Time for a reality check regarding "Green"Construction and development.

I ask for definition of Green as a quantifiable engineering term.

For example, one can use steel studs for studwall, and claim they are Green as they are recycled steel from the remelt of old cars and appliances. Yet somewhere there is a big heap of slag and air quality issues...THe electricity for the electric furnace came from combustion of coal most likely. So just where does one draw the line of "impact?(hint, one can't!)

Yet the same stud can be made of lumber, and even when cut from planted forests as opposed to old growth natural forests, the no more birdies folks will b*tch about the clear cuts, the fumes from the saws, the erosion of the hillsides, etc. etc. yet this is actually a carbon sink... (Until the house burns down!) And of course, there is still electricity to power saw mills etc, again most likely coal, but not necessarily, as there is plenty of hydro in the northwest...

Not to mention transportation of both.

So dear colleague(s), what is Green? Chopping down trees or recycling scrap automobiles?

What is the environmental determinant between two relatively simple choices- steel or wood framing?

I will work on this from the standpoint of developing/ proposing a green equation which characterizes the amount of inputs of materials, energy, and their apparent impact, but i'm not thinking this will be as simple as algebra I.

Probably not what you had in mind tmf, but I like the topic.

milo

Good afternoon Milo,

Actually we are not far apart regarding what I had in mind. I had a light gage steel building distributorship for about six years. I sold and constructed a Baptist Church for some folks who could never have afforded such a building with their available funds, through any other method of construction. So far it has endured several Hurricanes with out so much as a scratch on the paint. These metal studs and truss framing materials were "as you stated, mfg. from salvaged materials."

As for a determining line of "go or no go", or as one might like to say, "green or not green," we as owners, builders, scientists and engineers, and lets not leave out the timber producers, and architects must all attempt to provide a reasonable explanation as to why their products and ideas should qualify as green produced materials and methods of production.

This might become a rather interesting subject and is likely to wander through out many folks concepts of just what constitutes,

"Green vs Green".

I gave you a GA, cause you deserved it!

TooMuchFun

On a previous thread we had participation from folks that were promoting / sort of whole building "netted concept" and another that is promoting the use of foam building blocks substituting for cell filled concrete blocks . One is intended to add strength to the structure and the second one makes wonderful claims regarding the ease of construction and insulation qualities. I have seen videos of folks making bricks from mud and straw, constructing homes from glass bottles, bails of hay, ungraded local sawmill lumber and constructing homes from structures covered by sand and earth. The primary cost of a building is always a huge concern, but eventually the time will come to sell this dream. The first issue that surfaces with the Realtor is "how do we appraise this building for an estimated value when no comparisons exist.

I am certain that there will be many ideas brought to the table as it seems that every quadrant of the nation has their best ideas regarding what may or may not be GREEN, unfortunately these ideas can harbor deadly un recognized results.

TMF

defining "Green" from an engineering perspective should include

1. expected life span. A product that isn't long-lasting isn't "Green": investment of material/energy cost has to be weighed over time lasted, compare with replacement cost for less lasting alternatives. Recycled material - including metal - is a saving in environmental costs that everybody understands.

2. durability, as in resilience to extreme conditions. If (as appears to be the case) we are in or entering a time of more frequent extreme weather events, the ability of a product (such as a home) to withstand extremes is a feature that has to be considered "Green", since it ensures that expected 'life span' of the product is realized/maximized.

3. contribution to energy efficiency: the "greener" material choice minimizes heating/cooling budget of the building during its lifespan. For example, consider blown cellulose insulation. Cellulose is billed as "green" because the material is natural/renewable (even made from recycled paper sometimes). Unfortunately it settles inside the framing and leaves uninsulated gaps that are very energy costly over the longer term. not-so-green-afterall.

4. one thing that can never be "Greened" is the use of building materials that degas or leach noxious chemicals or particles into the soil, groundwater, and interior of the building. "Greener" materials can be natural or manmade: as long as they are demonstrated not to pose a health hazard to the occupants/users of the building and the local environment. There's a lot of room for innovation and product development in the chemical/material side of building, to discover/rediscover the proper and effective uses of natural-source and manmade products that are health safe and effective as paints, preservatives, glues, and sealants.

Good afternoon artsmith!

You made some interesting points regarding, life span of materials vs replacement costs for less lasting alternatives/recycled/energy savings, etc.

Then you move on to durability of materials facing challenging and extreme conditions.

Next you comment about efficiencies and offer as an example, cellulose insulation, and the issue of it settling.

Last but not least, you offer up the effects of some chemicals on survivability, that is, the possible adverse effects of some chemicals on the human body.

All are good points and are at least some of the things that I think should have numerical values. I don't want to put words into Milo's mouth, but some how I think that he would agree with this idea. I believe that definitive values should be attached to everything that is claimed to be "green".

Maybe 1 thru 10 positive with 10 being superior and then negative 1 thru 10 with -10 being the least value. The positive points would of course include costs, performance, durability, ability to satisfy a recognized need, when compared to other options and alternative materials and equipment and anything else that might contribute a positive spin regarding a product, energy source or significant value etc.

Negative points would include high cost of production, difficulties in transporting, inability to satisfy multiple needs, short usable life span, inconvenience regarding use as is vs modification to upgrade, disposal after being used up vs recyclability, etc.

Others may have different suggestions, but for the time being I am visioning a sort of double entry balance sheet, with all applicable information being listed right down the center and numerical values in columns on each side. In this way simple math would indicate weather or not a product, or method of production of a product, vs waste, vs energy used in production, vs fuel used to create said energy and so on would all be a part of establishing a realistic value for the term "green".

TooMuchFun

hi Toomuchfun

If you evaluate your product alternatives with a system such as you propose, you should have no problem with customers looking for "green" choices. just show em the ledger.

