Over the last weekend, approximately 170 light bulbs were changed in the Governor’s office. In total 1,000 bulbs will be changed in the State House which will mean $15,000 in savings and a reduction of 56 tons in carbon emissions per year.
Speaker DiMasi said, “Massachusetts is facing an energy crisis and, as leaders in the Commonwealth, we must commit ourselves to reform that encourages the use of clean and renewable energy sources, that cuts our dependence on imported sources of fuel and that drives down costs to businesses and consumers. That will only happen with bold action like the steps we take today and by passing meaningful, comprehensive energy reform this session.”
Senate President Therese Murray said, “State leaders have the greatest responsibility to set green policy and I commend Governor Patrick for taking the lead on setting conservation standards for state buildings and switching to cleaner energy. But the public awareness campaign that’s being announced today also makes clear that individuals must do their part to be smart energy consumers.”
The new Executive Order requires that state agencies:
* Reduce their overall energy consumption 20 percent by 2012, from 2002 levels, 35 percent by 2020.
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent over the next five years, 40 percent by 2020, and 80 percent by 2050.
In order to achieve these goals, state agencies are required to:
* Obtain 15 percent of their electricity from clean renewable sources by 2012, 30 percent by 2020
* Use biofuels for 3 percent of heating oil next winter, 5 percent in 2008-09
* Meet Massachusetts’s LEED-Plus green building standards for all new construction and major renovations, and consider energy performance in leasing decisions
* Reduce potable water use 10 over the next five years, 15 percent by 2020.
Under the new requirements, all facilities larger than 100,000 square feet will have to be retrofitted for energy efficiency by 2012, and small agencies will be allowed to take advantage of utility rebate programs. The Executive Order also prohibits the purchase of incandescent light bulbs in most cases, and requires the purchase of energy efficient products, such as high-efficiency lights, programmable thermostats, and Energy Star-qualified products. In the Executive Order, Governor Patrick also calls for changes in behavior in state offices.
“There will be no more leaving lights on at night or over the weekend,” said Governor Patrick.
Governor Patrick announced the new Executive Order, which was filed with the office of Secretary of State William Galvin this morning, at an event on the Grand Staircase of the State House launching a year-long energy efficiency campaign directed at households across the Commonwealth and throughout New England. Under the slogan “Start Small, Save Big,” myenergystar.com – a consortium of electric utilities including NSTAR Electric, National GRID, Cape Light Compact, and Western Massachusetts Electric Co. – is asking all consumers to take small steps to reduce their energy consumption and cut the emission of greenhouse gases.
“Our commitment to cost and energy savings starts right here – quite literally – in my office,” said Governor Patrick, just after youth volunteers from City Year replaced the incandescent bulbs in his desk lamps with compact fluorescent bulbs, which use a fraction of the electricity. As part of the event Sylvania, a Massachusetts-based company, donated 1,000 compact fluorescent bulbs for use in state buildings. “We will be making these changes in offices throughout the State House. It’s a small start, but such small starts add up to big savings – in our pocket books, and for our environment.”
Governor Patrick also issued a Proclamation declaring the year beginning April 22 (Earth Day) “The Year of Energy Efficiency.”
stomv: over to you!
This is not glamorous stuff, but it just makes sense, and mainly requires leadership.
<
p>
I could quibble with some of the details (some things are too restrictive, some could go farther), but this is a good step in the right direction. Some of the items will cost a little more, but this initiative should net out as a savings for us taxpayers.
<
p>
I couldn’t find any info on this at the mass.gov website; links, anyone?
http://www.mass.gov/…
Really, really thrilled.
<
p>
A few comments, ad-hoc with no rhyme or reason on ordering.
1. The biofuel heating oil is awesome. Really, really great. It’s often overlooked when alternative fuels are considered, and it’s one of the few that actually improves engine and boiler performance because the lubricating qualities of the biodiesel are better than synthetic or petrol-based products.
<
p>
Furthermore, since New England is by far the largest consumer of home heating oil, the state purchasing biofuel will help local heating oil distributors develop the infrastructure to offer bio-blended heating oil to commercial and residential customers as well.
<
p>
Just as many states require a small amount of ethanol to be in gasoline, Massachusetts could easily expand this mandate to all Massachusetts customers, and this would have a very tangible impact on fossil fuel emissions, air pollutants & air quality, and demand for foreign oil.
<
p>
2. Turning off lights nights and weekends. Well damn. This isn’t being done now? Shame on anyone responsible for a budget. But — here’s the big problem… while labor, health, and materials costs are often scrutinized to varying degrees, energy use is assumed to be non-fungible, so there’s no pressure on those who make short and long term decisions to reduce their fuel usage. This is a structural and cultural problem, and one that could be changed with more aggressive policy and monitoring.
<
p>
A big problem: capital improvements and operations budgets are kept separate, with little play between the two. So, while spending $10,000 to save $4,000 a year for the next 20 years makes sense to an individual, it’s harder to pull off in the context of a budget that’s split to capital and operations.
