I’ve been off TV for five or six months, working diligently day and night at my new educational center in east-central Missouri, The Evergreen Institute, where I teach classes on solar electricity, wind energy, green building, natural building and more. 

So, when I moved back to Colorado for the winter and had a few minutes of free time at night, I started to watch a little TV.

One of the first things I noticed was that the bulk of the car ads are extolling the virtues of big gas guzzlers, SUVs and big trucks. I’m hoping it is Detroit simply trying to dump their unsold gas guzzlers, but I fear it is their effort to persuade us — once again — that bigger is better.

Another thing I’ve noticed is that those ads featuring high mileage vehicles often “brag” about cars that get a whopping 24 to 30 miles per gallon.

I have two things to say about this situation. First, have we no memory at all? Have we all forgotten the economic kick in the pants that $4 per gallon gas delivered?

Let’s remember: As the global economy recovers, chances are gas consumption will rise, dramatically, backsliding us into the ugly, painful days of $4 a gallon gas. This, in turn, could stimulate another economic downturn.

Let’s use our brains for once. Don’t let anyone tell you that a car that gets 30 miles per gallon is fuel efficient.  Fuel efficient cars get 40 and 50 miles per gallon, even more. That’s the target we should be shooting for, and fast!  Let’s insist on it.

Using compact-fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) is an easy way to save energy and money at home. These energy-efficient bulbs use much less electricity than an incandescent light bulb. (For a quick and fun overview of the benefits of CFLs vs. incandescents, check out the Common Craft video below.)

Over the last few years, CFLs have become much cheaper and easier to find. However, some people are concerned about the small amount of mercury in CFLs. Others are more interested in using LEDs — another type of energy-efficient light bulb. (Background information on both LEDs and CFLs is available on the Energy Star website, including this fact sheet on mercury and CFLs.)

We’d like to hear what type of light bulbs you’re using at home. Are you using CFLs, and why or why not? Share your thoughts by posting a comment below.

Say you had $1,000 to invest in green home improvement — how would you spend it? 

Don't worry about where the money came from — if you must, say you earned it, or it came from the green home improvement leprechaun.

Would you buy new, energy-efficient windows? Or bamboo flooring for the living room? What about more insulation for the attic to help lower your heating and cooling bills? What about an on-demand water heater? Or perhaps an upgrade for the exterior of your house, such as a new paint job or fiber-cement siding? Speaking of paint, would you add new color to rooms with low- or no-VOC paint? Would you want new, energy-efficient appliances, such as a new refrigerator? In general, would you want to focus on energy-efficiency improvements to help you save money over time? Or aesthetic improvements you can feel good about?

Obviously $1,000 may not cover all expenses for some of these projects, especially at a large scale. But take a second to daydream: If you were handed a grand of green to make your home more green, what would you most want to do? Share your daydreams by posting a comment below.

Several readers have questioned the validity of my assertion that energy efficiency can dramatically reduce the initial cost of a solar electric system. In my blog Making Solar Electricity Affordable, I noted that each dollar invested in efficiency could save $3 to $5 in initial costs. The reason for this is that it is much cheaper to save energy than to generate it with a photovoltaic (PV) system.

To illustrate my point, I’ve included a table from a book I am publishing later this year entitled Power from the Sun. It’s an introduction to solar electricity that’s being be published by New Society Publishers. This data was provided to me courtesy Kurt Nelson, an experienced PV installer and teacher.

In Table 1, I list four energy efficiency measures and how much they’ll save a homeowner in watt-hours (column 4). Column 5 shows the cost of each measure.

Table 2 lists the daily and annual savings in kWh and the total cost of the improvements. It also lists the annual savings and the cost of the system. As you can see, the return on investment is 5.5 percent. These measures will save about 1,296 kWh of electricity per year. These changes cost nearly $1,700.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. Table 3 shows how much it would cost to generate this same amount of electricity via a grid-connected solar electric system — the cheapest of all PV systems. A PV system that generates 1,296 kWh per year would cost about $10,000 in Wisconsin. As you can see, it is nearly six times more expensive to generate electricity than to conserve it.

Factoring in the 30-percent federal tax credit drives the system cost down to $7,000. Even so, it is still four times more expensive to generate electricity via a PV system than to save it through efficiency measures. Every dollar invested in efficiency would save $4 in system cost.

Remember, energy efficiency measures will reduce the initial cost of battery-based systems even more, because batteries add substantially to the cost of these systems. And, off-grid systems don’t qualify for federal tax credits. In this example, an off-grid system that produces 1,296 kWh of electricity per year could easily cost $14,000. In this case, a PV system is 8 times more expensive than efficiency. Every dollar you’d invest in efficiency could save $8 in installation costs.

