, "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."
You might want to take a look at Edward Kennedy’s eulogy to his assassinated older brother Robert to see Robert’s vision that should ring true to a younger generation today. If you are short on time skip down to the sixth or seventh paragraph. Part of the eulogy is quoted below.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ekennedytributetorfk.html
“The answer is to rely on youth -- not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease…”
“this generation… has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived. Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man.”
If he were speaking today, he would probably say from a single man or a single woman. (a single person?)
So to get back to the topic, should we convert to a solar world? Or should we look even further to a re-examination of how we use energy and how we should use it more efficiently?
What will you do to create the vision you see before you?
_________________
When building or manufacturing always ask, "How will we recycle that?" - JWmHarmon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
JWm,
If I smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day, and cut my habit
to 1 1/2 packs a day, it would help but the habit would
still most likely kill me. While I agree with your point
about using energy more efficiently, it will not solve the
problem by any means. We need to eliminate the fossil
fuel habit and solar energy production is the only
viable alternative. We need a Marshall Plan for solar power.
If the government supported and subsidized the solar power
industry the way it supported the auto industry by building
roads and highways early in the 20th century, the problem
would be solved. We can make positive impacts as individuals
but the governments of the world will need to act if significant
change is to occur before it's too late.
TLW is right, solar is the answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 954
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably termites are far smarter than humans  at least termites remember to live within their means. And still use very basic techniques to maintain a comfortable environment in the most inhospitable of climates.
Termite School anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just thought I would mention that plants have perfected solar exchange of energy. I use solar energy to heat my shop. Wood. I'm betting we're a thousand years away from photosythesis. How much energy does a good shade tree save?
I'm all for smart energy thinking but, I doubt that solar is the way to go. We're so far away from the sun. The earth itself is the best and biggest solar collector. Live under the canopy, let the plants do the work. and more forest are destroyed while typing this and more people are born.
Gimmy an N, gimmy a U, gimmy a C..... What does it spell? energy for the next thousand years, if we last that long. What's wrong with splitting atoms? The sun gets it's energy from splitting atoms and putting them back together.
_________________
The definition of architect is "Master Builder".
I am a builder and there are no masters.
"I'm not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts"
Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Solar panels have the ability to provide all the clean electricity we need to power our homes and businesses in a very environmentally responsible way.
What is the major problem with solar?
Currently, solar is not cost competitive with grid produced electricity created by burning fossil fuels.
This cost imbalance could be addressed by mass production of the panels and government support of the industry.
Nuclear and fossil burning electricity production all have major drawbacks, primarily safety issues and pollution.
I have never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I just don't get it when I hear someone say solar is not the answer.
It is also clear to me that there are forces in this world that do not want to see clean solar energy production gain traction, but we as individuals, should not be one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1301
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
there is the cradle to cradle movement also:
http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
No doubt we will have to cut back on consumption regardless of global warming. We will in fact run out of oil in this century. The population will increase.
I agree with DJ we put far to much hope on gimmicky future technology to allow us to have our comforts with no cost to the environment. Although burning wood is a very poor solution at the scale it would need to be consumed. We don't need to recycle aluminum cans and plastic bottles we need to stop using them.
Solar cells do consume electricity and produce pollution. Alaska has a huge battery backup system to supply Fairbanks in case of a power outage -it can run for 15 minutes.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: Answers to Questions |
|
|
JWmHarmon Questions:
Why do we use so much energy?
WalkerARCHITECTS in Italics “The point is that we do. We use too much. In our assumptions we include all of your conservation suggestions. The suggestions are all in our reduction of each 12 kw currently consumed by Americans down to 3 kw. We eliminate in our initial assumptions 2/3 of the proportion of the energy currently used in America.”
Suppose we stated a goal of decreasing energy usage by increasing the efficiency of all of our energy consuming devices. Example: My refrigerator compressor is running. It’s 32 degrees Fahrenheit (Zero degrees Celsius) outside. Why can’t we use the low outside temperature to cool the contents of my refrigerator? Why can we not invent a computerized refrigerator that uses that cold outside air temperature instead of using energy to run the compressor? Increase the efficiency and you decrease the need for energy.