<
p>
3. I wonder if the renewable energy requirement (15 percent by 2012, 30 percent by 2020) includes the state RPS. If legislators don’t stop the automatic RPS (renewable portfolio standard) increases, all electricity in Massachusetts will be at least 7 percent by 2012 and 15 percent by 2020. So, if the requirement includes the state’s RPS requirements, it means an extra 8% renewable purchases in 2012 and an extra 15% in 2020 — not small potatoes, but not quite as “big” as 15 and 30.
<
p>
More to the point, the economics may run into bureaucracy. Sure, as the RPS requirements throughout NY and New England ratchet up, renewable energy will chase bigger premiums, tickling the creation of more supply. Trouble is, NIMBYism and permitting. If the state can’t figure out how to overcome each of these in fair, timely manners, the increased demand may not be able to trigger increased renewable supply quickly enough.
<
p>
4. LEED-plus — a no brainer. It will increase construction costs by a miserly 1% to 3%, and will save far more than that in energy usage at current prices, which in the long term are only expected to go up. Good stuff, and a rare deviation from traditional budgets which sacrifice future generations for the benefit of the current bean counters.
<
p>
5. Potable water. Easiest way to reduce water consumption: waterless urinals. Deval’s got to get the plumbers on board on this one… many states’ plumbers groups have resisted them. Every time you use a urinal, that’s a gallon of water. So, over the course of a workday, how many trips? Three? Four? That all adds up quickly, and of course waterless urinals also don’t require water inflow so they’re cheaper to build new bathrooms with the waterless urinals, and cheaper to maintain since fewer pipes means fewer pipe leaks, a smaller pump necessary, etc.
<
p>
The next step: use rainwater capture to water the lawn. It’s fairly straightforward, and it’s particularly important in urban areas, where sewer and runoff create enough problems already.
<
p>
Realistically though, water consumption isn’t nearly as important an issue to tackle in this area as electricity generation and consumption of fuel oil and gas.
<
p>
6. What’s missing though? Transportation is generating a third of our greenhouse gas emissions, and we could easily cut it in half within ten years. How? I’m glad you asked. Here’s some ideas: * Double excise tax on all vehicles that aren’t CAFE compliant. For cars, that’s 27.5 MPG. For trucks/SUVs/vans, that’s 20.7 MPG. Buy what kind of vehicle you think you need, but get one in that class with high MPG. * Improve the T. Seriously. When people are choosing between driving and riding, they do a fairly complex cost consideration. They consider the raw dollar price, the time required, the comfort, and the likelihood of significant delays. You can get the T to beat cars by any combination of improving the T or making cars a worse choice. I advocate for the former, at least first. So, what to do? – Hold the price constant. No more fare increases. – Give the above-ground green line and the CT busses automagic green lights. These vehicles shouldn’t be stopped at lights so that a few cars carrying far fewer people can move. The technology exists, and doing this reduces the time of the trip as well as the chances of a lengthy delay. – Expand the green line north. – Connect the blue line to the red line at Charles/MGH. Seriously. There’s no reason why they’re not connected, and doing so would cut significant time on some airport trips as well as increase use on the blue line, the most under-used of the lines. – Expand the Alewife parking lot. – When I go to the airport, I take the green line to the blue line to a shuttle bus to the terminal. Why oh why does that shuttle bus exist? Why doesn’t the blue line get me to the freaking airport? Hell — drop me off the mile away, and then just have a nifty little hallway with people-movers. It might not even be faster, but it would make a huge difference psychologically. Build in some shops and call it a mall. Whatever. The fact that the subway doesn’t actually take you to the airport is a blatant indication that public transit takes a back seat to driving, and that’s the big problem.
<
p>
That’d be a good start. Other non-MBTA transportation ideas include: * HOV lane on I-90 nearest Boston. It’d really encourage bus usage on 90, as well as carpooling — a double bonus since parking and traffic are so tough in Boston. HOV lanes are also nice for emergency vehicle responsiveness, improving public safety since those emergency vehicles can get to accident scenes more quickly. * Nothing about bicycles. Huh. Expanding funding for rail-trail programs, installing more bicycle racks, and encouraging more businesses or housing developments to have indoor bicycle parking (and showers for businesses) would be a huge help. * Biofuels in state-operated diesel vehicles please. How bout it? * Biofuels in school buses state-wide too.
Like I wrote, this post is off-the-cuff. Patrick’s order is a great start, and I’m thrilled. There’s plenty more that can be done though, and I hope he keeps pushing the envelope.
do any state buildings have auto flushing toilets? in my personal experience, they are hugely wasteful, flushing needlesly.
I also don’t know if there’s a legitimate study that links public health with auto-flush johns.
no problem with the standard industrial toilet if one flicks the flush handle with their foot. for auto-flushie=hygene proponents i ask this: what good is it to waste water over the worry of some people touching the flushing handle when you aren’t addressing the next problem of those same diseased hands next being layed on the stall latch?