All this is to say, that efficiency measures are far cheaper than a new PV system. I’m not trying to discourage people from installing PV systems, just trying to encourage people to implement efficiency measures first. That way, you’ll end up spending less on a PV system.

PHOTO BY WARREN GRETZ/DOE/NREL

I have a couple of renewable energy calendars, and when you flip through them, you can’t help but notice a recurring theme. There are photos of wind turbines with photogenic cattle (or goats, or sheep) and glossy pictures of solar panels mounted on barns. All this is enough to start you thinking about renewable energy on the farm.

If you’ve ever wondered how farmers can benefit from renewable energy, check out this terrific page on farm energy from the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (otherwise known as ATTRA). The ATTRA site is full of practical information on sustainable agriculture, and they have a great collection of resources on renewable energy, including solar energy, wind energy, energy efficiency and biofuels.

What kind of information is covered? Well, you can read all about generating your own electricity with solar panels or wind turbines, the best solar greenhouse design, and methane recovery from animal manure (a subject which, understandably enough, I've never seen pictured on a calendar). Check it out!

Years ago, a friend told me a story of an acquaintance with strong environmental leanings who hoped to teach his children the importance of nature and environmental protection. One day, while riding in the car with his children, her friend was giving a friendly lecture to his children on the value of recycling. When he had finished, his son asked, “Dad, if recycling’s so good, why don’t we do it?”

Over the past decade, I’ve spoken to hundreds of audiences about environmental protection, many of which were populated by environmental educations and environmental enthusiasts. Numerous people in my audiences have admitted to me in private that they don’t do enough — or don’t do much at all. They talk a good talk, but don’t seem to be able really to walk their talk.

Leo Tolstoy may have said it best, “Everybody thinks of changing humanity and nobody thinks of changing himself.” A cynical friend once remarked, “Environmentalists are people who want to tell others how to live.”

While I know many dedicated environmentalists who really walk their talk, I know a fair number who “think globally, but act vocally.” They complain and provide advice for others, but don’t do much to help make a better world. To them, knowing the answer is not always living the answer.

If you’re one of those individuals whose sentiments and actions are out of alignment, here are fifteen steps you can take to dramatically reduce your impact and help create a truly sustainable future.

1. Install compact fluorescent light bulbs in the most commonly used light fixtures in your house.

2. Hire a professional to perform an energy audit on your home, then weatherize your home and beef up the insulation.

3. Install and use a programmable thermostat. It will cut your heating and cooling bills by 10 percent or more.

4. Plant shade trees to keep your house cooler in the summer.

5. Install water-conserving fixtures such as water-efficient showerheads and water-efficient toilets.

6. Replace worn out appliances such as clothes washers, dishwashers, furnaces and air conditioners with energy and water-efficient models. Buy Energy Star qualified models.

7. If you water your lawn, water early or late in the day and replace water-hungry grasses with low-water grasses, and remove sections of lawn that are hard to water and wasteful of water.

8. Recycle all household waste from newspapers to cardboard to aluminum to glass.

9. Compost all kitchen scraps (except meat and bones) and yard waste. Compost in your backyard and use the compost to enrich the soils in your flower and vegetable gardens.

10. Eat more vegetables and less meat. Buy organic vegetables whenever possible.

11. Carpool, ride a bike, walk, or take the bus whenever possible.

12. Replace gas-guzzling vehicles with fuel-efficient models getting 40 miles per gallon or more.

13. Curb consumption. Learn to live more simply. Buy less. Buy used goods. Practice green gift giving.

14. Reduce the number of pets you keep. Hard as it is to swallow, our pets have a huge impact on the environment, one rarely discussed these days for fear of offending pet lovers. Cats, for instance, kill several hundred million songbirds each year. Pets such as cats and dogs produce mountains of solid waste that may wash into nearby streams during heavy storms. Feeding cats, dogs, parakeets, cockatiels, and other pets also requires enormous acreage, land that was once wildlife habitat, and energy for processing and shipping food.

15. Drop those extra pounds. Weight loss is another important environmental strategy, though never mentioned. Today, over 60 percent of all American adults and 15 percent of all children are overweight. They take in more calories than the need. In fact, the average American requires 2,200 calories per day, but consumes 3,200 — 1,000 calories extra, which accounts for the extra poundage that leads to late-onset diabetes, heart attacks, and other medical problems.

