Long commutes : Sustainable ?

We're stuck in a box, Adrian. We absolutely CAN have completely independent buildings in urban settings. Self-sustaining homes that collect their own water, use the water four times before it's sent outside, process their own sewage, collect their own electricity and hot water, and can grow enough food for a family of four have been around for 40 years. They don't need sewers, septic tanks, gas lines, electric lines, or water lines.
I'm interested in hearing more. Maybe you can start a new thread on this.

You're fortunate you're not an educator - that system was designed to use economy of scale production methods to produce docile workers for the wealthy factory owners that send their kids to private schools. It's not good for our kids but (at least used to be) convenient for teachers and the business of school. Google 'home school' first, then Google 'unschooling'. My 8-year old hasn't been to 'school' and yet is ahead of grade level in most areas. And more importantly, he's learning to think for himself. Lemmings need not apply.
I'll have to look into this more.

I'm not a 'doom and gloom' type but still think it's good to keep extra batteries for the flashlights just in case. This bit of conversation comes from the RAV4-EV list via the Chevy S10EV list. One advantage we have as Leafers is that we have easy access to a 120V EVSE - the 1990/2000-era EVs are 208-240VAC only.

Has anyone given any thought of how we would be able to continue using our RAV's in the face of a major disaster (think Katrina)? In our rural area of Northern California we are told to be prepared to "be on our own" without services for 30 days in the case of a large earthquake. This would mean no power, no gas, limited access to stores, and so on. I know some RAV owners have solar systems but don't those have grid-tie inverters that require the grid to be functioning? I was curious if anyone has done any thinking or planning about this? About every few years we have a power failure in our area lasting 5-8 days, but we have not yet had one since we gone our RAV 18 months ago. If we had 120 volt level 1 charging like the Leaf or Tesla, I could charge it up on my generator (until I ran out of gas ). In the meantime I am looking for suggestions or ideas.

Thanks,
John
----------
There are actually a couple of solutions. The simplest would be to install a Manzanita Micro charger that will take 110V in the RAV (or perhaps install pigtails in the car and use the charger offboard) and push power through the regen curcuit. The Manzanita charger could be driven by the generator when the electric is out for extended periods. It would be slow but it would at least allow the car to be usable. The other solution is to trade in the low power generator for a bad ass 6KW propane powered generator that would be able to drive the TAL charger.

Noel
---------
Wouldn't it be easier to have a portable generator for the purpose of emergency charging? I use the term "portable" loosely since I found it takes an 8kw continuous (13.5kw surge) to power the charger which weighs almost 300 lbs. I also have a manual transfer switch wired into the main service panel of my house so the generator can be used to power a large number of the house circuits in an emergency. A couple of 5 gallon cans of gas will run the generator for 24 hours. Cost for the generator is about $1100 and the transfer switch $200.

Paul

Click to expand...

Adrian said:

With all due respect, I'm not in the doomsday crowd. Sorry. There are as many rebuttals out there as there are doomsday reports and opinions.

Click to expand...

None of the rebuttals go into numbers. I'm not in the doomsday crowd either - but I don't wear pink glasses. How many of these "rebuttal" guys predicted $140 price in 2008, anyway ?

In any case, I'm not going to try to convince you - you can do your own research. You would do yourself & your family a great favor by reading and being aware.

Let me ask you this - do you "beleive" in AGW or are you with Palin/Rush ?

evnow said:

Adrian said:

With all due respect, I'm not in the doomsday crowd. Sorry. There are as many rebuttals out there as there are doomsday reports and opinions.

Click to expand...

None of the rebuttals go into numbers. I'm not in the doomsday crowd either - but I don't wear pink glasses. How many of these "rebuttal" guys predicted $140 price in 2008, anyway ?

In any case, I'm not going to try to convince you - you can do your own research. You would do yourself & your family a great favor by reading and being aware.

Let me ask you this - do you "beleive" in AGW or are you with Palin/Rush ?

Click to expand...

Not going to numbers was obviously intentional. I don't see the usefulness of a "my expert can piss farther than your expert" discussion. You obviously have been ignoring most of what I have posted, so never mind my attempt at a useful conversation. Done.

Why don't you show me a successful doomsday prediction instead?

fyi, I'm not with anyone either on the far left or right since I find their ideologies to be "unsustainable". One's beliefs don't need to fit in a neat box like you would like. It's obvious you'd like to find something to argue about so I'm not biting.

Enjoy alienating everyone that doesn't adhere to your exact system of beliefs and see how far that gets you!

Adrian said:

Why don't you show me a successful doomsday prediction instead?

Click to expand...

Real estate & mortgage disaster we are going through was also predicted & called "doomsday".

BTW, I'm talking about someone who went through actual reserves well-by-well and rebutted early peak oil scenarios. I'd like to see it.

You didn't answer my question about AGW.

evnow said:

Adrian said:

Why don't you show me a successful doomsday prediction instead?

Click to expand...

Real estate & mortgage disaster we are going through was also predicted & called "doomsday".

Click to expand...

One person's doomsday is another's buying opportunity, I guess. Here are some numbers that give some perspective on our foreclosure 'crisis'.

-2009 foreclosures: 2,000,000
-2010 numbers not available yet
-2011 prediction: 6,000,000-10,000,000

~330,000,000 Americans; 67.5% are homeowners - about 222,750,000 homes

- Of the approximately 0.9% foreclosures in 2009, about 1/2 were generated by uneducated investors.
- The 2011 prediction of 6-10 million increases the rate to between 2.7% and 4.5% of homes.

While the press is happy to continue to rely on their 'if it bleeds it leads' reporting style, the picture changes if we turn off the TV and look at real numbers.

If our education system did a basic job of financial education, fewer people would be in foreclosure because they'd better understand the numbers, and more people would understand that a price drop means a number of properties are on sale. We Americans like sales at Best Buy but not in stock or real estate.

jkirkebo said:

I have a VW Touran diesel and change the oil every ~18,000 miles (which means two years between changes for us) . This is the interval specified by VW and has been for years over here. The interval will depend some on driving style though, the car monitors when it needs an oil change.

Click to expand...

You have much better conditions for extended oil change intervals, jkirkebo - you have better quality fuel and the majority of engine oils available are long-drain synthetics. I understand that >50% of oil used in Europe is man-made synthetic, and much of the rest is Group III-based. Over here we have poorer quality fuel and about 80% of engine oil used is petroleum based and until very recently was designed for a 6 month or 7500 mile service life. Only about 20% of Americans use synthetic - and over here Group III-base (highly-processed petroleum) can be called synthetic and is included in that 20%.

I'm with you - I'm on my second VW turbodiesel. My '97 Passat estate has 397,000 miles, a bypass oil filter, long-life synthetics, and gets an approximately 2-year oil change based on oil analysis results.

evnow said:

Adrian said:

Why don't you show me a successful doomsday prediction instead?

Click to expand...

Real estate & mortgage disaster we are going through was also predicted & called "doomsday".
Something cyclical like the real estate market doesn't take much to predict. This bottom of the cycle just happens to be worse than others before.

BTW, I'm talking about someone who went through actual reserves well-by-well and rebutted early peak oil scenarios. I'd like to see it.

You didn't answer my question about AGW.

Click to expand...

And...?

Wow. What a gloomy, argumentative thread this has become! :x

I have honestly not been able to figure out what this thread is about ..... and I'm OK with that. Moving on.

johnr said:

Wow. What a gloomy, argumentative thread this has become! :x

Click to expand...

It's all good, John. I've learned a few things here - I hope it's been useful for others as well.


On that note - thanks very much, Gents, for having the courage to look at a challenging subject!

TRONZ said:

I have honestly not been able to figure out what this thread is about ..... and I'm OK with that. Moving on.

Click to expand...

Some of us are talking about Peak oil. Some others refuse to acknowledge such a thing is possible.

johnr said:

Wow. What a gloomy, argumentative thread this has become! :x

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, reality doesn't follow Disney movies.

Adrian said:

Evnow said:

You didn't answer my question about AGW.

Click to expand...

And...?

Click to expand...

Because you keep bringing up coal & gasification of it known since Hitler's days - as if it has no repercussions, even if it could be scaled up (zero evidence of that).

AGW - Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming
Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

check the "reference" links at the bottom of the above link, there are many sources "proving" AGW, there are also the non-believers. I guess they need to see the glaciers disapear before they'll believe it. All of the additional formerly sequestered CO2 in oil/coal/fossil fuels we are pumping into the atmosphere, will and does have an effect, to claim otherwise is ignorant. Now you know how I feel about the issue.

non-believers
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
http://agw-heretic.blogspot.com/

article on world oil production from 12/20/2010: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7258

evnow said:

Adrian said:

Evnow said:

You didn't answer my question about AGW.

Click to expand...

And...?

Click to expand...

Because you keep bringing up coal & gasification of it known since Hitler's days - as if it has no repercussions, even if it could be scaled up (zero evidence of that).

Click to expand...

Everything has consequences. I live in a world where one makes the best available choice, and going back to the stone age is not one of the choices. By the way if South Africa successfully implementing F-T half a century ago with less technology than what we have today is "zero evidence" of scalability to you, nothing will convince you. Yet they did so without your approval. Imagine that.

I joined this site to talk about the Nissan LEAF, learn more about it, get ready for owning one, etc. I've learned that I have something in common with some of the people I otherwise have several disagreements with: I don't like Fox News. I think we all like EVs. It stops there though. Beyond that any difference in choices one makes is "unsustainable", ignorant, etc. Newsflash..everyone has an opinion, and a right to it. Yours is not superior. I know you think it is. But since we seem to share our dislike of Fox news, I'll offer you on example you might be able to relate to. I find listening to your condescending and judgmental rhetoric as enjoyable as Fox News. Like a few others have already said, I am also moving on from this thread.

Adrian said:

We're stuck in a box, Adrian. We absolutely CAN have completely independent buildings in urban settings. Self-sustaining homes that collect their own water, use the water four times before it's sent outside, process their own sewage, collect their own electricity and hot water, and can grow enough food for a family of four have been around for 40 years. They don't need sewers, septic tanks, gas lines, electric lines, or water lines.
I'm interested in hearing more. Maybe you can start a new thread on this.

Click to expand...

There's a bit of starter info here on site, Adrian, for one method:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1008&p=20691
A documentary about these radically sustainable buildings, Garbage Warrior, is available from Netflix. Reynolds has designed multi-level high-density urban environments that maintain the fully independent nature of these buildings.

I hope you'll stick around the thread - I've learned from your participation. We all come here from different geographical and mental locations and that's the beauty - we bring different points of view that can help shake good ideas loose in each other. Sometimes it can be a bit like labor, but the end result is usually worth the screaming for morphine. :lol:

I wish I got in here earlier, but I thought I would add something about the long distance commutes and a couple of examples. I live in NYC. It is cold here right now and we just dug out of a major snow storm-- you need heat. It gets hot and very humid in the summer-- you need air conditioning. As heating/cooling is the largest consumer of energy, you would assume we have a fairly high CO2 footprint.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption/index.html

However, according to the Vulcan project, the county with the highest CO2 output is the sprawling mega-suburban land of long commutes in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles has one of the mildest climates in the country, eliminating much of the need for the largest consumer of energy elsewhere in the US. They have a high density of people driving hybrids, lots of sun for solar panels and people wear their green credentials on their sleeves... but it is the worst CO2 polluter in the country (although some small towns are worse per capita). What LA lacks is any semblance of intelligent community planning.

