Principle: lighter, simpler, less work

This post is part of a series on the principles of energy reduction.


Simple systems, that do less, and cause fewer changes from their natural state, use less energy.

Consequences

This is another argument against motor cars. Cars are

• large and heavy: compare the weight of the car with the typical weight of their occupants and cargo,
• complicated: these days, cars are not really serviceable or fixable -- replacement parts are ordered from the manufacturer and the original is thrown away

Similarly, air-conditioning is so expensive because it is artificially maintaining a space at a temperature different from its environment, which requires a lot of work.

Another way of expressing this idea is that human-built systems should work with, instead of against, natural systems as much as possible.


This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

Principle: use the lowest form of energy possible

This post is part of a series on the principles of energy reduction.


Some kinds of energy are harder to get/make than others. High-grade energy, such as electricity and petrol, are very hard to produce and thus have great effects on the natural systems that support us. Thus, it's beneficial to use low-grade energy where possible, and avoid high-grade energy.

An approximate heirarchy is, from lowest (on the left) to highest (on the right) grade:

Heat << Fuel << Movement << Electricity

This means that it takes a lot of heat energy to make movement energy [1], and a lot of movement energy to make electricity (ie. a lot of energy is wasted at each stage. Generally speaking, a lot of heat energy has been use to make the electricity we have in our homes. If we then use that electricity to produce heat, we have wasted a lot of energy.

How to optimise this

We can use heat energy to heat. An excellent example of this is solar hot water which uses heat from the sun to directly heat water (a process that otherwise uses considerable amounts of fuel or electricity). Similarly, heat from the sun can be used to heat our houses (using either passive-solar [2] or active solar space heaters [3]) -- this saves a lot of fuel and/or energy. Solar heat can also be used directly for cooking via a solar oven [4].

A more subtle point is that if you have solar-heated hot water, and want a cup of tea, put solar hot water in the kettle and boil that.

------------------------

[1] For example, the internal combustion engine in our car uses fuel to create movement. It does this at about 25% efficiency [5]. This means that it takes for units of fuel energy to produce one unit of movement energy.

[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design

[3] www.dummies.com/how-to/.../how-to-build-a-solar-space-heater.html

[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_.28petrol.29_engines



This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

Principle: avoid using energy where possible

This post is part of a series on the principles of energy reduction.


Energy* that is not used is the best saving. Whether the energy is renewable or not, whether it is efficiently-used or not, if you can avoid using it then you have just taken the most effective action to reduce your impact on the natural systems that support us. Thus, working out what energy doesn't need to be used at all is very important.

Heating and cooling

Space heating and cooling of dwellings uses a lot of energy. Think carefully about whether you need to perform this action, and if so how much. If you must, then minimise how much energy you use by maintaining the smallest temperature difference between inside and outside your dwelling (the greater the difference in temperature, the more energy is used). In practice, this means allowing your house to stay cool in winter and hot in summer. You can wear more clothes in winter, and fans in summer.

Cars

Cars use an extraordinary amount of energy. Any reduction in driving has a huge effect on your energy consumption. Many journeys are less than a few kilometers -- consider walking or cycling for these shorter trips.

Kettle 

Boil only the amount of water you need, since any surplus is wasted.

Consumption

Of course, everything that we buy requires energy for manufacture, packaging, distribution, marketing, etc. Thus, part of reducing energy use is a reduction in consumption. The energy used in the creation of stuff is called embodied energy.


-------------------
* clearly, using the sun's heat for heating still means using energy. Here, I refer to human generated energy (eg. electricity, petrol, etc)


This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

Reduce energy consumption principles

In this post, I discussed the importance of using less energy. I have skimmed over what is an enormous subject. The motivations are something I would like to discuss more, but here I will say merely that if you believe in action on climate change, the only current effective action is to use less. Humans are in the process of destroying the natural systems that sustain us. 75% of our wealth is estimated to be provided, for free, by natural systems -- if we destroy those systems we will be (at best) impoverished.

Every proposed political mechanism is a means to use market forces (or other economic coercion) to encourage people to use less. We can use less right now! Not only will you save money, you can get a great return on investment and prepare yourself for a future where we use less energy -- a future that is well on its way to becoming reality.

In subsequent posts, I will detail some principles of using less energy.

This sequence of posts will then inform (and provide a reference point for) a series of posts detailing some of the design choices I have made at my house.


This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

Bike to work day

Cycling organisations like bikeSA often promote initiatives like bike to work day. I think this is a good way of encouraging people to view cycling as a means of transport instead of just something fun to do.

I think that bikeSA should also consider running a drive to work day -- where everyone who would normally cycle, drives instead (with the consequent traffic chaos). Perhaps this would help motorists to appreciate the service that cyclists are providing and discredit the idea that cyclists are freeloading.


