A Brief Introduction to Sustainable Buildings

I want to try and stay focused on the material presented, however you outline the symptoms of the disease quite well.

As far as your specific comment I selected: One reason might be that for a couple decades we have systematically lost our position of educating student to read write and perform math, our economic competitors are graduating engineers and scientists at orders of magnitude higher levels that we are. Secondarily to that the ability to think critically is more or less a lost art amongst our citizens, because we eat breath think and vote based on propaganda and popularity polls.

Another factor to consider is our US manufacturing base is more or less left the country, our economy is based on retail trade and prisons and government.

If you do want to address the material I offered, feel free analyze the projected energy requirement to keep the grid stable 10 years from now (with no changes), the amount of energy we can save by any methods I outline above, the amount of additional energy load increases we can expect due to climate change, how many windmills per square mile are needed to provide how many megawatts, how many aging fossil fuel planes we can expect to come off line due to old age in the coming 10 or 20 years? How many of nuclear plants will also come off line due to old age in the next 10 or 20 years?

Feel free to provide a technical analysis for lead time to replace these aging generating assets.

Keep in mind that China right now is bringing on one new fossil fuel power plant per week every week, and ordering as many now state of the art nuclear plants as can be lined up, and securing long term supplier contracts for oil form our largest oil trading partners.

Instead of sounding like someone's brochure, please help me sort out the technical material so we can identify logically sound solutions, and not just sound like a bunch of hot air.

You brought up costs and benefits. I was pointing out some costs and some benefits tend to be ignored. Sorry if that doesn't fit with your exact agenda but I consider these at least as important as what you bring up...the importance of which I have already acknowledged.

As to education, that is one area I find interesting regarding science and math. I also sometimes toss around the failure of America to train scientists, mathematicians and engineers adequately.

But then I see what my step daughter studies and what I see high school students do visiting labs I have worked in. They learn more and in more depth about science than I ever did at their age. Are NYC schools that much better? I know a great deal of problems with the NYC school system and I spend a lot of time criticizing it. But maybe I'm wrong if you don't see the same quality in the education in your area. I also saw very excellent university education and grad school education in the public univerity system in California. It seemed comparable with what I saw at the second best university in Japan. Alternatively, you and I when we criticize our nation's educational system compared with other nations may be wrong.

We clearly lag when it comes to languages. But what about science and math? Why do so many scientists from all over the world come to our insititutions to study and work?

And, of course, we have indeed lost a great deal of our blue collar jobs to overseas. But there are a lot of well trained blue collar workers who are unemployed who could be retrained for new manufacturing jobs.

To me, the more we focus on why NOT to do something, the less likely we will succeed. I like focusing on HOW to do it.

But again, all I did initially was point out that there are costs and benefits that are not well factored into the equation.

There are two central themes to my above comment (and within the post itself although I do have a writing style of tossing in additional things to think about).

1) I would like your (or anyone else's) analysis of the above outlined current state of our national electric supply / distribution grid, the current reasonable estimated load 10 years out coupled with aging infrastructure, and how that stacks up to any current feasible alternative (renewable) generating technology.

I'm quite certain the alternative generating options are of such small production ratio to traditional as to render them one step short of non existent in terms of megawatts replacement value. The end conclusion might be the best and proven (only) option lays on the demand side.

Couple to that we just spent the last 10 years replacing the majority of AC & refrigeration infrastructure in our county in the phase out of old refrigerants to save the Ozone layer. These new system's capital expense was not only huge, but also the remaining life cycle of this new equipment extends quite a way into the future, so I see it as imprudent and unlikely to now turn around again and discuss replacing (again). I suspect most owners would also frown on replacing relatively new equipment at such an early period of the equipment's life cycle - so the AC load on the grid is still and likely will continue to be significant and growing.

2) A secondary analysis of the demographics of the current level of graduating engineers and scientists (toss in skilled trades training), the retiring baby boomer employees from technical industries, the likelihood of these two factors impacting our ability to functionally and efficiently keep the grid and secondary foundations of society such as potable water and wastewater, communication, transport systems, food supply all working properly, let alone any discussion of transforming them to a CO2 friendly alternative.