Consuming calorie-rich food in excess, which has become something of an American pastime, is not only unhealthy it requires more resources. The more food we eat, the more land is required, the more energy and materials are used, the more fertilizer that’s needed, the more pesticides are applied to our land, and the more pollution is produced. Taking care of health problems also requires massive amounts of money and resources.

By eating less and maintaining health, we can lower our environmental impact — and quite dramatically.

These steps can dramatically reduce your impact on the environment, the first step in building a sustainable future.

Most of the steps are easy. If you put your mind to them, change your priorities, refocus on your values and commit to living by your ideals, well, anything is possible.

And if hundreds of thousands of people in each state follow suit, we can make huge inroads into current problems and help steer our society back onto a sustainable path.

Many people who are contemplating installing solar electric systems on their homes struggle with the high initial costs. To pay for a system, they either have to dip into their savings or take out a loan. A 3- to 5-kW grid-connected solar system, suitable for most homes, can run $30,000 to $50,000.

Even with recent legislation that provides a 30 percent tax credit for solar and wind systems for homes and businesses, the cost of such as system will still cost $21,000 to $30,000, which is a substantial piece of change.

Isn’t there some way to reduce this cost?

There is. It's called efficiency.

Richard Perez, founder of Home Power magazine, ran the numbers. He found that every dollar invested in energy efficiency could reduce the cost of a photovoltaic (PV) system by $3 to $5.

How?

By reducing the size of a system one must install to meet his or her needs. The economic savings from efficiency are quite substantial. For instance, a $2,000 investment in home energy efficiency — for example, weatherization, insulation and energy-efficient compact fluorescent or LED light bulbs — will reduce the demand for electricity. This, in turn, will reduce the size of the PV system required to meet one’s needs. It could easily save $6,000 to $10,000 on the cost of the system of a 3- to 5-kW PV system before tax incentives. Taking into account the 30% federal tax credit, the savings would be $4,200 to $7,000.

Spend a little more on efficiency and the cost of the system drops even more. If you invested $4,000 in efficiency, the total system cost would decline by $12,000 to $20,000. Taking into account the federal tax credits once again and the decrease in initial cost would be $8,400 to $14,000.

That’s not a bad return on an investment in efficiency.

Instead of spending $21,000 to $30,000 for a system, you’d pay $12,600 to $16,000.

So, if you're thinking about installing a PV system, think efficiency first. It’s a gift you give yourself and the planet. It will reduce energy demand, reduce pollution, and reduce the cost of a system substantially. Moreover, the savings will provide dividends for the life of the house.

Want to know more about where that $787 billion dollars in the stimulus package is going? Here are links to a couple of timely articles with all the details about how the stimulus package will encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency.

 • “Will the Stimulus Help Wind and Solar?” from the New York Times blog, Green Inc.

 •  “What the Stimulus Means for EcoGeeks,” from the EcoGeek blog.

 • “Stimulus Act Expands Clean Energy Tax Credits for Homes and Businesses” from the Department of Energy's EERE News site.

Also worth knowing about, there’s a new government website, Recovery.gov, designed to help people learn more about the recovery package and track how the money is being spent.

Attainable changes are headed our way. A decrease in energy consumption rates is now in the foreseeable future as long as the United States follows current energy efficiency programs. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) released an analysis this week concluding that the United States could potentially decrease its energy consumption growth by 22 percent in the next 20 years. The analysis took into account the existing market patterns, funding complications and the United States’ increasing energy consumption.

According to the EPRI’s press release, the study used projections of growth in electricity usage by residential, commercial and industrial sectors collected by the Energy Information Association (EIA).

Arshad Mansoor, vice president of Power Delivery and Utilization for EPRI, explains that the institute’s study will provide vital information for policymakers, utility companies and regulators when it comes to making important decisions about how to make effective changes in our energy systems.

You can download the EPRI report and its executive summary at www.epri.com.

While they provide a beautiful, clear picture, plasma screen televisions are a huge detriment to the environment, and California could be the first state to ban them. Earlier this month state regulators in California began drafting a plan to remove all plasma screen televisions from retail shelves. Plasma screen and LCD TVs gluttonize electricity and account for 10 percent of all Californians’ electric bills, according to the Los Angeles Times. The new rules, which are expected to go into effect by mid-2009, would only give consumers the option of choosing a more energy-efficient model.

Last year California was ranked number one in energy efficiency by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Officials say the standards, once fully in place, would reduce the state's annual energy needs by an amount equivalent to the power consumed by 86,400 homes. The LA Times says that during peak TV viewing times, such as during the Super Bowl, the electricity used to power those TVs is the same amount used to power the San Onofre nuclear power station at full capacity. 

