PowerSource

Advertisement

Power Topics: Blog filled with useful information about product applications, helpful hints, news, and advice for the busy design engineer.

Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies.

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

PowerSource

« Got a good topic for a power p... | Main | USB on-the-go extends USB powe... »

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

The Reality of the Slacker Environmentalist: No pain, no change

I attended Al Gore’s keynote at Embedded Systems last year, and it was what I’ve heard described as a real come-to-Jesus meeting: A persuasive, charismatic speaker (yes, this was Al Gore, but Al Gore on fire), a generally professional audience already concerned about climate changes and conservation, and a resulting warm and fuzzy feeling on my part that yes, change needs to happen.

However, when I look back over my actions for the past year or so, I don’t see any significant changes in my behavior. Yes, I’ve bought CFLs (with mixed results) when I happened to see them on sale at Costco and Home Depot, and yes, I’ve thought that my next car really should get over 30 mpg, and I’ve even toyed with the idea of pushing the home energy bills down into the cheap kWh range with some solar panels, but when it comes to significant lifestyle changes – well, no.

So I wasn’t surprised to see an article in the WSJ, For All the Ecological Concern, Economy Drives Energy Use that confirmed that my behavior is not confined to my own hypocritical, slacker self:

“For all the talk about global warming, what is prompting Americans to rein in their fossil-fuel use isn't the effect of their consumption on the planet. It is the effect on their pocketbooks.”

The article goes on: "The U.S. is at a "tipping point," with people beginning to factor energy use into everyday decisions, says Lee Schipper, who has studied energy consumption for decades, earlier for Royal Dutch Shell PLC and now as a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley. But the driver isn't ecology, he says. "Sadly, it's economics. No pain, no gain.""

I was reminded of this article when I saw a comment on a post I wrote (see note below) about the practicality of Toyota’s plan for putting a solar panel on the Prius’s roof: The commenter’s point was that even if the best that the solar panel could contribute was a mere 10% of the power the Prius used for air conditioning, that 10% carried across the millions of cars in the US was significant savings of gasoline.

But keeping in mind that Toyota isn’t going to give you that solar panel for free, and judging by solar panels installations in general which depend on government subsidies to make them economically viable, I’m thinking, based on my newly-formulated Law of the Slacker Environmentalist, that solar panels on cars will not catch on until they actually return more in saved fuel costs than they cost the consumer.

Is it right? I don’t know. But it’s real.

---------

[Note: The comment was on the article summary contained in “This wEEk in gEEk” here. The original post was Here’s a (weak) justification for including a solar panel on the Prius that is well-worth reading for the comments alone, which include practical instances of solar panels used as trickle chargers, as well as a couple of Shakespearean allusions. We may be cheap, but we’re cultured here at PowerSource.]

Related entries in: Automotive | Power Sources/Controllers | Solar/Photovoltaics |

Reader Comments

(Add your comments)

at 7/16/2008 12:10:51 PM, Meredith Poor said:
Economic rationality is applicable to cars maybe half the time. Houses, cars, and clothes are plumage: they signal the reproductive fitness of the owner (Ratko seems to know about this). PVs rooftops will be sold to people from age 22 to age 35, where competition for mates is at it's peak in the human species. Rich old men driving Caddies won't give it much thought, single mothers with delinquent ex-s won't spend that money.

at 7/16/2008 12:14:44 PM, Meredith Poor said:
'Cost' can take several forms, the cheap one is money. More expensive alternatives are loss of habitat or failing health. In short, if diminishing resources are forcing us to invest in alternative infrastructure before we can't grow food, breathe, or walk outdoors without burning up, we're lucky. It's just a matter of which constraint has the greatest precedence.

at 7/16/2008 2:11:41 PM, desert rat said:
As the psychologists will tell you, people will not make significant changes in their lives until they are confronted with a serious and threatening crisis. We can still breathe, grow veggies, and stand outside in the sun without being vaporized, so no motivation there. But, being able to pay the bills and live a nice lifestyle with energy costs skyrocketing is economic motivation enough to make some minor adjustments. The rich don''t get hurt by high energy prices...they can pay them and not feel it (like Al Gore and his huge energy-wasting home...what an incredible hypocrite he is). Just watch "Soylent Green" to see the long-term effects. The short-term effects are all economic right now, and that is driving people to make some minor lifestyle modifications, but that''s all.

at 7/16/2008 2:20:31 PM, mike said:
I get a real kick out of all the teeth gnashing over saving the planet. Especially since, I'd wager, most of the gnashers are strict evolutionists. Come on, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. "Mother Nature" is just trying to evolve her latest problem out of existence. Get over it. Maybe there will be something in your genetic makeup that will let your offspring live on dirt, breathe carbon dioxide, and function just fine in the center of a big hole in the ozone. If not, oh well. You just weren't one of the "fittest". Thank you Mr. Darwin and Mr. Dawkins for helping me to understand it all.