“ We are two generations away from a predictable climate and population crisis with nuclear weapons more widely proliferated than ever before. If we do the best we can do; to get built environment under control and reduce the associated greenhouse gases, in 2050 we will still have 10 billion people on earth, we still will not have enough resources and that includes energy.”
Why do we use so much energy? Why must a house be heated and air conditioned in its entirety, when most of one’s time is spent in very limited areas of the house?
“ We assume all new houses are passively heated and cooled and we still do not have enough energy”
Why not adopt some of Sarah Susanka’s ideas for the “not so big house.” http://www.susanka.com/ Suppose we applied these principles to ALL buildings. How much energy would not be needed?
“Efficiency is practical wisdom applied. Of course we have to do that. We assumed that we would build prudently and at appropriate scales and with better technology. It still will still not be enough. The existing cities will still be here and they are designed to consume petroleum at the maximum possible rate as if we would never run out of it.”
Why do we not recycle EVERYTHING? Why limit the recycling effort to metals? What would happen if we set a goal to change the way we use materials? What if we set a goal to require that all goods manufactured must be designed in such a way as to assure that all of the component parts would be recycled? Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Tell me your vision of how we would accomplish this.
“We will, as we always have, up to the 20th century, build on top of the ruins and with the rubble of the past. We advocate and assume that we will recycle everything, we would re-suse everything, that we possible could, and we know that it will take too much time to implement the changes needed, we know that it will still not be enough to deal with almost double the existing population. Such population is not sustainable it is beyond the resource capacity of the planet. Of course we advocate that every measure to stop designed obsolescence be engaged. We advocate & promote low energy embodied manufacturing and product and promote solar generated electrical power to be immediately deployed as robustly as possible by industry as the core component of rooftop power plant. It is our ambition to force migration of industry at large to "green" renewable and sustainable power. We will change and improve processes & move forward, in general as the consequence of computer capacity and new numerical machinery, from large scale centrally located dedicated manufacturing to small scale flexible cottage industry at human scales” “This is part of the solution but unfortunately given the magnitude of the problem conservation and design quality is simply not enough”.
Why are we still using paper? If we didn’t use paper we would not have to recycle it, would we? I didn’t write this message on paper (although I have used a considerable amount of energy to send it out over the Internet).
“I raised this point with Bill Gates way back in the mid 1970’s before he left for Harvard among other points of discussion. Read his book “Business at the Speed of Thought” We are all working on the idea of the paperless office. It is one of the objectives of the information age. The barrier is driven mostly by the fact that our system of constraints, “legal system”, “business system” etc., needs unique artifact to establish and archive records.”
What would happen if we had to consider the lifetime energy use of our buildings and state that as the purchase price?
“The cost of building construction is legally a separate element from the operation of the building It is very difficult as a practical matter to change the nature of “real property” in our civilization. We cannot know the actual operational life of the building at point of sale.”
This cost would include the energy used to produce the materials used for constructing the building, the energy used to maintain the building, the energy used to heat and cool the building, and the energy to recycle all of the materials when the building has reached the end of its useful life in five hundred or a thousand years. (Oh, come on now, you didn’t expect me to think of building a structure that only lasts for 50-75 years, did you?)
“I agree regarding extending the life of buildings, the managing of life cycle operational costs and reusing material is already included in our assumptions.”
All of these costs combined equal the actual cost of the building. Suppose we put some of the cost to heat and cool the building over its lifetime into better insulation or better design to take advantage of the solar heat gain when desired and to avoid that same heat gain when it is undesirable. We could save future expenditures for energy consumption if we designed our buildings up front to require less energy usage.
“We agree”
“The bulk of our cities are built on speculation in a competitive market which is the “system of constraints” in our civilization that holds architects and engineers within fixed limits regarding building quality. The problem of course is that such buildings as you propose must be actionable within the economic constraints of the civilization.”
What would happen if we miniaturized and localized all manufacturing to eliminate excessive use of energy for transportation? Example: Why should my aluminum cans be sent miles away to be recycled? Why can’t we build an efficient aluminum can recycling machine that also heats my house while at the same time generating electricity for my house?
