HOT TOPICS >> Climate refugees • Apple salad • Great gifts • Roundup hazards • Fireplaces

Renewable energy. Energy-efficient homes. Green vehicles. It’s all about energy.

What are you Doing to Save Energy (and Money) at Home?

These days, many people are trying to use less energy at home. Not only is saving energy good for the environment, it can save you a lot of money on your electric and heating bills. So what are you doing to save energy at home? Have you turned down your thermostat this winter? Installed compact-fluorescent light bulbs? Added insulation to your attic? Tell us what you’re trying and how well you think it works by posting a comment below.

Need inspiration? Here are a few articles with some simple ideas for saving energy: How to Make Your Home Energy Efficient, Easy Projects for Instant Energy Savings, and Bright Ideas for Home Lighting.

MAX Update No. 26: Seeking Ideas for More Horsepower

The rules for the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize have been under development for some years now, and all us entrants are on pins and needles — waiting for their release. We've had looks at rule proposals all along the way, given to us in confidence. That's really been the only challenge I've faced as a combination entrant/journalist: there have been times I've had burn-after-reading documents and had to resist my urge to blab.

But now that the latest draft of the Auto X Prize Competition Guidelines have been made available to the public, I'm going to ask for your advice.

The final rules are pretty certain to require we meet a performance standard of zero to 60 mph in under 18 seconds. Not much under, 17.999 will do, but for MAX, that's going to be tough.

What? 18 seconds to 60 mph isn't very fast, but you'd be surprised how many vehicles on the road can't do it. Fully loaded, my four-cylinder Dodge Caravan can't do it, and while it's hardly a performance car, it's adequate. Anyway, this 18 second thing is a fairly recent requirement. It wasn't in the projections when we signed up, so we had designed MAX from the get-go to hit 60 mph in 20 seconds.

Why 20 seconds? Because that's in keeping with the low budget sports cars you could buy new when I was young (and quicker than some, such as the Bugeye Sprites and the Karman Ghias) and I thought it could be done today with a 100-mpg, low-budget sports car. I'll confess we haven't hit 60 mph in 20 seconds yet. On paper it looks like streamlining will get us down to that, so I'm not worried. Or I wasn't before … but I am now.

To increase acceleration to a given speed by 10 percent (in this case, from 20 seconds to 18 seconds) requires more than 20 percent more horsepower. To skim over the math, it would take 10 percent more thrust applied for the same length of time, but by definition it has to be accomplished in 10 percent less time.

1.1 squared = 1.21 so that's 21 percent there. Plus there's no acceleration happening when I'm shifting gears and I doubt I can shift gears 10 percent faster (if it takes me a quarter second per shift then we're really comparing 17 seconds of acceleration with 19 seconds of acceleration). And we don't have much besides horsepower we can mess with.

Make MAX lighter? That'd be nice, but it's not likely to happen given the weight of the additional crash protection structure we're installing.

So to put it simply, this upcoming performance rule is going to call for about 25 percent more horsepower than we have now. How are we going to go from the 32 horses we have to the 40 horses we need?

Beats me! But we're sure not giving up; we're going to find out. The first step of our research is to ask you. Got any ideas on how we can boost our power by 25 percent without hurting fuel economy? If so, please post a comment below!


Browse previous MAX Updates.
Read the introductory MAX article, Here Comes the 100-mpg Car.
Visit the Kinetic Vehicles website for more technical details on MAX.

Keeps on Ticking

bedol2Away back in September, six months ago, I reported on an unusual clock that uses just water and salt to run on. I thought it was a unique product that would be fun to tell you all about, but figured that the Bedol water clock would probably be in need of constant fussing – I was very wrong!

Until this week, the clock lost no time what-so-ever, and because it is a sealed system, it also didn’t lose water due to evaporation. I added a teaspoon of salt on Wednesday and the clock is right back on track. Just one teaspoon of salt for six months of reliable operation.

It doesn’t get much more energy efficient than that!!

 

 

Do You Want to Pay Billions to Keep Car Companies Alive?

According to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the government giving billions of dollars in loans to Chrysler and General Motors in order to keep the struggling automakers afloat. 

