By the way I’m not suggesting that the UK go out and build 240 nuclear reactors tomorrow. I was just using it as an example to give context regarding the scale of the energy problem/predicament.
Also, I’d love to see that calculation that says the USA can only use 10% of its current power (I’m assuming you mean total energy consumption per annum) and have a middle class with its current population of 325,000,000+.
Also, also, three posts in a row from myself. That has to count as bad banter so I’ll stop.
Cheers
Luke Moffat wrote:
By the way I'm not suggesting that the UK go out and build 240 nuclear reactors tomorrow. I was just using it as an example to give context regarding the scale of the energy problem/predicament.
Also, I'd love to see that calculation that says the USA can only use 10% of its current power (I'm assuming you mean total energy consumption per annum) and have a middle class with its current population of 325,000,000+.
Also, also, three posts in a row from myself. That has to count as bad banter so I'll stop.
Cheers
Quote
...set out to document our project and spend a year reducing our energy consumption by 90% over the average American’s. What we didn’t expect was that first dozens, then hundreds, and by the end, several thousand people joined us. We had expected to struggle. We hadn’t expected to find community, and most of all, to have fun.....Some fundamental revelations emerged. The first was that the first 50% reduction in energy usage isn’t that hard for most of us – that was heartening. Most people could get big drops in energy usage by making changes that weren’t too difficult. After that, of course, it got harder. We also found that most of us had a Waterloo – a place where we found ourselves struggling. Out here in the country it was transport energy. In the cities, it might be food and consumer goods. We shared our struggles, and thrilled when someone made it – our friends Larry and Gail dropped their electric usage to well below 90%. Someone asked “do you even live in your house?” Not only did they live there, they worked out of it too! In June of 2008, my family had achieved 80% in all categories, at least at one point. We had achieved our 90% goal with water usage, but slid back up again to about 60% down from the American average, as our climate became increasingly wet – our 60+ inches of rain annually simply meant we didn’t feel we had to reduce our water usage quite so much. We were never able to consistently keep transportation energy down to 90% – my oldest, disable son’s busing and the distance from Eric’s job made that harder for us out here in a rural area. We had to settle for using only 4/5ths of the energy used in most households. We have kept our energy levels down at the 80% mark for the most part, except for water and a home renovation project that put us well over the consumer goods limit one year. By the end of 2008, a great deal of more data about climate change had emerged, and between that and the lack of political action that followed President Obama’s election, it became clearer and clearer that world action on climate change either had not or would not come in time (depending on whether you think we’re already past critical tipping points, which may be the case.) While we’d never expected to change the world wholly, even the most dedicated families, the ones who had been living the Riot most passionately began to ask the same questions – why should I do this if it isn’t going to make any difference?....struggling with a good answer to the question “Why do it?” It isn’t that I think it is any less critical to learn to live on much less than it was in 2007. It isn’t that I think cutting carbon emissions matters less – there’s a big difference between 550ppm and 800ppm. It isn’t that I don’t believe that one of the central projects of dealing with both climate change and peak energy is to create a new American Dream, a vision of a life that can actually go forward into the world we have – a dream that requires less money, less energy, and that replaces the consumption at its center with something better. I believe in these things, but I also understand why people ask “Why do with so much less if it won’t stop climate change, won’t delay an energy peak? Why live now like I’m going to have to then? Why do the hard thing, when there’s so much hard coming?” I’ve come to believe there are three reasons. The first, is that it isn’t that hard – and that getting the most out of little is an art form, a pleasure, a life worth having and enjoying. The second is the reason articulated by my old friend and colleague Dmitry Orlov, where he observes that if you are facing a fall out of a window, you’d probably prefer to fall out a first story