This post was written by Angus Wallace, and first appeared on guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com

I want to go back to the 1950s

About a decade ago, I read an essay that made the thought-experiment: "what if we decided to live with a 1950s standard-of-living, but with modern medicine?" and concluded that this could be achieved with  two days' work per week. I can't find the essay now (will keep looking), but I think it's a great thought. Let's think a little about life in the 1950s (in Australia, anyway -- this was not the case in other countries):

• One income could house and sustain a family
• Cars were rarer
• People generally ate fresh, home-cooked food
• Community was very important
• Most people grew at least some of their own food
• Public transport and cycling was common
• Lives were simpler and less hectic
• Our per-capita footprint on the environment was much lower (we weren't destroying our ecological support-systems so quickly)
• Electricity consumption was much lower, fuel consumption was much lower
• Most food was organically grown
• Market gardens and small-holder farms surrounded cities and provided much of the food
• People ate less meat and fish
• People owned less stuff, and produced less waste
• Australia had a manufacturing base, because people were prepared to pay a living wage to people who made things

I could go on.

The point, though, is that in the 1950s the average Australian lived a simple life like that advocated by many environmentalists in response to the current crises that are plaguing our society.

I think that, in many respects, we have regressed from the 50s. Yes, we currently live a much more sophisticated (and more consumptive/wasteful) lifestyle than people did then but I suggest that this will not be sustained. I think that if we keep over-reaching in this way we will end up greatly impoverished and will not even be able to sustain a lifestyle of the 1890s let alone the 1950s. If, however, we can control our consumption now, a 1950s lifestyle could be sustainable.

Why is this so rarely discussed?

I think a big reason this is not mentioned is because of the social issues prevalent in the 1950s. Yes, the 50s were relatively sexist, classist, racist and bigoted. I am in no way advocating a return to those values. But, I think we can maintain modern egalitarian* values with 1950s levels of consumption in a sustainable way.
I think another reason is that we are so obsessed with the idea of Progress, and that we are somehow better than people back then.

My vision

My goal and vision is to live, essentially, with consumption levels of people in the 1950s. I am yet to renounce many modern luxuries (eg. I have a hand-me-down mobile phone, and an old computer with broadband -- and myriad others, of course -- this is an experiment and work-in-progress!). My family owns a car, but I want to act (as much as possible) as though the car is not there. As part of this, I want to embrace the 50s aesthetic. This is not novel (the retro/vintage movement is in, ahem, full swing), but forms a component.

My challenge

Lots of people like to talk about "traditional values" -- I challenge you to embrace the traditional values of thrift, low-consumption, lack-of-pretension and simple living.


The post "I want to go back to the 1950s" was written by Angus Wallace and first appeared at guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au

---------------------------------
* an interesting note is that Australian society was actually more egalitarian in the 1950s than today. Today the difference between the wealthy and the poor in Australia is much greater. Like in so many areas, we are better at talking about egalitarian values today -- in the 1950s, people just got on.

Imagine 100% renewables -- what happens when there's no sun or wind?

Imagine an Australia running on 100% renewable energy:

1. Each house has 2 - 5 kW of solar PV
2. Each house has 1 - 2 days' energy stored (eg. in batteries, or similar)
3. Ditto for commercial and industrial buildings
4. There are also scattered wind farms and singleton wind turbines where feasible
5. There is scattered storage that is owned by the utility

What is the issue? Intermittency.

Intermittency

This is the problem that is always raised when renewable power is promoted: renewable power is intermittent:

• solar PV only produces electricity when the sun is shining
• wind turbines only produce electricity when the wind is blowing

Neither of these conditions are met all the time, so does that imply rolling blackouts?

Problem

Imagine an interval between sunny, windy periods in NSW during which the local renewable generation produces very little, if any power. Imagine that there is somewhere else in Australia that at that time is producing plenty of power. Let's say it is in SA. From where will people in NSW get electricity?

Solution

Luckily, our scenario includes some distributed electricity storage. There is not very much (a typical off-grid house would have 5 days' electricity storage or more), so it is much cheaper. It does mean, however, that after a few days of cloud and no wind people's batteries would be running down.

The solution is to use the existing grid. While Australia's current grid cannot send enough power around in real-time (ie. if it's sunny in SA and cloudy in NSW, SA can't in real-time supply Sydney's power demands), what is rarely considered is that this is unnecessary. Remember that the existing grid is vastly underutilised -- it is built with peak demand in mind (which occurs a couple of times per year). Most of the time, the grid is running well below capacity.

In this scenario, power can be sent from SA to NSW overnight, when demand is low, to keep batteries in NSW topped up. It does not need to power customers in real-time -- all it needs to do is stop the batteries going flat.

To restate it another way -- the transfer of power from SA to NSW would not need to match the maximum instantaneous rate of consumption in NSW -- it would only need to match the average rate over the period covered by the batteries. In fact, even this is not required since the batteries can be assumed to begin this period relatively full and end it relatively empty.

By doing this, we would obtain maximum benefit from the existing grid infrastructure, and also be able to install a much smaller storage system, while retaining the benefits of distributed generation.

In other words, I question whether the oft-repeated statement that high renewable penetration requires a much more extensive grid is true. We can use electricity storage to greatly mitigate this (though by exactly how much, I am not sure. Some time, I will try to get the data together and run the numbers).

The post "Imagine 100% renewables -- what happens when there's no sun or wind?" was written by Angus Wallace and first appeared at guesstimatedapproximations.blogspot.com.au