<
p>
hygene could be protected and lots of water could be saved in bathrooms by going back to manual flushers, having foot-operated sinks and a garbage can by the door (so you can pull the door open with paper towel in hand, then throw the towel away). exceptions may be needed to accomodate handicapped people.
I mean, how many times have you gotten poop on your hands? If you’re a parent, it’s countless.
<
p>
Flushing with your foot, foot pedals on sinks, using a paper towel to open the bathroom doorknob on the way out all seem just plain dumb. Keyboards have more nasty germs on them than bathrooms. There are doorknobs all over the place. There are germs all over the place. Human beings are damn good at not getting sick because of them.
When did it not become enough to wash your hands with soap and warm water for a full minute following every bathroom trip and before (and after) preparing or eating food?
but since you want to talk about poop on hands… some people are completely careless and don’t bother to wash their hands. if they do this at home i dont care, but in public places i do. they are the reason it makes sense to use a paper towel on the public bathroom doorknob. if only everyone used the old fashioned soap and water cleanup you do! food service & health care workers need to be very careful, and some of us have compromised immune systems. it makes no sense to take chances when it is very easy to avoid spread of pathogens.
What happens when Little Miss Didn’t-Wash-Hands leaves the bathroom? Are her hands magically clean?
<
p>
Of course not. She touches doorknobs, vending machines, the photocopy machine, and so forth. Those things are cleaned far less frequently than the bathroom.
<
p>
I’d be willing to wager that there are far mo’-deadlier pathogens all over your office space — desk, keyboard, doorknob — than there are on the bathroom door.
Mitigating risk makes sense. Food prep workers — yeah, wash your hands a lot please. Health care workers too please. But, given that bathrooms in workplaces, etc are cleaned far more often than the rest of the world, to use a paper towel to open the bathroom door but not worry about the ickies all over the rest of the world doesn’t make any sense to me.
<
p>
Plus, it’s a waste of paper. đŸ˜€
you will not be offended if i don’t shake your hand. đŸ˜€
<
p>
one more rebuttal and then i’ll lay off this topic. sure, public bathrooms are probably cleaned more often than many other surfaces. but consider this: they are not cleaned after each user, and how many users touch them with fresh excrement or snot or whatever in the, say, 2 hr period between cleanings (in an exceptionally clean establishment)? it only takes one slobby jerk to potentially infect many, many people touching those surfaces.
<
p>
you raise a good point about wasting paper. it is nice when restrooms either have no doors or you exit with a push, not a pull. then the paper issue goes away completely.
<
p>
p.s. ask yourself why restaurants always put a spoon in the little bowl of breath mints by the cash register… đŸ˜‰
…(I haven’t read any background reports on the matter, so I don’t know how reasonable it is that they can be achieved), but also count me among those that at least some effort is–one hopes–to be made.
<
p>
One nit.
<
p>
Reduce potable water use 10 over the next five years, 15 percent by 2020.
<
p>
Um, does that mean that state workers aren’t going to have drinking fountains to go to? Or is non-potable water (provided who-knows-where?) going to be used to deliver water the Public Garden? What des this mean? State employees aren’t supposed to flush toilets or wash their hands?
<
p>
I am particularly dubious about
<
p>
Use biofuels for 3 percent of heating oil next winter, 5 percent in 2008-09
<
p>
If, by biofuels, is meant “ethanol,” a resounding no. That will have a rather significant negative environmental impact, and only goes to subsidize corn farmers in the midwest and will further damage the Gulf of Mexico and further subsidence of the land in the Gulf states due to the draining of the acquifers. Compost (peat) might be OK to combust, but who in the US wants to burn that? It has low energy content, anyway.
<
p>
Resounding OK to
<
p>
Obtain 15 percent of their electricity from clean renewable sources…
<
p>
provided the renewables are from, for example, the Cape Wind (or similar) project or photovoltaic devices.
<
p>
Actually, two nits, and one maybe.
<
p>
BTW, flurescent bulbs have a lot of mercury in them. After they have burned out, they have to be disposed of. Somewhere. And they aren’t as convenient as incandescents–have you ever sat around twiddling your thumbs while a CFL came up to reasonable brightness in a cold environment? I have. It wasn’t worth the effort, so we replaced them with the original incandescent bulbs, where the bulbs would be on for only a brief period of time.
<
p>
And the LED lamps that we have are too blue to be of use for any extended period of time. They’re nice for CSI-style flashlights, but that’s about it.
On potable water:
<
p>
There are plenty of opportunities to reduce water consumption (potable or otherwise) without cutting into drinking fountains. I don’t know how much more important it is to reduce “potable” water consumption than gray water consumption (water that’s suitable for toilets or watering the grass but not for drinking or hand washing). I would think that reducing all water consumption (potable, gray, etc) by a total of 10 percent would be groovy.