window, rather than a second story window – that is, everything you can do to get yourself closer to the place you are going anyway softens your fall. The third is that it is simply right....http://sharonastyk.com/page/5/ the blog dated April 25, 2011 From my handwritten notes from the project : - Transportation: 50 gallons of gasoline or diesel per year per person, so 17 gallons a month for a family of 4. This covers all car, airtravel, commuting, vacations.... Yes, there are conversions for an electric car, but that still wont cover current patterns. Conserving more in the rest of the categories does give more of a budget here, which is how I met the challenge. - Electricity: 200kWh a year per person. That is about 67kWh a month for a family of 4. If this is produced by alternate means ( wind. solar) double it to 134kWh a month for a family of 4. An energy star "best" 19cu ft top freezer refrigerator uses 1kWh a day, so 30kWh a month, washing machine is under .5kWh per load, cold water wash. Laundry is hung up to dry under this scenario. LED bulbs. No hot tub. - Natural Gas : 100 Therms per household per year. House heat/hot water. If your house is all electric, you get a bigger budget there, but not enough to house heat with electric. 1 cord of wood equals 20 therms. Wood you cut down on your own property and replant counts as ZERO as it is Carbon neutral. Solar hot water is helpful to keep in this budget. Heating with wood and having solar hot water gives you more CO2 budget to "spend" on transportation. This was my biggest savings area, so more for my driving... - Water: 10 gallons per person per day. Water for your food growing doesnt count, as you should be using less than a ( Calif. ) farm alot of our impact is in what is grown and manufactured for us, so the next categories are how we can estimate our impact there: - Garbage: This includes what is recycled, as packaging and money spent are our measurable indicators of consumption. 4 pounds per household ( 2.6 people) per week. This does not include what you are putting in the compost. - Consumer goods: Less than $1000 spent per year per household ( 2.6 people) Used goods count, but at a 90% discount, so count at 10c on the dollar. - Food: Less than 5% of amount of food can be packaged, processed foods of any type or industrial meat/dairy/eggs. Less than 25% of foods dry bulk goods ( grains, legumes) The rest 70% or more of foods local, unprocessed fruits, veggies and also meats/dairy/eggs that are grass fed or fed locally grown grains. more detail on the 90% rules are here : https://simplereduce.wordpress.com/riot-for-austerity90-rules/
Luke Moffat wrote:
By the way I'm not suggesting that the UK go out and build 240 nuclear reactors tomorrow. I was just using it as an example to give context regarding the scale of the energy problem/predicament.
Also, I'd love to see that calculation that says the USA can only use 10% of its current power (I'm assuming you mean total energy consumption per annum) and have a middle class with its current population of 325,000,000+.
Also, also, three posts in a row from myself. That has to count as bad banter so I'll stop.
Cheers
SO, I am doing it, reduce by 90%. I believe I still qualify as a middle class lifestyle – but, no, I do not do the same as everyone around me. But, I did this with 3 kids, in a house, with a wash machine, refrigerator, laptop,etc… the children made it thru highschool and activities. Yes, a middle class family can reduce this much. I know other households who have done this. We are not exceptional, excepting that we are determined and like to play a goal orientated game like that – how low can you go ? Do you want to try ? should I start a new lifestyle thread ? It is the journey, and it is a journey you do not reduce that low overnight or in a month.
here is the 90% reduction calculator, just put in your information and hit calculate. Most of us are under in some areas, over in others, so the bottom line average is the ultimate number
may help clarify what offshoring does.
I hear many people claim that a city has a lower carbon footprint per person than rural areas. What is ignored in that claim is that most of the food and all the ‘stuff’ that is consumed in the city usually comes from outside the city. Without the outside inputs the city wouldn’t survive.
If a country imports a lot of manufactured goods then it is offshoring its carbon footprint just like a city does. I consider this faulty accounting, but it seems to be what is done. Each bite of food and each consumable itself has a carbon footprint. Addingg up all of what is bought and consumed and then calculating carbon footprints would bring home the personal responsibility we each have as citizens of this planet.
