June 27th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
Photo Credit: Elizabeth Redmond
I've been wanting to put in a couple of rain barrels at my house this year. We put in some garden plants this weekend, and they are going to need to be watered. Rain barrels are great because they help conserve water and cut down the amount of potable water that needs to be used. Rain barrels are commercially available for around $100 (or more). These are more "decorative" (if you find a piece of plastic molded with a wood barrel pattern decorative), but with a drill, some silicone sealant, and a couple of basic parts, you can build a rain barrel of your own.
It is important to remember that this is not drinking water that you are collecting. Without further treatment, there are too many possible problems, from dust and dirt to chemicals (from roof materials) to microorganisms that may colonize an available water supply. There are rainwater catchment systems that are designed for potable water use. These are more involved, and need to have other elements in the system beyond what is being discussed here.
It is also important to make sure to prevent the standing water from becoming a mosquito breeding facility, either by closing the barrel with a screen (like a window screen) or by using mosquito dunks (a time release tablet that contains a bacterial agent that kills mosquito larvae, but do not affect people, fish, animals or plants).
Rain barrels can collect a surprisingly large amount of water. "For every 1000 square feet of roof space being used to capture rain you can expect to catch around 600 gallons from one inch of rain fall (at a theoretical 100% catch rate). Some larger roofs can easily be 2000+ square feet." (The Sietch) Conversely, if you have a 100 square foot garden, you can figure that you will want to supply 60 gallons of water for every inch of rainfall you are trying to make up. So if you collect and use five 55-gallon barrels of rainwater, that's approximately 5" of additional effective rainfall that you've supplied to your garden. With a typical 55-gallon barrel size, you are only likely to capture a fraction of the total water that falls on your roof. But this could be increased by putting barrels at several corners, to capture the rainfall at multiple downspouts.
June 25th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
<p><br /><img src="/files/images/Ceravision1_72-080207_0.jpg" width="300" height="170" alt="Image courtesy of Global Witness" />We've all heard about how much better compact fluorescent lights (CFL) are over incandescent bulbs for most general lighting tasks. The articles about LED lights are interesting, although there aren't readily available, affordable LED replacements for ordinary lighting purposes. But recently, I've seen some discussion about a new light source that has some interesting features. The <a href="http://www.ceravision.com/technology-introduction-2.html">Ceravision</a> light contains no mercury (the biggest drawback in compact fluorescents), and is highly efficient in producing light (the biggest drawback with incandescent lights).<br /><br />Hank Green over at <a href="http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/736/">EcoGeek</a> first brought the Ceravision light source to my attention last week. And since then, I've seen some <a href="http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/06/24/a-light-bulb-that-lasts-forever/#more-2152">other writers</a> <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/never_ending_li.php">picking up on it</a> as well. The technology behind it is interesting. It is not a new breakthrough so much as it is a development of existing technologies:</p><p></p>
June 23rd, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
Image Credit: Joshua Thompson via Wikipedia
This week's Weekend Grub is less a recipe for what to cook than some suggestions about how to cook it. If you're looking for recipes, check out yesterday's post on vegan BBQ.
Summer is here, and for many, that means time to start cooking outdoors. For some, bottled gas (propane, most commonly) is a preferable choice for a number of reasons, while many others prefer to cook over charcoal. I'm not going to get into a long debate about which is the best. It's something like the 'paper-or-plastic' debate. Given some of the issues around the extraction and processing of propane, as well as it's non-renewability compared to wood charcoal, I think that it's possible to make the case either way.
If you choose to cook over coals, there are some considerations that can help make your grilling a greener experience. A chimney starter is a simple, inexpensive, easy-to-use tool that quickly gives you coals ready for grilling. Most importantly, there is no need to rely on starter fuels to get a good fire for grilling. I was introduced to the chimney starter by a good friend several years ago. I was immediately drawn to the simplicity and efficiency of it. It concentrates the heat to start the coals more quickly and evenly than just lighting them in the grill. (Cooking celebrity Alton Brown famously even uses a chimney starter as a kind of concentrated mini-grill for quickly searing tuna. I haven't tried this myself yet, but I plan to, when I have a suitable opportunity. The recipe for Chimney Tuna Loin is fairly quick and easy, but requires a high quality piece of tuna.)