The 'definitive values' will have to be flexible (as in subject to re-evaluation) because the alternatives and also the context keeps changing. Think about the corn-ethanol fuel fiasco. It was an attempt to be "greener" but ended up creating a host of unanticipated environmental and social problems because of the scale and the way it was done.

Good morning artsmith,

Your observation regarding continued evaluation vs re evaluation is a good point. However listening to the folks that can be adversely impacted by the executive orders mandated by congress, such as the corn to ethanol debacle is a darned good example of where good intentions can and often do go wrong. Just as we as a nation are mandated to have oil reserves for national security, we have grain elevators that are filled with corn to get us through an unforeseen period of crisis. However the corn cannot be stored indefinitely and must be cycled into animal feed when it becomes time to exchange for fresher materials.

Here is another example of govt. gone wrong interference with the management of this type of food storage. There exist the very destructive corn worm that consumes millions of cubic ft. of corn annually that exists in these storage elevators. There also exists in nature a "bug" that eats only these corn worm larvae. When the food source is depleted these "bugs" die and can be easily screened from the remaining quality grain. The F&D Admin. will not permit these good bugs to be introduced into the grain storage areas to protect the grain as their rules do not permit this kind of activity.

As for the issue with using the corn for ethanol, corn is one of the most damaging to the soil of any crop. It absolutely must be grown using pest control substances and chemical fertilizer. The kinds of land that are suitable for producing the most bountiful crops of corn are also those typos that are least able to prevent eroding soils from entering our moving water sources, and I'll not go into anything further with that as it is too lengthy and moves too far away from our subject matter. * Those of us who are compelled to feed corn to our live stock knew that the price of feed would increase, but we never realized just how much. Shelled corn doubled, cracked corn increased(doubled + 20%), rabbit feed doubled, pig feed doubled + 20%, and cattle feed increases 60%. I know that chicken feed also increased so much that many chicken farmers cut back production, thus increasing the slaughter price for chickens and egg production. I do most of the shopping for my family so I see where the "corn" issue alone trickled down through out most of the food process.*

Folks who have been following my comments regarding our energy crisis, are well aware that I favor NG as the most suitable fuel to elevate us from both the electricity/grid distribution problems that face this nation presently and for the near future.

Many others favor wind turbines. These will cause many thousands of miles of new high tension lines to be constructed through this area so as to connect to the existing grid, where as the mains that transport the NG can be placed underground and deliver this energy source in quantity to many areas that don't receive this fuel source at this time. This would have the effect of spinning off many new jobs through the conversion from fuel oil or electricity for home heating. It also works for AC and refrigeration as well.

The above are just two examples of things that would expose the good or "green" vs the not so good "somewhat green" methods of producing and distributing energy where it is most needed. It would also expose a bad Govt decision to produce 20% of our nationally consumed electricity by a very costly and only somewhat reliable source.

I believe that the Govt should mandate that at least some kind of schedule of qualities vs negatives for anything that can be considered as "Green". This is a volatile subject and the public can be easily manipulated by Mfg.'s and sellers of products that seem to be "green" but are anything else but "green" when the over all costs to provide raw materials, energy to mfg., packaging, shipping and retailing to the public are all identified thru the pluses and minuses, and of course some consideration must be given the recycling uses of said product. I limited this schedule to the discussion of "green" as 'GREEN" is now the buzz word in advertising.

TooMuchFun

I believe that the Govt should mandate that at least some kind of schedule of qualities vs negatives for anything that can be considered as "Green".

Well said. The corn-ethanol is obviously a very good example of what happens when government manadates (and money) are put in place without considering all of the impacts, and weighing the options before making decisions.

There's one other feature of 'best process' for evaluating "green" products or strategies that I might add. No matter what alternative, there are bound to be some negative qualities. The question to ask about the 'worst feature' of the product or strategy, is there any way to mitigate that negative side-effect or outcome, and what is the cost? How does the negative quality vary with the scale of the activity? At what scale does the negative quality exceed any possibility of constructive mitigation?

For example, if evaluating natural gas, you might say flammable hazard is one negative quality. Non-renewable is another. Various engineering strategies have been developed to address the hazard issues. Non-renewable speaks directly to scale, that is, on what scale should NG be considered the best alternative, given the cost of installing the infrastructure, availability of supply etc. Another positive mitigation might be, are there alternative fuels that could be developed that would utilize the same infrastructure at some future date when NG is more scarce.

For wind energy, exposed infrastructure as you mentioned, is also at risk under extreme weather conditions. The lack of resiliency of present wind energy systems under extreme conditions (gotta shut down, too windy!) is a major supply defect, and if we are going to accept that we're under the gun weather-wise due to climate change effects, then we also must acknowledge that mandating a switch to technology which is vulnerable to the expected adversities doesn't make sense: those vulnerabilities have to be addressed. Cost of repairing damaged infrastructure is not inconsequential either. On the supply side, energy storage is clearly the big roadblock for all sorts of incidental natural sources (sun, wind, wave) where the input is variable and is not in our control. Either we solve these problems first, or the money put into 'switching' is just going down the chute.....

Well Said artsmith,

I gave you another GA for this one as it hits the nail where it must be struck, directly upon the head. "Now if we could just avoid bending such nails?"

TMF

Hello artsmith, and Milo, it's coffee time!

You as have many others have labeled "natural gas" as a non renewable source of energy. HOWEVER: I pause to wonder? Is this truly a correct category in which to place this energy source. Methane, (landfill gas is reproducible) and so is the gas captured at sewer processing stations and often at dairies around the nation. We have an on going thread discussing "gasification of wood" and this too is a natural gas.