<
p>
On biofuels:
For heating oil, it wouldn’t be ethanol. It would be biodiesel. Home heating oil is really just low-grade diesel fuel, full of carbon chains and impurities that make it not pure enough to power a diesel motor engine. So, you’d see mostly rapesead or soybean oil, but perhaps even some recycled vegetable oil (fryer fat grease). It ain’t ethanol, and it isn’t coming from corn.
<
p>
On renewables:
There are renewables other than wind or solar that are fantastic. Bio-digesters (turning animal poop to methane to electricity) are great, as are landfill digesters (similar). Burning wood waste (wood chips from lumber mills, etc) that would otherwise decompose and release their carbon into the natural cycle anyway makes sense too. Non-disruptive small scale hydro is a good deal in terms of renewables as well.
<
p>
Right now, hydro produces the most renewable, followed by biomass (burning woodchips). Wind power is well behind that, and solar well behind that. Wind power is growing the most quickly though, and might overtake biomass within 15 years or so in New England + NY, depending on Cape Wind and a few other major projects slated for Long Island, upstate NY, etc.
<
p>
On bulbs:
The extra mercury released into the atmosphere in New England by power plants to power the incandescent is twice the amount in the CF bulb, and the CF bulb is far easier to “recycle” than that mercury spewed out the coal-fired power plant smokestack. Furthermore, while CF bulbs aren’t the best option for all applications, they are suitable replacements for most incandescent bulbs, particularly in office settings. So, there’s plenty of room for CF rollouts without any loss of productivity, and there’s a great opportunity to roll out a state-run CF recycling program to contain the mercury in the CF bulbs.
One, it is possible for municipalities to provide non-potable water to, for example, provide water for golf courses and agricultural areas. It isn’t an impossible thing to do. But it is an expensive thing to provide two separate water supply systems to the affected areas.
<
p>
Two, low flush toilets. We have them here in Germany, and they work quite well. You might have to brush off the residual (brush included) and flush a second time, but they really do work quite well. In the States, not quite so well (we have a low flush toilet there also). The difference appears to be the pressure head, that injects the water into the toilet basin.
<
p>
Three The days for corn ethanol are dated: cellulosic ethanol will drive it out of the market in a few years
<
p>
Your first, probable, but in the political climate in the USofA, who knows? My father, VA Tech ChemE 1951 (and whose opinion on any matter I would believe more than CHimpsChump) opines that ethanol is only a political issue: provide more subvention for agribusiness.
<
p>
Your second, who knows? There was an article in SciAm in the last couple of months (no link) that indicated that, until there was a mechanism for extracting ethanol from the cellulose, the ethanol industry was a net energy loser. There is none now. A political plus, yes, for some people, but so what?
grey water:
<
p>
It’s probably not worth a separate distribution system. Instead, you put a big storage tank on site. You run water from showers, bathroom sinks, and collected rainwater from rooftops into the tank. Then, you connect your sprinklers to that tank. The tank running out of gray water once in a while is a “feature” because you can then blast water against the insides of the tank, helping to resist residue buildup.
<
p>
toilets:
<
p>
Given all the other opportunities to save water and energy, a toilet that requires me to brush off the klingons is bad design, period. There’d be no better way to turn people off of conservation than to ask them to scrub their own scat off of a toilet bowl.
<
p>
ethanol:
<
p>
Corn-based ethanol is almost certainly energy net-positive. The studies that showed it to be net-negative are old, and as improvements to the entire process have been made, it’s moved to net-positive, by about 10%. So, you use 9/10ths of a gallon of gasoline equivalent to make a gallon of gasoline-equivalent-ethanol. On the input stream, diesel is used to power the tractors, petroleum is used in the fertilizers, energy (coal, biomass, etc) is used in the processing plant, and more diesel is used to transport the ethanol since it doesn’t do well in pipes do to water contamination.
<
p>
Ultimately, I think of corn-based ethanol as an opportunity to build up the infrastructure for ethanol methods that have higher yields, like switchgrass, sugar cane, waste-biomaterial (corn husks, etc), and maybe eventually bacteria will make ethanol a better and better deal — and if we use the US agrarian subsidies as a way to get there, that’s fine by me.
<
p>
Next, you pay a big fine. Title V. Nanny state. In Mass, you have to install a predesigned greywater system with appropriate filtration, prepared by qualified engineer, installed by qualified, licensed installer, inspected by…..
all of the above is almost entirely irrelevant. Sure, any greywater system — and any other septic system I might add — has to have appropriate filtration, be prepared by a qualified engineer, installed by a qualified, licensed installer, etc.
<
p>
Otherwise, there’s just too large a risk of serious contamination and a major public health hazard.
Get over it gary. Title V isn’t “nanny state” — it’s the state preventing an irresponsible individual from creating a massive ecological and health hazard affecting 100s of people (or more if near a river or stream). It also has nothing to do with this particular discussion, except that all systems — greywater or otherwise — have to abide by Title V. You might as well point out that they should be making sure that they’re installing Underwriter Laboratory approved CF bulbs and that the renewable energy sources have to be inspected by all sorts of agencies.