“We assume a migration to cottage industry sooner is better than later”
What would happen if we used super-efficient, highly insulating, foamed terra cotta gathered directly from the building site to make an inner and an outer wall for my house with rammed earth in between? The two walls and rammed earth would create the same effect as earth-sheltering. (I haven’t invented foamed terra cotta yet, but all you engineers out there can start working on the idea and make your fortune.)
Who is going to ask the philosophical questions about why we do things the way we do? Who will ask whether we SHOULD be doing them? Who will ask, “How must we change what we are doing?”
“We are asking questions every day; It is time for you to join in and support the Solar Imperative. We need our captains of industry to speak up on this issue and express concern over the nations energy policy. Let us demand an answer to the energy policy issue from our presidential and congressional candidates.
I live in a climate that has freezing temperatures at night and sometimes during the day for three or four month out of the year. Why have I not invented an automatic freezer unit that lets the air temperature freeze water all winter. This ice could be placed in a storage unit connected to my house, not unlike the ice houses of the 19th century? The stored ice could then be used to cool my house in the summer months when the temperatures soar above 90 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius)? Even the termites use the cool air from underground to cool their mounds in the desert climate. Are we not smarter than termites?
“If Termites could use tools and manipulate physical reality to optimize their survival by social adaptation to their environments like Man they would have had ownership of this problem instead of us. We got into this mess by virtue of our capacities and genius at changing something in the natural world into something useful to our collective survival pattern.”
I have read that the late R. Buckminster Fuller once asked the late Frank Lloyd Wright how much one of Wright’s houses weighed. Mr. Fuller was interested in the efficient use of materials. Mr. Wright thought the question was irrelevant.
“I know the story; Mr. Wright was largely correct in his time and place and Mr. Fuller was ahead of his time.”
In 2008, we are just beginning to catch up with Mr. Fuller’s ideas from the mid-1900’s about efficient use of resources when we ask about decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and increasing our reliance on solar power. Perhaps we should be paraphrasing Fuller by asking every time, “How much energy does that use throughout its life-cycle?” We could also ask, “Is that the best we can do?”
“We all, as architects and designers, already know what we must do, that is what makes it an imperative, what we need to do, must do, is work the system to accomplish it.”
Robert Kennedy, the younger brother of President John F. Kennedy was quoted as often saying, "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not." You might want to take a look at Edward Kennedy’s eulogy to his assassinated older brother Robert to see Robert’s vision that should ring true to a younger generation today. If you are short on time skip down to the sixth or seventh paragraph. Part of the eulogy is quoted below.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ekennedytributetorfk.html
“The answer is to rely on youth -- not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease…”
“this generation… has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived. Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man.”
If he were speaking today, he would probably say from a single man or a single woman. (a single person?)
So to get back to the topic, should we convert to a solar world? Or should we look even further to a re-examination of how we use energy and how we should use it more efficiently?
“We assume that we do both, exactly that, nothing less than that, or there will still not be enough to overcome the burdens we have created for humanity to bear, unless we start now eliminate waste and compensate for deficiency, rebuild the infrastructure and embrace the Solar Imperative.”
What will you do to create the vision you see before you?
“We need to harness government to drive the cost of Photo-voltaic cells down. We need to back-up every single military base with photo-voltaic power generation and other renewable sources of energy. This is a strategic imperative to offset the threat of oil embargoes and inevitable shortages. We need legislation to create a legal environment that empowers and promotes energy technology and conservation of energy. We need to meet the Architecture 2030 challenge targets or exceed them. We will seek out support everywhere to start with and build the prototype on the rooftop of a US city.” TLW
_________________
When building or manufacturing always ask, "How will we recycle that?" - JWmHarmon
Thanks for you questions! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | there is the cradle to cradle movement also:
http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
No doubt we will have to cut back on consumption regardless of global warming. We will in fact run out of oil in this century. The population will increase.
I agree with DJ we put far to much hope on gimmicky future technology to allow us to have our comforts with no cost to the environment. Although burning wood is a very poor solution at the scale it would need to be consumed. We don't need to recycle aluminum cans and plastic bottles we need to stop using them.