We know that natural gas deposits exist in voids and porous materials beneath the earths surface, but if we extract all that is available in such a pocket now, what evidence is there that over a given period of time, this same void or porous area will not refill with more natural gas? This is a subject that I have "never" heard discussed or read any information about. What about the possibility of relocating liquefied NG from other countries where we now purchase it at bargain prices, and storing it in some of these tapped out underground facilities, as reserves to be released when needed to stabilize national pricing that may become necessary to reduce or eliminate the impact of cartels like OPEC.

IMHP the volatile spiking of crud oil pricing that has occurred several times in our recent history, due to wars, OPEC inputs and the abuses observed as the result of the profiteering that took place in the commodities markets world wide. For the benefit of this nation and the world, stabilization regarding this resource maybe just exactly what is needed to prevent another collapse in world and national economies.

We know that Crude Oil took many thousands of years to form, but what "real evidence" is there that Natural Gas took thousands of years to form when these gases can be extracted from materials found on the surface of the planed at will?

TooMuchFun

ah, now suppertime here

I honestly don't know much about 'natural gas' or methane or other gas fuels or what they should be called. But the examples you gave are certainly renewable gas fuel resources. "Green" (cha-ching!)

Again I know nothing at all about gas pipes and infrastructure. Do you think a system could be designed that would suit any or all of these gas fuels? If so, that would be a huge plus sign for a long term investment in the infrastructure, to use natural gas and then take on renewable sources as they are developed. If there's a potential resource for renewable gas fuel in the area, that would be the "green" thing to develop, because it doesn't have to be transported from any distance.

When it comes to debating this with government, don't forget, wind energy has the advantage of not producing any CO2, which has pretty well made its way to the top of the list of agreed-upon actions. Reduced CO2 emissions is bound to be an issue in decisions and fund allocations overall, but it doesn't have to stand in the way of the NG development which might be a good, sustainable plan for your specific region or area. Top notch systems have fewer emissions, that's something else to build into a gas burning design.

Totally agree about the oil pricing! It sure looks to me that the pressure created by inflated oil prices is what made this economic crisis. Exactly!

Far as I know we might do well to get to know more about what they are doing in Brazil. I of course like much of what I hear about Brazil, partly because of how they put their capital in a place basically only generally accessible by air. As some of you may know, my lifetime goal is to create a nation of airports.< I told Del the Cat the other day, I'd be interested in posting whatever codes he came up with for his Alternative Energy constructions. Come up with a Code, and I'll be glad to put it on my website.< As a realistic matter, you have Green, and then Greener.< Certainly a 1 to 10 scale makes sense.< In the US there has been a tradition of On Book and Off Book Accounting, that at its base, has been pretty evil. Free Land!, Kill the Indians.< Need cheap labor, buy some slaves.< Put all the known cost and effects into the Green Codes according to seen and unseen effects, and you will be able to come up with a Graded Code. Leave nothing off the books.< There are little things that are missing.< You can get a 55 gallon drum and fill it with horseshit, put a solar PV or Solar Thermal up to run a motor to rotate it, and get gas out of it, but the stove you bought from Sears will go off warranty and pop, maybe explode unless you have something in the line that makes it burn same as NG. Methane itself is as much a problem as things melt, as Carbon Dioxide, so I am about convinced it is better to burn it, than let it go. Where is and who sells the box of stuff a farmer can attach to his biodigestor, gas maker that will cook his meals, on the old stove from Sears? That's something for the Micro, we need. On the Macro, Bigger Scale, where's that for the Town's Sewage Plant? Why drill for gas when every time we flush the toilet there goes a contribution to the energy supply, down the drain? What about that Wind Power? You've got problems with everything. The time has come to make complete systems integrated, and as simple as the delivery of coal to a furnace.< I look forward to a Code, and expect eventually to be taken over by the UN. Thanks for inviting me to read this Thread, TMF. Love, Russell

First off in response to the first part of the thread, bottom line is there hasn't been any consistency in the media related to defining "green". Many have their own definitions and most companies find that putting the word "green" or "environmentally friendly" on their packaging has helped sales. (here is one sent to me recently that based on the claims of the two electrical generating components they're selling, they're on crack, plus they're just truly wanting to sell their videos http://www.homemadeenergy.org/?hop=roeib). Regardless of what the products real impact truly is, marketing finds it helps the products sell. So until the media sources that talk about green or a mandate is set that describes it definitively and properly, there will always be a little assumptive confusion to "greens" entitlement. I like Artsmiths simple approach to defining said "green" from an engineering prospective, by the way.

Secondly I want to respond regarding the procurement of usable Energy and the extraction of "it" from "Natural" resources. As Russell has stated "there are problems with everything" related to all the different sources and means to generating "energy". But that is what we are all about. As with Bcmarshall's concept for utilizing Hydrothermal energy, (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/33605#newcomments) the concept has merit and Engineers and scientists are the ones who will work out the details. If there is a realistic means to extracting the energy from a given source, providing the technology, confidence and the resources are available for us, we are the people who should be able to bring about a solution.

There are always better and more efficient means to extract energy from the wind, our existing liquid fuel sources, natural gases, methane, wind and solar and other earth and man made resources, to name a few. In my opinion, there is or will be always a way to make harnessing or extracting energy more efficient. Here's one quick example found that has brought up utilizing solar cells a claimed 60% in efficiency gain, http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0507-bringing_sunlight_inside.htm.

Where I live and part of what we are working on is utilizing or designing more reliable and more efficient off grid homes/living including upscaling to sub division communities. Incorporating and let me reiterate "reliable and more efficient". If you can put some careful thought in to something and it has all the making of being viable, then I feel strong, calculated attempts at making it happen is what it's all about in this day and age. The example of this sight, even this forum is a power all in itself through the communication of people who have the where-with-all to accomplish some often intimidating projects or ideas. The speed at which information of this magnitude can travel and enter into the consortium of now general thinking, is pretty amazing. Just as Ky has started a thread for provoking new ideas for inventions and BCMarshall has brought to the table his method of utilizing hydrothermal, enlightens the thinking community and motivates us and them to hopefully do more about accomplishing some goals. Ya think!? There are pretty good ideas generated on this sight all the time.