at 7/16/2008 2:30:08 PM, Policebox said:
The fatalism implied by all these comments is really disgusting. All of you are just letting it happen to you. It is like you are saying, I can't make things better so I'm not going to try. Well, you CAN make things better; maybe only a little bit, but you CAN. If everybody adds their little bit the difference will be amazing. If nobody tries, it will happen. Are you a part of the solution or part of the problem? If you are part of the problem, get off my planet and let me live!

at 7/16/2008 4:26:42 PM, desert rat said:
I am an uncommitted environmentalist. I will do what reduces or controls my direct costs of living a nice lifestyle, and not what will supposedly save the planet. Everyone should read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" to see just how ridiculous and idiotic Al Gore and the Birkenstock-clad, spandex-wearing, liberal socialist "scientists" who preach planetary doom and gloom are. The volcano erupting in Hawaii right now is putting more CO2 and junk in the atmosphere right now that all the fossil fueled vehicles on the planet could produce in 100 years. This planet goes through thermal cycles, influenced more by the sun and natural events than anything humans are doing. We have maybe 200 years of climatic data, out of the 6 billion years the earth has been here. And, these poorly dressed liberal tree-hugger scientists want to tell me that they know that us humans are destroying the planet's atmosphere with our carbon footprints? Sorry, but I'm all stocked-up on junk science and political correctness here.

at 7/16/2008 4:49:20 PM, Nonslacker environmentalist said:
This sudden rush to conserve energy isn''t new. Some of us have been conserving for years and can''t do much more. I''ve already reduced my electric bill below $15, and I''m burning about one tank of gasoline a month. I''ve been recycling all my waste paper, plastic, glass, and clothing for years. I don''t think any of this makes me a saint...just a good citizen. Right now, my problem is deciding where to invest the money I''m saving. Interest rates and bond returns are lower than the inflation rate, the stock market is plunging, and real estate is still imploding. I''ve already made an embarrassing pile of money investing in oil. (Yes, I realize it''s ironic, but I knew oil prices would soar if we invaded Iraq, and I couldn''t resist the opportunity.) However, I''m reluctant to invest more money in oil now, because it''s starting to look like a bubble, too. And picking a good long-term alt-energy investment is very difficult for someone like me who isn''t close to that industry. If only Fidelity or Vanguard would start a Stupidity Index Fund, we could all invest in that and get rich!

at 7/16/2008 5:27:07 PM, desert rat said:
I too made big money on oil stocks, but I have nothing to apologize for: I am an opportunistic capitalist. There is no safe place for your money today...no place. ATT was a windows and orphans stock years ago, and today, it's a junk telecom stock. So much for the futures of widows and orphans. Bonds? Interest rates are down to 3-4% and have to go up, which means that you will lose principle in bonds you buy now. Freddie Mac, Gennie Mae, Fanny Mae, and all the banks are issuing preferred stocks paying 8-9% dividends...to raise capital. But, people chasing yield with these financial pigmies will lose their principle. Most of the financial stocks in the market are two heartbeats away from insolvency, and they used to be the safety stocks! There's $76 Billion tied up in auction rate securities right now..people chasing a higher yield (4-5%) than money market funds...and the ARS auctions started failing back in Feb of this year. I am playing covered calls and making 6-10% right now, but it's a nail-biter. Anything else, in my opinion, is a faith-based investment strategy that relies strictly upon Divine Intervention. Stay away from alt-energy stocks. They are just a fad, and will decline faster than Enron's stock price.

at 7/16/2008 5:51:18 PM, Realist said:
It may be disgusting but human nature is human nature. When designing a product you must take human nature into account no matter how illogical it may seem. We will always have violence and people will take the easy way out. The green’s think that everyone is inherently altruistic which is a false. Now that energy is so expensive the results will ripple through our economy and people will adjust because now it affects them personally. The proof is what is happening now to people’s habits all without carbon trading/taxes too.

at 7/16/2008 6:25:51 PM, desert rat said:
Realist..... Look at all the "phantom loads" in your house....all those little black transformers plugged into the wall socket that suck power even when that consumer device is turned off. Look at your "Instant On" TV..it's sucking power when it is off too. Like some of the semiconductor problems we have, call it "leakage current". People will turn-back their thermostat a bit, or put a timer on the HWH, but they leave all those phantom loads plugged in as they climb aboard the eco-bandwagon. They do this because (1) that's human nature, and (2) they ain't smart enough to know what those little black boxes are doing. Part of human nature is that humans always do what is beneficial to their short-term advantage and makes them feel good, and the other part is pure ignorance. And there is nothing you or I can do about 1 and 2 above. And, that says that this whole politically-correct ridiculous eco-movement is all about ignorance and feeling good. And than means, as the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss..."