Currently, officials from the Obama administration are reviewing the automakers plans for restructuring (aka downsizing and going green). So you can expect a lot more about the auto bailout to be in the news in the coming weeks. 

As much as I think the domestic automakers are largely responsible for their dramatic decline, I worry about the everyday Joes and Janes who will be affected if any or all of the domestic automakers go under. It’s also ironic that as AIG hands out $100 billion in bonuses (paid for from the bailout funded by our taxes), it seems there’s a tough road ahead for the automakers to get any more than the $20-some billion bailout. In the end, I think the Big Three (Chrysler, Ford or General Motors) are going to become two, maybe even one, in order to survive.

Does anybody really know the difference anymore between $100 billion and $200 billion?

What do you think? Should our tax dollars keep Chrysler and General Motors alive? Are they victims of the times? Or have they dug their own graves through bad management, focusing on SUVs despite all the writing on the wall about higher gas prices, etc.? Will you ever again buy a car from Chrysler, Ford or General Motors?

Share your thoughts by posting a comment below.


Update, 3/27/2009

This just in from The New York Times:

The Obama administration is likely to extend more short-term aid to General Motors and Chrysler on Monday, but impose a strict deadline for bondholders and union workers to make concessions that would help the ailing automakers become viable businesses and avert bankruptcy.

For more information, read U.S. Expected to Give More Aid to Automakers.


Update, 3/30/2009

From The New York Times:

The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General Motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid.

The decision to ask GM's chairman and chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to resign caught Detroit and Washington by surprise, and it underscored the Obama administration's determination to take a hands-on role in the companies it is bailing out — a level of government involvement in business not seen since the Great Depression.

President Obama is scheduled to announce details of the auto package at the White House on Monday, but two senior officials, offering a preview on condition of anonymity, made clear that some form of bankruptcy — a quick, court-supervised restructuring, as they described it — could still be an option for one or both companies.

For more information, read Obama Issues Ultimatum to Struggling Automakers.

The Scoop on Vertical Axis Wind Turbines

One type of wind turbine that’s been getting a lot of attention these days is the vertical axis wind turbine. Even famous Hollywood stars like Ed Begley, Jr., are touting their supposed advantages over conventional wind turbines.

In a vertical axis wind turbine (VAWT), the blades are attached to a central vertical shaft. The shaft is attached to an alternator located at the bottom of the shaft, sometimes even at ground level. When the blades rotate, they spin the rotor of the generator, producing electricity.

Vertical axis wind machines have been around for a long time, about 3,000 years. The reason you see so few of them is that they’ve failed miserably.

That hasn’t stopped inventors (who are apparently unaware of their disappointing history) from rolling out new models and singing their praises. One refrain in their song of praise is that VAWTs can capture wind from any direction, which is true of horizontal wind turbines, too. The difference is that VAWTs are always oriented into the wind whereas conventional wind turbines turn into the wind as wind direction changes, thanks to the tail vane. No big deal there.

Proponents also like to claim that VAWTs are immune to turbulence that wrecks havoc with horizontal axis wind turbines (HAWTs). Turbulence is crazy airflow that occurs downwind from buildings and other obstacles on the ground, known as ground clutter. In turbulent areas, winds can flow in a number of different directions. This, in turn, is pretty hard on conventional wind turbines and one reason they are mounted on tall towers. Tall towers place them in the smoother, stronger, more energy-rich higher-level winds.

The VAWT does have a slight advantage in dealing with wind direction shifts, but turbulence also wreaks havoc on their blades, increasing fatigue. Fatigue leads to failure. Blades can crack and break.

Another supposed advantage is that VAWTs can be mounted close to the ground — even on top of buildings — where they capture ground-level winds. This eliminates the need for tall and costly towers and the need to obtain the zoning variances sometimes required to install horizontal axis wind turbines on tall towers.

Although VAWTs can capture ground-level winds, just like any turbine installed on a short tower, ground-level winds are subject to friction. This slows wind down as it sweeps across the land. Both friction drag and turbulence in lower-level winds around buildings and trees decrease the power available to a turbine mounted at ground level — so much so that there is very little extractable energy in them. The lower the wind speed, the less electricity a turbine will produce.