I think the comment you made above continues to speak optimistic (in hope) of vague unnamed practical solutions, but falls short on a case by case basis of offering technical solutions to the very real current challenges we face and that I offer for discussion.

The disturbing part of that is if we are not preparing students by education, or providing continuing training for the younger generations of adult workers that will follow the baby boomers. I'm concerned about just how we expect to not only maintain the current status quo, but also even begin to make sweeping changes and transform our basic energy and civil facilities hardware?

Given the US Government is functionally insolvent, additional discussion about either capital funding or tax incentives to pay for this transformation is also somewhat lacking in practical implementation.

I'm trying to encourage you or anyone else to offer practical and feasible solutions to the challenges we face. So far no one seems to offer otions to the overall conversation except that our continued CO2 output must be checked or we are doomed. I'm asking to explain how, in any practical way does anyone think this can be done?

My request is that these proposed options be laid out in detailed cost benefit form so we can all analyze them on their merits. The continued political and environmental lobby based propaganda always say we must do more, but usually offers nothing of substance what it is we CAN do.

A VERY GOOD question is why?

THe more you remove your anti-environmentalist rhetoric, the more excellent I think your posts are. You raise excellent points that deserve attention. What I hope to be able to do in the future is bring together some people to discuss this in more detail.

Let me start by saying that your more anti-environmentalist comments seriously distracted from your main point. As, I think, does your "realistic" (yes, it does come off fatalistic...my wife describes it as lazy) attitude towards changing energy policy. You did early on throw in some misleading statements about warming itself and your pessimism strikes me as unproductive as you seem to view my optimism. Here is the crux: we need present and consider this issue from the assumption that YES we are already facing problems from global warming and they will get worse and YES we have some hurdles to overcome that should not be taken lightly. There is a need for change and there are difficulties in making those changes.

Once we agree on those two things, your detailed presentation of very real difficulties becomes a very important point and one which I would like to see Culture Kitchen become a good forum for discussion.

Of course my expertise is biology. Add to that considerable knowledge of history, archaeology, and environmental issues (I am not a member of Greenpeace or Sierra club...I am a member of Union of Concerned Scientists, and Scientists and Engineers for America, to give you an idea what I mean by that term). I also am an investor and have discussed these issues with a wide range of people. In all this is little engineering, which is why I have been WELCOMING your entry into this blog from the start. Your expertise is something we need more of here.

Now here is my non-answer to your specific questions. They are not really answers for the simeple reason that I think you are framing the debate far to narrowly requiring ONLY tech details that exactly match your specifications. I am not qualified to do that (though I will be looking into this!), but I am qualified to discuss aspects of the debate that discuss AROUND your specific questions. They are not unrelated in my mind, but rather part of the same equation. I feel you are asking the debate to be limited to a mere two or three variables in a 10 variable equation. But here is what I have gleaned from my own readings and from talking to people whose expertise are somewhere between ours:

1. anthropogenic global warming is far more accepted as a consensus among scientists than you seem to imply at times;

2. the debates among these scientists have started frightening me in terms of the severity of effects their models suggest, and when I say this, I am not talking about fear-mongering environmentalists, I am talking scientists who are at the cutting edge of this who seem to suddenly be scaring themselves with what they are finding. Furthermore, my reading of articles in the journals Science, Nature and Scientific American all convince me that you are underestimating the threat, possibly considerably;

3. the technology for us to be far more reliant on wind power is at least 10 years old to the degree that more than 10 years ago a sceintific analysis of the wind generating power in the Great Plains states predicted that it could be a major energy exporter with technology that is now way out of date. Why aren't we exploring THAT option? Forget how much of an effect it will ultimately have. It is STILL a sane and reasonable thing to do...more reasonable than staying addicted to oil. Making the Great Plains an energy exporter with wind power would create jobs, wealth and clean energy. Period. Just DO IT, I say;

4. Discussing wind power with someone intimately familiar with rural America (mainly Iowa) and wind power, his assessment is that several other parts of America are poised for wind to become a major part of their economy. Iowa farmers, for example, are shifting to becoming wind producers with farming as secondary because they make more money that way. Here is something that benefits farmers, the potential and the will is there right now, it builds the economy and it helps our energy policy. Forget the sum total effect. It creates jobs, wealth and clean energy. DO it.