But California isn’t the only place banning plasma screens from stores. The European Union is also putting a ban on certain energy-draining plasma screen televisions. The Daily Mail says the legislation should pass this spring and will remove the most energy-consuming televisions from store shelves and will place a label on all other TVs encouraging energy efficient choices.

Combined Heat and Power: Effective Energy Solutions for a Sustainable Future — a new report released by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) — could offer solutions to our energy problems. The report shows how Combined Heat and Power (CHP) could enhance national energy efficiency and create economic growth. According to EERE, CHP uses a variety of fuels to create electricity at the point of use, allowing normally lost heat to be saved and used for heating and cooling. Because of CHP, the United States already annually avoids 1.9 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of fuel consumption and 248 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions — the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road. The report shows that if just 20% of generating capacity came from CHP by 2030, these benefits could occur:

• A 60% reduction of the projected increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 — the equivalent of taking 154 million cars off the road
• Fuel savings of 5.3 quadrillion Btu — the equivalent of almost half the current energy consumption by U.S. households
• The creation of 1 million new green-collar jobs through 2030 and $234 billion towards new investments throughout the United States

Both the Department of Energy’s Industrial Technologies Program and Oak Ridge National Laboratory worked on the report, which was also reviewed by a range of non-governmental stakeholders.

The X Prize Foundation chose three videos out of 133 for their $25,000 “What’s Your Crazy Green Idea?” Contest. The competition encouraged people to create a two-minute YouTube video that explained their idea for the next X Prize in Energy and Environment.

Submissions ended on Oct. 31 — and now it’s up to you to decide which idea is best. The three ideas involve creating a more efficient battery, reducing home energy usage, and making it easier for homes to have complete energy independence. Which one is most important to you?

The public can vote here through November 30.

Dishwashers will soon be using less water now that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) changed the water use criteria for any such product bearing the Energy Star label. This is the first dishwasher-related change that Energy Star has ever made, and it could save American citizens more than $25 million in energy and water bills in the first six months it takes effect.

The changes will be made in two separate phases; one by Aug. 11, 2009 and the other by July 1, 2011. The first change will require Energy Star dishwashers to be at least 48 percent more efficient than federal standards require, saving more than 500 million gallons of water per year. The second will require dishwashers to be at least 13.5 percent more efficient than the previous restrictions, saving another 330 million gallons of water per year.

Please comment below and discuss any other ways that you and your family save water when washing dishes.

Let’s all stop and applaud California. This year, the state ranks first on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s (ACEEE) list of U.S. states that use energy efficiency policies, programs and practices as the first step in improving their economies. Among the top 10 — along with the golden state — are Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont.

ACEEE first started ranking states in 2006 as a way to encourage each state to promote energy independence and efficiency. The 2008 scorecard rates and ranks each state on a 50-point scale for their energy efficiency policy initiatives, including:

• Utility-sector and public benefits efficiency programs and policies
• Transportation and land use policies
• Building energy codes
• Combined heat and power (CHP)
• Appliance efficiency standards
• Energy efficiency in public buildings and fleets
• Research, development, and deployment (RD&D)
• Financial incentives for efficient technologies

Watch the Scorecard Webcast and see how your state ranks. And let us know what you think of your state’s performance by posting a comment below.

This past weekend, on a return flight home from a brief vacation to Colorado, I gazed out of the small airplane window and watched the sun set. The sky turned from pink to purple to deep blue, and soon I began to notice twinkling lights far below. As we started our descent into Kansas City international airport, I was treated to a show of more Christmas lights than I could have fit into several nights' worth of driving around and 'ooh-ing' and 'aah-ing.'

I was thrilled to see such enthusiastic displays of holiday cheer — but then thought; 'I wonder how much money and electricity we all waste during the holidays?' Turns out, we waste a lot. According to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a season's worth of decorative holiday lighting can add as much as $70 to your electric bill. If you're looking for a money-saving solution, spring for LED (light-emitting diode) strands: The bright bulbs add as little as $0.43 to your total holiday bill. Most LED strands average only about $5 to $7 more than incandescent bulbs, and can last for up to 20 years. They can be found at many major retail stores (like here, at Target.)

If you're looking to cut out electricity usage all together, solar-powered LED strands are also available. These strands are pricier, but require no messy extension cords and, obviously, no power costs. Strands like these can run for 6 to 8 hours on one day's charge, lighting the way for Santa with ease all while making Mother Earth smile! Do you have other alternative lighting solutions? Have you found a great deal on LED lights? Share your comments in the comments field below.