In addition, dead air spaces form behind buildings and other ground clutter. Placing a VAWT in such a location renders it useless. Even though you can mount a VAWT at ground level, there’s not much energy for them. You could mount a solar electric module inside your garage, too, but it’s not going to do much.

Unfortunately, years of experience with VAWTs has been rather discouraging, to say the least. Hundreds of commercial VAWTs were installed in California in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They all failed and were removed from service. These were not experimental units, but production units.

VAWTs are also less efficient than horizontal axis wind machines. For a given swept area, they just don’t extract as much wind energy as a well-designed HAWT. In addition, the blades of VAWTs are prone to fatigue created by centrifugal forces as the blades spin around the central axis. The vertically oriented blades twist and bend as they rotate in the wind. This causes the blades to flex and crack. Over time, this causes the blades to break apart, leading to catastrophic failure.

VAWTs are less reliable and efficient than HAWTs. All in all, they just don’t stack up against horizontal axis wind turbines. Don’t be fooled by the chatter of the ill informed — our friend and ally Ed Begley, Jr., included.

To learn more about VAWTs, check out Wind Power: Are Vertical Axis Turbines Better? You also may want to sign up for some of our courses at The Evergreen Institute or read my newest book, Power from the Wind. This book should be available by mid April in major bookstores and online at The Evergreen Institute and New Society Publishers.

Training Workshops for Solar Installers and other Energy Professionals

Are you trying to learn more about renewable energy and green building? If you are looking for related conferences or workshops, and especially if you are looking for professional training as a solar installer or dealer, be sure to check out the schedule for the Solar 2009 conference, an annual event held by the American Solar Energy Society. Here’s a description of the conference which will be held May 11-16, 2009 in Buffalo, N.Y.  Be sure to check out the opportunities for professional training provided by the Solar Success Training Event.

 

What’s happening in the world of renewable energy?

If you’re interested in the big picture of what’s happening in renewable energy, you’ll find a lot of interesting stuff at RenewableEnergyWorld.com. Check out their about us page for a quick list of links to more info on green jobs, breaking news and product descriptions.

Some of the information is very technical, but you can find basics too. Take a look at the Renewable Energy Technology Overview for background on solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable technologies. I also enjoy listening to the weekly podcast, Inside Renewable Energy.

Finally, there’s some interesting material from the Renewable Energy World Conference and Expo that took place in Las Vegas earlier this week. You can find video from the event here, or click here to go to the event’s blog.

MAX Update No. 25: Inspiration from Craig Vetter, 470 mpg

When people ask me if I really think I can get 100 miles per gallon, I say “Of course I can. I built my first 100 mpg commuter over 30 years ago.”

What I don't mention right away is it was a motorcycle. When I do, they roll their eyes and go, “Oh right, some put-put going 12 miles an hour.”

Then I say, “Heck no, it was a freeway flier, I spent more in tickets than I did in gas.”

I'm not exaggerating by much. My prize ticket was a combination, charging me with both a Speed Contest and Insufficient Horsepower for Freeway Operation. Ah yes, my misspent youth …

An interesting DVD showed up in the mail yesterday. It's a videotaped lecture by Craig Vetter about the Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Contests, held in the early '80s during the era I refer to as Energy Crisis Lite. These were not silly, low-speed science project pulse-and-coast competitions — these were street legal bikes going highway speeds on public roads. I thought I was hot stuff at 100 mpg. But man, the front-runners in these contests (yeah, folks got hooked on them and came back year after year) were getting 100 mpg improvements from one contest to the next, like 152 in '82 and 256 in '83. The last contest was in '85, and won at 470 mpg.

Well, you probably know the history: gas got cheap again, and the masses stopped caring about fuel economy for 30 years. But Craig called up the top finishers to ask them how they'd done it back in the day. The DVD is fascinating if you're into this stuff, and the advice from the guys getting 250 mpg and up is probably the best part.