<
p>
Unless you’re closely involved with septic installations in Mass versus ANY OTHER STATE, then I claim superior familiarity and dismiss your conclusion. I’ve worked closely with Title V for nearly 12 years. Title V is a regulation that over-engineers practically everything under the scope of its regulation. Probably, it accounts for 6 to 7% of the cost of any non-public sewer connected residence. Compare to any other state at 2 – 3%.
<
p>
Want to lower housing costs? Here’s a start: Trim Title V.
I don’t know how well done Title V was implemented, and I defer to your expertise.
<
p>
But, if your beef is with Title V, it isn’t with greywater systems in particular — it’s with Title V. So, why grumble about it in this thread, implying that greywater system implementation in MA in particular is problematic because of gov’t regulation when in fact any system is problematic due to Title V. Additionally, since this thread is specifically about state-owned buildings and property, why the throw-away “nanny state” comment?
<
p>
It’s standard FUD-flinging, and it doesn’t help elevate the debate.
…A few miscellaneous observations.
<
p>
Grey Water
<
p>
I suppose one might put a storage tank on site for grey water, but it is likely that the storage tank would be unsightly (meant as a pun, but it gets the point across). And it takes power to move the water from the showers and bathroom sinks (more on the rainwater later*) into the tank, to get a pressure head from which the sprinklers could be driven.
<
p>
*Rainwater is another matter, and, quite frankly, rainwater spillage is used in home gardens at our place in Germany. I wouldn’t consider that “grey water” though. A possibly interesting aside, when I was on Guam 30 years ago the house I was staying in was built so that the roof could collect and store rainwater. For another purpose: the evaporation of the rainwater would cool the house.
<
p>
toilets
<
p>
Your “klingons” reference was really quite hilarious–I’ve never seen that before. Are Americans so sensitive that they can’t clean their own toilets?
<
p>
Just to let you know, we here in Germany have low flush toilets. The tanks are positioned about a foot above the tank, and, at that elevation, when they are flushed, the tanks provide such a pressure head that it pretty much eliminates everything. For the little bit that might not have been eliminated, there’s a brush nearby. Frankly, there seems to be brushes nearby in virtually every hotel we’ve been.
<
p>
ethanol
<
p>
Maybe. I can only go by what I read regarding corn-based ethanol, in the popular press (SciAm), and it isn’t clear that ethanol is quite there yet. It is unclear what problem ethanol is trying to solve, since, according to a recent SciAm article, production of ethanol requires use of more than a bit (a lot more) of imported oil. The article indicated that, if processes could be developed to extract ethanol from the cellulose (corn stalks) it might be worthwhile, but, until then, no.
<
p>
The issue that I have with corn-based ethanol is the following: if a significant portion of US’s energy is going to come from ethanol, that would likely mean two things. One a large increase in use of water that will be extracted from acquifers to water the corn fields. Two a large increase in the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers. Point one suggests that the land might subside. Point two suggests that run-off of the fertilizers would lead to destruction of the Gulf of Mexico, via run-off into the Mississippi River.
<
p>
No solution is perfect. But the ethanol solution seems to be nothing more than a huge subsidy to agribusiness.
Grey water
<
p>
Yeah you’ll need a pump in the system. I’d actually expect the tank to be buried in most cases, because — why not? Even if it’s not buried, it could likely get cited in a location that isn’t an aesthetic problem — “around back” so to speak.
<
p>
I had always mentally included rain water as “grey water” in most of tUSA because you wouldn’t drink it and you would prefer not to shower in it on a daily basis. I checked wikipedia and there’s no reference to it, so rain may not be technically gray water, but it could be used in much of the same manner.
<
p>
toilets
<
p>
Yeah, I clean my toilet now and again — but not because of a single explosive incident, but rather because the bathroom gets cleaned top to bottom once in a while. Given that my toilet prevents klingons 99%+ of the time, why would I want to replace it with something that results in me having to do more work, and dirty work at that? I’m just saying that there are plenty of low hanging fruit out there that don’t involve crazy European bath fixtures, including the dreaded “toilet shelf” which has always boggled my mind. In any case, like I said — go for low hanging fruit that doesn’t involve more interaction with one’s own poop first.
<
p>
Ethanol
<
p>
Ethanol production does require some petrol (tractors, fertilizer, transporting feedstock, transporting finished fuel. It also requires energy to process, and that is generally a domestic fuel (coal). The transportation to the processing center can be done with electric locomotive (though rarely is), and the transportation of finished fuel can also involve locomotive (can’t be piped due to water contamination).
<
p>
Based on the dozen papers I’ve read, I believe that ethanol is net energy positive, though not by much (maybe you “grow” one extra gallon of gas out of every 10). Still, that’s progress. Additionally, since not all of the energy used to generate ethanol comes from petrol, you’re also reducing the amount of imported oil by more than that 1 gallon per 10 — an added bonus.