Solar cells do consume electricity and produce pollution. Alaska has a huge battery backup system to supply Fairbanks in case of a power outage -it can run for 15 minutes. |
I just want to party like it's 1999. The truth about the real situation we have dealt ourselves, is sad. It's tough staying positive.
_________________
The definition of architect is "Master Builder".
I am a builder and there are no masters.
"I'm not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts"
Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
modjohn
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Location: Kansas, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess the real question is are we smart enough to realize that what we are doing today is poisoning the only place we have to live or are we willing to make some sacrifices to reduce how we are polluting the earth and ensure our survival? Sorry, I think most people are not so smart and not willing to give up any part of their lifestyle.
I recently read an article that said we had increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 part per million (ppm) over the past 150 years. The current concentration was around 350 ppm. It also speculated that the tipping point for the earth’s climate was around 450 to 500 ppm of CO2. Beyond that, there would be a drastic increase in temperature. In order to avoid this possibility, humans would need to reduce CO2 emissions by half over the next 25 years. I do not think that will ever happen. I personally think we will continue to pour more CO2 into the atmosphere until it is really to late. I will probably be dead before things go to hell, but I am really concerned for my kids and their kids.
I know this is all very pessimistic, but I just do not believe we are smart enough to save ourselves. Get ready to move underground! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not so fast modjohn. Remember, our world, for good or bad, is driven by economics. If I can build you a better mousetrap, and it will save more of the almightly dollar, people will change their greedy little habits. A cheap, mass produced solar panel that will beat the cost of grid produced electricity would change the world. The only real questions are not if but when and will it be soon enough to make an impact before we pass the point of no return.
I'm not crawling underground like vermin, we can at least go down with a fight. To do anything less would be absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1301
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I do agree with the solar imperative though. The government needs to spend more on solar energy and stop wasting money on stupid stuff like the war and border fences. Germany has a very robust solar initiative. I don't think we will see a big drop in cost though. Solar cells costs have already dropped for the same reasons microchips are so much less expensive, now the only savings available is in manufacturing scale savings.
It seems like we might be better off converting to DC instead of having to use power inverters. I looked at what it would cost to become a zero energy home -about 100k at my current usage.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Chris,
that's the spirit, never give up the ship. 
I'm working on a ZEH now and it is a challenge to keep the costs
under control but I will complete it just the same. The importance
of doing it is to show the general public that the technology works.
It is a slow process for this type of construction to gain traction,
but I see no other alternative.
The solar panels will be grid connected with no battery backup.
The meter will spin in reverse during the day and forward mostly in the evening.
Warm water for central heat will be supplied to the radiant floor system by evacuated tube solar panels. As you know,
the walls will be 11 inches thick and insulated with cellulose or cotton insulation. There will be numerous
other design and technology features to complete the picture.
All these smaller pieces of the puzzle will hopefully fit together to
create the desired outcome. Will the project be totally zeh?.....
probably not, but close would be an accomplishment.
Higher costs for alternative energy technologies is an issue,
but we need to start somewhere with the hope of changing
our future, however pessimistic that future might look right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1301
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Main Solar house is a good example of passive and active solar systems for (close to) your climate zone.
http://www.solarhouse.com
Have you started it yet?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
modjohn
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Location: Kansas, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I totally agree that we need to heavily invest in cleaner forms of energy like solar and wind power. The current government in the US is doing a horrible job of encouraging growth in these areas by individuals and corporations. What can you expect from oil men! I am hopeful that whoever replaces them will move us in the right direction.
As great as solar and wind power are, they will not supply the continuous source of power that we require to run our society. It needs to have a backup system that can be brought on line very quickly when needed. You cannot do this with coal because coal fired power plants must run at temperature continuously. Natural gas and nuclear power plants can be ramped up and down quickly.
How many coal fired power plants are under construction or proposed in the US currently? Here is a disheartening statistic. It takes 300,000 trees their entire lives to absorb the amount of CO2 expelled by a single 500 mega watt coal fired power plant in a week. It would seem that we should completely halt the construction of coal fired power plants. I realize this would put us into an energy crunch and cause an increase in electricity prices, but, impacting peoples wallets is a great way to change their behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