5. I have looked into biofuels and geothermal to some degree. The potentials here seem less than wind in my non-expert opinion having talked to experts. But they stll add to the equation. Geothermal is something I made some real money investing in. Let's see where it goes.

6. Many technologies exist that can also add to the savings and make sense. One small example of course are compact fluorescents and other such bulbs. Problem with them is initial cost. That is a very real problem. But the ultimate savings are also very real. Our energy bills dropped by one-third when we switched, counting our AC use in NYC during a year with a winter. I think there could be incentives that could help with the initial costs and the ultimate savings will benefit homeowners;

7. At this point, you'd want to know just how much this will help. Good question! And one I also want to see discussed. But even if it is small, IT IS SOMETHING. All of this still creates wealth within the US. It all involves existing technology and existing trends. I am suggesting things that are not very innovative or controversial...they simply have received little attention because the oil industry has dominated American politics for quite some time. So let's start from what is easily achievable right now without major innovations. It is ONLY at the point where we have made use of all of this, which can be done NOW and which from everything I have read will benefit our economy on all levels and would not require an Apollo-program like government effort but rather incentives and information that your questions even become pertinent. I do think we have enough time where we can start with these things and in the mean time be considering the tougher things where your pessimism come into play. If we are smary, in the interim we can find some solutions to those problems;

8. I view everything from an evolutionary point of view. If our society (be it national or global) can't adapt, we will be weeded out. That's not fear mongering, it is biological fact. Doing nothing will, in my view, have a large likelihood of leading to an eventual collapse. Doing the things I mention above have short term benefits as well as being at least the first one or two steps towards greater adaption;

9. Things CAN be done. Societies, including our own, have undertaken enormous effort to solve seemingly insurmountable problems. By coincidence, I just finished a detailed book about the Punic Wars. The gist of why Rome won is that it doggedly focused on overcoming all obsticles even in the face of technological inferiority early on, major military defeats, financial disasters, etc. Here in our society there are many examples people love throwing around and I don't have to outline them. One far less dramatic example for me is recycling. As a child my family inconvenienced ourselves to be one of a handful of families who recycled. People thought we were idiots and said recycling would never catch on. It is now mandatory in pretty much every place I have lived, mostly major cities. Now, there are problems there. This mainly focuses on supply and ignores demand, meaning some things (e.g. glass and newspaper if my somewhat rusty knowledge is still accurate) get thrown away at the recycling depot because the market is small, but other things (metals, white paper, plastic, according to the same possibly out dated info) sell like hotcakes. But major progress was made. My gut feeling is that if you were a Consul in Rome around the time of the First Punic War, you would have outlined all the reasons why Rome, a nation with no naval experience, a local economy and having recently suffered some military setbacks, could NEVER ever attempt to beat the primary naval nation in the world. You would have advised against building a navy to take on Carthage because Rome just didn't have the ship builders, rowers, navagators, or the financial ability to succeed. And that new fangled corvus technology would make no difference in an actual naval battle. Rome would never have built that first navy and hence would never have won the First Punic War and would never have become a superpower. I am more willing to see that if we want to succeed we need to take some risks and I would be advocating building that first Roman navy, trying out the silly-sounding corvus and those two things arguably are responsible for the entire direction of Western Civilization.

Okay, that digression doesn't answer your excellent technical questions. But I think maybe it explains why we are coming at this from such different viewpoints. I see you as saying why bother trying. I see myself as saying what CAN we do that has both short and long term benefits and let's start with those. In the mean time we can be investing in the next generation of technology that still needs developing.

All of the above only addresses (or fails to address) your first point above. I can speak better about our scientific endeavors. Our research institutes are flooded with scientists and engineers from all over the world. Whether or not our public education system at the lower level is providing us with adequate scientists and engineers (and I am aware of the criticisms and good sides of our public school system) we have the best at the higher levels. People come from all over the world here for grad school, post docs and do their damndest to STAY permanently. Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Europeans are fighting our immigration laws to stay here.

Looking at publications in top journals, US is also doing great.

We still have the potential. That doesn't mean that your assessment of the problems should be ignored. They shouldn't and education is one thing I value highly...and unlike others around here I AM a fan of public education having been in public education until my first post-doc. But even now, at the highest levels, which is where the R+D is done, we are still the top. I know this because I am part of the university system and I see the publication numbers.

What we lack more even than the brains is the brawn. Our manufacturing sector is neglected and tends to be resistant to change. That is where some government incentives, tax breaks, etc. could help. But it is a real problem and one you have brought up. But if the market starts to call for more wind turbines, with a little push from the government to help retooling and retraining, a company will want to make them. If we can help companies make them in the US rather than import them from Denmark, we will benefit.

I assume this long non-answer or semi-answer to your questions will be completely unsatisfying to you. But it is where I am coming from and I am coming from a reasonably well-informed but non-expert viewpoint. As to a more satisfying discussion within your narrowly defined debate structure, I'm hoping to work on something that will fit the bill.

The bulk of your comment is directed at the broad range of the various issues of this near infinitely complicated subject, and only in the beginning did you express concerns about what I'm saying. This is good, I want you and other readers to pick apart the details of the material I explore, ask questions, offer opinions about potential solutions. Better yet explain solutions in progress that panned out as promised, or if they didn't pan out help explain why.

I DO NOT expect to be attacked if I don't agree with someone, nor will I personally attack someone I don't agree with. I will as you well know complain pointedly if anyone else is attacked if they don't agree. It's very much about free speech and open debate, while also respecting common courtesy.

I can be as diplomatic as the next guy, and also dish it out as well as the next guy too.

For nearly two years I've run this debate / exploration on my own page with great success and pretty darn good quality "conversations", and that "common courtesy clause" was the only real rule. A lot of folks haven't agreed with me on various issues, yet most in the end also said I make at least some sense.

Carrying on.....

First and foremost I'm pleased if your wife is reviewing my offerings (our exchanges). As you've suggested she's "in the business". This being the case we have built in peer review, at least behind the scenes. I have a couple of post Doc level readers, one formerly with the EPA, one with NOAA who review my writing already. I can assure you they would let me know if I get too far out of line and venture into flat out false territory. They also have asked for clarification of what Ive said, which helps me fine tune when I get too vague.

One thing we need to clear up is I am absolutely NOT anti-environmental. I've earned a living one way or another in the environmental management business since the early 1980's.

I am ABSOLUTELY anti environmental-fanatic. Which is to say I am actually a cheerleader for easily 90 percent of the folks who care about the discussion.

One of my methods when I explore this material is to try and break specific sub-components out of the broad range and try and address them as stand alone narrowly bounded discussions.

For example, our the state of our National Energy Grid, and sustainable building efforts.

The broad range is sufficiently controversial and (I assert) certain parts of it less than sure things, that we will endlessly be stuck in the mud arguing about the big picture if we don't try and consider little pieces at a time.

Given the high level of inflammatory rhetoric from both sides, Joe average voting American has no chance to digest the massive inter-related problems, let alone begin to understand potential solutions, and VOTE based on common sense and accurate information.

In conclusion, I posted my "Middle Ages Weather" history reference as a Forum to draw attention to what Mother Nature does on her own without the help of mankind. In no way was it to "debunk" current climate change theory in relation to man's part of the cause but to illustrate the nature of the beast that as far as I'm concern has been quietly sleeping for the last couple hundred years.

I'm not comfortable with the idea we caused all of the change, nor am I comfortable with the idea we caused none of it.

It's easily somewhere in the middle, but the folks who vehemently suggest the two extremes are the one who have a beef with my efforts.

