Twofer

Posted by: MacBozo

Twofer - 05/30/09 11:26 AM

Two articles on global change:

Time-Lapse Videos of Massive Change on Earth
Note: If videos don't load/play, Right (control)-click to view at YouTube.

Green Promise Seen in Switch to LED Lighting
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 12:42 PM

Yep LEDs are very promising

Quote:
An outdoor LED spotlight today costs $100, as opposed to $7 for a regular bulb.


They just have to get the price down allot . We installed LED strip lighting "under cabinet" for a whopping 40 bucks a foot and thats the cheap white light , the nicer colored lites was into the 200 per foot range . Took only 14 Watts to light up 18 feet of cabinets WoW

What I would like to see is all the street lights convert to LED can you imagine how much energy that takes ? The average street light is a 55 Watt high pressure low sodium bulb , 45 Watts on twin head streetlights , bulbs cost about 60 bucks each and last 3 to 5 years - Now add up 55 Watts for every street light in a city , that is a huge amount of energy.

Get them LEDs down to around to around 75 bucks per and 5 Watts , the savings would be a no brainer
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 01:12 PM

LED lights for all outdoor illumination would be amazing. There would be more of them so they could point exactly where they are needed instead of blasting all over the place the way they sodium ones do. Astronomers would like that. I use LED for hand held diving lights and the are plenty bright enough.


Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 02:12 PM

Yep LEDs are the way to go when the price comes down just a bit .

Speaking about Astronomers , on the Big Island and Maui where the observatories are located . Even home owners are prohibited from buying standard bulb outdoor spot lighting or florescent flood lighting . Must only be high pressure low sodium bulbs with severe "restrictions" on angle of deflection ,, in short they must only be pointed towards the ground and never horizontal and heaven forbid up in space.

The really good thing about LEDs you don't get the UV and deflection blow back into the atmosphere - Astronomers would love it . I never been atop of Mauna Kea at night but if I can see the clouds lit up at night from Waikiki , I am sure it must contaminate the sky at night .
Posted by: garyW

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 02:37 PM

Chu: Paint it white!

Quote:
Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy and a Nobel prize-winning scientist, said yesterday that making roofs and pavements white or light-coloured would help to reduce global warming by both conserving energy and reflecting sunlight back into space. It would, he said, be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years.



Reference source here

Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 03:06 PM

The only problem I have with Chu is his 11 year math , everything else makes sense .

However keep in mind that most commercial buildings if not all them have for years painted their roofs white "Snow Coat" or Aluminum , metal clad roofs are white or other light colors . Simply the light colors for A/C savings has been known for decades - So old news and has been in use for awhile now

Problem is with residential , many communities have covenants on color of homes

Pavement deflection ? sounds interesting .
Certainly pavement absorbs tons of heat and not to mention is sorta toxic to the environment - Concrete is the way to go and light in color and much less toxic and the big plus it last 350 times longer then pavement , the down side concrete cost 300% more then pavement per square yard
Posted by: garyW

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 03:48 PM

In Chu's talk on this proposal he referenced the study I linked. The study estimated the CO2 Equivalency of Cool Roofs and Pavements

Total emitted CO2 offset for cool roofs and cool pavements= 44 GigaTons CO2


then the comparison:

• 44 GT CO2 is over one year of the world 2025 emission of 37 GT CO2
• At a growth rate of 1.5% in the world’s CO2 -equivalent emission rate, 44 GT CO2 would
offset the effect of the growth in CO2-equivalent emissions for 11 years


I don't see brainiac Noble Laureates making statements like that without having some statistical proof to back it up. The linked document seems to be the source.



Edit:

The quote in my original post was from the Independent. What Chu actually said was:
Quote:
"Now you smile, but if you look at all the buildings and make all the roofs white, and if you make the pavement a more concrete-type of colour than a black-type of colour, and you do this uniformly... It's the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years," he said.


That means what the report said, the equivalent of 11-years projected growth of CO2 emissions.