June 20th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
<p><img src="/files/images/sol.jpg" border="0" alt="Advanced Glazings, Ltd." width="279" height="186" /><strong>solera : </strong>Image Credit: Advanced Glazings, Ltd.Lighting for buildings is a major part of their energy use. Increasingly, green building design is recognizing the importance of providing natural daylight as a means of lighting the building and reducing energy use. Not only does natural daylight reduce the building's energy use, but it also increases comfort for the people in the building. The LEED system includes credit for providing at least 75% of the spaces in the building with natural lighting and views, and the credit is increased if 90% of the spaces are naturally lit.<br /><br />Windows are good for providing views to the exterior. Skylights can be used to bring in more daylight, but they are not without issues. The problem with skylights is that they tend to create glare. The high contrast between areas where the daylight is streaming through the windows and other parts of the space that are not directly lit is visually (and sometimes even literally) uncomfortable. There's either too much light or too little. Diffuse light is more even and comfortable, and avoids areas of deep shadow and sharp glare. This is why so many older buildings had north oriented skylights or clerestory windows (or south-oriented in the southern hemisphere), and why those spaces were so well thought of as artists' spaces and galleries. The <a href="http://www.advancedglazings.com/ldp/index.php">light quality is much better</a> when it is from an indirect source.<br /><br />Most diffuser options do little to spread the light around. Typical etched or frosted glass has little effect. The light patterns are a little bit softer edged from frosted glass than they are from clear glass, but when it is directly lit, it is little better than clear glass. Advanced Glazings, Ltd. offers much better performance for incorporating daylighting into buildings with a line of insulated glazing called <a href="http://www.advancedglazings.com/index.html">Solera</a>. Architects have known of <a href="http://www.kalwall.com/windows.htm">Kalwall</a>, another company that has been making translucent panels for many years. Kalwall is a panel of polyester and fiberglass that offers translucency and some insulation.</p>
June 18th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
Michigan Wind Power Map: Image Source: State of MichiganA proposed 21st Century Renewable Energy Plan was introduced last week for the state of Michigan. This is something that the state badly needs. Other states have been pushing forward programs to develop their energy efficiency and renewability, such as the Million Solar Roofs in California, or the western states' "Transitioning the West to Clean Energy and Energy Security." As I mentioned earlier, Michigan, with it's present building code, has one of the worst energy standards in the country. One aspect of this new legislative proposal is to "promote energy conservation through updated construction codes and consumer tax credits for energy-efficient appliances."
The key elements of the plan:
June 16th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
<p><img src="/files/images/rough_0.jpg" border="0" width="240" height="369" />There are layers upon layers of complex issues to be faced when one deals with a question of grave importance such as, "What coffee should I buy this morning?" Ethics are hard to keep straight when so much of the information about a product is a mix of marketing, spin, and carefully crafted image. The truth is often well concealed (and usually deliberately so). To be a conscientious consumer is not easy, with the marketplace stacked against any revelation of the truth the way that it is.</p><p><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FRough-Guide-Shopping-Conscience-Reference%2Fdp%2F1843537249%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1182012181%26sr%3D1-1&tag=greeopti-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">The Rough Guide to Shopping with a Conscience</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=greeopti-20&l=ur2&o=1" border="0" width="1" height="1" /></em> looks to provide some guidance for getting behind the layers of obfuscation and presents the issues that need to be considered in many of these decisions. The book is divided into three parts. Part I: <em>Issues</em> lays out the alternatives and some of the standards for ethical decisions. Part II: <em>Products & companies</em> goes through different categories in more detail. And Part III: <em>Find out more</em> deals briefly with sources for further information.<br /><br />The <em>Issues</em> section looks at five approaches to ethical decisionmaking: Going green, Fair trade, Boycotts, Selective shopping, and Buying locally. The authors recognize the complexities in all of these issues, and point out the (sometimes conflicting and contradictory) arguments that can be made about deciding one way or another. In most circumstances, they lay out the different viewpoints, but do not offer any definitive answer, because no such solution exists.</p>
June 13th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
I had the chance to learn more about evaluating home energy efficiency at a seminar about energy rating for homes. This is particulary valuable here in the State of Michigan because Michigan is in the bottom 5 states for energy efficiency in home construction. According to the EPA, only Hawaii is worse than Michigan. There is new legislation being introduced in the state to address some of these issues (which I will be writing about shortly), but, at present, the state requirements are very lax, and saying that a house meets the building code for energy doesn't mean all that much.
Production homebuilders would rather save a few hundred dollars so that they can keep their costs low and sell homes at the lowest price they can. They are unconcerned about the operating cost of the home, and many homebuyers are following them and only asking about the seling price. The cost of this negligence arrives in high energy bills for these homes, which buyers must deal with year after year.
But, there are some federal incentives that encourage the building of more efficient homes. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes a $2000 credit (not just a deduction) for home builders for the construction of a home that meets energy efficiency targets. (The deadline on the Energy Act is presently January 1, 2008, but it is expected to be extended by Congress very shortly.) "Home builders are eligible for a $2,000 tax credit for a new energy efficient home that achieves 50 percent energy savings for heating and cooling over the 2004 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and supplements. At least 1/5 of the energy savings must come from building envelope improvements." --- (EnergyStar link)
June 12th, 2007 | by Philip Proefrock
This is part 2 of my series of posts about visiting GM Headquarters in Detroit for the ChallengeX program and to meet with some GM executives. I attended this event representing both GreenOptions.com and EcoGeek.org, and these articles are cross-posted to both sites. Previous story here.
Several of the vehicles were available to be driven at the ChallengeX event. Of the vehicles that were there, I was most interested in driving the University of Waterloo's entry. Most of the teams (12 of the 17 competitors) were using a B20 biodiesel blend as their fuel and all but one of the others used some form of internal combustion with E85 ethanol or reformulated gasoline. But the University of Waterloo team took a different approach.
The Waterloo vehicle was powered by a hydrogen fuel cell (with onboard batteries for backup) and propelled by front and rear electric motors. When I sat down behind the wheel, my guide from the Waterloo team explained that some of the things in the vehicle that are different from the way we're used to driving a car. There were a number of different sounds, coming from the front and the rear, as various systems came online to start the fuel cell system in operation. Matt Stevens from the Waterloo team explained the whole sequence of operation to me this way: