Crash Course Video Series
user-869687
| Posted in General Questions on
This link is the first of a series of videos about the relationship between economic growth and the physical world. The presentation is in simple terms and quite lucid. If you’ve already been reading extensively about peak oil and related issues then maybe nothing will be new here, but the videos neatly summarize and correlate several complex issues. The combined run time is several hours, but seriously folks, there has never in your lifetime been a subject more worthy of attention.
The presenter is Chris Martenson: http://www.chrismartenson.com/
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Search and download construction details
Replies
Thomas, I have been through this series and I want to echo your recommendation to view it - highly worthwhile viewing.
Do you mean "crash course" or "CRASH course"?
Here's a much shorter crash course: 300 Years of FOSSIL FUELS in 300 Seconds, narrated by Richard Heinberg, author of Power Down, The Party's Over, and Peak Everything.
An Abbreviated History of Fossil Fuels
Thomas, after viewing "the crash course" has your out-look on the direction of the "Green" building movement changed at all?
Lucas, I feel very mixed about the green building movement and the likelihood of deep disruptions in the economy. Among the issues here, two stand out: first that building things doesn't save resources, it uses them. Green building is supposed to be about saving resources, but in many ways this is a fallacy. Martin raised this point with the Jevons Paradox--improved efficiency doesn't necessarily reduce resource consumption. The problem is deeper when the process of creating a new efficient building requires a major dedication of materials and energy.
The second big issue is how the possibility/likelihood of serious economic disruption affects the wisdom of building anything, given the huge cost of (for example) a new house. I wish we could be talking about building efficient homes at negligible cost, but that's not reality. The fact is that there are many vacant houses and also unused rooms in occupied homes, so there's no way to defend new construction on environmental grounds. So far (and that's a critical proviso) people who have the resources still want their own homes and not to live with strangers, so the possibly extreme environmental angle doesn't hold sway.
But the film suggest that the housing bubble could still have a long way to deflate. Existing homes already cost less than building new, and that imbalance could grow significantly as housing prices drop (and I don't see construction costs dropping much). Financially it may be unwise to build anything.
Or do I overstate the usefulness of money? If money is going out of style, but you have some available, then maybe now is the time to use if before it loses buying power. Better to convert dollars to house, because the dollars may become worthless but the house will not.
Thinking in borderline doomsday terms here: I live in the pacific northwest, where it's moderately cold and rainy. This seems wise because desert cities may be abandoned (just maybe) in the not so distant future for want of water. The people of Los Angeles fill their swimming pools with water diverted from rivers and lakes a thousand miles away. If those aqueducts were redirected for any reason, the city would not be habitable. Same goes for Las Vegas--their pools and lawns depend on aquifers that are dropping. Will millions of people be moving to the PNW when their water is gone? Doesn't seem that unlikely. Portland is a good place for people who choose bikes over cars, so if that became more of a necessity than a choice, you might not want to be biking around Phoenix.
Of course it is possible to live without fossil fuel, because humans somehow survived and thrived for a very long time prior to 1850. I don't think there's any loss to quality of life in reducing gasoline use, even to near zero (but again it depends on what city you call home). Food grown in your yard really does taste better. So-called "free range" eggs have nothing on the eggs my neighbor collects from his chickens. There's no reason to panic if you're not attached to the unsustainable consumer lifestyle.
I also count myself lucky to be childless, and strongly encourage everyone to consider the future of dwindling resources when tempted to add new people to this planet. Just one is still too many, if you can choose to not add to the population. Adopt children if you feel secure in being able to support a family. I keep hearing people say, I would do ___ but I have a family to feed. I need to drive this vehicle because of the kids, and I need to have this house, etc. It's hard to discuss this without seeming anti-family or anti-child, and that's not the intent, but not procreating is the single most important choice for a habitable future world.
But Thomas Jefferson, you're the father of a whole nation ;-)
Yes, and if you were wondering what I look like my portrait is on the $2 bill.
Thomas, I never would have guessed you look like Queen Elizabeth.
Thomas, thank you for your thoughts.
No kidding?
To get back to Lucas' question, there is more to say about green building and the times ahead. For one thing, a new structure can be built at a strategic location. Choosing a site becomes another question, and something being discussed in other threads. Next, looking at existing houses around here, it's not easy to find anything particularly well insulated, or well designed for that matter. New construction allows building to a much higher standard. It isn't clear that a new high-performance house will "pay for itself" in energy savings, but if nothing else it should stand up to the elements and remain comfortable with minimal energy input.
Another feature possible to include in a new house and hard to find existing: a roof garden. Of course this makes sense only in an urban context, because it would be nuts to add tons of soil to the roof if there were plenty of open site area for the garden.
Solar power is another question. It's a little surprising that the general consensus on this website is that solar panels are too expensive to be sensible, but that is a logical deduction based on high up-front cost and moderate pricing for grid power. Is it possible the rising cost of energy would make PV panels much more expensive in the future, just because of the energy needed to make and distribute them? Maybe it makes sense to install PV now.
Thomas, thanks for your additional thoughts.
Something that has always frustrated me is an apparent lack of direction in "Green" building.
I suppose if I have an agenda here I would say it is to get people to think about "the times ahead".
If ever there was a time for people to work on developing a common strategy, it is now.
For example, the concept of the "stranded asset" is an important one with regard to new construction. To avoid wasting resources on "stranded assets" very good guesses need to start being made on what the near future will look like - you cannot determine an asset's future value if you do not try to define the context within which it will exist.
I would say this is a definite possibility and the problem will most likely also be compounded by decreased purchasing power within such a economic environment. When energy gets expensive, we all get poorer.
I brought this up earlier in a different thread, but I'll mention it again:
Utility companies could provide the loans for efficiency retrofits with the cost of repayment being passed to the occupants of a particular residence via their normal utility bill. This way, the cost of paying for the upgrades remains with the residence rather than with the occupants should ownership of the residence change. This also seems to address the difficulties associated with retrofitting rental units.
Any thoughts?
Lucas,
One of the most creative alternative energy companies, NRG, recently spun off the subsidiary All Earth Renewables to design, manufacture and market both residential-scale wind turbines and Sun-Tracker PV systems.
Their self-contained, stand-alone grid-connected Sun-Trackers are GPS-controlled two-axis trackers that produce up to 45% more electricity than fixed panels. The company will do the site evaluation, all the permitting, and installation which takes one or two days, complete with precast concrete footings and underground service. The cost to the homeowner is $1000 per unit and a five-year power purchase agreement by which you pay a fixed cost per kWh (roughly equivalent to the current utility rates), and after which time period you can return the units or purchase them for 1/3 market value and get the utility green energy rebate for yourself.
http://www.allearthrenewables.com/products/solar/
Robert, that sounds similar to something that has been happening in Ontario called "Microfit".
Essentially financing was made available for the purchase of 10kW or smaller grid-tie PV installations and the OPA agreed to pay a guaranteed price on the power generated - allowing a fixed amortization of something like 10 years.
I've lost track of what has been going on with the program but there were a number of gaffs... Too many people wanted to install the arrays on the ground instead of their roofs... OPA reduced the amount of the guaranteed rate for ground installations... OPA recieved "too many" applications and after the first 5000 only offered the lower guaranteed rate for all installations (doubling the payback interval)... it turned into a bit of a mess... although there are several installations happening in my area at the moment despite all that.
Thomas, to your question:
I was just reading something that I thought might be interesting to you (maybe not):
Why Permaculture: Energy Descent, Solar Case Study
Lucas,
All Earth Renewables is one of the most innovative such companies in the US and, because of favorable power pricing by the state's utility regulators ($0.30/kWh for renewable generation), is rapidly covering the Vermont landscape with their ground-based grid-tied solar trackers (manufactured in VT).
They've installed more than 340 units so far, including 17 for the Univ of VT, 31 for one municipality which has 500 kW of total installed capacity, and is now planting another 2.2 MW (382 units) in one location for the largest solar array in the state.
These are the seven units at Yestermorrow.