I think that is different than what the statement "It would, he said, be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years."


Anyway ... it's a simple solution with very big results. Everything the rightwing noise machine will need to call it lunacy. laugh




Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 06:57 PM

Quote:
I don't see brainiac Noble Laureates making statements like that without having some statistical proof to back it up. The linked document seems to be the source.


You missed my point Chu needs to take a flight over the commercial areas to understand that most if not all buildings roofs are light colored . Seems to me he is basing his "assumption" they are not , which they are . Then to assume that all streets are pavements is another assumption , even here the freeways are mostly concrete .

Soooo ;
Unless Chu has maracoslsy figured out the ""exact" square footage of every pavement and every dark roof in the US - then I stand corrected but it would be impossible - hence his numbers are based on purely a theory and a broad one at that .

I say again Chu theory is correct but the 11 year number has got to be based on assumption
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 07:49 PM

Ummm, concrete is a pavement when used for roads and bridges. Asphalt is a pavement.
Posted by: garyW

Re: Twofer - 05/30/09 07:57 PM

Originally Posted By: carp

Unless Chu has maracoslsy figured out the ""exact" square footage of every pavement
I say again Chu theory is correct but the 11 year number has got to be based on assumption



I don't expect either of us to understand the PDF report I linked to, but one thing is easy to understand is that their findings indicate that a specific square footage of white has a benefit of offsetting a specific amount of energy usuage and CO2 output. Then they apply it as a model to 100 largest global urban areas and the statistical amount of reflective area there. Specifically:
Quote:
1000 ft2 of a white roof, replacing a dark roof,
offset the emission of 10 tonnes of CO2


Then that statistic has an equivalence with know CO2 output. That's all it's saying.

Considering the document is deep in mathematics and science ... I think it's pretty funny you are so quick to call inept and "maracoslsy" pulling assumptions out of his @ss when the conclusions are fully cited to the scientific and statistical data. laugh



I hope poly reads this thread and comments on this discussion.





Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 02:35 AM


...er... one question...

W...]


...Ain't nobody heard of "[color=#14500e]GR...6b01d]G" (yet)...?
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 03:46 AM

Quote:
However keep in mind that most commercial buildings if not all them have for years painted their roofs white "Snow Coat" or Aluminum , metal clad roofs are white or other light colors

Maybe in Hawaii but this is certainly not true in Boston. I can think of only places where the sun is blistering where I have seen this to be true. Greece and the Caribbean. I guess Hawaii falls into the same category where it has obvious benefits for cutting AC use if your roof is white.

But lowering albedo of a city to just lower the temp of the city and thus cut warming effects thus offsetting CO2 warming is a different story. All the numbers seem reasonable and are using current data not 11 year old numbers.

Without looking a the math one can do something very dangerous and use common sense and come up with the same conclusion as the papers. (Common sense is often wrong when looking at global effects like this.)

One can look out the airplane window when landing and figure out that the 25% roof, 35% paved surface of a city seems about right. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to feel the difference between the temp of a city and the surrounding area. Boston runs about 15 degrees higher than the suburbs and those are all tarmac too.

As an aside, I have known about the 35% paved number for a while. I find it an amazing number. That we live in a city but we pave more than a third of it so our automobiles can have a place to roll and park. Amazingly stupid. That a church which needs a place to park the parishioners on Sunday morning will pave over their gardens from sidewalk to sidewalk is just plain idiocy. An acre of black tar instead of grass so cars can park for one hour a week.

Why are we so stupid?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 09:11 AM

The same can be said for "The GUARD-RAIL STATE"
that was once proudly called "The GARDEN STATE".

New Jersey was famous for our Dairies & Truck Farms
because of our deep rich soil & moderate climate.
Now you'd be hard pressed to find a single working
farm in the entire state.

We're now famous for our HighWays & wall-to-wall Malls
(oh yeah...and acre upon acre of mall parking lots)
[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTQubWecuv8[/video]

Tice Farms

Tice Farms was a farm and roadside stand located in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey. Founded in 1808, it was a local landmark which attracted families from miles around, especially in the fall, when it was noted for pumpkins, apple cider, and other fall products. With its across-the-street rival, Van Ripers Farm, intense traffic problems developed on fall weekends.

Beginning in the 1970's, the farm was increasingly squeezed by local land development, and Richard Tice, the head of the family, repeatedly sold land to accommodate construction.[1]

The site of the farm buildings, on Chestnut Ridge Road, is now occupied by the Tice's Corner mall.[2]

The ONLY APPLE LEFT in Tice's Farm: frown
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 11:01 AM

The general term is "heat island." They screw with the weather, too.
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 12:41 PM

AGAIN - I am not disagreeing with his science , just his 11 year number has to be based on a broad figure , after all it cannot be exact right ? Thats all I am saying
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
Ummm, concrete is a pavement when used for roads and bridges. Asphalt is a pavement.


Yes in the broad term of the word pavement - but in construction if you called concrete as pavement you would get a slap on your head laugh
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 12:56 PM

Quote:
I guess Hawaii falls into the same category where it has obvious benefits for cutting AC use if your roof is white.


Yes
It would be a poor building manager to have the roof here a dark color , it does really make a difference in A/C usage . I would assume the same for the Sun Belt States as well.

As for Boston maybe having dark roofs helps with the winter heating ? ?
Posted by: garyW

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 01:44 PM

I would guess that here in the desert the roofs are about 1/3 white foam, 1/3 black tar with light gravel, 1/3 red clay tile ... with maybe .5/100 solar panels.

and since solar panels are black ... we've got a conflict going on. (Just kidding, the panels put a lot of clean energy back into the system.)


Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 02:42 PM


NATURALLY... smirk

The "land of the free"
is behind the curve .............AGAIN

Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 03:10 PM

Originally Posted By: polymerase
I use LED for hand held diving lights and the are plenty bright enough.


I have a Duracell "Daylight" flashlight that contains one single LED and runs off two AA batts, and it's nearly as bright as one of those big handheld spotlights.
Posted by: soulotomy

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 04:32 PM

We've replaced all our flashlights with those hand-cranked jobs, photovoltaic floods and spots for the outside, gardens, etc - Why pay for electricity (and they're cheap these days, to boot)?

Rooftop photovoltaics and geothermal heat pump heating/cooling for $50K net after incentives, breaks, rebates, etc ($100K before).

Pretty unAmerican, though - $50K could buy a small cheesy RV, or boobs, lipo, and ATVs, whatever, or any other mix of depreciable assets (boobs and a$$ smile and Harley).

Energy autonomy is unAmerican.

Ed
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 05/31/09 05:36 PM

Quote:
and since solar panels are black ... we've got a conflict going on.


They actually absorb energy and heat - really I installed a few and they are cooler then the rest of the roof , well until you touch the metal frames

Quote:
1/3 black tar with light gravel,


Yes the gravel is the reflective portion and when that degrades we paint over with a Snow Coat

Quote:
1/3 red clay tile


Believe it or not those tiles don't get to hot during the day , compared to a asphalt shingle roof which you could slow cook an egg on no matter what the color
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Twofer - 06/01/09 08:08 AM

They likely do not get too hot because of the ventilated layering emits the heat into the atmosphere. A cooler roof but just as bad for the environment.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Twofer - 06/01/09 09:17 AM

A light colored object reflects energy directly back into space. A dark colored object absorbs energy and then radiates it as heat into the atmosphere.

Also, see Albedo
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 06/01/09 03:43 PM



White is more reflective
and a good deal cheaper than a greenroof
but the age-old time-tested practice of a turf roof
is being heralded as the best possible method of mediating
temperature --- cool in the summer, warm in the winter, wth the
additional benefits of reducing run-off, cleaning the air & creating oxygen.

I'd think it would be a "NATURAL" for Hawaii


Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Twofer - 06/01/09 04:06 PM

Of course. Subterranean construction is even more energy efficient.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 06/01/09 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
Of course. Subterranean construction is even more energy efficient.


LOL
Hobbits were Short...
...not stupid. wink
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 06/01/09 05:25 PM

Well its always a great idea but the increase of construction cost "structural" I mean its just not grass , there is the sod , base soils and not to mention the weight of water from watering the grass and you still need to have a roof or some kind of water proofing

Imagine if you will;
Water proofing + 4 inches of base soil for drainage + 6 inches of top soil + 2 inches of sod + when soaked with water you need a structure to carry all that weight + then add the additional weekly maintenance of fertilizers and someone has to MOW the lawn which would add more CO2's . So you save on a few things but you end up adding to others . Not really feasible.

Now Japan has the right idea;

Their high rises apartment buildings have been opening up their roof tops . Tenants can lease out portions of the roofs to build green houses which they grow fruits , veggies and flowers either for them selves or commercially - Its a freaking win win . The building makes a little extra cash from the leasing and cools down the roof for greater A/C efficiency . The tenants either saves money from buying produce or makes some extra cash from selling produce . The environment wins from the heat blow back that would normally happen without the green houses <-- now thats a great idea -- > Sadly in the US no one is permitted on the roofs unless your a maintenance guy or contractor .
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 01:20 AM




They don't use soil
it's a lite-weight growing medium used for Hydroponics

*the Link was in the above image wink
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 12:03 PM

Still allot of extra cost and it be more expensive to fix a roof leak - I like the idea though .

The Japanese idea is the least expensive and serves the same purpose
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 01:48 PM


By all means ... smile
keep erecting cheap lil ticky TACKY Bungalows
while your competitors gain the burgeoning GREEN Market. grin

Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 02:42 PM

LOL

WHAT ? I don't think you get it , planting grass and trees on your roof is not the end all solution , in fact not even close.

Our homes are more GREEN Market then any home with grass on it

Link to award won for building green

Quote:
In addition, the home earned the highest energy efficiency rating with a 3-Star Hawai'i BuiltGreen™ Award.


This highest energy efficiency rating award was the project I was the Superintendent on .
We use all steel framing = no trees cut down
we use all recycle pre engineered materials = no trees cut down
we use exterior siding thats 92% cement = no trees cut down
Insulation roof and exterior walls
Double pane E - windows = energy efficient
Tech Shield roof sheeting = absorbs heat
Pex plumbing = uses recycle plastics
5 star lighting fixtures and CFL's
5 star energy appliances through out
Solar water heating = standard
Solar electric - optional

The list goes on and on

Soooo just throwing grass on ya roof does NOT in anyway make you green aside from the obvious color reason .

If you wanna talk GREEN Building talk to me - After all my project won the highest GREEN Award in the State

Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 02:57 PM

Touché!
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 04:01 PM


gives you back .01 of 1%
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 06/02/09 05:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Celandine

gives you back .01 of 1%


LOL

You don't know what ya talking about - please provide a link to this claim of yours ? ?

Thanks
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Twofer - 06/03/09 04:40 AM

Originally Posted By: carp
Solar water heating = standard
Solar electric - optional


That is pretty amazing. Granted it is more worthwhile in Hawaii but it starts in your construction and eventually the technology will get good enough for less sunny climates.

Two questions: 1) With the solar electric option can it completely power a normal house off grid? 2) How much does it add to the cost?
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Twofer - 06/03/09 07:27 AM


$600,000-800,000 for a Single Dwelling back in 2007. whistle

Your recent decidedly right-centric & anti environmental posts,
(this one springing immediately to mind) one can hardly help
taking it for granted that you wouldn't exactly be open to the
new green movement where "the bottom line" is seldom the
actual cost since the savings are generally understood to be a
long-term investment that's recouped over the life of the house,
as well as a very long-term investment in the overall quality of
life not only for people but for every organism on Earth.