Well worth the listen, shall review again a few times. As he featured it so much back in October and its now a few months on, I wonder what Steve’s current assessment is of Louis Arnoux’s work, would be interested to know if he & Chris discussed this off air.
As as aside you folks might like this for some entertainment, heck you may sleep easier… 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-economy-wont-collapse-3980688
climber99-
If we assume rule of law will remain, then investing in windmills makes a lot more sense than gold. As you say, people need electricity while they do not need gold.
However, a windmill is not all that portable. If a desperate local government was hard up for cash to fund their pensions, they might just decide to tax all windmill electricity production - or maybe if things got really bad they’d end up simply confiscating it. In a future environment where fuel is expensive, all that built-out windpower would end up providing a sort of “windfall profit” for the owners which could be seen as “unfair” and “rentier.”
Gold, on the other hand, is portable. If the local government got grabby, you can always leave with your gold. Theoretically anyway.
Gold is a hedge against government misconduct. Windmills, on the other hand, are a bet that the rule of law will largely remain in place and local government tax policy will be not too predatory. Any bets on that going forward? Take a look at Illinois. They are fixing their budget problems by raising taxes. I think its a sign of things to come.
Perhaps do both?
Mntnhousepermi,
Ah, I understand what has happened, you are talking about a 90% reduction in CO2 emissions whereas I was talking about a reduction in energy consumed per capita.
As a point of illustration let’s see if the items you have listed lead to a 90% reduction in energy consumed per capita;
50 Gallons of Diesel per year; 1 Gallon of diesel = 146.5 MJ at High Heating Value.
50 x 146.5 MJ = 7.325 GJ
200KWh of electricity per year; 1KWh = 3.6 MJ
200 x 3.6 MJ = 0.720 GJ
100 Therms of Natural Gas per year; 1 Therm = 105.5 MJ
100 x 105.5 MJ = 10.55 GJ
Adding that all together gives 18.595 GJ
Now that puts you 6 GJ over the 90% reduction on the 120 GJ required for a Human Development Index of 0.75 (as the target value is 12 GJ)
However, America currently consumes 289.2 GJ per capita (94 Exajoules / 325,000,000 people)
90% reduction of 289.2 GJ = 28.92 GJ
This gives you just over 10 GJ per person per year grace.
However, here are the items we haven’t yet factored in;
· Energy needed to purify 10 gallons of water per day
· Energy needed to transport 10 gallons of water per day
· Energy needed to maintain water purification infrastructure (including spare parts)
· Acquisition of petroleum products
· Refinement of petroleum products
· Transportation of petroleum products
· Maintenance of petroleum infrastructure (including spare parts)
· Waste transportation
· Waste disposal
· Energy consumed whilst at work (lights, heating, services, IT, etc…)
· Energy used for food production
· Healthcare institutions and standards
· Institutions that support law and order
· Institutions that support education
I’m sure there are more but I would bet that all those listed above would vastly exceed the remaining 10 GJ per person per year.
Please note; I’m not trying to belittle anyone’s resilience activities. I too believe that we will transition from a productive/growth economy to a maintenance/care-taking economy. I’m just trying to get an idea of what that looks like.
All the best,
Luke
aggrivated wrote:
may help clarify what offshoring does. I hear many people claim that a city has a lower carbon footprint per person than rural areas. What is ignored in that claim is that most of the food and all the 'stuff' that is consumed in the city usually comes from outside the city. Without the outside inputs the city wouldn't survive. If a country imports a lot of manufactured goods then it is offshoring its carbon footprint just like a city does. I consider this faulty accounting, but it seems to be what is done. Each bite of food and each consumable itself has a carbon footprint. Addingg up all of what is bought and consumed and then calculating carbon footprints would bring home the personal responsibility we each have as citizens of this planet.Exactly. I live out of town and used to get soooo tired of energy concious people in town saying my lifestyle was unsustainable. I have way less bought in food or energy, it is a totally sustainable place to live. I used to remind them that people lived here since the late 1800’s, right where I am now.