In general (SPOILER ALERT) the secret is to use real streamlining (Craig goes into great detail on the difference between real streamlining and styling department streamlining) and no more motor than you need. Of course there's a lot more to it (and a lot more on the DVD) but it sounds like our four wheeled motorcycle, MAX, is on the right track.

If you'd like one of Craig's DVDs for your very own, check out the Craig Vetter online store. Also cruise the rest of his website for more insight into high-mileage bikes.


Browse previous MAX Updates.
Read the introductory MAX article, Here Comes the 100-mpg Car.
Visit the Kinetic Vehicles website for more technical details on MAX.

Does Efficiency Really Save When Installing a PV System?

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 1: The Cost of EnergyMeasures and EnergySavings

Efficiency Measure New Consumption Old Consumption Energy Savings Cost to Implement

New Refrigerator

1,300 Wh/day

2,200 Wh/day

900 Wh/day

$849

New Chest Freezer

900 Wh/day

1,800 Wh/day

900 Wh/day

$799

Six 18-Watt CFLs

432 Wh/day
(@4 hrs/day)

1,800 Wh/day
(six 75-watt
@ 4 hrs/day)

1,368 Wh/day

$24

Eliminate Phantom Loads
via Power Strip

0

384 Wh/day

384 Wh/day

$13

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.

Table 2: Energy and Economic Savings from Efficiency Measures

Daily Energy Savings 3,552 watt-hours per day
Annual Energy Savings 1,296 kilowatt-hours
Annual  Savings $92
Cost of the Improvements $1,685
Return on Investment 5.5 percent

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.

Table 3: Comparison of Costs and Savings from Efficiency vs PVs

Energy Efficiency PV System
Cost $1,685 $10,000
Annual Savings $92 $92
Return on Investment 5.5 percent 0.9 percent

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.

Renewable Energy on the Farm

Cattle and Wind Turbines
   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!

Frye Poultry Manure Gasifier

Josh Frye raises a lot of chickens — as many as 800,000 birds a year. A lot of chickens means a lot of chicken poop to dispose of, plus the need for a lot of propane (about 30,000 gallons a year) to keep the chicks warm in the winter. So when his buddy, Matt Harper, suggested they take a road trip to Illinois to see a gasifier that would turn poop into heat, Frye was interested.

The machine at Southern Illinois University made a good impression on Frye. The fixed-bed gasifier processed five tons of poultry litter an hour with no smell, no smoke and no internal moving parts.

Frye decided to procure his own gasifier. He worked with Southern Illinois-based Coaltec Energy to identify a technology that best met his needs, and settled on the fixed-bed gasifier produced by Westside Energies of Canada. Coaltec is the U.S. sales representative for Westside Energies, and the companies helped him apply for grants to purchase and install the unit (approximate cost, $1,000,000).

gasifier
   The gasifier.
    PHOTO COURTESY INTERNATIONAL BIOCHAR INITIATIVE

Things fell into place as grants and low-interest loans came through from several West Virginia state agencies. After the grant writing was completed, the price of metal suddenly spiked, increasing the cost of the gasifier. Westside and Coaltec kicked in a contribution to keep the project within budget.

A more welcome surprise came for Frye when he was introduced to the concept of biochar by Tom Basden, an extension specialist in nutrient management at West Virginia University. “Tom told me I would end up growing chickens mainly for the poop,” Frye says. “I thought he was off his rocker, but now I think he might be right on the money.”

Frye is now producing a high quality biochar and has sold his first ton at a net price of $480 ($600 a ton for the char and $120 a ton transport costs) to a farmer in New Jersey who is testing its qualities for his crop of corn and soybeans. A farm in South Carolina is testing the char on pharmaceutical grapes (used in the nutritional supplement industry). Frye worked with International Biochar Initiative (IBI) board members Johannes Lehmann and Stephen Joseph to optimize the gasifier to produce quality biochar rich in phosphorous and potassium. His test burns so far have made biochar that ranges from 1.7 to 3.2 percent phosphorous and 5.4 to 9.6 percent potassium.

gasification
   Josh Frye explains the gasification process.
    PHOTO COURTESY INTERNATIONAL BIOCHAR INITIATIVE

Biochar promises to add an impressive income stream to his operation, but it’s not just about money for Frye. He had been concerned that his waste-to-energy gasifier was going to destroy the fertilizer value of the poop he had been cleaning out and selling to local farmers for about $5 a ton. “Now I feel like I am making a real contribution to the ag world,” Frye says. “Taking a raw material and converting it into a stable carbon-rich product is a great thing. Talk about falling in the poop and coming out smelling like a rose!”