Posted by: polymerase

Re: Twofer - 06/03/09 08:34 AM

The housing market peaked in 2007 and he lives in Hawaii. Single family 600-800K seems a tad cheap for new construction with this many amenities in paradise.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Twofer - 06/03/09 08:39 AM

And Hawaii is a very expensive place to live anyway. We had a friend who went there as a traveling nurse about 15 years ago and she was aghast at the prices for just basic commodities.
Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 06/03/09 12:19 PM

I hardly think the Ferry is anti environmental , what makes you think so ? ?

Quote:
$600,000-800,000 for a Single Dwelling back in 2007


Thats a fair price , when the developer is lucky to even make 6% off a sale and has carry all the risk

What people see is just the home , what they don't see

1 - The cost of land in Hawaii , cost more then a completed home on the mainland . Example a "prime location" 6,000 square foot empty lot runs about 340,000 a similar size beach front over 1 million

2 - People never take notice of the Civil Work. Electric , water , phone , sewage , storm drains , silt ponds , cable , sidewalks , street lights , roads , medians , the City & County requires the developer to provide landscaping and plant trees every 200 feet minimum , this means irrigation , timers , electric meters and controllers . Keep in mind that it all gets "donated" to the City & County which takes about a 2 year process after all the homes are sold - Meanwhile the developer is responsible for landscape maintenance and street lights and irrigation

Example; 38 home subdivision

Land ; 3.6 million

Civil ; 6.0 million

Landscaping ; 2.1 million

Running cost , street lights cost 50.00 per day per light head until C & C takes over

So divide that into 38 homes and we are not even talking about construction of the homes which I won't go into here its complex number which varies per home .

Posted by: carp

Re: Twofer - 06/03/09 01:43 PM

Quote:
Two questions: 1) With the solar electric option can it completely power a normal house off grid? 2) How much does it add to the cost?


1 - Yes and No - Keep in mind there are different solar systems and different demands
2 - 15,000 to 35,000 for a 4 bedroom home . They match your power demand , the more you need the more panels you need to install . 70% of the cost is panel only

How it works;
The one we installed on the home that won the GREEN Star Award cost 25,000 break even estimated 7 to 9 years combined with solar water. During the day "normal home" the electric meter runs backwards and puts power back on the grid at night the meter runs forward - The goal here is the forward and backward runs of the meter should cancel each other out and you get a 0.00 electric bill . Here the Electric Company does NOT in anyway pay you for the power that goes back on the grid <-- Used to get that question every day

Real life on the system we installed , which by the way you can monitor the system via web site. Pretty cool even shows you how many trees and emissions your saving per hour

We installed the system on our top of the line Model Home its open 1 to 5 weekdays and 10 to 5 weekends . I am also in charge of the models .

Now since they are models we built in A/C and all lights are turned on and I mean every lamp and ceiling light . Now I inspect the models before they open and yes the meter does really spin backwards but after I flip everything on , whoooweee it really spins in fast forward . Before we installed the system the average bill for that model was in the 545.00 range after was in the 250.00 range so about a 45% in savings

Keep in mind this is a model - A normal home during the day , owners are at work and certainly would not run the A/C everyday with all the lights turned on

Reasoning the cost; 25,000 for the system
I always get this one too . People are more concern about where is the Break Even Year and you tell them 7 to 9 years they freak out "oh no that is to long and cost to much blah blah blah

I respond

1 - The cost is included in the home , so even with interest over a 30 year loan "We calc out" about 25 to 30 bucks more a month

2 - You get to enjoy the electric savings immediately - the average Big Island electric bill is in the 200 per month thats 2,800 per year dollar range -vs- 25 to 30 bucks per month on your mortgage = It's a no brainer to me

3 - Adds resale value to the home and attract-ability , just shows better

Heres the kicker
4 - Say you sell your home in 5 years , you get back the 25,000 you spent on the system and you walk away with 14,000 in savings