<
p>
Ethanol is no silver bullet, and I prefer universal E5 to E10 over this idea of pockets of E85. Still, I believe that ethanol as it is today is a slight part of the solution, and that it’s impact will grow as technologies expand waste-to-ethanol capabilities (no marginal cost or marginal fuel required), and other crops used, etc. Corn isn’t the end game, it’s a starting position — and a politically paletteable one, so I’m in favor of starting from there.
<
p>
Corn based ethanol is a huge subsidy to agribusiness, but it’s also a way to move alternative fuels into mainstream discussion. Furthermore, once ethanol infrastructure is more widely in place, any new ways of producing ethanol that undercut corn will result in those subsidies moving away from corn agribusiness.
…intelligent discussions are so rare on political blogs.
<
p>
Regarding grey water my mother in law here in Germany has a rain barrel, and the neighbor has a pump. (There is so much water under ground here that, when the construction of new houses and underground garages are going on, they have to do extensive pumping.) The neighbor has a relatively inocuous tank in the back yard. The water is used to water the garden.
<
p>
But I am still a bit dubious about using water that has been polluted by detergents, soaps and the like. Perhaps for watering flowers in the Public Garden, but not so much for watering food plants.
<
p>
Regarding toilets, and particularly your mention of …crazy European bath fixtures, including the dreaded “toilet shelf”…, actually, if I understand what you are referring to, the toilet in the upstairs apartment here (the one occupied by the mother in law–we’re in the downstairs apartment), the way it was explained to me was, that the shelf actually was intended to serve a purpose–one that is not delicate to describe, but I’ll do in anyway. As was explained to me, what it was intended for was to allow someone, after having done his business, to examine the leftovers for worms and other beings that might be in the stool.
<
p>
I don’t know whether or not anyone actually carried out that examination. But I’ve used the toilet upstairs, and the shelf actually gets cleaned off quite well with the flush.
<
p>
Regarding ethanol, I’m still dubious. It might work out, but as far as I can tell (and I do not claim to be an expert on the matter), the technology is not there yet, and I would be quite concerned over the water and fertilizer usage that would be required to produce the product. I seriously am not suggesting that research not continue into ethanol production. But I will leave you with one consideration. My father (VA Tech Chem E, 1951) did his bachelors thesis in coal liquefaction (old degree, I know, but technically competent.) I raised the issue with him, only a few weeks ago, why the US hasn’t pursued coal liquefaction as a substitute for foreign oil. He responded, you can’t get much energy (oil) out of coal liquefaction. And, moreover, he opined that the same regarding ethanol.
<
p>
I probably should not have said that corn-based ethanol was a net negative. But it is not apparent that it is enough of a net plus to be worth the effort. Yet. But abandon the research? No.
grey water:
<
p>
That’s right. Don’t use it on vegetables consumed raw or unpeeled.
<
p>
toilets:
<
p>
A ha! An explanation on the shelf! I’ve traveled all over Europe, and bathrooms are a place where I think tUSA’s standardization is an improvement — much of this has to do with relative ages of the bathrooms and a more standardized retail/commercial/manufacturing plumbing industry.
<
p>
Ethanol:
<
p>
At this point, “average” ethanol is slightly better than pure gasoline in terms of “miles per barrel of oil”. Not much better, but better. Furthermore, I think that ethanol has a much higher ceiling than gasoline — there are no real improvements to gasoline itself that will result in better mileage per barrel of oil, but ethanol does have room for improvement. So, it’s a bit better now, and will only increase it’s benefits over gasoline in the long run.
<
p>
As for CTL, those crazy Democratic Montanans are talking about it, as has Barack Obama (coal is in Illinois, too). I’m not a huge fan of it, since it’s not any real improvement in terms of GHG emissions and I’m generally disgusted with the coal mining industry for the way they destroy hills and mountains, and leave all kinds of nasties (and unemployed people) behind.
Grey water
<
p>
I wouldn’t use waste water on any vegetables to be consumed. Rain water and ground water, yes–the plants would take them up regardless. Waste water, no.
<
p>
Toilets
<
p>
If you got a kick out of the “toilet shelf,” you would probably get an extra kick out of toilets in Italy. Basically, holes in the ground. It’s amusing to envision a lady pulling up her gown to do her business. BTW, I’m not kidding.
<
p>
Ethanol
<
p>
I believe I have exhausted my comments on the subject. I will not discourage research into the technology, but I’m dubious as to whether it is there yet–but maybe it will be some day. I’ll let you know that I was quite surprised when my father (noted above) mentioned that coal liquefaction was an unpromising technology.
<
p>
And, by the way, I agree with you full well with your comment about the coal companies devastating the American landscape. One other datum, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Munich’s newspaper of record) has been running a series on environmental devastation recently. Last week, they ran an article about China, and it indicated that, irrespective of the environmental devastation that they may be doing there, the collieries are filled based in no small measure on the blood of miners who have been killed in mining accidents. Take it for what you will.
By potable water, I presume they mean, you know, all water that comes into the buildings.