at 7/16/2008 10:01:59 PM, more real said:
There is hope if you want it. Guideway cars can be efficient enough to run on the sun power that shines on the 7 foot wide path. It does take a change of habit and thus this discussion. For those motivated to be green by their pocket guideway cars cost 4.5 cents per mile electric energy cost and for those who wish to help there is a huge business opportunity in non-SUVs right now. Imagine powering all of personal transportation on PV not just a portion of the AC of a traditional Prius. A Cd of .07 in the wind tunnel affirms this. Rolling on metal guideway with steel wheels is the other difference. Other than these two engineering changes you drive like you always have except no more traffic congestion because the extra guideway provides sufficient capacity where highways will not at a price legislators are willing to pay. There are several dual mode suppliers you should search them out.

at 7/17/2008 12:18:29 AM, just_the_facts said:
All the Earth's volcanoes together put out lass than 250 million tons of CO2 (see volcanoes.usgs.gov) while humans put out about 30 billion tons. Not even close. With the increase in CO2 in recent decades, where are all those new volcanoes? People like Crichton, and their followers should be seen as criminals. Their victims are not every living thing on Earth, but yet unborn generations.

at 7/17/2008 2:23:03 PM, Brett Bowden said:
Just a comment on Crichton: He is NOT a climate scientist; he is a FICTION writer. Anyone who would use his book to bolster their argument that we are not capable of modifying our environment has no concept of the scientific method.

at 7/17/2008 3:29:05 PM, desert rat said:
Well Facts, a huge of the CO2 from volcanic activity is released into the oceans, and the water in the oceans give-up millions of tons of CO2 daily. It's not just surface vulcanism. So, you need to go back and find those numbers. I think they are in the Crichton book appendix. As for Crichton, he does more homework for his books than any of the badly-dressed climatologists preaching doom and gloom. State of Fear may be fiction, but you look at his bibliography and read those reports, and you can only come to one conclusion: this whole humans-cause-global-warming theory is all a giant politically-correct myth. And Bowden has been duped by it, as have many others. The one thing about the scientific method that some folks miss is independent and unbiased thought. Any tree-hugging eco-terrorist that uses the scientific method argument is obviously justifying what he/she simply believes, especially when the eco-freaks have very little evidence of their use of the SM in their conclusions. So, the scientific method argument runs both ways.

at 7/18/2008 9:53:17 AM, just_the_facts said:
The usgs.gov references include undersea eruptions and sea floor emissions which cannot hide either seismically, or through sampled ocean chemistry. Indeed, about half of Human CO2 emissions are absorbed into the oceans (with diminishing reservior capacity), otherwise that 30 billion tons of annual anthropogenic release would drive up atmospheric levels twice as fast. The laws of physics governing this are straight-foward, available to anyone, and they affect everyone, even right wing extremists

at 7/18/2008 2:23:01 PM, Brett Bowden said:
"The one thing about the scientific method that some folks miss is independent and unbiased thought. Any tree-hugging eco-terrorist that uses the scientific method argument is obviously justifying what he/she simply believes" - And Rat, you definitely aren't biased.

at 7/18/2008 4:45:47 PM, Meredith Poor said:
Anyone who'se mowed a lawn and left the clippings in a pile remembers how hot the interior of the pile gets in a day or so. This plant matter is decaying in an anaerobic environment, and the bacteria are producing a half-and-half mixture of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The same thing happens in sewers, the sediments washing into reservoirs (man made) or estuaries (natural), or rice paddies. The CO2 production in the 'third world' is more likely to be coming from rice paddies than coal burning power plants. It appears, at this moment, people aren't really cognizant of this source of CO2, or the combination of CO2 and Methane, which are both greenhouse gases.

at 7/22/2008 1:14:46 PM, Berta Creter said:
The article is dead on. Going environmetal has to have a cash incentive and to be economically feasible. In my instance, I'm dying to get Solar, but my recent bids have been $25,000 for two solar panels and getting hooked up to my local energy provider--who gets all my electrical run-off by law if I'm to get a rebate on my taxes. Pretty irritating. Getting one windmill is the same scenario. Go figure.

at 7/23/2008 2:59:01 AM, Darren Holdstock, UK said:
Spot-on article. Some perspective though - 30 mpg is still in gas-guzzler country, a realisation that will dawn when US fuel hits the $11+ per gallon mark like it is over here. On the plus side, I''m getting in some great schadenfreude at the moment observing the suffering of trophy 4X4 owners. Cheap energy is not a basic human right, it''s a privilege that''s ebbing away fast.

at 9/5/2008 12:40:53 PM, Dana H. said:
I come to one of two conclusions based on this article: (1) Environmentalists are the world's biggest hypocrites, or (2) Deep down, they don't really believe that we face catastrophe from man-made global warming.

PowerSource

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives