AUG 21

haha is that John Green hugging the tree?

I think that probably the upper echelon of geekdom is working on the technology behind the green revolution. There's really no need to care how much power my computers and gadgets are using, if I have enough solar panels on my roof.

Is it wrong of me not to really care about the environment? I read ecogeek every day and even have it rss’d to my home page. But I ‘m only “green” because I’m cheap. If you told me that this car has 0 emissions and has nothing in it that will ever cause an environmental problem but it’ll cost you $1000 more over the life of the car I’d probable tell you to stuff it. But anything that will let me lower the ever rising cost of my energy needs I’m all for and if it just happens to help the environment a #1 gold star for you. Now I’d like to share a little idea I had after test driving a prius the other day. Regenerative braking. Now on the prius when you hit the brakes a generator kicks in to reclaim some of the kinetic energy to but back in the battery. Now what if you put a capacitor in the back of your every day gas guzzler and also install regenerative braking then every time you go to the pump to fill up the station buys the stored power from you in the form of a discount on your price per gallon. They then in turn sale the power back to the power company’s . I mean think about all of the cars on the road and all of that kinetic energy just turning to heat (this has to add to global warming) I think if we did this it would make a big dent in our energy crisis. Also it would help lower the coast of my energy.

It was rather surprising when we came across these numbers, my natural inclination was that tech geeks would be super green (half and half ain't bad, pat yourself on the back, ecogeeks!) It was encouraging to see environmental-consciousness going Mainstream.

Many people seem to be dissuaded by the cost of making greener choices (energy-efficient light bulbs are the most popular green behavior for many, and they're cheap).

You know who else tends toward social consciousness? Social Networkers. That was, personally, my favorite find.

Elmac, I'm no scientist, but that sounds like a brilliant idea to me. Now we just need to convince everyone else...

Elmac, how can you be a reader of EcoGeek and save power ONLY for the sake of being a cheap-skate? You must be entirely out of touch with all major themes discussed on this bLog not to realise the impact power-wastage has on the global environment. Most posts are typically about technologies that will be MORE expensive to establish than fossil fuels are today - it's the sustainability and low impact on the environment that matters. Efficiency is one part of this but you tend to have to pay more for the luxury of consuming less.

It's OK to admit you care about the environment... Don't disguise it with throw-away comments about just doing it because you get some beer money in the end. And seriously, the dollar-savings to you personally are insignificant compared to the higher-level outcomes, anyway.

Of course, this all assumes your morals follow this reasoning. Some would argue it's your right to think what you like. Some, like myself, just see it as plain short-sighted moral cowardice.

And regarding your idea: while it may seem a good idea at the outset, the R&D and production of these systems would probably outweigh fitting them to fossil-fueled cars. Soon at least about 50% of all cars will be hybrids which will use regenerative braking and store the reclaimed energy directly to their onboard batteries. To store it and then again transfer it to a servo who then transfers it to the grid would be a terribly wasteful process for such a tiny amount of energy. Better to use it to power the electric engine in your nice electric or hybrid car directly.

To Elmac:

On going green: Keeping costs down is certainly a factor among others e.g. Vanity and keeping up with the Joneses as well as Guilt but there is this:

Many who can imagine what you are saying about the regenerative braking which you describe above are regularly haunted by the need to explore ways of making stuff more and more efficient. Another thing is to use the Chevy Volt type car as a National Battery which stores excess wind energy and so on. But the energy lost in heat in the ICE is ridiculous.

Thus some of us are obsessed with making things more efficient because somehow it just feels right like the way a great equation can be beautiful or how computer programs can be hacked smaller and smaller.

It's often this "scrupulous meanness" which drives change.

I take an honest, farsighted, cheap-skate who pollutes less because it is cheaper almost anytime over the money-spending, big-living, short-sighted, want-to-be-green technologist. Too many people pat themselves on the shoulder for being oh-so-good for purchasing "green" gadgets rather than not buying them and really doing the right thing by consuming less.

While the EcoGeek who cares, spends time here, and follows some of the advice on this blog has most likely less impact than the indiscriminating technology fanatic, I cannot see evidence that EcoGeeks are having less impact than the person who cannot afford to buy or do much and is forced to live with less impact.

Poor people pollute less. Cheap people maybe too. The changes in behavior we have seen nation wide regarding fuel consumption and travel have little to do with insight. They have to do with money. And if the environmentally destructive products are (or become again) cheaper people will go back to using those. For the environment it has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with measurable results. Morals motivate me, but I am very pleased that doing the right thing is also cheaper and getting more so.

Who creates more change and less pollution? Those who don't consume as much (forced or not) or those who consume more (green products or not)? I still would like to see much more urging people to consume only what is absolutely necessary here at this blog.

If you are just cheap you can find advice here:
http://www.savingadvice.com/ Not always greener, but often. If you care about doing the right thing as well, go to my website.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Well I thank you all for your response to my little conundrum there. Now to clarify a few small things and to pass on one more small thought. First I don’t hate the environment I just don’t make it my #1 thought. If I can pollute less on a day to day bases I really try but I’m not going to brake the bank just to help make a better world for brawndo drinking ow my balls watching breeders of the future. Now as for the comment about most of the things on ecogeak being more expensive forms of clean energy. Well in tech speak that means it’s new. I remember a time when an apple computer (pre apple II and mac) had as much processing power as my watch (if that) but still cost a thousand plus dollars to buy. All the tech here on this blog are the future. Just like flying cars they might not all make it to every day use but they’ll keep on ticking in the background of pop culture inspiring geeks of the future, and for those that do make it the only way for them to go is smaller, faster, cheaper, and more efficient. I see a lot of the things here as the ground floor of the future, not so much as the “future is now”.
Now for small thought I had. What do you thank of the idea of a global power grid. A grid were every one is effected by every one else geothermal, wind, water, solar, nuke, coal, and anything else dumping into one grid. Of course this would probable mess up the transmission system we have now (which makes some people a lot of money). I would just like to hear your thoughts on it.

That picture reminds me of the famous Chipko Andolan of India, (which literally means 'the stick or sticking movement') which involved people embracing or sticking to trees to prevent them being cut down.

I just wanted to let you knwo that people are thinking about it, in Europe and Africa. I've read murmurs about using a new kind of solar power in the Sahara, and with a Europe and Africa-wide grid, transmitting it across the area. It's something to do with giant bowl-shaped mirror things, which funnel and multiply then light and heat onto a photovoltaic cell. I read the article a couple of years ago, maybe in NEF, but I've never been able to find it since. In terms of Global, what about the Atlantic? And remember that about 1/3 of electric power is lost in transmission, so it's be pretty costly. You'd need a powerful, sustainable power source first, I think.
Ylila