Isn't all this thinking fun? It's more fun when an idea gets put into a reality, and that's our job. That's my opinion.

So without getting into much more at this time,. mainly cause it's real late for me, hasta.

i see content touched light gauge steel framing, which we are rolling studs and tracks to market, anyone knows where i can find LEED info for this category? thanks

Hello Robeert,

What does LEED stand for in your vocabulary. I am fairly certain that Milo could shed much more light on the production of the light gage rolling stock and production methods. I have fairly good knowledge regarding construction using this material. The producers promote this material as being "Environmentally Friendly" as it is produced from salvaged materials, thus requiring less energy to produce and is utilalizing recycled materials.

There are advantages to using light gage steel for building materials as a competitor to the use of wood for similar purposes. It does not support combustion, cannot be distroyed by wood destroying insects, does not rot and usually will be considered as an advantage to the owner by the home owners insurance company.

Generally speaking, if it can be framed with wood, it can be framed with light gage steel at competitive prices.

TooMuchFun

stand for: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, standard for Green Building design, however, when customer call in asks for LEED i do not have anything to provide. any specific and how i prepare to help them? thanks

Hi guys I'm back. There is a lot of helpful info on steel construction here:

http://www.steel.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Construction/Framing/Framing.htm

milo

Hello again Milo,

Maybe light gage steel framing would be a good place to begin regarding the what is and is less green regarding residential construction. We have had promoters of foam/concrete construction, wood framing, adobe, wood as a renewable resource, and even bales of straw as exterior framing materials. Likely there are other ideas that might surface.

Why doesn't one of these promoters of the assorted building systems offer up information regarding their pet system for review and subjecting to some sort of numbering system so that a reasonably minded individual could determine just which would be best for them, given the available resources and funding? Info should include wind load ratings, snow load ratings etc.

TooMuchFun

BTW another GA from me!

Thanks for GA, Tmf. I seem to be circling the control tower at 99...

You said to evaluate the competing materials "given available resources and funding."

I wonder if that is the right base case to analyze?

Maybe we should evaluate based on "Shelter provided cost per 100 years" with the Base Factor being dollars per square meter and a factor for energy consumed to make per kg and a third factor of energy consumed per median hour of labor to purchase...

I appreciate this may be making a very complicated expression out of what should be a relatively simple one, but the Implications of any purchase involve consequences in use, in fabrication and in purchase...

milo

Hi again Milo,

The points that you make are certainly within the concept of science, longevity and energy conservancy. They may ultimately be the best if not the only realistic method of placing numerical values with regard to residential construction. They certainly do apply to commercial buildings and of course multi story tenements.

However, for the benefit of those who would like to GO GREEN with their next homes, like those retiring and down sizing and trying to relocate away from the cities to the suburbs and even the little ranchett's, who have limited funds, are now on fixed or fluctuating finances, as are those who invested in the stock market as opposed to land, who are also on the down hill side of 50, many would like to own a home that could be "Greened" or at least made more affordable to accommodate the inflationary issues that face all of us retired folks.

Your LGSF idea is one of the very best for any location. Spray in place, foam insulation is another excellent material especially when used with the lgsf. These buildings can be engineered to with stand hurricane wind loads, this I know from experience.

About some of the other methods of construction, they are suitable for owner builders also but may not measure up to the standards expected.Wiseing up the public to the fact that not everything is as green as some would have them think isn't a bad idea.

TMF

Toomuchfun,

Not to get too far off subject, there is a lot of great things being said here!

Have you used light gage steel studs on exterior wall construction? I'm in process, was in process of designing our next house using 2x8's 24OC filled with foam on ext walls. I've looked at light gage steel studs for interior walls only.

One thing I see happening with the "Green Movement" is , Cost. Anything with green whether it is or not seems to have a 30% increase in cost. I can understand the soybean increase with the so called shortage right now, it also appears that this will be controlled by Big Oil in the future, as well as Algae production.

I like quite a lot of what I've been reading here on this subject. And has given many thoughts into other things I didn't consider before.

1 other question I have is, why can't we bury the lines rather than expose them to the elements? Is there a reason other than it's easier to pop in a pole and run wires?

Hello Jimh77,

A communication posted on CR 4 from Denmark, while responding about wind turbines included information that in Denmark all of the above ground high tension lines will be underground in about 30 years. This will be expensive but the population is willing to accept the additional costs.

The problem with doing this here is the absurd costs that will effect those who already cannot pay high utility bills. It is for this reason that "I" promote the Govt. ownership of all "grids" and "Publicly used" power production systems. As long as there are Privately owned Public Utility Monopolies, the costs include profits, multi levels of management, many over paid, and CEO's whose single most responsibility is to return the greatest amount of money possible to share holders. We do not live in caves and log cabins any more. Electricity has become a source of heat, is needed for production of clean water, food processing, manufacturing of everything we need for survival, health care, and in many cases public transportation. The list is almost endless!

This energy source Is produced in many ways including Hydro, and Nuclear, two of which can never be totally under private ownership and control. If these massive wind Turbine Farms are going to be developed as has been promoted by Pres. Obama's Govt. with out the tag-along requirement of placing the long distance transmission lines under ground, the whole system will suffer as the result of high winds and inclement weather. If we are to "Really" pursue "Green" development regarding the production of electricity it should include underground transmission lines.

Unfortunately this level of high costs attached to an already over priced system that can only in it's best day produce up to 38% of it's advertised capability, and likely will only realize about an average of 25% of its advertise performance would be even more than the public will stand for with out contest.