Frye Poultry’s annual production of 125 to 600 tons of poultry litter can generate an estimated 25 to 120 tons of biochar. From his initial testing of the char, Frye found that depending on the operating conditions, his gasifier produces biochar with an organic carbon content ranging from 10 to 34 percent. The carbon content is largely dependent on the moisture content of the poultry litter. With lower moisture contents, the carbon percentage in the biochar increases.

The 30-foot-by-50-foot fixed-bed gasifier was installed at Frye Poultry in March 2007. It operates with negative pressure so it can burn at lower temperatures and produce biochar concurrently with energy. The unit has a maximum feed rate of about 1,000 pounds an hour, which can produce five million BTU of energy. Burning up to 12 tons of litter per day, it can produce 3 to 4 tons of char a day.

biochar from manure
   Char from the gasifier
    PHOTO COURTESY INTERNATIONAL BIOCHAR INITIATIVE

Coaltec staff is able to monitor performance of the unit from their offices in British Columbia, Canada. Frye operates the gasifier single-handedly at his West Virginia farm. It took Frye roughly five burns over three months to feel competent in the operation of the unit. Coaltec representatives visited onsite to help with these initial burns. One of the biggest hurdles for Frye — a dedicated Macintosh user — was learning the IBM-based computer programs to operate the gasifier.

In the winter of 2007-08, Frye ran six test burns testing wet or dry litter with or without adding wood shavings or chips. He has run the gasifier in a continuous steady state mode for up to 10 days. He has determined that one burn per cycle of broilers is ideal, with a continuous operation period of about three weeks to warm the poultry houses up to 90 degrees Fahrenheit for hatchlings, tapering off to 70 degrees.

The initial funding covered much of the installation and first year of operation. But Frye realized that to continue a viable operation, he needed to have a structure to store and dry the chicken litter. Wet litter significantly slowed the process and was less efficient. Frye received additional grant funding through MicroUnity to build a storage area.

Last year’s test burns produced about 30 tons of biochar and saved Frye about four thousand gallons of propane. Eventually he expects to reduce his propane consumption by 80 to 90 percent. He is also looking into using the gasifier heat in the summer to operate a chiller to cool the poultry houses.

Frye is happy with the unit and appreciative of all the help he has received from Coaltec and others. And he’s become accustomed to surprises because they keep on coming. Frye gave some biochar to his neighbors to play with, and one neighbor “cussed him,” he says, because the grass growing on the biochar was so thick it tore up his hay mower. “Looked like he gave that pasture a punk rock haircut,” Frye says, “He needs to get more horsepower and sharpen that mower blade.”

Walk Your Talk: The Fifteen Most Important Things You Can Do to Green Your Life

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.

Train Now for Tomorrow’s Green Jobs

Many people are asking me whether the economic recovery plan will stimulate jobs in green energy and green building. My answer is yes. Definitely.

What areas will we see growth?

One hot area, of course, is renewable energy — solar electricity, wind energy, geothermal and others. Expect jobs in residential renewable energy as well commercial renewable energy production.

Energy efficiency could be even bigger. These measures offer the most benefit for the least cost.

I expect a lot of jobs in green building, too, at residential and commercial levels. I just read Five Hot Future Careers — Train Now by Woodrow. Aames says that green construction management will be one of the top new jobs in the near future — and a lucrative one, too.

If you are interested in a career in residential green building or renewable energy, be sure to check out our workshops at The Evergreen Institute.




Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

Mother Earth News is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. Mother Earth News helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At Mother Earth News, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our Earth-Friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $4.95 and get 6 issues of Mother Earth News for only $10.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $14.95 for 6 issues.