To have distributed heat you need building density and centralized planning (my office is heated and cooled with steam). To have functioning mass transit, you need population density and planning of the communities it connects. Neighborhoods need to be planned and zoned. Leaving it up to individuals does not work. If you look at the places that are making real progress at reducing CO2, there is centralized planning involved.

California has plenty of carrots (incentives) to entice people to be more environmentally friendly, and these reward people who choose to do so. CA regulations are also pretty good—NY State has a law to adopt whatever automotive emissions regulations CA adopts. However, more sticks (disincentives) need to be used to make it uneconomical for people who are not environmentally motivated to be wasteful. Environmental fines for things like not recycling are stiff here in NY and electricity is close to $.30 per kWh (on average, not peak rates). Although not necessarily directly targeted at the environment, between the high tolls, taxes, parking spaces, $100+ parking tickets, higher gas prices, etc., driving is expensive here, so most people live closer to work and/or take mass transit. And we all know CA could use any additional money that could be raised.

Between disincentives for being wasteful and intelligent centralized planning of communities, sprawling places with long commutes like LA could potentially go from worst polluters to some of the cleanest places in the country.

lne937s said:

However, according to the Vulcan project, the county with the highest CO2 output is the sprawling mega-suburban land of long commutes in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles has one of the mildest climates in the country, eliminating much of the need for the largest consumer of energy elsewhere in the US. They have a high density of people driving hybrids, lots of sun for solar panels and people wear their green credentials on their sleeves... but it is the worst CO2 polluter in the country (although some small towns are worse per capita). What LA lacks is any semblance of intelligent community planning.

Click to expand...

Do you have a reference to the data? The last data I saw had California with among the lowest per capita household electricity usage - combined with the low carbon footprint of CA electricity, was among the best. Of course, that doesn't take into account transportation, where New Yorkers will have a huge leg up thanks to their subway system.

Edit: Is this the Vulcan project you are referring to? http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/08/27/project-vulcan-what-county-emits-most-co2-in-the-usa-per-capita/

1. Los Angeles County, CA: 21.5 million tons in a year
2. Harris County, TX (Houston): 19.6
3. Cook County, IL (Chicago): 16.5
4. Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland): 12.1
5. Wayne County, MI (Detroit): 8.9
6. Hennepin County, MN (Minneapolis): 8.6
7. Wilcox County, AL (Camden): 8.5
8. San Juan County, NM (Farmington): 8.5
9. East Baton Rouge, LA: 7.6
10. San Diego County, CA: 7.5

In terms of major cities, LA really is not very efficient. Much of those CO2 emissions being for transportation, which is far less efficient than major east coast cities where the largest portion of CO2 goes to necessary heating and cooling.

California tends to win a lot of subjective awards (often from California-based organizations) calling it the "greenest" state for their incentives and renewable programs. There are a large number of people who see themselves as being "green" and some areas are better than others, but much of that is superficial. However, the fundamentally inefficient structure (detached houses, long car-based commutes, etc.) of how the sprawling areas in southern California are laid out means that despite the favorable climate and the role of renewables that they overall pale in comparison to East Coast cities. Hybrids and solar panels from a handful of eco-minded people doesn't overcome the overall inefficiency. Rural America can be even worse per capita. But many European cities are even better than East Coast cities.

drees said:

lne937s said:

However, according to the Vulcan project, the county with the highest CO2 output is the sprawling mega-suburban land of long commutes in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles has one of the mildest climates in the country, eliminating much of the need for the largest consumer of energy elsewhere in the US. They have a high density of people driving hybrids, lots of sun for solar panels and people wear their green credentials on their sleeves... but it is the worst CO2 polluter in the country (although some small towns are worse per capita). What LA lacks is any semblance of intelligent community planning.

Click to expand...

Do you have a reference to the data? The last data I saw had California with among the lowest per capita household electricity usage - combined with the low carbon footprint of CA electricity, was among the best. Of course, that doesn't take into account transportation, where New Yorkers will have a huge leg up thanks to their subway system.

Edit: Is this the Vulcan project you are referring to? http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/

Click to expand...