<
p>
Water conservation is a known and do-able thing. It doesn’t mean you don’t get to wash your hands. In state buildings, I think the main area would be stopping existing leaks and installing low-flow toilets. I have low-flow toilets in my house that are, uh, at least as effective as their predecessors.
<
p>
Biofuels: I currently buy B20 biodiesel for my house through MassEnergy. No mods necessary, not much price difference. That is presumably what is intended. I don’t know of ethanol being used for home heating around here. The days for corn ethanol are dated; cellulosic ethanol will drive it out of the market in a few years, but that’s another conversation for another time. As are pelletized fuels- grass, wood, etc. Grass pellets have excellent energy balances & can be grown sustainably on marginal lands. Middlebury in VT is pursuing this, among others.
<
p>
Renewable electricity: This one is actually going to be hard to hit. I’m not a big fan of renewable standards; I’d rather see this driven by market-based things like RGGI.
<
p>
CFLs: The amount of Hg in a CFL is comparable or less than the amount of Hg avoided due to less energy from coal (coal contains trace Hg). NE does have a few coal plants. Does your watch have a battery? It probably has a lot more Hg than a CFL. Same for many thermostats, etc. My town, at least, has easy enough fluorescent recycling. That said, the Hg content does suck. But it’s not a deal-killer for me, and I’ve got young kids, etc. More worried about lead.
<
p>
CFL warmup time varies greatly by model and manufacturer. Those Home Depot ones with a : in the name just suck for warmup. I have a few incandescents where instant on is necessary (stair landings, etc), but in most cases it’s not an issue for me. GE and Philips are generally pretty good.
<
p>
LEDs are coming along (and getting whiter), and GE supposedly has high efficiency incandescents coming down the pike.
It’s nice to have someone who is knowlegeable on the subject weighing in on it
<
p>
I have a few incandescents where instant on is necessary (stair landings, etc)
<
p>
We replaced an incandescent in our garage with a flouresent. Same lumens. But the flourescent took sooooooo looooooong to light up that it wasn’t worth the effort.
<
p>
That, plus the fact that flourescent bulbs don’t work with dimmers, suggests to me that they really aren’t going to be suitable replacements for incandescents.
CFLs that can be dimmed or 3-way’ed. They’re more expensive and harder to find, but they exist.
<
p>
Fortunately, most uses of incandescent are not (in the cold, dimmed, 3-way’ed), and so a plain ol’ CF does get the job done.
<
p>
Love the “leading by example” thing.
<
p>
Love yesterday’s announcement about solar manufacturing expanded here. Is there a hub somewhwere in the US for renewable energy development/manufacturing?
<
p>
Loved the announcement from Bowles recently to push the windmills forward.
<
p>
stomv: you’re obviously very well versed. anything they can do with small windmills or solar panels atop state buildings or on other state property? even just to make small progress, lead by example and encourage production? my very limited understanding is that one of the impediments to wide scale development and use of solar is the expense of manufacturing…because they can’t manufacture on a large enough scale…due to lack of demand…due to expense.
Solar? Sure. Of course, you’ll want to put them on rooftops facing the right way, at appropriate angles — not every rooftop is a good choice.
<
p>
Solar isn’t a silver bullet, but it can be a bigger part of an overall solution, and because it generates juice during daylight hours — when demand for electricity is highest — it plays an added role of reducing the need for peaking plants which only generate electricity when demand is highest (and also tend to pollute the most per kWh). So, the state could absolutely roll out solar on new buildings, and while the financial payoff is a long ways away (approx 15-20 years), it does pay for itself eventually and accomplishes lots of other goals in the meantime.
<
p>
As for micro-wind — I’m not as big a fan, but I’m no expert in the area.
Hot damn, this is why I worked so hard for Deval during the election.
This is the type of action I had hoped for when we voted in a Democratic governor…and EXACTLY the type of thing I expected from Deval.
<
p>
All we need now is the press to focus on initiatives like this and not curtains..
As Patrick said at his inauguration, We already know what we have to do.
<
p>
As a bonus these measure really do make government leaner and more efficient without cutting services.
<
p>
However, this is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.
<
p>
What do I mean?
<
p>
Massachusetts has 352 executive branches. Every city and town government should follow suit. State carrots and sticks towards that end, please.
<
p>
Every day, energy is wasted by us: private citizens and businesses. Wasted as in, consumed with no benefit to anyone. It’s dumb and a ball and chain on the Massachusetts economy.
<
p>
Dumb, but not irrational, as we are responding to perverse incentives and market failures. Government has a role in structuring markets to work efficiently, not wastefully.
<
p>
I’d suggest taking a lesson from Vermont, which has a regulated private energy-efficiency utility that bridges many of those market failures. But there are other ways to do it.
<
p>
Finally, energy ineficiency is imbedded in our infrastructure by building codes and land-use rules that encourage waste and sprawl. Once an ineficient building or neighborhood is built it normally persists for generations. Reforms here may be the greatest prize of all.