aggrivated wrote:
may help clarify what offshoring does. I hear many people claim that a city has a lower carbon footprint per person than rural areas. What is ignored in that claim is that most of the food and all the 'stuff' that is consumed in the city usually comes from outside the city. Without the outside inputs the city wouldn't survive. If a country imports a lot of manufactured goods then it is offshoring its carbon footprint just like a city does. I consider this faulty accounting, but it seems to be what is done. Each bite of food and each consumable itself has a carbon footprint. Addingg up all of what is bought and consumed and then calculating carbon footprints would bring home the personal responsibility we each have as citizens of this planet.Exactly. I live out of town and used to get soooo tired of energy concious people in town saying my lifestyle was unsustainable. I have way less bought in food or energy, it is a totally sustainable place to live. I used to remind them that people lived here since the late 1800’s, right where I am now.
No, you dont get it.
Did you look at what we are tracking ?
When we use 90% less water, as measured in gallons, then we are using less of all the associated infrastructure you mentioned !
We measure and reduce our trash, so that is taken into account.
Every bit of acquisition, refinement and transport of petroleum products is reduced by 90% as we use 90% less ! Surely you should have at least seen this ?
It is true that the societal institutions that we use in healthcare, education, government and local and national security do not have any of their useages lessened by our efforts –
Did you input your household data into the calculator ? How are you doing ?
OK, this conversation can go on forever as we’re talking about 2 separate things.
mntnhousepermi wrote:
No, you dont get it.
When we use 90% less water, as measured in gallons, then we are using less of all the associated infrastructure you mentioned !
When you consider a gallon of gasoline provides somewhere between 2 and 14 days of equivalent human labor, running the numbers seems somewhat moot. Have a look at the Univ. of Colorado’s fact sheet and then pick up your hoe and start weeding (unless you’re using Roundup and that’s not figured in the equation). Spent an hour picking strawberries yesterday and got two gallons of them. I didn’t calculate the energy to labor equation, but they sure were good!
http://www.waterandenergyprogress.org/library/05006.pdf
Luke Moffat wrote:
OK, this conversation can go on forever as we're talking about 2 separate things.
mntnhousepermi wrote:
No, you dont get it.
When we use 90% less water, as measured in gallons, then we are using less of all the associated infrastructure you mentioned !
I do have my own water systems, clean and waste. But most people dont.
I dont see what is so hard to understand for you though, maintenance is done by usage, when a pump is used less it takes that much longer for it to wear out, etc…Not everything is like this, but it is a close approximation for people that cutting their usage 90% has that effect. Works this way at my house too – a pump that is used less both uses less power and also goes proportionately longer before it has to be replaced. The waste end is even more like this, as all the crazy things people put down the sink and tiolet are hard on systems, wether small or large scale.
Instead of nit picking the idea, can you see that this is a close approximation for people trying to cut back to that 10% level ?
The question I asked you was what your personal usage was ? What do you get when you put your households numbers into the calculator ? Need to start somewhere.
If you want to know more about riot for austerity reasons for measuring what they do, you may still be able to look it up
Luke Moffat wrote:
OK, this conversation can go on forever as we're talking about 2 separate things.
mntnhousepermi wrote:
No, you dont get it.
When we use 90% less water, as measured in gallons, then we are using less of all the associated infrastructure you mentioned !
I do have my own water systems, clean and waste. But most people dont.
I dont see what is so hard to understand for you though, maintenance is done by usage, when a pump is used less it takes that much longer for it to wear out, etc…Not everything is like this, but it is a close approximation for people that cutting their usage 90% has that effect. Works this way at my house too – a pump that is used less both uses less power and also goes proportionately longer before it has to be replaced. The waste end is even more like this, as all the crazy things people put down the sink and tiolet are hard on systems, wether small or large scale.