TooMuchFun

Hi Toomuchfun,

I agree all electric lines need to be in the ground. This should have been done 40 years ago. Where I live, our power is constantly being knocked out with trees, Ice, high winds. We have a 6.3Kw diesel generator that has seen lots of usage at this location. We also have a windy place where I am working on building a new generation wind mill, along with Solar PV and hot water and new house on this property. All came to a halt in Oct when my company decided to close. So now I don't have the extra funds for R&D. We want to build as green as we can, but like this post says, what is "Green" and True. This was one of the reasons in asking about the metal studs which milo pasted a link that was very good reading and now I will be using metal studs in the construction of this new house, with ICF's, Shallow frost protected footings, radiant floor heat from the sun, geothermal, wind, PV to be off grid as much as possible or to put the extra back on grid.

One thing you mentioned about the government taking over the grid, I haven't seen them do too much right when they get their hands on things. I agree that the industry is over run with management that no one knows what they do except collect over sized salaries, pay over priced dividends to share holders and screw their employees, which is the case where I live. Our power company no longer makes power, all they want to do it maintain the lines. I believe Nuclear is/was the answer till they built them too cheaply and had problems with the designs, another reason I don't think Government should be involved in those either. The biggest issues I see is Greed from the top to middle management. I think that when our economy does come back, there will be many changes in this area. I also think it will be many years before our economy levels out. Pres Obama really wants to deal with getting us off fossil fuels as soon as possible, that is a good thing, long over due. The other issue I see is unionized labor in this sector adding to the costs. I don't have a problem with folks making a decent living, but keep it reasonable.

Getting too far off topic here.

I totally agree with your statements! I've never understood, (well I do, but for the reasons you mention) why they went with power lines in the first place. In mountain areas like where I live It is less expensive to span big canyons and such. But in the flat lands, there is nothing to span other than water. I see so many more efficient ways things can be done and I'm floored when I see how, usually the government, implements something short of just plane stupid and really not well thought out or "over engineered).

Hello jimh77, multitech and of course NE,

regarding things that the Govt. did right/ or not right!

We have been on the winning team with the 1st and 2Nd world wars, and the COLD WAR, we have found ourselves having to play a restrained part with the Korean and the Vietnam Conflicts and with the first Iraque invasion but things are a little different in the middle east now, and we must wait to see what the politicos do "now".

Millions of our elderly receive medical care that they would otherwise not get. We saw an end to the Monopolies that were bankrupting all competitors many years ago. There remains much to do, and there remains the overwhelming need to restrain socialism, while at the same time finding ways for the poor and genuine needy to have food, shelter, warmth, clean water and air and the other things and conditions that we have come to accept as rights of survival. The private sector is never going to see to those needs. Our only option then is GOVT. "Like It Or Not"! We as an electorate body, simply must lean on our polititions to do what we all know must eventually get done. Putting electrical transmission lines under ground is just one of them, taking over the whole system is another. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT EVERY PERSON CAN BE PROVIDED WITH ENOUGH ELECTRICITY TO SUSTAIN LIFE AS WE HAVE COME TO KNOW IT.

Only when the govt. establishes predicitable standards will industry evolve accordingly to provide the most efficient equipment needed for survival. As for now everything is competetively priced, with efficiencies and durability adjusted according to the selling price. Certainly competition exists within industry. HOWEVER: Mfg. less efficient equipment that can be dumped on the publuc that has minimal life expency, in the long run is costly to us all. UL, SAE, and the many others do a great job of evaluating many mfg. items. Competetion form foreign nations that mimmick reliable products hinder our own improvement, but is often all that can be afforded by the masses.

We are taxing our industry to death while others undercut our prices. Why not have a board to oversee the differences in value and quality and issue options to the buying american public via discounts per family allowances, vs tax reductions for american industry to provide incentives to maintain affordable pricing for items named to a list as "Needed by the People for a normal Lifestyle.

TMF

TMF, ol' buddy, "Only when the govt. establishes predicitable standards will industry evolve accordingly to provide the most efficient equipment needed for survival."

This thinking stinketh and causeth the flowers to grow!

The Mag instrument flashlight is not the result of a government standard. Neither is the venerable swiss army knife in its myriad variations.

You want to see what the result is of govt 'standards' look at what the pentagon pays for toilet seats etc.. or the current morass of regulations screwing up the automotive market. Add gov't lose efficiency. Increase cost.

Food shelter warmth clean water and air may be things that todays collectivists think are 'Rights of survival,' ( your term), But when my forebears crossed the alleghenies on their way to Ohio,They ate food they either brought or foraged or hunted; They wanted warmth, they made a fire (using flint and steel by the way); and the water was clean if they got to it before the animals did...

I don't get when the change came that folks are entitled to what until this moment in history everyone had to work or fight for. No guarantees. No entitlements.

To magically declare that access to electricity is some sort of birthright is quite alien thinking to me, and makes me ask where the heck did this come from in your mind?

My kid wants to drive the car. HE thinks he has a right to drive the car. Until he gets job and pays his share of insurance, gas and mtce, HE does not get a car. HE may want it. HE may wish it. HE may feel entitled. HE may even pray for it. But until he pays for it, HE IS RIDING not driving.

Same with electricity, food, shelter today for the folks who think that watching day time soaps is their legacy and birthright instead of getting up early to work and make things.

Sorry, your well meaning 'utlility entitlement' pandering is getting no sympathy from me. Back to building green eh, Like my forebears did. Tree branches. Cotton batting. Logs. dirt.

Good blood in our veins. No entitlement genes. I checked.

milo

I get your point Milo, as a matter of fact I stepped in some of that very same stuff this evening while feeding my livestock. I have mentioned before that I raise a lot of my own food. My attitude about freeloading and Govt. Handouts rivals your own. The problem I have with the system is that these freeloaders exist too, and they are VOTERS, and unfortunately they are the SWING VOTES that determine who will get elected and who does not. Occasionally their stupidity and nature steps in to reduce their population, however not often enough and not effective enough. Our law does not permit us to reduce the population by any effective means.

Millions of them live in tenements in the great metropolitan areas like NYC, Chicago, and the slums all across this nation. They reproduce like lemmings, chipmonks and ground squrrils. They are comfortable living in squaller and when presented nice upgraded housing to live in whole neighborhoods quickly become over run with drugs and become gettos of the near future. I cannot fix that and neither can you.

Therefore, after much deliberation I come to the conclusion that I will buy a little ranchette to live on in a less expensive area of the country to survive, when my lovely wife retires and construct a well insulated home to live in, likely framed with light gage steel and insulated with sprayed in foam. The electricity will be wired for both high and low voltage and the heat and AC will be produced through geothermal technology. Water will come from my own well and food, will come from my own livestock and garden. My power will be produced via my own home brewed wind turbines, solar panels, and when necessary from my low RPM generator that will be fueled from chips and small chunks of dried wood via my gasifier. My fireplace will help with heat in the coldest times of the year, but will likely be mostly for just the pleasure of having one. Electricity will be stored in used or rebuilt forklift batteries.

Now for the reason I support the Govt. doing what I have suggested. I am fed up with being screwed over by utilities of every kind. Electrical energy is a way of life in today's world, if you don't accept that then just try doing without it for a month or so.

And I personally prefer to see that those freeloaders remain where ever they are. This requires that they receive allotments of those things needed to survive. This will only come from Govt. Sponsership. AND the utility monopolies will be terminated, the high tension lines will be placed under ground where they belong, the cost to accomplish this will be spread around over the millions of folks that will not figure out just how to survive with out electricity and could become a moderate income producer for those with expendable funds through the sale.purchase of Govt. Utility Bonds not unlike the war bonds that were sold to pay off the war debts. I consider this one more method to stave off an inevitable revolution by those whose life styles include FREELOADING.

If not I will find my little ranchette in the middle of a war zone as I have to kill off these freeloaders by the thousands just to keep the bastards out of my garden.

TooMuchFun

The only reason to purchase a bond is to assure a stream of future payments and the only way to qualify the issuer is "how will they pay me back?"

I see no way to earn back the cost of capital giving electricity to your squallid freeloaders,wires above or below ground, if they will not be adding value by their use of the resource, so therefore no money to give them entitlement electricity.

I believe that history shows that appeasement never works, so why try to hold darwin off? My investment s are in the tank along with everyone elses, but I know that relative to the many in my cohort i'm still ahead. No thanks to me being one of the millions supporting your appeasement scheme.If I can take a 50% right down , well let the chips keep falling. At some point, the scammers and looters as AYN RAND called them will run out of prey.

I like your forklift battery idea. But why not buy new? Put the premium money where it ought to be, my friend. with your anticipated duty cycle those batteries ought to last until there is a real breakthrough.

I'd like to retire your way, but I haven't figured out how to grow either PEPSI or dark chocolate in sufficient quantities to maintain my habit (and blood chemistry) ... So I'll always be with in a quick bike ride of a soda fountain.

Fresh is best!

milo

I've mentioned before that I grew up on a farm and ranch. For the exception of one year in Boston area. Yea, big change for this country boy! But worth the experience. I wish I would have paid more attention to how it was done for our sustainability back then. It was lots of chores and hard work but frankly, enjoyable work. Milo, I can so relate with my kids and cars. I have one ready to drive. I had to work for my cars and mostly to keep them running. My boys are "getting it" but their peers REALLY don't. It is definitely the ME generation. So is a larger portion of our population so it seems. While every bodies investments are in the tank or tanking not to mention retirement funds etc., those with far less means, less education, miss managing funds their own and others, and the ones with very little care or desire to improve anything much less themselves are non to worried. Living here I see way to much of it.

But I don't want to digress to much into that as this is about developing improvements where we can utilize what we can to improve life for now and in the future. At least I have no plans on giving up that effort regardless of a lot of negative influences going on in the world. I love this planet and it's unfortunate that big business and greed has left the options few for many and profitable for few.

I'm with you guys or anyone else who believes there are many means to build a "non typical" infrastructure and or for our-selfs. We WILL be able do design and are continuing to design more efficient systems related to self sustaining power sources, while capitalizing on what is all around us in abundance. Whether its man mad or from the earths resources, (which ultimately it's ALL from the earths sources even if we co-mingle elements in a test tube) we have the opportunity to change the status quo even if it begins with those like TMF and his ranchet. The wife and I are planing to do the same this year although we may not finish our design ideas till next year but efficiency is the game here. Good ideas by the way TMF on your home. You live where more good stuff grows, weeds grow really well here as does cactus. Fresh foods are what I miss the most from the ranch and farm days.

By the way how much sun light do you typically average per year for either milo or TMF? just curious. What is your elevation?

Please note my tag line below, this isn't the first time in history public assistance was getting out of control.

My elevation is way up there, but where I live the average is about 70/90 ft above sea level. As for the sun "well the St. Petersberg Times promised to give away the next days total publication free to anyone who was a regular receiver of their publication or to any walk in's who traveled to their office for any day that the sun failed to shine in St. Petersberg, FL.. This offer has sense been stopped but was in effect for more than 50 years. They gave away these publications only three times while the policy was in effect. As for your question, the sun always shines somewhere in the sunshine state. I would say that for your purporses you could use the figure of 350 days per year.

Solly Got to run for now. Things are adding up on my "Honey Doo" list.

TMF

Good Morning Friends Milo, NE, & Daffy,

The deal with acquiring the used vs new FL Batts. is that the used ones generally will have at least 75% of the 8 hr. duty cycle life remaining. Large warehousing and materials handling companies generally rent these forklifts. When the duty cycle begins to tail off requiring charging down time, the user will require the leasing company to replace the batteries as the labor vs production begins to fall off. Batteries are expensive, but so is labor. Though the batteries still have most of their useful life remaining, it is cost effective to replace them. When used as energy storage containers for residential energy needs, the 75% capacity is quite adequate and several can be gathered for the price of a single new one. When they ultimately need replacing after years of use, there is still the salvage value to recoup.

I have little use for the freeloaders other than they provide bodies as cannon fodder in times of war. The survivors are well cared for if they remain in service for their 20 yr duty cycle or are injured/discharged. They also receive dependent pay for their elderly parents when applied for. Not a bad deal for those who likely would have never left the getto, except maybe in a paddy wagon/court/prison. The opportunity to improve oneself is available to us all, but it isn't a free ride.

As for the schemers and looters "per Ayn Rand" I see them through the same dirty glasses as I see the other freeloaders, only they are picking on folks like yourself who trusted that their intention was to protect and improve your retirement future. They didn't even have the decency to grab theirs a little at a time. They chose to demolish the National Economy and run.

As for your addiction to Pepsi and dark chocolate, I recommend hypnosis, or purchasing in lasting quantities and dividing them into serving sized portions, and learning to exercise restraint and "how to hide these goodies from others".

Or on the other hand, I was watching a video clip of someone riding a genuine mini bike, dragging a small trailer behind that was carrying his little gasifier and a bag of wood chips. What a great idea that was! I already salvaged a mini bike, several out dated propane tanks, other possibles, including some good wheels from a scrapped out riding lawn mower and am now looking for a fire sale for some silver paint. Move over "TONTO" & "SCOUT", hold on convenience store clerk please do not close yet, I need my fix!

NE I live in the middle of the sunshine state," that's Florida". I live on the Lake Wales Ridge, that is about 90 ft above sea level and is therefore 80 ft closer to the sun than the coastal dwellers. We have it all here, drought during the dry winter months, rain and warmth during the summer monsoon season, really nice weather for about 3 months in the spring and another 3 to 4 months in the fall, and then their are several wintry days in January and February. Other than that, the weather really sucks the remainder of the year, but the fishing is great!.

Daffy, your response was right on the money. They (the freeloaders) all come around with their hands out, promising to return to do a little yard work, or general cleaning up around the place, "TOMORROW" BUT; they are never to be seen again.

"CR 4" a really great place to meet like-minded friends, and some others, not so like-minded. Sometimes we even remember to say something interesting about the original thread, like why not compare the good vs evil regarding log cabin structures and homes constructed from recycled LGS.

TooMuchFun

Hey TMF, I asked about the average in sun shine as I'm working on a passive solar water heating system that has the capability to bring the water to steam for the use in a couple of applications. It, according to those running the numbers, has a higher over all efficiancy than most systems. One use, and not requiring 212 degrees, is going to be use in a closed loop system, to extract the methane from existing septic systems. The gas to be collected is stored through the warmer months for utilization in the winter. (the system allows for supplementation from pets or farm animals without disturbing the septic system itself) The system uses captured water only. All the pumps are powered from solar and are very low voltage efficient little pumps. The flow rate doesn't need to be high. I'm also designing the system to be low maintenance using products with less chance of deterioration over time. The cost is quite resonable as well. So far anyway. I'd like to see 15 to 20 years before heavier maintenance is needed or parts replaced. I'll be glad to share when all is in place and under way. Obviously in areas where the sun is out often does this system work the best. They are still good for supplementation regardless of the weather or stand alone depending on area. Unless you live at the north pole.

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/u-s-_demand_for_green_building_materials_to_exceed_80_billion_by_2013_18640.aspx

Looks like you picked a pretty relevant topic, TMF.

milo

Thank you Milo for that observation,

As I have stated that I should play the devils advocate regarding this thread, would you like to propose a couple of materials that are said to be green connected though not necessarily intended when plans were made for initial production. I am thinking of building materials like light gage steel/galvanized framing materials used for studs and truss framing and the sheeting of roofs and side walls of housing and small commercial projects. This material and the construction methods will be ultimately compared to rapid growth forest derived products, and a variety of recycled products as well as materials produced from sources locally available in some locations and not necessarily available every where. We must account for the overall costs to construct vs the overall performance of these products.

Ex: Adobe constructed buildings are great for insulation against the hot desert sun, but how well will they stand up against hurricanes and Wood is a fairly inexpensive building material until there is a shortage caused by Govt. interference with the harvesting and forest fires consume great quantities of materials intended for harvest, or hurricanes are predicted and there is not enough material available for consumers to protect openings that are likely to be penetrated by high winds and projectiles.

I believe that we might be able to establish a dividing line that will indicate the pluses and minuses for use of these kinds of materials that will help consumers determine just what will work in their best interest, "where they live", as what may be good in the SW desert states will not necessarily be economical or viable in New England.

I am open to suggestions from any source, and feel that as I have worked with many different kinds of materials, I could suggest alternatives. We could then align these issues in plus or minus columns and allow all players to rank the materials and construction benefits accordingly.

The idea here is to provide interested parties with realistic information regarding the benefits of using some materials vs passing on to some other material as it may provide better needed benefits for that individuals circumstances.

Ex: Wood burning fire places are a worth while addition to ones home provided they are constructed to utilize the latest technology regarding efficiency, and the fire wood is readily available at reasonable prices and there are many cold winter days that make the idea worth while. This compares to the idea of creating a fire place in ones Florida beach front condo, just to create a certain ambiance, or maybe some where out on the high desert where there exists many square miles of open prairie and little forest except along the creeks and rivers.

TooMuchFun

Yo!.....except for the handouts you've just described my lifestyle for the past 20 years! Log house, solar, 2 woodburners, gen set (diesel and wind), no utilities (except for a radio phone I scrounged off've military surplus). We finally got electrical service last year and a telephone line when the utility decided to stretch it's pole allotment our way.