The Commonwealth provides a substantial amount of funds to cities and towns for buildings, roads, etc., etc. How about tying conservation to the grants?
<
p>
For example — you want $75M for a new high school? OK — submit specs demonstrating that the design will incorporate energy-efficient design, passive and active solar and geo-thermal, water conservation (including choice of drought-resistant plant materials), water-permeable hardscape and pavement(allows rainwater to drain through and replenish aquifers), composting (either on-site or pick-up by a hauler that will deliver to a composting facility), etc., etc. Build in additional financial incentives for design and execution which exceeds certain standards.
My town pays for unlimited disposal of most trash. Disposal (incineration in our case) runs about $65 per ton.
<
p>
Since the marginal cost of this service to homeowners is therefore zero, we are subsidizing trash disposal at the expense of recycling. Thanks to the subsidy (hey, its “free!”) the town pays for trash disposal that homeowners would chose not to pay themselves.
<
p>
I think the state has a right to ask, why should taxpayers unrestricted aid (from the income tax) to towns that spend it like that?
<
p>
Free curbside pickup is common, popular, but by no means universal.
<
p>
I guess my point is that there ought to be room to link funding to behavior in ways that are not only specific (as in energy-efficient design as part of school-building grants), but also general.
<
p>
I also think there ought to be plenty of carrots: help incorporating efficiency into RFPs for school building, training and opt-in legislation for pay-as-you-throw trash fees (which 139 Massachusetts communities charge in some form).
Works pretty well where I live.
<
p>
I sometimes grumble that our 90-yeard old neighbors, who with no kids generate about a bag a month, got to throw away everything, including all manners of toxic crao, and now have it cheap, while folks my age, who have not thrown away such stuff, pay through the nose because we have kids at home.
<
p>
Grumbling aside, it seems to work quite well.
How do you and your neighbors feel about subsidizing trash disposal in my town with state revenues?
I’m sure we’re all thrilled to see more local aid, just because we need it, and badly. How your town pisses it away, I suspect no one cares. Doubtless the school is short of change, though.
I’m not exactly sure what you are complaining about, but it is probable that your 90 year old neighbors paid for the disposal of trash of themselves and others when they were much younger. And they are probably doing so now, even if it is at a lower rate. Intergenerational social contract.
<
p>
Here in our little town just outside of Munich, they have an interesting way of handling the situation. People are expected to compost, and the mother in law has three compost piles. There are recycling centers everywhere (one is a five minute walk from here, another a ten minute walk) that take in paper, cardboard and bottles. The interesting twist is that the town will collect trash–from one barrel per household. If you have more, you have to buy bags from the town, something like eight Euro per bag. It really isn’t inconvenient, but it is an interesting twist on how to handle the tax situation in regards trash pickup.
This initiative is going to cost $66 Million dollars, according to Casey Ross at the herald.
In the “short” run, the CF bulbs will be a net savings. In the “middle” run, the LEED-plus buildings will save.
<
p>
What will cost extra when not viewed as part of an extra movement to combat global warming? The biofuels and renewable electricity generation. That, of course, ignored the fact that reducing the amount of electricity generated from coal and oil will reduce asthma, lung disease, birth defects due to mercury buildup, and the health costs therein.
<
p>
Is it a “cost” or is it an investment that will pay for itself and then some in the long run?
And I’ll make my decision.
and may I recommend google.
<
p>
My wife builds LEED commercial spaces. We talk about this stuff all the time. Extra cost for LEED materials, design, and installation: 1% – 3%. Energy payback in these parts? Almost always in under a year, sometimes as much as three.
<
p>
CF bulb payback? Again, google. It’s there. It pays for itself fivefold.
Why would someone conservative — you know, maybe interested in conserving government expenditures and maybe interested in conserving public resources — be so smug about this? It’s the same crap with Al Gore and John Edwards. Focus on everything but the science, the goal, and the public policy.
<
p>
We’ve hashed it all out here. The data’s overwhelming. You don’t seem to be interested in the facts or in conserving; rather you just want to play cynical politics. Meh.
<
p>
Governor Patrick got elected, and he’s been shown a cost benefit analysis. With all due respect, if you want one from him, I suggest you write his office.
It’s not like people do these things without running the numbers.
<
p>
Here’s something on the payback for LEED buildings:
<
p>
http://dspace.mit.ed…
<
p>
Here’s a bunch of case studies with financial figures:
<
p>
http://www.efficienc…
<
p>
I haven’t read them all but the longest payback I saw was a little over 5 years.
<
p>
Somewhere on the Efficiency Vermont site they quote an average price of 3.6 cents per kWh saved for electricity conservation/efficiency. Where can you buy electricity for 3.6 cents/kWh (generation plus distribution) around here?
<
p>
As you get more aggressive and pick off the easy stuff, the effective cost increases, but with current rates and the direction they’re headed, there’s plenty of headroom.
On the energy savings alone.
<
p>
The government can tolerate a much longer ROI than the private sector, so it is justified in my mind even if the payoff takes longer than claimed here.