Instead of nit picking the idea, can you see that this is a close approximation for people trying to cut back to that 10% level ?
The question I asked you was what your personal usage was ? What do you get when you put your households numbers into the calculator ? Need to start somewhere.
If you want to know more about riot for austerity reasons for measuring what they do, you may still be able to look it up
OK, we’re still talking at cross purposes.
I’m curious as to the energy available per capita per annum, along with a corresponding EROI, say for the next 10 years and then looking at what standard of living it will support along with which institutions will survive and what they will look like. I was attempting to use the comments section underneath the recent podcast to do it given as how the discussion brought up EROI. I don’t understand why you’re being so defensive and keep virtue signalling. It’s a completely unreasonable thing to do. If what I’m saying upsets you so much then just hit the ‘ignore’ button.
mntnhousepermi wrote:
I do have my own water systems, clean and waste. But most people dont.
mntnhousepermi wrote:
I dont see what is so hard to understand for you though, maintenance is done by usage, when a pump is used less it takes that much longer for it to wear out, etc...Not everything is like this, but it is a close approximation for people that cutting their usage 90% has that effect.
mntnhousepermi wrote:
The question I asked you was what your personal usage was ? What do you get when you put your households numbers into the calculator ? Need to start somewhere.
all sewage goes somewhere and not sure how that relates to energy and infrastructure to process it, some ways are high input/energy, others are low. You asked if I recycle my sewage ? I dont even know what that means to you. At the moment at my house, a large amount of grey water is seperated out and goes to plants, and the leach field (toilet waste)is feeding the hazelnut trees. We have done Humanure composting, but the buckets are too heavy for me, we plan to do biogas, but the effluent is recycled right now in that it is feeding our nut trees.
A septic system has bacteria eat sewage and the effluent goes to the leach field and feeds and waters trees and plants downhill of it. Unless junk is added to the system, it goes along without care or input for ? – a long time, in any case. No matter what you hear about, the reality is that people who do not use bleach or chemicals do not need to pump or have other troubles. They are gravity systems, in most cases.
A composting toilet composts wastes, and the compost goes out under a tree. Most people doing this at home use the Humanure Method, there is a book and website.
A pit toilet gets filled up, and then capped off with soil, and wether a tree is planted on top or not the waste is ultimately eaten by soil microbes/plants.
Methane capture is rare in this country, a small company on the west coast, Hestia came out with a wonderful system, you can look up Hestia Biogas. Hopefully they have made it thru trying to grow and are still around, last I heard they moved from Portland to Washington state.
But, waste management does not need to take up a bunch of infrastructure, for low tech you might want to look at the Humanure methods.
I am not virtue signalling, seems deflection to question my motives. You dont know me, and I am just letting you know that many people have run the experiment and have lived middle class lifestyles at much lower energy usages levels.
this unit would appeal more to standard american backyards
That actually looks pretty awesome.
The reason I raised the sewage question is that sewage treatment plants are normally required to deal with human excrement. Think about all that pipework and maintenance saved if everyone were to have a Hestia in their back garden / community refuse area.
Luke Moffat wrote:
That actually looks pretty awesome.
The reason I raised the sewage question is that sewage treatment plants are normally required to deal with human excrement. Think about all that pipework and maintenance saved if everyone were to have a Hestia in their back garden / community refuse area.
These guys ran the experiment with a home built one of similar design in a city in Oregon ( eugene or portland) where it was indeed shared with a few homes.
They spent some $$ going public with the molded unit, paid for a few comercials etc… I hope they did not overreach and are still around, as yes, this is much more ecological and cost effective than Solar Electric. You should order one, I have too much waste and need to do a site built one. I was going to buy one for my eldest as a house warming, but her house fell out of escrow, so, I cant buy one yet, and it would be good for initiatives like this to stay afloat.
Human excrement doesnt have to be so energy/resource intensive, but boy do we make it so.