Freeloaders and their vitamin deficient kids are everywhere. Good at taking ........useless with payback. If only to give a hand stacking firewood to compensate for the 00's of cords I've given them there's always an available excuse for not helping out. They are 'Utopists' only when it suits them. 'Green' only when making political brownie points. 'Informed' only when capable of understanding.

My lane is gated now and for the first time ever the message is clear. Keep out!

Good luck.

I'll call ahead.

milo

Good morning NE,

I suggest that you contact the South Florida Water Management District, in West Palm Beach Florida. Here we have millions of bovines depositing so much waste that the area surface water is overly nitrogen rich. To over come this problem the District has done studies and provides grants and assistance to local producers to alleviate the abundance of waste. Methane digesters is just one of these methods. The use of methane is ongoing at many of the dairies as a source of energy, including fireing boilers and running ICE's for electricity production and even for irrigation the hay fields. These folks are up to date on the latest cutting edge technology in this field. No need to reinvent the wheel here, I am certain that as this is a govt. agency, the info will only cost you a phone call.

TMF

Thanks TMF. We feel we're pretty up on the technology as well but I'm always hoping to learn more and implement more. I love trying to squeak out any additional efficiency gains from developed options or ideas from good brain storming. Demographically that's a ways from me but I've traveled further for a challenge.

The SFWMD has thrown millions of dollars at resolving the natural furtilzer problems that effect the everglades, and the state and fed have approved over a billion dollars to resolving it, and it all begins with cow dung dropped around the Kississimmee River basin that begins in North Florida and ultimately dumps on the EGNP. I am certain that can be contacted by telephone and on line.

TMF

Hi Guys,

personally I think BioGas is the thing that the governments should put more efforts, because we let the Methane into the environment and it is 21 time worst than CO2, so, instead of emphasizing in CO2 reduction, they should be serious in Biogas too, with more BioGas plants around, it can actually replace Natural Gas and have GREEN ENERGY to fuel the vehicles or generate electricity. This will be like killing more than 2 birds with 1 stone. Do you agree ??

Regards

MultiTech

SAVING THE THREAD

Good Morning to all followers of this thread!

I had a little trouble starting up my email reception this morning so my post is Now just after noon DLST.

I read this morning that Texas Utilities have allocated 5.5 billion dollars to construct new transmission lines from lightly populated windy areas to densely populated areas within that state. This investment will be spread around over 10 different construction companies.

So! For all of you folks that moved out to the great open spaces to live and raise your cattle, you can now expect to see many acres of your private property condemned and easement rights taken away from you for values representing pennies on the dollar. The Utility companies will plead that the Great Texas Public must have these easements for the betterment of the Great Texas Metropolitan areas.

But the fact is that you will be skinned out that which is rightfully yours for little more than the enrichment of those investing in those "Great Texas Utilities", including the Great Texas Utility CE O's! AND; the cost of operating and maintaining this outrageously expensive, shamefully unproductive method of generating electricity, will ultimately result in ALL Texans paying increased costs for the electricity they must have.

Why should the American Taxpayers be taxed to enrich "Private Utility Monopolies". That is counter productive to Capitalism. If the American Taxpayers are to fund this new million miles of transmission lines then we should own them when completed. No one should profit from that which we pay for.

I am not troubled by having our Govt. contract with private industry for the production and construction of anything that the public needs, but when the ownership of that which we pay for is going to result in wind fall profits to privateers, I draw my line in the sands of the great western plains.

TooMuchFun

You can thank Billionaire doofus T. Boon(head) Pickens. I'm pretty irritated with his whole campaign. The lack of science or their use of so called science applications to support his cause just bugs the shit out of me!!

They keep sending me e-mails through their campaign and finally figured out how to get them off my in box.

I'm a proponent of utilizing the air currents we constantly get here in NM,AZ, TX and CO. But on an individual basis. But because the utility companies don't want the control of electricity to your home out of their hands they will monopolise it. A home owner now cannot own a private wind generator here in our County! This little law was instigated in this last session. Apparently other counties of highly populated areas will follow suit. So no one in Abq dare put up a generator. Having full solar capabilities is also now getting more restrictive in regards to inspections and installation requirements.

I join the PO'd band wagon. I feel that more and more unnecessary controls are being placed in areas that are really not necessary.

Good afternoon NG,

The local Govt . is obligated to protect the public, and therefore can get away with their ordinance where the Tower carrying the wind turbine might fall beyond an owners property line. However for those who own property where the area surrounding the tower is sufficient to prevent said tower from falling beyond your property, this ordinance be comes what property rights proponants, (I am a diehard regarding this) call a takeing. This issue is one that you and others can take to Federal Court without having to jump through the locally created hoops. The cost for fileing a complaint in Federal Court is a mear $350. The complaint is that the Govt. cannot take from any private property owner, anything that is for public use (benefit) with out just compensation. Your local Utility Monopoly and local Govt. are the sponsors of these restrictions. The utility looses profits and the local Govt. looses the taxes you have added to your monthly utility invoices.

Regarding inspections and installation requirements, they are falling back on the permitting processes of the local building dept.

The idea is to protect the public from incompetent installers and shady profiteers. How ever if you are doing the work your self and buying the products from folks of your own choosing, so long as the work that you do is in according to the safety standards established through the codes, there is little that they can do other than demand that you get a permit for the improvement. Along with the cost of the permit goes the right to demand that they inspect the work to see that it is up to safety standards. This will make them liable in case your system fails and burns your house down, and they didn't deny improper/unsafe installation results, and or the use of tested and approved equipment.

If I was your local Govt. I would avoid creating any ordinance that placed this much liability on the taxpayers.

TooMuchFun