One might ask why folks would "assume" I was trying to debunk anthropogenic discussions?

It might be more useful to begin thinking in terms of a synergistic relationship between what Mother Nature is capable on her own, coupled with what "help" mans has introduced to the Earth's weather and climate system.

If you go back and look carefully at my former posts and comments, you will begin to understand why I prefer and "Man influenced climate" and also notice I strongly think Mother Nature is doing what she does naturally.

BOTH at the same time.

The "Greek Words" post curretnly posted explores at length "Synergy". I think that's what our climate is doing, and I think the "weather observations" from the Middle Ages are VERY likely to happen again, soon.

Recent "Tipping Point" discussions about certain historic rapid change to regional climate are too important to ignore.

This being the case, talking about investing trillions in potential (speculative) benefits a couple hundreds of years out will leave millions of citizens vulnerable in the near future. We need to figure out what the middle ground common sense actions are.

Onward thru the fog.

Here may be one problem: you seem to imply that you hold the middle ground and those who disagree with you are leaning towards one or the other extreme. I don't agree with that and will continue to say so.

Your extreme reductionist approach to the issue, as I have said, has plusses and minuses. I don't know why you bring up free speech all the time since NO ONE has implied you should not post or how you should post. Let me assure you that if we wanted to censor you, we could. Instead we have welcomed you and your response has been less than polite at times. That is your right but may not make the best impression. I also would suggest that your reductionist approach, with its plusses and minuses, will not limit the free speech of others who want to discuss wider issues. When you post here you are not in charge of the direction of the discussion. I have seen each of your posts as ignoring some major points. You deny the validity of discussing those major points. I deny the validity of ignoring them. Fine. We both have that right.

When I commented in your Middle Ages weather post (which, I can point out, was during a warm period...something we are starting to get beyond thanks to our addition to whatever natural cycle is going on) was not even directed towards you or what you were saying. It was directed at someone else who answered for herself regarding something she said. I submit that you can let her speak for herself and allow her to have side discussions with others within your diaries without your claiming it is too off topic.

So, I intend to continue bringing up wider issues and providing an alternative to your fatalistic (yes, I can use that term even if you prefer realistic) views. That is the nature of this forum. You can continue posting your reductionist/fatalistic views, (which, as I have ALREADY said have considerable value for discussion) and I will continue to respond as I see fit. Perhaps if you got to know this site a bit better you would see that the evolution of discussions is almost as interesting as the initial discussions themselves. And that disagreement does not in anyway imply a violation of your free speech.

Onward into debate!

Look, if I am going to threaten anyone you will know. I don't veil anything.

While you mention what I say, also mention that I have consistently welcomed YOUR comments and YOUR posts. As to 'Tude, you continue to speak for her which seems awfully pretentious of you. She didn't express any sense of being attacked or rude.

If you feel threatened by someone questioning your authority on a subject, then you are going to find it hard around here. Sorry, but that's life. No one has threatened you at any time here. You come on this blog and immediately start insulting other people and claiming infringement of your "freedom of speech" despite consistently being allowed to post what you want on the front page (which I encouraged you to do from the start) without review and being welcomed to the site.

To me that is ingratitude at a minimum. Not to mention amazingly thin skinned for blogdom.

Feel free to continue to be thin skinned and lack gratitude. It is your right. But I see no reason treat you any gentler than I treat anyone else.

As to who can ban people from this site, I think that pretty much means the editors, of which I am one. As far as I know, no one has ever been banned from this site and only one person from Daily Gotham. And I argued against that banning. And no one has ever been banned by me. All I have ever done along those lines is delete anonymous comments that were advertisements for porn or other things. If people want to advertise let them pay us. Otherwise NO ONE has been banned by me. And I would suggest when you are a newbie to a site that is opening its front page up to you, it really is considered common couteousy to at least familiarize yourself with the site, whose on it and how it works before you throw around accusations of being oppressed.

Sheesh!

Perhaps the perception of common courtesy is different for some from the Midwest, as it is for some from NYC.